H.Amdt. 221House113th Congress (2013-2015)
Amendment requires a scientific and economic analysis of the FDA's Food Safety and Modernization Act prior to final regulations being enforced with the focus of the analysis being on the impact of the bill on agricultural businesses of all sizes.
Sponsored by 
Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI)
Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI)Submitted June 19, 2013
Description
An amendment No. 51 printed in Part B of House Report 113-117 to require a scientific and economic analysis of the FDA's Food Safety and Modernization Act prior to final regulations being enforced with the focus of the analysis being on the impact of the bill on agricultural businesses of all sizes.
Text
Offered
This amendment's own text couldn't be picked out of its Congressional Record passage, so the passage is shown in full.
FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further
consideration of H.R. 1947, pursuant to House Resolution 271, amendment
No. 55, printed in part B of House Report 113-117, may be considered
out of sequence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
allowed 5 legislative days to add additional material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 271 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1947.
Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) kindly take the chair.
{time} 1453
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1947) to provide for the reform and continuation of
agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture
through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes, with Mr. Webster of
Florida (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
June 18, 2013, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 271, no further general debate shall be
in order. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on
Agriculture and the Judiciary, printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-14, modified by the
amendment printed in part A of House Report 113-117. That amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
H.R. 1947
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal
Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary of Agriculture.
TITLE I--COMMODITIES
Subtitle A--Repeals and Reforms
Sec. 1101. Repeal of direct payments.
Sec. 1102. Repeal of counter-cyclical payments.
Sec. 1103. Repeal of average crop revenue election program.
Sec. 1104. Definitions.
Sec. 1105. Base acres.
Sec. 1106. Payment yields.
Sec. 1107. Farm risk management election.
Sec. 1108. Producer agreements.
Sec. 1109. Period of effectiveness.
Subtitle B--Marketing Loans
Sec. 1201. Availability of nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for
loan commodities.
Sec. 1202. Loan rates for nonrecourse marketing assistance loans.
Sec. 1203. Term of loans.
Sec. 1204. Repayment of loans.
Sec. 1205. Loan deficiency payments.
Sec. 1206. Payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments for grazed
acreage.
Sec. 1207. Special marketing loan provisions for upland cotton.
Sec. 1208. Special competitive provisions for extra long staple cotton.
Sec. 1209. Availability of recourse loans for high moisture feed grains
and seed cotton.
Sec. 1210. Adjustments of loans.
Subtitle C--Sugar
Sec. 1301. Sugar program.
Subtitle D--Dairy
Part I--Dairy Producer Margin Protection and Dairy Market Stabilization
Programs
Sec. 1401. Definitions.
Sec. 1402. Calculation of average feed cost and actual dairy producer
margins.
subpart a--dairy producer margin protection program
Sec. 1411. Establishment of dairy producer margin protection program.
Sec. 1412. Participation of dairy producers in margin protection
program.
Sec. 1413. Production history of participating dairy producers.
Sec. 1414. Basic margin protection.
Sec. 1415. Supplemental margin protection.
Sec. 1416. Effect of failure to pay administrative fees or premiums.
subpart b--dairy market stabilization program
Sec. 1431. Establishment of dairy market stabilization program.
Sec. 1432. Threshold for implementation and reduction in dairy producer
payments.
[[Page H3788]]
Sec. 1433. Producer milk marketing information.
Sec. 1434. Calculation and collection of reduced dairy producer
payments.
Sec. 1435. Remitting monies to the Secretary and use of monies.
Sec. 1436. Suspension of reduced payment requirement.
Sec. 1437. Enforcement.
Sec. 1438. Audit requirements.
subpart c--commodity credit corporation
Sec. 1451. Use of Commodity Credit Corporation.
subpart d--initiation and duration
Sec. 1461. Rulemaking.
Sec. 1462. Duration.
Part II--Repeal or Reauthorization of Other Dairy-related Provisions
Sec. 1481. Repeal of dairy product price support and milk income loss
contract programs.
Sec. 1482. Repeal of dairy export incentive program.
Sec. 1483. Extension of dairy forward pricing program.
Sec. 1484. Extension of dairy indemnity program.
Sec. 1485. Extension of dairy promotion and research program.
Sec. 1486. Repeal of Federal Milk Marketing Order Review Commission.
Part III--Effective Date
Sec. 1491. Effective date.
Subtitle E--Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs
Sec. 1501. Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance.
Subtitle F--Administration
Sec. 1601. Administration generally.
Sec. 1602. Suspension of permanent price support authority.
Sec. 1603. Payment limitations.
Sec. 1604. Adjusted gross income limitation.
Sec. 1605. Geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
Sec. 1606. Personal liability of producers for deficiencies.
Sec. 1607. Prevention of deceased individuals receiving payments under
farm commodity programs.
Sec. 1608. Technical corrections.
Sec. 1609. Assignment of payments.
Sec. 1610. Tracking of benefits.
Sec. 1611. Signature authority.
Sec. 1612. Implementation.
Sec. 1613. Protection of producer information.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
Subtitle A--Conservation Reserve Program
Sec. 2001. Extension and enrollment requirements of conservation
reserve program.
Sec. 2002. Farmable wetland program.
Sec. 2003. Duties of owners and operators.
Sec. 2004. Duties of the Secretary.
Sec. 2005. Payments.
Sec. 2006. Contract requirements.
Sec. 2007. Conversion of land subject to contract to other conserving
uses.
Sec. 2008. Effective date.
Subtitle B--Conservation Stewardship Program
Sec. 2101. Conservation stewardship program.
Subtitle C--Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Sec. 2201. Purposes.
Sec. 2202. Establishment and administration.
Sec. 2203. Evaluation of applications.
Sec. 2204. Duties of producers.
Sec. 2205. Limitation on payments.
Sec. 2206. Conservation innovation grants and payments.
Sec. 2207. Effective date.
Subtitle D--Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
Sec. 2301. Agricultural conservation easement program.
Subtitle E--Regional Conservation Partnership Program
Sec. 2401. Regional conservation partnership program.
Subtitle F--Other Conservation Programs
Sec. 2501. Conservation of private grazing land.
Sec. 2502. Grassroots source water protection program.
Sec. 2503. Voluntary public access and habitat incentive program.
Sec. 2504. Agriculture conservation experienced services program.
Sec. 2505. Small watershed rehabilitation program.
Sec. 2506. Agricultural management assistance program.
Subtitle G--Funding and Administration
Sec. 2601. Funding.
Sec. 2602. Technical assistance.
Sec. 2603. Reservation of funds to provide assistance to certain
farmers or ranchers for conservation access.
Sec. 2604. Annual report on program enrollments and assistance.
Sec. 2605. Review of conservation practice standards.
Sec. 2606. Administrative requirements applicable to all conservation
programs.
Sec. 2607. Standards for State technical committees.
Sec. 2608. Rulemaking authority.
Subtitle H--Repeal of Superseded Program Authorities and Transitional
Provisions; Technical Amendments
Sec. 2701. Comprehensive conservation enhancement program.
Sec. 2702. Emergency forestry conservation reserve program.
Sec. 2703. Wetlands reserve program.
Sec. 2704. Farmland protection program and farm viability program.
Sec. 2705. Grassland reserve program.
Sec. 2706. Agricultural water enhancement program.
Sec. 2707. Wildlife habitat incentive program.
Sec. 2708. Great Lakes basin program.
Sec. 2709. Chesapeake Bay watershed program.
Sec. 2710. Cooperative conservation partnership initiative.
Sec. 2711. Environmental easement program.
Sec. 2712. Technical amendments.
TITLE III--TRADE
Subtitle A--Food for Peace Act
Sec. 3001. General authority.
Sec. 3002. Support for organizations through which assistance is
provided.
Sec. 3003. Food aid quality.
Sec. 3004. Minimum levels of assistance.
Sec. 3005. Food Aid Consultative Group.
Sec. 3006. Oversight, monitoring, and evaluation.
Sec. 3007. Assistance for stockpiling and rapid transportation,
delivery, and distribution of shelf-stable prepackaged
foods.
Sec. 3008. General provisions.
Sec. 3009. Prepositioning of agricultural commodities.
Sec. 3010. Annual report regarding food aid programs and activities.
Sec. 3011. Deadline for agreements to finance sales or to provide other
assistance.
Sec. 3012. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 3013. Micronutrient fortification programs.
Sec. 3014. John Ogonowski and Doug Bereuter Farmer-to-Farmer Program.
Subtitle B--Agricultural Trade Act of 1978
Sec. 3101. Funding for export credit guarantee program.
Sec. 3102. Funding for market access program.
Sec. 3103. Foreign market development cooperator program.
Subtitle C--Other Agricultural Trade Laws
Sec. 3201. Food for Progress Act of 1985.
Sec. 3202. Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
Sec. 3203. Promotion of agricultural exports to emerging markets.
Sec. 3204. McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program.
Sec. 3205. Technical assistance for specialty crops.
Sec. 3206. Global Crop Diversity Trust.
Sec. 3207. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Foreign Agricultural
Services.
TITLE IV--NUTRITION
Subtitle A--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Sec. 4001. Preventing payment of cash to recipients of supplemental
nutrition assistance benefits for the return of empty
bottles and cans used to contain food purchased with
benefits provided under the program.
Sec. 4002. Retailers.
Sec. 4003. Enhancing services to elderly and disabled supplemental
nutrition assistance program participants.
Sec. 4004. Food distribution program on Indian reservations.
Sec. 4005. Updating program eligibility.
Sec. 4006. Exclusion of medical marijuana from excess medical expense
deduction.
Sec. 4007. Standard utility allowances based on the receipt of energy
assistance payments.
Sec. 4008. Eligibility disqualifications.
Sec. 4009. Ending supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits
for lottery or gambling winners.
Sec. 4010. Improving security of food assistance.
Sec. 4011. Demonstration projects on acceptance of benefits of mobile
transactions.
Sec. 4012. Use of benefits for purchase of community-supported
agriculture share.
Sec. 4013. Restaurant meals program.
Sec. 4014. Mandating State immigration verification.
Sec. 4015. Data exchange standardization for improved interoperability.
Sec. 4016. Pilot projects to improve Federal-State cooperation in
identifying and reducing fraud in the supplemental
nutrition assistance program.
Sec. 4017. Prohibiting government-sponsored recruitment activities.
Sec. 4018. Repeal of bonus program.
Sec. 4019. Funding of employment and training programs.
Sec. 4020. Monitoring employment and training programs.
Sec. 4021. Cooperation with program research and evaluation.
Sec. 4022. Pilot projects to reduce dependency and increase work effort
in the supplemental nutrition assistance program.
Sec. 4023. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 4024. Limitation on use of block grant to Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4025. Assistance for community food projects.
Sec. 4026. Emergency food assistance.
Sec. 4027. Nutrition education.
Sec. 4028. Retailer trafficking.
Sec. 4029. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 4030. Tolerance level for excluding small errors.
Sec. 4031. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands pilot program.
Sec. 4032. Annual State report on verification of SNAP participation.
Subtitle B--Commodity Distribution Programs
Sec. 4101. Commodity distribution program.
Sec. 4102. Commodity supplemental food program.
Sec. 4103. Distribution of surplus commodities to special nutrition
projects.
Sec. 4104. Processing of commodities.
[[Page H3789]]
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous
Sec. 4201. Farmers' market nutrition program.
Sec. 4202. Nutrition information and awareness pilot program.
Sec. 4203. Fresh fruit and vegetable program.
Sec. 4204. Additional authority for purchase of fresh fruits,
vegetables, and other specialty food crops.
Sec. 4205. Encouraging locally and regionally grown and raised food.
Sec. 4206. Review of public health benefits of white potatoes.
Sec. 4207. Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
TITLE V--CREDIT
Subtitle A--Farm Ownership Loans
Sec. 5001. Eligibility for farm ownership loans.
Sec. 5002. Conservation loan and loan guarantee program.
Sec. 5003. Down payment loan program.
Sec. 5004. Elimination of mineral rights appraisal requirement.
Subtitle B--Operating Loans
Sec. 5101. Eligibility for farm operating loans.
Sec. 5102. Elimination of rural residency requirement for operating
loans to youth.
Sec. 5103. Authority to waive personal liability for youth loans due to
circumstances beyond borrower control.
Sec. 5104. Microloans.
Subtitle C--Emergency Loans
Sec. 5201. Eligibility for emergency loans.
Subtitle D--Administrative Provisions
Sec. 5301. Beginning farmer and rancher individual development accounts
pilot program.
Sec. 5302. Eligible beginning farmers and ranchers.
Sec. 5303. Loan authorization levels.
Sec. 5304. Priority for participation loans.
Sec. 5305. Loan fund set-asides.
Sec. 5306. Conforming amendment to borrower training provision,
relating to eligibility changes.
Subtitle E--State Agricultural Mediation Programs
Sec. 5401. State agricultural mediation programs.
Subtitle F--Loans to Purchasers of Highly Fractionated Land
Sec. 5501. Loans to purchasers of highly fractionated land.
TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Subtitle A--Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
Sec. 6001. Water, waste disposal, and wastewater facility grants.
Sec. 6002. Rural business opportunity grants.
Sec. 6003. Elimination of reservation of community facilities grant
program funds.
Sec. 6004. Utilization of loan guarantees for community facilities.
Sec. 6005. Rural water and wastewater circuit rider program.
Sec. 6006. Tribal college and university essential community
facilities.
Sec. 6007. Essential community facilities technical assistance and
training.
Sec. 6008. Emergency and imminent community water assistance grant
program.
Sec. 6009. Household water well systems.
Sec. 6010. Rural business and industry loan program.
Sec. 6011. Rural cooperative development grants.
Sec. 6012. Locally or regionally produced agricultural food products.
Sec. 6013. Intermediary relending program.
Sec. 6014. Rural college coordinated strategy.
Sec. 6015. Rural water and waste disposal infrastructure.
Sec. 6016. Simplified applications.
Sec. 6017. Grants for NOAA weather radio transmitters.
Sec. 6018. Rural microentrepreneur assistance program.
Sec. 6019. Delta Regional Authority.
Sec. 6020. Northern Great Plains Regional Authority.
Sec. 6021. Rural business investment program.
Subtitle B--Rural Electrification Act of 1936
Sec. 6101. Relending for certain purposes.
Sec. 6102. Fees for certain loan guarantees.
Sec. 6103. Guarantees for bonds and notes issued for electrification or
telephone purposes.
Sec. 6104. Expansion of 911 access.
Sec. 6105. Access to broadband telecommunications services in rural
areas.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous
Sec. 6201. Distance learning and telemedicine.
Sec. 6202. Value-added agricultural market development program grants.
Sec. 6203. Agriculture innovation center demonstration program.
Sec. 6204. Program metrics.
Sec. 6205. Study of rural transportation issues.
Sec. 6206. Certain Federal actions not to be considered major.
TITLE VII--RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND RELATED MATTERS
Subtitle A--National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977
Sec. 7101. Option to be included as non-land-grant college of
agriculture.
Sec. 7102. National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and
Economics Advisory Board.
Sec. 7103. Specialty crop committee.
Sec. 7104. Veterinary services grant program.
Sec. 7105. Grants and fellowships for food and agriculture sciences
education.
Sec. 7106. Policy research centers.
Sec. 7107. Repeal of human nutrition intervention and health promotion
research program.
Sec. 7108. Repeal of pilot research program to combine medical and
agricultural research.
Sec. 7109. Nutrition education program.
Sec. 7110. Continuing animal health and disease research programs.
Sec. 7111. Repeal of appropriations for research on national or
regional problems.
Sec. 7112. Grants to upgrade agricultural and food sciences facilities
at 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee
University.
Sec. 7113. Grants to upgrade agriculture and food science facilities
and equipment at insular area land-grant institutions.
Sec. 7114. Repeal of national research and training virtual centers.
Sec. 7115. Hispanic-serving institutions.
Sec. 7116. Competitive Grants Program for Hispanic Agricultural Workers
and Youth.
Sec. 7117. Competitive grants for international agricultural science
and education programs.
Sec. 7118. Repeal of research equipment grants.
Sec. 7119. University research.
Sec. 7120. Extension service.
Sec. 7121. Auditing, reporting, bookkeeping, and administrative
requirements.
Sec. 7122. Supplemental and alternative crops.
Sec. 7123. Capacity building grants for NLGCA institutions.
Sec. 7124. Aquaculture assistance programs.
Sec. 7125. Rangeland research programs.
Sec. 7126. Special authorization for biosecurity planning and response.
Sec. 7127. Distance education and resident instruction grants program
for insular area institutions of higher education.
Sec. 7128. Matching funds requirement.
Subtitle B--Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
Sec. 7201. Best utilization of biological applications.
Sec. 7202. Integrated management systems.
Sec. 7203. Sustainable agriculture technology development and transfer
program.
Sec. 7204. National training program.
Sec. 7205. National Genetics Resources Program.
Sec. 7206. Repeal of National Agricultural Weather Information System.
Sec. 7207. Repeal of rural electronic commerce extension program.
Sec. 7208. Repeal of agricultural genome initiative.
Sec. 7209. High-priority research and extension initiatives.
Sec. 7210. Repeal of nutrient management research and extension
initiative.
Sec. 7211. Organic agriculture research and extension initiative.
Sec. 7212. Repeal of agricultural bioenergy feedstock and energy
efficiency research and extension initiative.
Sec. 7213. Farm business management.
Sec. 7214. Centers of excellence.
Sec. 7215. Repeal of red meat safety research center.
Sec. 7216. Assistive technology program for farmers with disabilities.
Sec. 7217. National rural information center clearinghouse.
Subtitle C--Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act
of 1998
Sec. 7301. Relevance and merit of agricultural research, extension, and
education funded by the Department.
Sec. 7302. Integrated research, education, and extension competitive
grants program.
Sec. 7303. Repeal of coordinated program of research, extension, and
education to improve viability of small and medium size
dairy, livestock, and poultry operations.
Sec. 7304. Fusarium Graminearum grants.
Sec. 7305. Repeal of Bovine Johne's disease control program.
Sec. 7306. Grants for youth organizations.
Sec. 7307. Specialty crop research initiative.
Sec. 7308. Food animal residue avoidance database program.
Sec. 7309. Repeal of national swine research center.
Sec. 7310. Office of pest management policy.
Sec. 7311. Repeal of studies of agricultural research, extension, and
education.
Subtitle D--Other Laws
Sec. 7401. Critical Agricultural Materials Act.
Sec. 7402. Equity in Educational Land-grant Status Act of 1994.
Sec. 7403. Research Facilities Act.
Sec. 7404. Repeal of carbon cycle research.
Sec. 7405. Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act.
Sec. 7406. Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978.
Sec. 7407. National Aquaculture Act of 1980.
Sec. 7408. Repeal of use of remote sensing data.
Sec. 7409. Repeal of reports under Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002.
Sec. 7410. Beginning farmer and rancher development program.
Sec. 7411. Inclusion of Northern Mariana Islands as a State under
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act.
Subtitle E--Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
Part 1--Agricultural Security
Sec. 7501. Agricultural biosecurity communication center.
Sec. 7502. Assistance to build local capacity in agricultural
biosecurity planning, preparation, and response.
[[Page H3790]]
Sec. 7503. Research and development of agricultural countermeasures.
Sec. 7504. Agricultural biosecurity grant program.
Part 2--Miscellaneous
Sec. 7511. Enhanced use lease authority pilot program.
Sec. 7512. Grazinglands research laboratory.
Sec. 7513. Budget submission and funding.
Sec. 7514. Repeal of research and education grants for the study of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Sec. 7515. Repeal of farm and ranch stress assistance network.
Sec. 7516. Repeal of seed distribution.
Sec. 7517. Natural products research program.
Sec. 7518. Sun grant program.
Sec. 7519. Repeal of study and report on food deserts.
Sec. 7520. Repeal of agricultural and rural transportation research and
education.
Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 7601. Agreements with nonprofit organizations for National
Arboretum.
Sec. 7602. Cotton Disease Research Report.
Sec. 7603. Acceptance of facility for Agricultural Research Service.
Sec. 7604. Miscellaneous technical corrections.
TITLE VIII--FORESTRY
Subtitle A--Repeal of Certain Forestry Programs
Sec. 8001. Forest land enhancement program.
Sec. 8002. Watershed forestry assistance program.
Sec. 8003. Expired cooperative national forest products marketing
program.
Sec. 8004. Hispanic-serving institution agricultural land national
resources leadership program.
Sec. 8005. Tribal watershed forestry assistance program.
Sec. 8006. Separate Forest Service decisionmaking and appeals process.
Subtitle B--Reauthorization of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 Programs
Sec. 8101. State-wide assessment and strategies for forest resources.
Sec. 8102. Forest Legacy Program.
Sec. 8103. Community forest and open space conservation program.
Subtitle C--Reauthorization of Other Forestry-Related Laws
Sec. 8201. Rural revitalization technologies.
Sec. 8202. Office of International Forestry.
Sec. 8203. Change in funding source for healthy forests reserve
program.
Sec. 8204. Stewardship end result contracting project authority.
Subtitle D--National Forest Critical Area Response
Sec. 8301. Definitions.
Sec. 8302. Designation of critical areas.
Sec. 8303. Application of expedited procedures and activities of the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to critical
areas.
Sec. 8304. Good neighbor authority.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 8401. Revision of strategic plan for forest inventory and
analysis.
Sec. 8402. Forest Service participation in ACES Program.
Sec. 8403. Green science and technology transfer research under Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978.
Sec. 8404. Extension of stewardship contracts authority regarding use
of designation by prescription to all thinning sales
under National Forest Management Act of 1976.
Sec. 8405. Reimbursement of fire funds expended by a State for
management and suppression of certain wildfires.
Sec. 8406. Ability of National Forest System lands to meet needs of
local wood producing facilities for raw materials.
Sec. 8407. Report on the National Forest System roads.
TITLE IX--ENERGY
Sec. 9001. Definition of renewable energy system.
Sec. 9002. Biobased markets program.
Sec. 9003. Biorefinery Assistance.
Sec. 9004. Repowering assistance program.
Sec. 9005. Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels.
Sec. 9006. Biodiesel Fuel Education Program.
Sec. 9007. Rural Energy for America Program.
Sec. 9008. Biomass Research and Development.
Sec. 9009. Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy Producers.
Sec. 9010. Biomass Crop Assistance Program.
Sec. 9011. Community wood energy program.
Sec. 9012. Repeal of biofuels infrastructure study.
Sec. 9013. Repeal of renewable fertilizer study.
TITLE X--HORTICULTURE
Sec. 10001. Specialty crops market news allocation.
Sec. 10002. Repeal of grant program to improve movement of specialty
crops.
Sec. 10003. Farmers market and local food promotion program.
Sec. 10004. Organic agriculture.
Sec. 10005. Investigations and enforcement of the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990.
Sec. 10006. Food safety education initiatives.
Sec. 10007. Specialty crop block grants.
Sec. 10008. Report on honey.
Sec. 10009. Bulk shipments of apples to Canada.
Sec. 10010. Inclusion of olive oil in import controls under the
Agricultural Adjustment Act.
Sec. 10011. Consolidation of plant pest and disease management and
disaster prevention programs.
Sec. 10012. Modification, cancellation, or suspension on basis of a
biological opinion.
Sec. 10013. Use and discharges of authorized pesticides.
Sec. 10014. Seed not pesticide or device for purposes of importation.
Sec. 10015. Stay of regulations related to Christmas Tree Promotion,
Research, and Information Order.
Sec. 10016. Study on proposed order pertaining to sulfuryl fluoride.
Sec. 10017. Study on local and regional food production and program
evaluation.
TITLE XI--CROP INSURANCE
Sec. 11001. Information sharing.
Sec. 11002. Publication of information on violations of prohibition on
premium adjustments.
Sec. 11003. Supplemental coverage option.
Sec. 11004. Premium amounts for catastrophic risk protection.
Sec. 11005. Repeal of performance-based discount.
Sec. 11006. Permanent enterprise unit subsidy.
Sec. 11007. Enterprise units for irrigated and nonirrigated crops.
Sec. 11008. Data collection.
Sec. 11009. Adjustment in actual production history to establish
insurable yields.
Sec. 11010. Submission and review of policies.
Sec. 11011. Equitable relief for specialty crop policies.
Sec. 11012. Budget limitations on renegotiation of the standard
reinsurance agreement.
Sec. 11013. Crop production on native sod.
Sec. 11014. Coverage levels by practice.
Sec. 11015. Beginning farmer and rancher provisions.
Sec. 11016. Stacked income protection plan for producers of upland
cotton.
Sec. 11017. Peanut revenue crop insurance.
Sec. 11018. Authority to correct errors.
Sec. 11019. Implementation.
Sec. 11020. Research and development priorities.
Sec. 11021. Additional research and development contracting
requirements.
Sec. 11022. Program compliance partnerships.
Sec. 11023. Pilot programs.
Sec. 11024. Technical amendments.
TITLE XII--MISCELLANEOUS
Subtitle A--Livestock
Sec. 12101. National Sheep Industry Improvement Center.
Sec. 12102. Repeal of certain regulations under the Packers and
Stockyards Act, 1921.
Sec. 12103. Trichinae certification program.
Sec. 12104. National Aquatic Animal Health Plan.
Sec. 12105. Country of origin labeling.
Sec. 12106. National animal health laboratory network.
Sec. 12107. Repeal of duplicative catfish inspection program.
Sec. 12108. National Poultry Improvement Program.
Sec. 12109. Report on bovine tuberculosis in Texas.
Subtitle B--Socially Disadvantaged Producers and Limited Resource
Producers
Sec. 12201. Outreach and assistance for socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers and veteran farmers and ranchers.
Sec. 12202. Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
Sec. 12203. Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Policy Research
Center.
Subtitle C--Other Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 12302. Grants to improve supply, stability, safety, and training
of agricultural labor force.
Sec. 12303. Program benefit eligibility status for participants in high
plains water study.
Sec. 12304. Office of Tribal Relations.
Sec. 12305. Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison.
Sec. 12306. Prohibition on keeping GSA leased cars overnight.
Sec. 12307. Noninsured crop assistance program.
Sec. 12308. Ensuring high standards for agency use of scientific
information.
Sec. 12309. Evaluation required for purposes of prohibition on closure
or relocation of county offices for the Farm Service
Agency.
Sec. 12310. Acer access and development program.
Sec. 12311. Regulatory review by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Sec. 12312. Agricultural commodity definition.
Sec. 12313. Prohibition on attending an animal fighting venture or
causing a minor to attend an animal fighting venture.
Sec. 12314. Prohibition against interference by State and local
governments with production or manufacture of items in
other States.
Sec. 12315. Increased protection for agricultural interests in the
Missouri River Basin.
Sec. 12316. Increased protection for agricultural interests in the
Black Dirt region.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Agriculture.
TITLE I--COMMODITIES
Subtitle A--Repeals and Reforms
SEC. 1101. REPEAL OF DIRECT PAYMENTS.
(a) Repeal.--Sections 1103 and 1303 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713, 8753)
are repealed.
[[Page H3791]]
(b) Continued Application for 2013 Crop Year.--Sections
1103 and 1303 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713, 8753), as in effect on the day before
the date of enactment of this Act, shall continue to apply
through the 2013 crop year with respect to all covered
commodities (as defined in section 1001 of that Act (7 U.S.C.
8702)) and peanuts on a farm.
(c) Continued Application for 2014 and 2015 Crop Years.--
Subject to this subtitle, the amendments made by sections
1603 and 1604 of this Act, and sections 1607 and 1611 of this
Act, section 1103 of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713), as in effect on the day before the date
of enactment of this Act, shall continue to apply through the
2014 and 2015 crop years with respect to upland cotton only
(as defined in section 1001 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 8702)),
except that, in applying such section 1103, the term
``payment acres'' means the following:
(1) For crop year 2014, 70 percent of the base acres of
upland cotton on a farm on which direct payments are made.
(2) For crop year 2015, 60 percent of the base acres of
upland cotton on a farm on which direct payments are made.
SEC. 1102. REPEAL OF COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS.
(a) Repeal.--Sections 1104 and 1304 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8714, 8754)
are repealed.
(b) Continued Application for 2013 Crop Year.--Sections
1104 and 1304 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 8714, 8754), as in effect on the day before
the date of enactment of this Act, shall continue to apply
through the 2013 crop year with respect to all covered
commodities (as defined in section 1001 of that Act (7 U.S.C.
8702)) and peanuts on a farm.
SEC. 1103. REPEAL OF AVERAGE CROP REVENUE ELECTION PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 1105 of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8715) is repealed.
(b) Continued Application for 2013 Crop Year.--Section 1105
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
8715), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act, shall continue to apply through the 2013 crop
year with respect to all covered commodities (as defined in
section 1001 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 8702)) and peanuts on a
farm for which the irrevocable election under section 1105 of
that Act was made before the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1104. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle and subtitle B:
(1) Actual county revenue.--The term ``actual county
revenue'', with respect to a covered commodity for a crop
year, means the amount determined by the Secretary under
section 1107(c)(4) to determine whether revenue loss coverage
payments are required to be provided for that crop year.
(2) Base acres.--The term ``base acres'', with respect to a
covered commodity and cotton on a farm, means the number of
acres established under section 1101 and 1302 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7911,
7952) or section 1101 and 1302 of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8711, 8752), as in effect on
September 30, 2013, subject to any adjustment under section
1105 of this Act. For purposes of making payments under
subsections (b) and (c) of section 1107, base acres are
reduced by the payment acres calculated in 1101(c).
(3) County revenue loss coverage trigger.--The term
``county revenue loss coverage trigger'', with respect to a
covered commodity for a crop year, means the amount
determined by the Secretary under section 1107(c)(5) to
determine whether revenue loss coverage payments are required
to be provided for that crop year.
(4) Covered commodity.--The term ``covered commodity''
means wheat, oats, and barley (including wheat, oats, and
barley used for haying and grazing), corn, grain sorghum,
long grain rice, medium grain rice, pulse crops, soybeans,
other oilseeds, and peanuts.
(5) Effective price.--The term ``effective price'', with
respect to a covered commodity for a crop year, means the
price calculated by the Secretary under section 1107(b)(2) to
determine whether price loss coverage payments are required
to be provided for that crop year.
(6) Extra long staple cotton.--The term ``extra long staple
cotton'' means cotton that--
(A) is produced from pure strain varieties of the
Barbadense species or any hybrid of the species, or other
similar types of extra long staple cotton, designated by the
Secretary, having characteristics needed for various end uses
for which United States upland cotton is not suitable and
grown in irrigated cotton-growing regions of the United
States designated by the Secretary or other areas designated
by the Secretary as suitable for the production of the
varieties or types; and
(B) is ginned on a roller-type gin or, if authorized by the
Secretary, ginned on another type gin for experimental
purposes.
(7) Farm base acres.--The term ``farm base acres'' means
the sum of the base acreage for all covered commodities and
cotton on a farm in effect as of September 30, 2013, and
subject to any adjustment under section 1105.
(8) Medium grain rice.--The term ``medium grain rice''
includes short grain rice.
(9) Midseason price.--The term ``midseason price'' means
the applicable national average market price received by
producers for the first 5 months of the applicable marketing
year, as determined by the Secretary.
(10) Other oilseed.--The term ``other oilseed'' means a
crop of sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower,
flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, or any oilseed
designated by the Secretary.
(11) Payment acres.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
through (D), the term ``payment acres'', with respect to the
provision of price loss coverage payments and revenue loss
coverage payments, means--
(i) 85 percent of total acres planted for the year to each
covered commodity on a farm; and
(ii) 30 percent of total acres approved as prevented from
being planted for the year to each covered commodity on a
farm.
(B) Maximum.--The total quantity of payment acres
determined under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed the farm
base acres.
(C) Reduction.--If the sum of all payment acres for a farm
exceeds the limits established under subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall reduce the payment acres applicable to each
crop proportionately.
(D) Exclusion.--The term ``payment acres'' does not include
any crop subsequently planted during the same crop year on
the same land for which the first crop is eligible for
payments under this subtitle, unless the crop was approved
for double cropping in the county, as determined by the
Secretary.
(12) Payment yield.--The term ``payment yield'' means the
yield established for counter-cyclical payments under section
1102 or 1302 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 7912, 7952), section 1102 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8712), as in
effect on September 30, 2013, or under section 1106 of this
Act, for a farm for a covered commodity.
(13) Price loss coverage.--The term ``price loss coverage''
means coverage provided under section 1107(b).
(14) Producer.--
(A) In general.--The term ``producer'' means an owner,
operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper that shares in
the risk of producing a crop and is entitled to share in the
crop available for marketing from the farm, or would have
shared had the crop been produced.
(B) Hybrid seed.--In determining whether a grower of hybrid
seed is a producer, the Secretary shall--
(i) not take into consideration the existence of a hybrid
seed contract; and
(ii) ensure that program requirements do not adversely
affect the ability of the grower to receive a payment under
this title.
(15) Pulse crop.--The term ``pulse crop'' means dry peas,
lentils, small chickpeas, and large chickpeas.
(16) Reference price.--The term ``reference price'', with
respect to a covered commodity for a crop year, means the
following:
(A) Wheat, $5.50 per bushel.
(B) Corn, $3.70 per bushel.
(C) Grain sorghum, $3.95 per bushel.
(D) Barley, $4.95 per bushel.
(E) Oats, $2.40 per bushel.
(F) Long grain rice, $14.00 per hundredweight.
(G) Medium grain rice, $14.00 per hundredweight.
(H) Soybeans, $8.40 per bushel.
(I) Other oilseeds, $20.15 per hundredweight.
(J) Peanuts $535.00 per ton.
(K) Dry peas, $11.00 per hundredweight.
(L) Lentils, $19.97 per hundredweight.
(M) Small chickpeas, $19.04 per hundredweight.
(N) Large chickpeas, $21.54 per hundredweight.
(17) Revenue loss coverage.--The term ``revenue loss
coverage'' means coverage provided under section 1107(c).
(18) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(19) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) a State;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
(D) any other territory or possession of the United States.
(20) Temperate japonica rice.--The term ``temperate
japonica rice'' means rice that is grown in high altitudes or
temperate regions of high latitudes with cooler climate
conditions, in the Western United States, as determined by
the Secretary.
(21) Transitional yield.--The term ``transitional yield''
has the meaning given the term in section 502(b) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)).
(22) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used
in a geographical sense, means all of the States.
(23) United states premium factor.--The term ``United
States Premium Factor'' means the percentage by which the
difference in the United States loan schedule premiums for
Strict Middling (SM) 1\1/8\-inch upland cotton and for
Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch upland cotton exceeds the
difference in the applicable premiums for comparable
international qualities.
SEC. 1105. BASE ACRES.
(a) Adjustment of Base Acres.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for an
adjustment, as appropriate, in the base acres for covered
commodities and cotton for a farm whenever any of the
following circumstances occurs:
(A) A conservation reserve contract entered into under
section 1231 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3831) with respect to the farm expires or is voluntarily
terminated.
(B) Cropland is released from coverage under a conservation
reserve contract by the Secretary.
(C) The producer has eligible oilseed acreage as the result
of the Secretary designating additional oilseeds, which shall
be determined in the same manner as eligible oilseed acreage
under section 1101(a)(1)(D) of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8711(a)(1)(D)).
(2) Special conservation reserve acreage payment rules.--
For the crop year in which a
[[Page H3792]]
base acres adjustment under subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) is first made, the owner of the farm shall
elect to receive price loss coverage or revenue loss coverage
with respect to the acreage added to the farm under this
subsection or a prorated payment under the conservation
reserve contract, but not both.
(b) Prevention of Excess Base Acres.--
(1) Required reduction.--If the sum of the base acres for a
farm, together with the acreage described in paragraph (2)
exceeds the actual cropland acreage of the farm, the
Secretary shall reduce the base acres for 1 or more covered
commodities or cotton for the farm so that the sum of the
base acres and acreage described in paragraph (2) does not
exceed the actual cropland acreage of the farm.
(2) Other acreage.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall include the following:
(A) Any acreage on the farm enrolled in the conservation
reserve program or wetlands reserve program (or successor
programs) under chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.).
(B) Any other acreage on the farm enrolled in a Federal
conservation program for which payments are made in exchange
for not producing an agricultural commodity on the acreage.
(C) If the Secretary designates additional oilseeds, any
eligible oilseed acreage, which shall be determined in the
same manner as eligible oilseed acreage under subsection
(a)(1)(C).
(3) Selection of acres.--The Secretary shall give the owner
of the farm the opportunity to select the base acres for a
covered commodity or cotton for the farm against which the
reduction required by paragraph (1) will be made.
(4) Exception for double-cropped acreage.--In applying
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make an exception in the
case of double cropping, as determined by the Secretary.
(c) Reduction in Base Acres.--
(1) Reduction at option of owner.--
(A) In general.--The owner of a farm may reduce, at any
time, the base acres for any covered commodity or cotton for
the farm.
(B) Effect of reduction.--A reduction under subparagraph
(A) shall be permanent and made in a manner prescribed by the
Secretary.
(2) Required action by secretary.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall proportionately reduce
base acres on a farm for covered commodities and cotton for
land that has been subdivided and developed for multiple
residential units or other nonfarming uses if the size of the
tracts and the density of the subdivision is such that the
land is unlikely to return to the previous agricultural use,
unless the producers on the farm demonstrate that the land--
(i) remains devoted to commercial agricultural production;
or
(ii) is likely to be returned to the previous agricultural
use.
(B) Requirement.--The Secretary shall establish procedures
to identify land described in subparagraph (A).
SEC. 1106. PAYMENT YIELDS.
(a) Establishment and Purpose.--For the purpose of making
payments under this subtitle, the Secretary shall provide for
the establishment of a yield for each farm for any designated
oilseed for which a payment yield was not established under
section 1102 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 8712) in accordance with this section.
(b) Payment Yields for Designated Oilseeds.--
(1) Determination of average yield.--In the case of
designated oilseeds, the Secretary shall determine the
average yield per planted acre for the designated oilseed on
a farm for the 1998 through 2001 crop years, excluding any
crop year in which the acreage planted to the designated
oilseed was zero.
(2) Adjustment for payment yield.--
(A) In general.--The payment yield for a farm for a
designated oilseed shall be equal to the product of the
following:
(i) The average yield for the designated oilseed determined
under paragraph (1).
(ii) The ratio resulting from dividing the national average
yield for the designated oilseed for the 1981 through 1985
crops by the national average yield for the designated
oilseed for the 1998 through 2001 crops.
(B) No national average yield information available.--To
the extent that national average yield information for a
designated oilseed is not available, the Secretary shall use
such information as the Secretary determines to be fair and
equitable to establish a national average yield under this
section.
(3) Use of county average yield.--If the yield per planted
acre for a crop of a designated oilseed for a farm for any of
the 1998 through 2001 crop years was less than 75 percent of
the county yield for that designated oilseed, the Secretary
shall assign a yield for that crop year equal to 75 percent
of the county yield for the purpose of determining the
average under paragraph (1).
(4) No historic yield data available.--In the case of
establishing yields for designated oilseeds, if historic
yield data is not available, the Secretary shall use the
ratio for dry peas calculated under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) in
determining the yields for designated oilseeds, as determined
to be fair and equitable by the Secretary.
(c) Effect of Lack of Payment Yield.--
(1) Establishment by secretary.--If no payment yield is
otherwise established for a farm for which a covered
commodity is planted and eligible to receive price loss
coverage payments, the Secretary shall establish an
appropriate payment yield for the covered commodity on the
farm under paragraph (2).
(2) Use of similarly situated farms.--To establish an
appropriate payment yield for a covered commodity on a farm
as required by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into
consideration the farm program payment yields applicable to
that covered commodity for similarly situated farms. The use
of such data in an appeal, by the Secretary or by the
producer, shall not be subject to any other provision of law.
(d) Single Opportunity to Update Yields Used to Determine
Price Loss Coverage Payments.--
(1) Election to update.--At the sole discretion of the
owner of a farm, the owner of a farm shall have a 1-time
opportunity to update the payment yields on a covered
commodity-by-covered commodity basis that would otherwise be
used in calculating any price loss coverage payment for
covered commodities on the farm.
(2) Time for election.--The election under paragraph (1)
shall be made at a time and manner to be in effect for the
2014 crop year as determined by the Secretary.
(3) Method of updating yields.--If the owner of a farm
elects to update yields under this subsection, the payment
yield for a covered commodity on the farm, for the purpose of
calculating price loss coverage payments only, shall be equal
to 90 percent of the average of the yield per planted acre
for the crop of the covered commodity on the farm for the
2008 through 2012 crop years, as determined by the Secretary,
excluding any crop year in which the acreage planted to the
crop of the covered commodity was zero.
(4) Use of county average yield.--If the yield per planted
acre for a crop of the covered commodity for a farm for any
of the 2008 through 2012 crop years was less than 75 percent
of the average of the 2008 through 2012 county yield for that
commodity, the Secretary shall assign a yield for that crop
year equal to 75 percent of the average of the 2008 through
2012 county yield for the purposes of determining the average
yield under paragraph (3).
(5) Effect of lack of payment yield.--
(A) Establishment by secretary.--For purposes of this
subsection, if no payment yield is otherwise established for
a covered commodity on a farm, the Secretary shall establish
an appropriate updated payment yield for the covered
commodity on the farm under subparagraph (B).
(B) Use of similarly situated farms.--To establish an
appropriate payment yield for a covered commodity on a farm
as required by subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall take
into consideration the farm program payment yields applicable
to that covered commodity for similarly situated farms. The
use of such data in an appeal, by the Secretary or by the
producer, shall not be subject to any other provision of law.
SEC. 1107. FARM RISK MANAGEMENT ELECTION.
(a) In General.--
(1) Payments required.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), if the Secretary determines that payments are required
under subsection (b)(1) or (c)(2) for a covered commodity,
the Secretary shall make payments for that covered commodity
available under such subsection to producers on a farm
pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section.
(2) Prohibition on payments; exceptions.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this title, a producer on a farm may
not receive price loss coverage payments or revenue loss
coverage payments if the sum of the planted acres of covered
commodities on the farm is 10 acres or less, as determined by
the Secretary, unless the producer is--
(A) a socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher (as defined
in section 355(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2003(e))); or
(B) a limited resource farmer or rancher, as defined by the
Secretary.
(b) Price Loss Coverage.--
(1) Payments.--For each of the 2014 through 2018 crop
years, the Secretary shall make price loss coverage payments
to producers on a farm for a covered commodity if the
Secretary determines that--
(A) the effective price for the covered commodity for the
crop year; is less than
(B) the reference price for the covered commodity for the
crop year.
(2) Effective price.--The effective price for a covered
commodity for a crop year shall be the higher of--
(A) the midseason price; or
(B) the national average loan rate for a marketing
assistance loan for the covered commodity in effect for crop
years 2014 through 2018 under subtitle B.
(3) Payment rate.--The payment rate shall be equal to the
difference between--
(A) the reference price for the covered commodity; and
(B) the effective price determined under paragraph (2) for
the covered commodity.
(4) Payment amount.--If price loss coverage payments are
required to be provided under this subsection for any of the
2014 through 2018 crop years for a covered commodity, the
amount of the price loss coverage payment to be paid to the
producers on a farm for the crop year shall be equal to the
product obtained by multiplying--
(A) the payment rate for the covered commodity under
paragraph (3);
(B) the payment yield for the covered commodity; and
(C) the payment acres for the covered commodity.
(5) Time for payments.--If the Secretary determines under
this subsection that price loss coverage payments are
required to be provided for the covered commodity, the
payments shall be made beginning October 1, or as soon as
practicable thereafter, after the end of the applicable
marketing year for the covered commodity.
(6) Special rule for barley.--In determining the effective
price for barley in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall use
the all-barley price.
(7) Special rule for temperate japonica rice.--The
Secretary shall provide a reference
[[Page H3793]]
price with respect to temperate japonica rice in an amount
equal to 115 percent of the amount established in
subparagraphs (F) and (G) of section 1104(16) in order to
reflect price premiums.
(c) Revenue Loss Coverage.--
(1) Available as an alternative.--As an alternative to
receiving price loss coverage payments under subsection (b)
for a covered commodity, all of the owners of the farm may
make a one-time, irrevocable election on a covered commodity-
by-covered commodity basis to receive revenue loss coverage
payments for each covered commodity in accordance with this
subsection. If any of the owners of the farm make different
elections on the same covered commodity on the farm, all of
the owners of the farm shall be deemed to have not made the
election available under this paragraph.
(2) Payments.--In the case of owners of a farm that make
the election described in paragraph (1) for a covered
commodity, the Secretary shall make revenue loss coverage
payments available under this subsection for each of the 2014
through 2018 crop years if the Secretary determines that--
(A) the actual county revenue for the crop year for the
covered commodity; is less than
(B) the county revenue loss coverage trigger for the crop
year for the covered commodity.
(3) Time for payments.--If the Secretary determines under
this subsection that revenue loss coverage payments are
required to be provided for the covered commodity, payments
shall be made beginning October 1, or as soon as practicable
thereafter, after the end of the applicable marketing year
for the covered commodity.
(4) Actual county revenue.--The amount of the actual county
revenue for a crop year of a covered commodity shall be equal
to the product obtained by multiplying--
(A) the actual county yield, as determined by the
Secretary, for each planted acre for the crop year for the
covered commodity; and
(B) the higher of--
(i) the midseason price; or
(ii) the national average loan rate for a marketing
assistance loan for the covered commodity in effect for crop
years 2014 through 2018 under subtitle B.
(5) County revenue loss coverage trigger.--
(A) In general.--The county revenue loss coverage trigger
for a crop year for a covered commodity on a farm shall equal
85 percent of the benchmark county revenue.
(B) Benchmark county revenue.--
(i) In general.--The benchmark county revenue shall be the
product obtained by multiplying--
(I) subject to clause (ii), the average historical county
yield as determined by the Secretary for the most recent 5
crop years, excluding each of the crop years with the highest
and lowest yields; and
(II) subject to clause (iii), the average national
marketing year average price for the most recent 5 crop
years, excluding each of the crop years with the highest and
lowest prices.
(ii) Yield conditions.--If the historical county yield in
clause (i)(I) for any of the 5 most recent crop years, as
determined by the Secretary, is less than 70 percent of the
transitional yield, as determined by the Secretary, the
amounts used for any of those years in clause (i)(I) shall be
70 percent of the transitional yield.
(iii) Reference price.--If the national marketing year
average price in clause (i)(II) for any of the 5 most recent
crop years is lower than the reference price for the covered
commodity, the Secretary shall use the reference price for
any of those years for the amounts in clause (i)(II).
(6) Payment rate.--The payment rate shall be equal to the
lesser of--
(A) the difference between--
(i) the county revenue loss coverage trigger for the
covered commodity; and
(ii) the actual county revenue for the crop year for the
covered commodity; or
(B) 10 percent of the benchmark county revenue for the crop
year for the covered commodity.
(7) Payment amount.--If revenue loss coverage payments
under this subsection are required to be provided for any of
the 2014 through 2018 crop years of a covered commodity, the
amount of the revenue loss coverage payment to be provided to
the producers on a farm for the crop year shall be equal to
the product obtained by multiplying--
(A) the payment rate under paragraph (6); and
(B) the payment acres of the covered commodity on the farm.
(8) Duties of the secretary.--In providing revenue loss
coverage payments under this subsection, the Secretary--
(A) shall ensure that producers on a farm do not
reconstitute the farm of the producers to void or change the
election made under paragraph (1);
(B) to the maximum extent practicable, shall use all
available information and analysis, including data mining, to
check for anomalies in the provision of revenue loss coverage
payments;
(C) to the maximum extent practicable, shall calculate a
separate county revenue loss coverage trigger for irrigated
and nonirrigated covered commodities and a separate actual
county revenue for irrigated and nonirrigated covered
commodities;
(D) shall assign a benchmark county yield for each planted
acre for the crop year for the covered commodity on the basis
of the yield history of representative farms in the State,
region, or crop reporting district, as determined by the
Secretary, if--
(i) the Secretary cannot establish the benchmark county
yield for each planted acre for a crop year for a covered
commodity in the county in accordance with paragraph (5); or
(ii) the yield determined under paragraph (5) is an
unrepresentative average yield for the county (as determined
by the Secretary); and
(E) to the maximum extent practicable, shall ensure that in
order to be eligible for a payment under this subsection, the
producers on the farm suffered an actual loss on the covered
commodity for the crop year for which payment is sought.
(d) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate a report annually containing an evaluation of the
impact of price loss coverage and revenue loss coverage--
(1) on the planting, production, price, and export of
covered commodities; and
(2) on the cost of each commodity program.
SEC. 1108. PRODUCER AGREEMENTS.
(a) Compliance With Certain Requirements.--
(1) Requirements.--Before the producers on a farm may
receive payments under this subtitle with respect to the
farm, the producers shall agree, during the crop year for
which the payments are made and in exchange for the
payments--
(A) to comply with applicable conservation requirements
under subtitle B of title XII of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq.);
(B) to comply with applicable wetland protection
requirements under subtitle C of title XII of that Act (16
U.S.C. 3821 et seq.); and
(C) to effectively control noxious weeds and otherwise
maintain the land in accordance with sound agricultural
practices, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Compliance.--The Secretary may issue such rules as the
Secretary considers necessary to ensure producer compliance
with the requirements of paragraph (1).
(3) Modification.--At the request of the transferee or
owner, the Secretary may modify the requirements of this
subsection if the modifications are consistent with the
objectives of this subsection, as determined by the
Secretary.
(b) Transfer or Change of Interest in Farm.--
(1) Termination.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
transfer of (or change in) the interest of the producers on a
farm for which payments under this subtitle are provided
shall result in the termination of the payments, unless the
transferee or owner of the acreage agrees to assume all
obligations under subsection (a).
(B) Effective date.--The termination shall take effect on
the date determined by the Secretary.
(2) Exception.--If a producer entitled to a payment under
this subtitle dies, becomes incompetent, or is otherwise
unable to receive the payment, the Secretary shall make the
payment in accordance with rules issued by the Secretary.
(c) Acreage Reports.--As a condition on the receipt of any
benefits under this subtitle or subtitle B, the Secretary
shall require producers on a farm to submit to the Secretary
annual acreage reports with respect to all cropland on the
farm.
(d) Tenants and Sharecroppers.--In carrying out this
subtitle, the Secretary shall provide adequate safeguards to
protect the interests of tenants and sharecroppers.
(e) Sharing of Payments.--The Secretary shall provide for
the sharing of payments made under this subtitle among the
producers on a farm on a fair and equitable basis.
SEC. 1109. PERIOD OF EFFECTIVENESS.
This subtitle shall be effective beginning with the 2014
crop year of each covered commodity through the 2018 crop
year.
Subtitle B--Marketing Loans
SEC. 1201. AVAILABILITY OF NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE
LOANS FOR LOAN COMMODITIES.
(a) Definition of Loan Commodity.--In this subtitle, the
term ``loan commodity'' means wheat, corn, grain sorghum,
barley, oats, upland cotton, extra long staple cotton, long
grain rice, medium grain rice, peanuts, soybeans, other
oilseeds, graded wool, nongraded wool, mohair, honey, dry
peas, lentils, small chickpeas, and large chickpeas.
(b) Nonrecourse Loans Available.--
(1) In general.--For each of the 2014 through 2018 crops of
each loan commodity, the Secretary shall make available to
producers on a farm nonrecourse marketing assistance loans
for loan commodities produced on the farm.
(2) Terms and conditions.--The marketing assistance loans
shall be made under terms and conditions that are prescribed
by the Secretary and at the loan rate established under
section 1202 for the loan commodity.
(c) Eligible Production.--The producers on a farm shall be
eligible for a marketing assistance loan under subsection (b)
for any quantity of a loan commodity produced on the farm.
(d) Compliance With Conservation and Wetlands
Requirements.--As a condition of the receipt of a marketing
assistance loan under subsection (b), the producer shall
comply with applicable conservation requirements under
subtitle B of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3811 et seq.) and applicable wetland protection
requirements under subtitle C of title XII of that Act (16
U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) during the term of the loan.
(e) Special Rules for Peanuts.--
(1) In general.--This subsection shall apply only to
producers of peanuts.
(2) Options for obtaining loan.--A marketing assistance
loan under this section, and loan deficiency payments under
section 1205, may be obtained at the option of the producers
on a farm through--
(A) a designated marketing association or marketing
cooperative of producers that is approved by the Secretary;
or
[[Page H3794]]
(B) the Farm Service Agency.
(3) Storage of loan peanuts.--As a condition on the
approval by the Secretary of an individual or entity to
provide storage for peanuts for which a marketing assistance
loan is made under this section, the individual or entity
shall agree--
(A) to provide the storage on a nondiscriminatory basis;
and
(B) to comply with such additional requirements as the
Secretary considers appropriate to accomplish the purposes of
this section and promote fairness in the administration of
the benefits of this section.
(4) Storage, handling, and associated costs.--
(A) In general.--To ensure proper storage of peanuts for
which a loan is made under this section, the Secretary shall
pay handling and other associated costs (other than storage
costs) incurred at the time at which the peanuts are placed
under loan, as determined by the Secretary.
(B) Redemption and forfeiture.--The Secretary shall--
(i) require the repayment of handling and other associated
costs paid under subparagraph (A) for all peanuts pledged as
collateral for a loan that is redeemed under this section;
and
(ii) pay storage, handling, and other associated costs for
all peanuts pledged as collateral that are forfeited under
this section.
(5) Marketing.--A marketing association or cooperative may
market peanuts for which a loan is made under this section in
any manner that conforms to consumer needs, including the
separation of peanuts by type and quality.
(6) Reimbursable agreements and payment of administrative
expenses.--The Secretary may implement any reimbursable
agreements or provide for the payment of administrative
expenses under this subsection only in a manner that is
consistent with those activities in regard to other loan
commodities.
SEC. 1202. LOAN RATES FOR NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE
LOANS.
(a) In General.--For purposes of each of the 2014 through
2018 crop years, the loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan under section 1201 for a loan commodity shall be equal
to the following:
(1) In the case of wheat, $2.94 per bushel.
(2) In the case of corn, $1.95 per bushel.
(3) In the case of grain sorghum, $1.95 per bushel.
(4) In the case of barley, $1.95 per bushel.
(5) In the case of oats, $1.39 per bushel.
(6) In the case of base quality of upland cotton, for the
2014 and each subsequent crop year, the simple average of the
adjusted prevailing world price for the 2 immediately
preceding marketing years, as determined by the Secretary and
announced October 1 preceding the next domestic plantings,
but in no case less than $0.47 per pound or more than $0.52
per pound.
(7) In the case of extra long staple cotton, $0.7977 per
pound.
(8) In the case of long grain rice, $6.50 per
hundredweight.
(9) In the case of medium grain rice, $6.50 per
hundredweight.
(10) In the case of soybeans, $5.00 per bushel.
(11) In the case of other oilseeds, $10.09 per
hundredweight for each of the following kinds of oilseeds:
(A) Sunflower seed.
(B) Rapeseed.
(C) Canola.
(D) Safflower.
(E) Flaxseed.
(F) Mustard seed.
(G) Crambe.
(H) Sesame seed.
(I) Other oilseeds designated by the Secretary.
(12) In the case of dry peas, $5.40 per hundredweight.
(13) In the case of lentils, $11.28 per hundredweight.
(14) In the case of small chickpeas, $7.43 per
hundredweight.
(15) In the case of large chickpeas, $11.28 per
hundredweight.
(16) In the case of graded wool, $1.15 per pound.
(17) In the case of nongraded wool, $0.40 per pound.
(18) In the case of mohair, $4.20 per pound.
(19) In the case of honey, $0.69 per pound.
(20) In the case of peanuts, $355 per ton.
(b) Single County Loan Rate for Other Oilseeds.--The
Secretary shall establish a single loan rate in each county
for each kind of other oilseeds described in subsection
(a)(11).
SEC. 1203. TERM OF LOANS.
(a) Term of Loan.--In the case of each loan commodity, a
marketing assistance loan under section 1201 shall have a
term of 9 months beginning on the first day of the first
month after the month in which the loan is made.
(b) Extensions Prohibited.--The Secretary may not extend
the term of a marketing assistance loan for any loan
commodity.
SEC. 1204. REPAYMENT OF LOANS.
(a) General Rule.--The Secretary shall permit the producers
on a farm to repay a marketing assistance loan under section
1201 for a loan commodity (other than upland cotton, long
grain rice, medium grain rice, extra long staple cotton,
peanuts and confectionery and each other kind of sunflower
seed (other than oil sunflower seed)) at a rate that is the
lesser of--
(1) the loan rate established for the commodity under
section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with
section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283));
(2) a rate (as determined by the Secretary) that--
(A) is calculated based on average market prices for the
loan commodity during the preceding 30-day period; and
(B) will minimize discrepancies in marketing loan benefits
across State boundaries and across county boundaries; or
(3) a rate that the Secretary may develop using alternative
methods for calculating a repayment rate for a loan commodity
that the Secretary determines will--
(A) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
(B) minimize the accumulation of stocks of the commodity by
the Federal Government;
(C) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government in
storing the commodity;
(D) allow the commodity produced in the United States to be
marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and
internationally; and
(E) minimize discrepancies in marketing loan benefits
across State boundaries and across county boundaries.
(b) Repayment Rates for Upland Cotton, Long Grain Rice, and
Medium Grain Rice.--The Secretary shall permit producers to
repay a marketing assistance loan under section 1201 for
upland cotton, long grain rice, and medium grain rice at a
rate that is the lesser of--
(1) the loan rate established for the commodity under
section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with
section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
(2) the prevailing world market price for the commodity, as
determined and adjusted by the Secretary in accordance with
this section.
(c) Repayment Rates for Extra Long Staple Cotton.--
Repayment of a marketing assistance loan for extra long
staple cotton shall be at the loan rate established for the
commodity under section 1202, plus interest (determined in
accordance with section 163 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)).
(d) Prevailing World Market Price.--For purposes of this
section and section 1207, the Secretary shall prescribe by
regulation--
(1) a formula to determine the prevailing world market
price for each of upland cotton, long grain rice, and medium
grain rice; and
(2) a mechanism by which the Secretary shall announce
periodically those prevailing world market prices.
(e) Adjustment of Prevailing World Market Price for Upland
Cotton, Long Grain Rice, and Medium Grain Rice.--
(1) Rice.--The prevailing world market price for long grain
rice and medium grain rice determined under subsection (d)
shall be adjusted to United States quality and location.
(2) Cotton.--The prevailing world market price for upland
cotton determined under subsection (d)--
(A) shall be adjusted to United States quality and
location, with the adjustment to include--
(i) a reduction equal to any United States Premium Factor
for upland cotton of a quality higher than Middling (M) 1\3/
32\-inch; and
(ii) the average costs to market the commodity, including
average transportation costs, as determined by the Secretary;
and
(B) may be further adjusted, during the period beginning on
the date of enactment of this Act and ending on July 31,
2019, if the Secretary determines the adjustment is
necessary--
(i) to minimize potential loan forfeitures;
(ii) to minimize the accumulation of stocks of upland
cotton by the Federal Government;
(iii) to ensure that upland cotton produced in the United
States can be marketed freely and competitively, both
domestically and internationally; and
(iv) to ensure an appropriate transition between current-
crop and forward-crop price quotations, except that the
Secretary may use forward-crop price quotations prior to July
31 of a marketing year only if--
(I) there are insufficient current-crop price quotations;
and
(II) the forward-crop price quotation is the lowest such
quotation available.
(3) Guidelines for additional adjustments.--In making
adjustments under this subsection, the Secretary shall
establish a mechanism for determining and announcing the
adjustments in order to avoid undue disruption in the United
States market.
(f) Repayment Rates for Confectionery and Other Kinds of
Sunflower Seeds.--The Secretary shall permit the producers on
a farm to repay a marketing assistance loan under section
1201 for confectionery and each other kind of sunflower seed
(other than oil sunflower seed) at a rate that is the lesser
of--
(1) the loan rate established for the commodity under
section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with
section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
(2) the repayment rate established for oil sunflower seed.
(g) Payment of Cotton Storage Costs.--Effective for each of
the 2014 through 2018 crop years, the Secretary shall make
cotton storage payments available in the same manner, and at
the same rates as the Secretary provided storage payments for
the 2006 crop of cotton, except that the rates shall be
reduced by 10 percent.
(h) Repayment Rate for Peanuts.--The Secretary shall permit
producers on a farm to repay a marketing assistance loan for
peanuts under section 1201 at a rate that is the lesser of--
(1) the loan rate established for peanuts under section
1202(a)(20), plus interest (determined in accordance with
section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
(2) a rate that the Secretary determines will--
(A) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
(B) minimize the accumulation of stocks of peanuts by the
Federal Government;
(C) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government in
storing peanuts; and
(D) allow peanuts produced in the United States to be
marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and
internationally.
[[Page H3795]]
(i) Authority to Temporarily Adjust Repayment Rates.--
(1) Adjustment authority.--In the event of a severe
disruption to marketing, transportation, or related
infrastructure, the Secretary may modify the repayment rate
otherwise applicable under this section for marketing
assistance loans under section 1201 for a loan commodity.
(2) Duration.--Any adjustment made under paragraph (1) in
the repayment rate for marketing assistance loans for a loan
commodity shall be in effect on a short-term and temporary
basis, as determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 1205. LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS.
(a) Availability of Loan Deficiency Payments.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the
Secretary may make loan deficiency payments available to
producers on a farm that, although eligible to obtain a
marketing assistance loan under section 1201 with respect to
a loan commodity, agree to forgo obtaining the loan for the
commodity in return for loan deficiency payments under this
section.
(2) Unshorn pelts, hay, and silage.--
(A) Marketing assistance loans.--Subject to subparagraph
(B), nongraded wool in the form of unshorn pelts and hay and
silage derived from a loan commodity are not eligible for a
marketing assistance loan under section 1201.
(B) Loan deficiency payment.--Effective for the 2014
through 2018 crop years, the Secretary may make loan
deficiency payments available under this section to producers
on a farm that produce unshorn pelts or hay and silage
derived from a loan commodity.
(b) Computation.--A loan deficiency payment for a loan
commodity or commodity referred to in subsection (a)(2) shall
be equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
(1) the payment rate determined under subsection (c) for
the commodity; by
(2) the quantity of the commodity produced by the eligible
producers, excluding any quantity for which the producers
obtain a marketing assistance loan under section 1201.
(c) Payment Rate.--
(1) In general.--In the case of a loan commodity, the
payment rate shall be the amount by which--
(A) the loan rate established under section 1202 for the
loan commodity; exceeds
(B) the rate at which a marketing assistance loan for the
loan commodity may be repaid under section 1204.
(2) Unshorn pelts.--In the case of unshorn pelts, the
payment rate shall be the amount by which--
(A) the loan rate established under section 1202 for
ungraded wool; exceeds
(B) the rate at which a marketing assistance loan for
ungraded wool may be repaid under section 1204.
(3) Hay and silage.--In the case of hay or silage derived
from a loan commodity, the payment rate shall be the amount
by which--
(A) the loan rate established under section 1202 for the
loan commodity from which the hay or silage is derived;
exceeds
(B) the rate at which a marketing assistance loan for the
loan commodity may be repaid under section 1204.
(d) Exception for Extra Long Staple Cotton.--This section
shall not apply with respect to extra long staple cotton.
(e) Effective Date for Payment Rate Determination.--The
Secretary shall determine the amount of the loan deficiency
payment to be made under this section to the producers on a
farm with respect to a quantity of a loan commodity or
commodity referred to in subsection (a)(2) using the payment
rate in effect under subsection (c) as of the date the
producers request the payment.
SEC. 1206. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR
GRAZED ACREAGE.
(a) Eligible Producers.--
(1) In general.--Effective for the 2014 through 2018 crop
years, in the case of a producer that would be eligible for a
loan deficiency payment under section 1205 for wheat, barley,
or oats, but that elects to use acreage planted to the wheat,
barley, or oats for the grazing of livestock, the Secretary
shall make a payment to the producer under this section if
the producer enters into an agreement with the Secretary to
forgo any other harvesting of the wheat, barley, or oats on
that acreage.
(2) Grazing of triticale acreage.--Effective for the 2014
through 2018 crop years, with respect to a producer on a farm
that uses acreage planted to triticale for the grazing of
livestock, the Secretary shall make a payment to the producer
under this section if the producer enters into an agreement
with the Secretary to forgo any other harvesting of triticale
on that acreage.
(b) Payment Amount.--
(1) In general.--The amount of a payment made under this
section to a producer on a farm described in subsection
(a)(1) shall be equal to the amount determined by
multiplying--
(A) the loan deficiency payment rate determined under
section 1205(c) in effect, as of the date of the agreement,
for the county in which the farm is located; by
(B) the payment quantity determined by multiplying--
(i) the quantity of the grazed acreage on the farm with
respect to which the producer elects to forgo harvesting of
wheat, barley, or oats; and
(ii)(I) the payment yield in effect for the calculation of
price loss coverage under subtitle A with respect to that
loan commodity on the farm; or
(II) in the case of a farm without a payment yield for that
loan commodity, an appropriate yield established by the
Secretary in a manner consistent with section 1106(c) of this
Act.
(2) Grazing of triticale acreage.--The amount of a payment
made under this section to a producer on a farm described in
subsection (a)(2) shall be equal to the amount determined by
multiplying--
(A) the loan deficiency payment rate determined under
section 1205(c) in effect for wheat, as of the date of the
agreement, for the county in which the farm is located; by
(B) the payment quantity determined by multiplying--
(i) the quantity of the grazed acreage on the farm with
respect to which the producer elects to forgo harvesting of
triticale; and
(ii)(I) the payment yield in effect for the calculation of
price loss coverage under subtitle A with respect to wheat on
the farm; or
(II) in the case of a farm without a payment yield for
wheat, an appropriate yield established by the Secretary in a
manner consistent with section 1106(c) of this Act.
(c) Time, Manner, and Availability of Payment.--
(1) Time and manner.--A payment under this section shall be
made at the same time and in the same manner as loan
deficiency payments are made under section 1205.
(2) Availability.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an
availability period for the payments authorized by this
section.
(B) Certain commodities.--In the case of wheat, barley, and
oats, the availability period shall be consistent with the
availability period for the commodity established by the
Secretary for marketing assistance loans authorized by this
subtitle.
(d) Prohibition on Crop Insurance Indemnity or Noninsured
Crop Assistance.--A 2014 through 2018 crop of wheat, barley,
oats, or triticale planted on acreage that a producer elects,
in the agreement required by subsection (a), to use for the
grazing of livestock in lieu of any other harvesting of the
crop shall not be eligible for an indemnity under a policy or
plan of insurance authorized under the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) or noninsured crop assistance
under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333).
SEC. 1207. SPECIAL MARKETING LOAN PROVISIONS FOR UPLAND
COTTON.
(a) Special Import Quota.--
(1) Definition of special import quota.--In this
subsection, the term ``special import quota'' means a
quantity of imports that is not subject to the over-quota
tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota.
(2) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--The President shall carry out an import
quota program during the period beginning on August 1, 2014,
and ending on July 31, 2019, as provided in this subsection.
(B) Program requirements.--Whenever the Secretary
determines and announces that for any consecutive 4-week
period, the Friday through Thursday average price quotation
for the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for
Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered to a definable
and significant international market, as determined by the
Secretary, exceeds the prevailing world market price, there
shall immediately be in effect a special import quota.
(3) Quantity.--The quota shall be equal to the consumption
during a 1-week period of cotton by domestic mills at the
seasonally adjusted average rate of the most recent 3 months
for which official data of the Department of Agriculture are
available or, in the absence of sufficient data, as estimated
by the Secretary.
(4) Application.--The quota shall apply to upland cotton
purchased not later than 90 days after the date of the
Secretary's announcement under paragraph (2) and entered into
the United States not later than 180 days after that date.
(5) Overlap.--A special quota period may be established
that overlaps any existing quota period if required by
paragraph (2), except that a special quota period may not be
established under this subsection if a quota period has been
established under subsection (b).
(6) Preferential tariff treatment.--The quantity under a
special import quota shall be considered to be an in-quota
quantity for purposes of--
(A) section 213(d) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(d));
(B) section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3203);
(C) section 503(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2463(d)); and
(D) General Note 3(a)(iv) to the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule.
(7) Limitation.--The quantity of cotton entered into the
United States during any marketing year under the special
import quota established under this subsection may not exceed
the equivalent of 10 week's consumption of upland cotton by
domestic mills at the seasonally adjusted average rate of the
3 months immediately preceding the first special import quota
established in any marketing year.
(b) Limited Global Import Quota for Upland Cotton.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Demand.--The term ``demand'' means--
(i) the average seasonally adjusted annual rate of domestic
mill consumption of cotton during the most recent 3 months
for which official data of the Department of Agriculture are
available or, in the absence of sufficient data, as estimated
by the Secretary; and
(ii) the larger of--
(I) average exports of upland cotton during the preceding 6
marketing years; or
(II) cumulative exports of upland cotton plus outstanding
export sales for the marketing year in which the quota is
established.
(B) Limited global import quota.--The term ``limited global
import quota'' means a quantity of imports that is not
subject to the over-quota tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota.
[[Page H3796]]
(C) Supply.--The term ``supply'' means, using the latest
official data of the Department of Agriculture--
(i) the carry-over of upland cotton at the beginning of the
marketing year (adjusted to 480-pound bales) in which the
quota is established;
(ii) production of the current crop; and
(iii) imports to the latest date available during the
marketing year.
(2) Program.--The President shall carry out an import quota
program that provides that whenever the Secretary determines
and announces that the average price of the base quality of
upland cotton, as determined by the Secretary, in the
designated spot markets for a month exceeded 130 percent of
the average price of the quality of cotton in the markets for
the preceding 36 months, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, there shall immediately be in effect a limited global
import quota subject to the following conditions:
(A) Quantity.--The quantity of the quota shall be equal to
21 days of domestic mill consumption of upland cotton at the
seasonally adjusted average rate of the most recent 3 months
for which official data of the Department of Agriculture are
available or, in the absence of sufficient data, as estimated
by the Secretary.
(B) Quantity if prior quota.--If a quota has been
established under this subsection during the preceding 12
months, the quantity of the quota next established under this
subsection shall be the smaller of 21 days of domestic mill
consumption calculated under subparagraph (A) or the quantity
required to increase the supply to 130 percent of the demand.
(C) Preferential tariff treatment.--The quantity under a
limited global import quota shall be considered to be an in-
quota quantity for purposes of--
(i) section 213(d) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(d));
(ii) section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3203);
(iii) section 503(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2463(d)); and
(iv) General Note 3(a)(iv) to the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule.
(D) Quota entry period.--When a quota is established under
this subsection, cotton may be entered under the quota during
the 90-day period beginning on the date the quota is
established by the Secretary.
(3) No overlap.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a quota
period may not be established that overlaps an existing quota
period or a special quota period established under subsection
(a).
(c) Economic Adjustment Assistance to Users of Upland
Cotton.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall, on a monthly basis, make economic adjustment
assistance available to domestic users of upland cotton in
the form of payments for all documented use of that upland
cotton during the previous monthly period regardless of the
origin of the upland cotton.
(2) Value of assistance.--Effective beginning on August 1,
2013, the value of the assistance provided under paragraph
(1) shall be 3 cents per pound.
(3) Allowable purposes.--Economic adjustment assistance
under this subsection shall be made available only to
domestic users of upland cotton that certify that the
assistance shall be used only to acquire, construct, install,
modernize, develop, convert, or expand land, plant,
buildings, equipment, facilities, or machinery.
(4) Review or audit.--The Secretary may conduct such review
or audit of the records of a domestic user under this
subsection as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out
this subsection.
(5) Improper use of assistance.--If the Secretary
determines, after a review or audit of the records of the
domestic user, that economic adjustment assistance under this
subsection was not used for the purposes specified in
paragraph (3), the domestic user shall be--
(A) liable for the repayment of the assistance to the
Secretary, plus interest, as determined by the Secretary; and
(B) ineligible to receive assistance under this subsection
for a period of 1 year following the determination of the
Secretary.
SEC. 1208. SPECIAL COMPETITIVE PROVISIONS FOR EXTRA LONG
STAPLE COTTON.
(a) Competitiveness Program.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act through July 31, 2019, the Secretary
shall carry out a program--
(1) to maintain and expand the domestic use of extra long
staple cotton produced in the United States;
(2) to increase exports of extra long staple cotton
produced in the United States; and
(3) to ensure that extra long staple cotton produced in the
United States remains competitive in world markets.
(b) Payments Under Program; Trigger.--Under the program,
the Secretary shall make payments available under this
section whenever--
(1) for a consecutive 4-week period, the world market price
for the lowest priced competing growth of extra long staple
cotton (adjusted to United States quality and location and
for other factors affecting the competitiveness of such
cotton), as determined by the Secretary, is below the
prevailing United States price for a competing growth of
extra long staple cotton; and
(2) the lowest priced competing growth of extra long staple
cotton (adjusted to United States quality and location and
for other factors affecting the competitiveness of such
cotton), as determined by the Secretary, is less than 134
percent of the loan rate for extra long staple cotton.
(c) Eligible Recipients.--The Secretary shall make payments
available under this section to domestic users of extra long
staple cotton produced in the United States and exporters of
extra long staple cotton produced in the United States that
enter into an agreement with the Commodity Credit Corporation
to participate in the program under this section.
(d) Payment Amount.--Payments under this section shall be
based on the amount of the difference in the prices referred
to in subsection (b)(1) during the fourth week of the
consecutive 4-week period multiplied by the amount of
documented purchases by domestic users and sales for export
by exporters made in the week following such a consecutive 4-
week period.
SEC. 1209. AVAILABILITY OF RECOURSE LOANS FOR HIGH MOISTURE
FEED GRAINS AND SEED COTTON.
(a) High Moisture Feed Grains.--
(1) Definition of high moisture state.--In this subsection,
the term ``high moisture state'' means corn or grain sorghum
having a moisture content in excess of Commodity Credit
Corporation standards for marketing assistance loans made by
the Secretary under section 1201.
(2) Recourse loans available.--For each of the 2014 through
2018 crops of corn and grain sorghum, the Secretary shall
make available recourse loans, as determined by the
Secretary, to producers on a farm that--
(A) normally harvest all or a portion of their crop of corn
or grain sorghum in a high moisture state;
(B) present--
(i) certified scale tickets from an inspected, certified
commercial scale, including a licensed warehouse, feedlot,
feed mill, distillery, or other similar entity approved by
the Secretary, pursuant to regulations issued by the
Secretary; or
(ii) field or other physical measurements of the standing
or stored crop in regions of the United States, as determined
by the Secretary, that do not have certified commercial
scales from which certified scale tickets may be obtained
within reasonable proximity of harvest operation;
(C) certify that the producers on the farm were the owners
of the feed grain at the time of delivery to, and that the
quantity to be placed under loan under this subsection was in
fact harvested on the farm and delivered to, a feedlot, feed
mill, or commercial or on-farm high-moisture storage
facility, or to a facility maintained by the users of corn
and grain sorghum in a high moisture state; and
(D) comply with deadlines established by the Secretary for
harvesting the corn or grain sorghum and submit applications
for loans under this subsection within deadlines established
by the Secretary.
(3) Eligibility of acquired feed grains.--A loan under this
subsection shall be made on a quantity of corn or grain
sorghum of the same crop acquired by the producer equivalent
to a quantity determined by multiplying--
(A) the acreage of the corn or grain sorghum in a high
moisture state harvested on the farm of the producer; by
(B) the lower of the farm program payment yield used to
make payments under subtitle A or the actual yield on a
field, as determined by the Secretary, that is similar to the
field from which the corn or grain sorghum was obtained.
(b) Recourse Loans Available for Seed Cotton.--For each of
the 2014 through 2018 crops of upland cotton and extra long
staple cotton, the Secretary shall make available recourse
seed cotton loans, as determined by the Secretary, on any
production.
(c) Repayment Rates.--Repayment of a recourse loan made
under this section shall be at the loan rate established for
the commodity by the Secretary, plus interest (determined in
accordance with section 163 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)).
SEC. 1210. ADJUSTMENTS OF LOANS.
(a) Adjustment Authority.--Subject to subsection (e), the
Secretary may make appropriate adjustments in the loan rates
for any loan commodity (other than cotton) for differences in
grade, type, quality, location, and other factors.
(b) Manner of Adjustment.--The adjustments under subsection
(a) shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be made in such
a manner that the average loan level for the commodity will,
on the basis of the anticipated incidence of the factors, be
equal to the level of support determined in accordance with
this subtitle and subtitle C.
(c) Adjustment on County Basis.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may establish loan rates for
a crop for producers in individual counties in a manner that
results in the lowest loan rate being 95 percent of the
national average loan rate, if those loan rates do not result
in an increase in outlays.
(2) Prohibition.--Adjustments under this subsection shall
not result in an increase in the national average loan rate
for any year.
(d) Adjustment in Loan Rate for Cotton.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may make appropriate
adjustments in the loan rate for cotton for differences in
quality factors.
(2) Types of adjustments.--Loan rate adjustments under
paragraph (1) may include--
(A) the use of non-spot market price data, in addition to
spot market price data, that would enhance the accuracy of
the price information used in determining quality adjustments
under this subsection;
(B) adjustments in the premiums or discounts associated
with upland cotton with a staple length of 33 or above due to
micronaire with the goal of eliminating any unnecessary
artificial splits in the calculations of the premiums or
discounts; and
(C) such other adjustments as the Secretary determines
appropriate, after consultations conducted in accordance with
paragraph (3).
(3) Consultation with private sector.--
(A) Prior to revision.--In making adjustments to the loan
rate for cotton (including any review of the adjustments) as
provided in this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with
representatives of the United States cotton industry.
[[Page H3797]]
(B) Inapplicability of federal advisory committee act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to consultations under this subsection.
(4) Review of adjustments.--The Secretary may review the
operation of the upland cotton quality adjustments
implemented pursuant to this subsection and may make further
adjustments to the administration of the loan program for
upland cotton, by revoking or revising any adjustment taken
under paragraph (2).
(e) Rice.--The Secretary shall not make adjustments in the
loan rates for long grain rice and medium grain rice, except
for differences in grade and quality (including milling
yields).
Subtitle C--Sugar
SEC. 1301. SUGAR PROGRAM.
(a) Continuation of Current Program and Loan Rates.--
(1) Sugarcane.--Section 156(a)(5) of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.
7272(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``the 2012 crop year'' and
inserting ``each of the 2012 through 2018 crop years''.
(2) Sugar beets.--Section 156(b)(2) of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.
7272(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
(3) Effective period.--Section 156(i) of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.
7272(i)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
(b) Flexible Marketing Allotments for Sugar.--
(1) Sugar estimates.--Section 359b(a)(1) of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(a)(1))
is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
(2) Effective period.--Section 359l(a) of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359ll(a)) is amended by
striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
Subtitle D--Dairy
PART I--DAIRY PRODUCER MARGIN PROTECTION AND DAIRY MARKET STABILIZATION
PROGRAMS
SEC. 1401. DEFINITIONS.
In this part:
(1) Actual dairy producer margin.--The term ``actual dairy
producer margin'' means the difference between the all-milk
price and the average feed cost, as calculated under section
1402.
(2) All-milk price.--The term ``all-milk price'' means the
average price received, per hundredweight of milk, by dairy
producers for all milk sold to plants and dealers in the
United States, as determined by the Secretary.
(3) Annual production history.--The term ``annual
production history'' means the production history determined
for a participating dairy producer under section 1413(b)
whenever the dairy producer purchases supplemental margin
protection.
(4) Average feed cost.--The term ``average feed cost''
means the average cost of feed used by a dairy operation to
produce a hundredweight of milk, determined under section
1402 using the sum of the following:
(A) The product determined by multiplying 1.0728 by the
price of corn per bushel.
(B) The product determined by multiplying 0.00735 by the
price of soybean meal per ton.
(C) The product determined by multiplying 0.0137 by the
price of alfalfa hay per ton.
(5) Basic production history.--The term ``basic production
history'' means the production history determined for a
participating dairy producer under section 1413(a) for
provision of basic margin protection.
(6) Consecutive two-month period.--The term ``consecutive
two-month period'' refers to the two-month period consisting
of the months of January and February, March and April, May
and June, July and August, September and October, or November
and December, respectively.
(7) Dairy producer.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
``dairy producer'' means an individual or entity that
directly or indirectly (as determined by the Secretary)--
(i) shares in the risk of producing milk; and
(ii) makes contributions (including land, labor,
management, equipment, or capital) to the dairy operation of
the individual or entity that are at least commensurate with
the share of the individual or entity of the proceeds of the
operation.
(B) Additional ownership structures.--The Secretary shall
determine additional ownership structures to be covered by
the definition of dairy producer.
(8) Handler.--
(A) In general.--The term ``handler'' means the initial
individual or entity making payment to a dairy producer for
milk produced in the United States and marketed for
commercial use.
(B) Producer-handler.--The term includes a ``producer-
handler'' when the producer satisfies the definition in
subparagraph (A).
(9) Margin protection program.--The term ``margin
protection program'' means the dairy producer margin
protection program required by subpart A.
(10) Participating dairy producer.--The term
``participating dairy producer'' means a dairy producer
that--
(A) signs up under section 1412 to participate in the
margin protection program under subpart A; and
(B) as a result, also participates in the stabilization
program under subpart B.
(11) Stabilization program.--The term ``stabilization
program'' means the dairy market stabilization program
required by subpart B for all participating dairy producers.
(12) Stabilization program base.--The term ``stabilization
program base'', with respect to a participating dairy
producer, means the stabilization program base calculated for
the producer under section 1431(b).
(13) United states.--The term ``United States'', in a
geographical sense, means the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands of the United States, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
SEC. 1402. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE FEED COST AND ACTUAL DAIRY
PRODUCER MARGINS.
(a) Calculation of Average Feed Cost.--The Secretary shall
calculate the national average feed cost for each month using
the following data:
(1) The price of corn for a month shall be the price
received during that month by farmers in the United States
for corn, as reported in the monthly Agricultural Prices
report by the Secretary.
(2) The price of soybean meal for a month shall be the
central Illinois price for soybean meal, as reported in the
Market News-Monthly Soybean Meal Price Report by the
Secretary.
(3) The price of alfalfa hay for a month shall be the price
received during that month by farmers in the United States
for alfalfa hay, as reported in the monthly Agricultural
Prices report by the Secretary.
(b) Calculation of Actual Dairy Producer Margins.--
(1) Margin protection program.--For use in the margin
protection program under subpart A, the Secretary shall
calculate the actual dairy producer margin for each
consecutive two-month period by subtracting--
(A) the average feed cost for that consecutive two-month
period, determined in accordance with subsection (a); from
(B) the all-milk price for that consecutive two-month
period.
(2) Stabilization program.--For use in the stabilization
program under subpart B, the Secretary shall calculate each
month the actual dairy producer margin for the preceding
month by subtracting--
(A) the average feed cost for that preceding month,
determined in accordance with subsection (a); from
(B) the all-milk price for that preceding month.
(3) Time for calculations.--The calculations required by
paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be made as soon as practicable
each month using the full month price of the applicable
reference month, but in no case shall the calculation be made
later than the last business day of the month.
Subpart A--Dairy Producer Margin Protection Program
SEC. 1411. ESTABLISHMENT OF DAIRY PRODUCER MARGIN PROTECTION
PROGRAM.
The Secretary shall establish and administer a dairy
producer margin protection program for the purpose of
protecting dairy producer income by paying participating
dairy producers--
(1) basic margin protection payments when actual dairy
producer margins are less than the threshold levels for such
payments; and
(2) supplemental margin protection payments if purchased by
a participating dairy producer.
SEC. 1412. PARTICIPATION OF DAIRY PRODUCERS IN MARGIN
PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) Eligibility.--All dairy producers in the United States
are eligible to participate in the margin protection program,
except that a dairy producer must sign up with the Secretary
before the producer may receive--
(1) basic margin protection payments under section 1414;
and
(2) if the dairy producer purchases supplemental margin
protection under section 1415, supplemental margin protection
payments under such section.
(b) Sign-up Process.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allow all interested
dairy producers to sign up to participate in the margin
protection program. The Secretary shall specify the manner
and form by which a dairy producer must sign up to
participate in the margin protection program.
(2) Treatment of multi-producer operations.--If a dairy
operation consists of more than one dairy producer, all of
the dairy producers of the operation shall be treated as a
single dairy producer for purposes of--
(A) registration to receive basic margin protection and
purchase supplemental margin protection;
(B) payment of the administrative fee under subsection (e)
and producer premiums under section 1415; and
(C) participation in the stabilization program under
subpart B.
(3) Treatment of producers with multiple dairy
operations.--If a dairy producer operates two or more dairy
operations, each dairy operation of the producer shall
require a separate registration to receive basic margin
protection and purchase supplemental margin protection. Only
those dairy operations so registered shall be subject to the
stabilization program.
(c) Time for Sign up.--
(1) Existing dairy producers.--During the one-year period
beginning on the date of the initiation of the sign-up period
for the margin protection program, a dairy producer that is
actively engaged in a dairy operation as of such date may
sign up with the Secretary--
(A) to receive basic margin protection; and
(B) if the producer elects, to purchase supplemental margin
protection.
(2) New entrants.--A dairy producer that has no existing
interest in a dairy operation as of the date of the
initiation of the sign-up period for the margin protection
program, but that, after such date, establishes a new dairy
operation, may sign up with the Secretary during the one year
period beginning on the date on which the dairy operation
first markets milk commercially--
[[Page H3798]]
(A) to receive basic margin protection; and
(B) if the producer elects, to purchase supplemental margin
protection.
(d) Retroactivity Provision.--
(1) Notice of availability of retroactive protection.--Not
later than 30 days after the effective date of this subtitle,
the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register
to inform dairy producers of the availability of retroactive
basic margin protection and retroactive supplemental margin
protection, subject to the condition that interested
producers must file a notice of intent (in such form and
manner as the Secretary specifies in the Federal Register
notice)--
(A) to participate in the margin protection program and
receive basic margin protection; and
(B) at the election of the producer under paragraph (3), to
also obtain supplemental margin protection.
(2) Retroactive basic margin protection.--
(A) Availability.--If a dairy producer files a notice of
intent under paragraph (1) to participate in the margin
protection program before the initiation of the sign-up
period for the margin protection program and subsequently
signs up for the margin protection program, the producer
shall receive basic margin protection retroactive to the
effective date of this subtitle.
(B) Duration.--Retroactive basic margin protection under
this paragraph for a dairy producer shall apply from the
effective date of this subtitle until the date on which the
producer signs up for the margin protection program.
(3) Retroactive supplemental margin protection.--
(A) Availability.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), if
a dairy producer files a notice of intent under paragraph (1)
to participate in the margin protection program and obtain
supplemental margin protection and subsequently signs up for
the margin protection program, the producer shall receive
supplemental margin protection, in addition to the basic
margin protection under paragraph (2), retroactive to the
effective date of this subtitle.
(B) Deadline for submission.--A notice of intent to obtain
retroactive supplemental margin protection must be filed with
the Secretary no later than the earlier of the following:
(i) 150 days after the date on which the Secretary
publishes the notice in the Federal Register required by
paragraph (1).
(ii) The date on which the Secretary initiates the sign up
period for the margin protection program.
(C) Election of coverage level and percentage of
coverage.--To be sufficient to obtain retroactive
supplemental margin protection, the notice of intent to
participate filed by a dairy producer must specify--
(i) a selected coverage level that is higher, in any
increment of $0.50, than the payment threshold for basic
margin protection specified in section 1414(b), but not to
exceed $6.00; and
(ii) the percentage of coverage, subject to limits imposed
in section 1415(c).
(D) Duration.--The coverage level and percentage specified
in the notice of intent to participate filed by a dairy
producer shall apply from the effective date of this subtitle
until the later of the following:
(i) October 1, 2013.
(ii) The date on which the Secretary initiates the sign-up
period for the margin protection program.
(4) Notice of intent and obligation to participate in
margin protection program.--In no way does filing a notice of
intent under this subsection obligate a dairy producer to
sign up for the margin protection program once the program
rules are final, but if a producer does file a notice of
intent and subsequently signs up for the margin protection
program, that dairy producer is obligated to pay fees and
premiums for any retroactive basic margin protection or
retroactive supplemental margin protection selected in the
notice of intent.
(e) Administrative Fee.--
(1) Administrative fee required.--A dairy producer shall
pay an administrative fee under this subsection to sign up to
participate in the margin protection program. The
participating dairy producer shall pay the administrative fee
annually thereafter to continue to participate in the margin
protection program.
(2) Fee amount.--The administrative fee for a participating
dairy producer for a calendar year is based on the pounds of
milk (in millions) marketed by the dairy producer in the
previous calendar year, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pounds Marketed (in millions) Admin. Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
less than 1 $100
1 to 10 $250
more than 10 to 40 $500
more than 40 $1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Deposit of fees.--All administrative fees collected
under this subsection shall be credited to the fund or
account used to cover the costs incurred to administer the
margin protection program and the stabilization program and
shall be available to the Secretary, subject to appropriation
and until expended, for use or transfer as provided in
paragraph (4).
(4) Use of fees.--The Secretary shall use administrative
fees collected under this subsection--
(A) to cover administrative costs of the margin protection
program and stabilization program; and
(B) to the extent funds remain available after operation of
subparagraphs (A), to cover costs of the Department of
Agriculture relating to reporting of dairy market news and to
carry out section 273 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 (7 U.S.C. 1637b).
(f) Reconstitution.--The Secretary shall prohibit a dairy
producer from reconstituting a dairy operation for the sole
purpose of the dairy producer--
(1) receiving basic margin protection;
(2) purchasing supplemental margin protection; or
(3) avoiding participation in the stabilization program.
(g) Priority Consideration.--A dairy operation that
participates in the margin protection program shall be
eligible to participate in the livestock gross margin for
dairy program under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.) only after operations that are not
participating in the production margin protection program are
enrolled.
SEC. 1413. PRODUCTION HISTORY OF PARTICIPATING DAIRY
PRODUCERS.
(a) Production History for Basic Margin Protection.--
(1) Determination required.--For purposes of providing
basic margin protection, the Secretary shall determine the
basic production history of the dairy operation of each
participating dairy producer in the margin protection
program.
(2) Calculation.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the
basic production history of a participating dairy producer
for basic margin protection is equal to the highest annual
milk marketings of the dairy producer during any one of the
three calendar years immediately preceding the calendar year
in which the dairy producer first signed up to participate in
the margin protection program.
(3) Election by new producers.--If a participating dairy
producer has been in operation for less than a year, the
dairy producer shall elect one of the following methods for
the Secretary to determine the basic production history of
the dairy producer:
(A) The volume of the actual milk marketings for the months
the dairy producer has been in operation extrapolated to a
yearly amount.
(B) An estimate of the actual milk marketings of the dairy
producer based on the herd size of the producer relative to
the national rolling herd average data published by the
Secretary.
(4) No change in production history for basic margin
protection.--Once the basic production history of a
participating dairy producer is determined under paragraph
(2) or (3), the basic production history shall not be
subsequently changed for purposes of determining the amount
of any basic margin protection payments for the dairy
producer made under section 1414.
(b) Annual Production History for Supplemental Margin
Protection.--
(1) Determination required.--For purposes of providing
supplemental margin protection for a participating dairy
producer that purchases supplemental margin protection for a
year under section 1415, the Secretary shall determine the
annual production history of the dairy operation of the dairy
producer under paragraph (2).
(2) Calculation.--The annual production history of a
participating dairy producer for a year is equal to the
actual milk marketings of the dairy producer during the
preceding calendar year.
(3) New producers.--Subsection (a)(3) shall apply with
respect to determining the annual production history of a
participating dairy producer that has been in operation for
less than a year.
(c) Required Information.--A participating dairy producer
shall provide all information that the Secretary may require
in order to establish--
(1) the basic production history of the dairy operation of
the dairy producer under subsection (a); and
(2) the production history of the dairy operation of the
dairy producer whenever the producer purchases supplemental
margin protection under section 1415.
(d) Transfer of Production Histories.--
(1) Transfer by sale or lease.--In promulgating the rules
to initiate the margin protection program, the Secretary
shall specify the conditions under which and the manner by
which the production history of a dairy operation may be
transferred by sale or lease.
(2) Coverage level.--
(A) Basic margin protection.--A purchaser or lessee to whom
the Secretary transfers a basic production history under this
subsection shall not obtain a different level of basic margin
protection than the basic margin protection coverage held by
the seller or lessor from whom the transfer was obtained.
(B) Supplemental margin protection.--A purchaser or lessee
to whom the Secretary transfers an annual production history
under this subsection shall not obtain a different level of
supplemental margin protection coverage than the supplemental
margin protection coverage in effect for the seller or lessor
from whom the transfer was obtained for the calendar year in
which the transfer was made.
(e) Movement and Transfer of Production History.--
(1) Movement and transfer authorized.--Subject to paragraph
(2), if a dairy producer moves from one location to another
location, the dairy producer may maintain the basic
production history and annual production history associated
with the operation.
(2) Notification requirement.--A dairy producer shall
notify the Secretary of any move of a dairy operation under
paragraph (1).
(3) Subsequent occupation of vacated location.--A party
subsequently occupying a dairy operation location vacated as
described in paragraph (1) shall have no interest in the
basic production history or annual production history
previously associated with the operation at such location.
[[Page H3799]]
SEC. 1414. BASIC MARGIN PROTECTION.
(a) Eligibility.--All participating dairy producers are
eligible to receive basic margin protection under the margin
protection program.
(b) Payment Threshold.--Participating dairy producers shall
receive a basic margin protection payment whenever the
average actual dairy producer margin for a consecutive two-
month period is less than $4.00 per hundredweight of milk.
(c) Basic Margin Protection Payment.--
(1) Payment required.--The Secretary shall make a basic
margin protection payment to each participating dairy
producer whenever such a payment is required by subsection
(b).
(2) Amount of payment.--The basic margin protection payment
for the dairy operation of a participating dairy producer for
a consecutive two-month period shall be determined as
follows:
(A) The Secretary shall calculate the difference between
the average actual dairy producer margin for the consecutive
two-month period and $4.00, except that, if the difference is
more than $4.00, the Secretary shall use $4.00.
(B) The Secretary shall multiply the amount under
subparagraph (A) by the lesser of the following:
(i) 80 percent of the production history of the dairy
producer, divided by six.
(ii) The actual amount of milk marketed by the dairy
operation of the dairy producer during the consecutive two-
month period.
SEC. 1415. SUPPLEMENTAL MARGIN PROTECTION.
(a) Election of Supplemental Margin Protection.--
Supplemental margin protection is available only on an annual
basis. A participating dairy producer may annually purchase
supplemental margin protection to protect, during the
calendar year for which purchased, a higher level of the
income of a participating dairy producer than the income
level guaranteed by basic margin protection under section
1414.
(b) Selection of Payment Threshold.--A participating dairy
producer purchasing supplemental margin protection for a year
shall elect a coverage level that is higher, in any increment
of $0.50, than the payment threshold for basic margin
protection specified in section 1414(b), but not to exceed
$8.00.
(c) Selection of Coverage Percentage.--A participating
dairy producer purchasing supplemental margin protection for
a year shall elect a percentage of coverage equal to not more
than 90 percent, nor less than 25 percent, of the annual
production history of the dairy operation of the
participating dairy producer.
(d) Producer Premiums for Supplemental Margin Protection.--
(1) Premiums required.--A participating dairy producer that
purchases supplemental margin protection shall pay an annual
premium equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
(A) the percentage selected by the dairy producer under
subsection (c);
(B) the annual production history of the dairy producer;
and
(C) the premium per hundredweight of milk, as specified in
the applicable table under paragraph (2) or (3).
(2) Premium per hundredweight for first 4 million pounds of
production.--For the first 4,000,000 pounds of milk
marketings included in the annual production history of a
participating dairy producer, the premium per hundredweight
corresponding to each coverage level specified in the
following table is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coverage Level Premium per Cwt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$4.50 $0.01
$5.00 $0.025
$5.50 $0.04
$6.00 $0.065
$6.50 $0.09
$7.00 $0.434
$7.50 $0.590
$8.00 $0.922
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Premium per hundredweight for production in excess of 4
million pounds.--For milk marketings in excess of 4,000,000
pounds included in the annual production history of a
participating dairy producer, the premium per hundredweight
corresponding to each coverage level is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coverage Level Premium per Cwt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$4.50 $0.015
$5.00 $0.036
$5.50 $0.081
$6.00 $0.155
$6.50 $0.230
$7.00 $0.434
$7.50 $0.590
$8.00 $0.922
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Time for payment.--In promulgating the rules to
initiate the margin protection program, the Secretary shall
provide more than one method by which a participating dairy
producer that purchases supplemental margin protection for a
calendar year may pay the premium under this subsection for
that year that maximizes producer payment flexibility and
program integrity.
(e) Producer's Premium Obligations.--
(1) Pro-ration of premium for new producers.--A dairy
producer described in section 1412(c)(2) that purchases
supplemental margin protection for a calendar year after the
start of the calendar year shall pay a pro-rated premium for
that calendar year based on the portion of the calendar year
for which the producer purchases the coverage.
(2) Legal obligation.--A participating dairy producer that
purchases supplemental margin protection for a calendar year
shall be legally obligated to pay the applicable premium for
that calendar year, except that, if the dairy producer
retires, the producer may request that Secretary cancel the
supplemental margin protection if the producer has terminated
the dairy operation entirely and certifies under oath that
the producer will not be actively engaged in any dairy
operation for at least the next seven years.
(f) Supplemental Payment Threshold.--A participating dairy
producer with supplemental margin protection shall receive a
supplemental margin protection payment whenever the average
actual dairy producer margin for a consecutive two-month
period is less than the coverage level threshold selected by
the dairy producer under subsection (b).
(g) Supplemental Margin Protection Payments.--
(1) In general.--The supplemental margin protection payment
for a participating dairy producer is in addition to the
basic margin protection payment.
(2) Amount of payment.--The supplemental margin protection
payment for the dairy operation of a participating dairy
producer shall be determined as follows:
(A) The Secretary shall calculate the difference between
the coverage level threshold selected by the dairy producer
under subsection (b) and the greater of--
(i) the average actual dairy producer margin for the
consecutive two-month period; or
(ii) $4.00.
(B) The amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be
multiplied by the percentage selected by the participating
dairy producer under subsection (c) and by the lesser of the
following:
(i) The annual production history of the dairy operation of
the dairy producer, divided by six.
(ii) The actual amount of milk marketed by the dairy
operation of the dairy producer during the consecutive two-
month period.
SEC. 1416. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PAY ADMINISTRATIVE FEES OR
PREMIUMS.
(a) Loss of Benefits.--A participating dairy producer that
fails to pay the required administrative fee under section
1412 or is in arrears on premium payments for supplemental
margin protection under section 1415--
(1) remains legally obligated to pay the administrative fee
or premiums, as the case may be; and
(2) may not receive basic margin protection payments or
supplemental margin protection payments until the fees or
premiums are fully paid.
(b) Enforcement.--The Secretary may take such action as
necessary to collect administrative fees and premium payments
for supplemental margin protection.
Subpart B--Dairy Market Stabilization Program
SEC. 1431. ESTABLISHMENT OF DAIRY MARKET STABILIZATION
PROGRAM.
(a) Program Required; Purpose.--The Secretary shall
establish and administer a dairy market stabilization program
applicable to participating dairy producers for the purpose
of assisting in balancing the supply of milk with demand when
dairy producers are experiencing low or negative operating
margins.
(b) Election of Stabilization Program Base Calculation
Method.--
(1) Election.--When a dairy producer signs up under section
1412 to participate in the margin protection program, the
dairy producer shall inform the Secretary of the method by
which the stabilization program base for the dairy producer
for fiscal year 2013 will be calculated under paragraph (3).
(2) Change in calculation method.--A participating dairy
producer may change the stabilization program base
calculation method to be used for a calendar year by
notifying the Secretary of the change not later than a date
determined by the Secretary.
(3) Calculation methods.--A participating dairy producer
may elect either of the following methods for calculation of
the stabilization program base for the producer:
(A) The volume of the average monthly milk marketings of
the dairy producer for the three months immediately preceding
the announcement by the Secretary that the stabilization
program will become effective.
(B) The volume of the monthly milk marketings of the dairy
producer for the same month in the preceding year as the
month for which the Secretary has announced the stabilization
program will become effective.
SEC. 1432. THRESHOLD FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND REDUCTION IN
DAIRY PRODUCER PAYMENTS.
(a) When Stabilization Program Required.--Except as
provided in subsection (b), the Secretary shall announce that
the stabilization program is in effect and order reduced
payments for any participating dairy producer that exceeds
the applicable percentage of the producer's stabilization
program base whenever--
(1) the actual dairy producer margin has been $6.00 or less
per hundredweight of milk for each of the immediately
preceding two months; or
(2) the actual dairy producer margin has been $4.00 or less
per hundredweight of milk for the immediately preceding
month.
(b) Exception.--The Secretary shall not make the
announcement under subsection (a) to implement the
stabilization program or order reduced payments if any of the
conditions described in section 1436(b) have been met during
the two months immediately preceding the month in which the
announcement under subsection (a) would otherwise be made by
the Secretary in the absence of this exception.
(c) Effective Date for Implementation of Payment
Reductions.--Reductions in dairy producer payments shall
commence beginning on the first day of the month immediately
following the date of the announcement by the Secretary under
subsection (a).
[[Page H3800]]
SEC. 1433. PRODUCER MILK MARKETING INFORMATION.
(a) Collection of Milk Marketing Data.--The Secretary shall
establish, by regulation, a process to collect from
participating dairy producers and handlers such information
that the Secretary considers necessary for each month during
which the stabilization program is in effect.
(b) Reduce Regulatory Burden.--When implementing the
process under subsection (a), the Secretary shall minimize
the regulatory burden on dairy producers and handlers.
SEC. 1434. CALCULATION AND COLLECTION OF REDUCED DAIRY
PRODUCER PAYMENTS.
(a) Reduced Producer Payments Required.--During any month
in which payment reductions are in effect under the
stabilization program, each handler shall reduce payments to
each participating dairy producer from whom the handler
receives milk.
(b) Reductions Based on Actual Dairy Producer Margin.--
(1) Reduction requirement 1.--Unless the reduction required
by paragraph (2) or (3) applies, when the actual dairy
producer margin has been $6.00 or less per hundredweight of
milk for two consecutive months, the handler shall make
payments to a participating dairy producer for a month based
on the greater of the following:
(A) 98 percent of the stabilization program base of the
dairy producer.
(B) 94 percent of the marketings of milk for the month by
the producer.
(2) Reduction requirement 2.--Unless the reduction required
by paragraph (3) applies, when the actual dairy producer
margin has been $5.00 or less per hundredweight of milk for
two consecutive months, the handler shall make payments to a
participating dairy producer for a month based on the greater
of the following:
(A) 97 percent of the stabilization program base of the
dairy producer.
(B) 93 percent of the marketings of milk for the month by
the producer.
(3) Reduction requirement 3.--When the actual dairy
producer margin has been $4.00 or less for any one month, the
handler shall make payments to a participating dairy producer
for a month based on the greater of the following:
(A) 96 percent of the stabilization program base of the
dairy producer.
(B) 92 percent of the marketings of milk for the month by
the producer.
(c) Continuation of Reductions.--The largest level of
payment reduction required under paragraph (1), (2), or (3)
of subsection (b) shall be continued for each month until the
Secretary suspends the stabilization program and terminates
payment reductions in accordance with section 1436.
(d) Payment Reduction Exception.--Notwithstanding any
preceding subsection of this section, a handler shall make no
payment reductions for a dairy producer for a month if the
producer's milk marketings for the month are equal to or less
than the percentage of the stabilization program base
applicable to the producer under paragraph (1), (2), or (3)
of subsection (b).
SEC. 1435. REMITTING MONIES TO THE SECRETARY AND USE OF
MONIES.
(a) Remitting Monies.--As soon as practicable after the end
of each month during which payment reductions are in effect
under the stabilization program, each handler shall remit to
the Secretary an amount equal to the amount by which payments
to participating dairy producers are reduced by the handler
under section 1434.
(b) Deposit of Monies.--All monies received under
subsection (a) shall, subject to appropriation, be available
to the Secetary until expended for use or transfer as
provided in subsection (c).
(c) Use of Monies.--
(1) Availability for certain commodity donations.--Within
three months of the receipt of monies under subsection (a),
and as provided in subsection (b), Secretary shall obligate
the monies for the purpose of--
(A) purchasing dairy products for donation to food banks
and other programs that the Secretary determines appropriate;
and
(B) expanding consumption and building demand for dairy
products.
(2) No duplication of effort.--The Secretary shall ensure
that expenditures under paragraph (1) are compatible with,
and do not duplicate, programs supported by the dairy
research and promotion activities conducted under the Dairy
Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.).
(3) Accounting.--The Secretary shall keep an accurate
account of all monies obligated under paragraph (1).
(d) Annual Report.--Not later than December 31 of each year
that the stabilization program is in effect, the Secretary
shall 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 provides an accurate
accounting of--
(1) the monies received by the Secretary during the
preceding fiscal year under subsection (a); and
(2) all expenditures made by the Secretary under subsection
(b) during the preceding fiscal year.
(e) Enforcement.--If a participating dairy producer or
handler fails to remit or collect the amounts by which
payments to participating dairy producers are reduced under
section 1434, the producer or handler responsible for the
failure shall be liable to the Secretary for the amount that
should have been remitted or collected, plus interest. In
addition to the enforcement authorities available under
section 1437, the Secretary may enforce this subsection in
the courts of the United States.
SEC. 1436. SUSPENSION OF REDUCED PAYMENT REQUIREMENT.
(a) Determination of Prices.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The price in the United States for cheddar cheese and
nonfat dry milk shall be determined by the Secretary.
(2) The world price of cheddar cheese and skim milk powder
shall be determined by the Secretary.
(b) Initial Suspension Thresholds.--The Secretary shall
announce that the stabilization program shall be suspended
whenever the Secretary determines that--
(1) the actual dairy producer margin is greater than $6.00
per hundredweight of milk for two consecutive months;
(2) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than
$6.00 (but greater than $5.00) for two consecutive months,
and during the same two consecutive months--
(A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is
equal to or greater than the world price of cheddar cheese;
or
(B) the price in the United States for nonfat dry milk is
equal to or greater than the world price of skim milk powder;
(3) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than
$5.00 (but greater than $4.00) for two consecutive months,
and during the same two consecutive months--
(A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is
more than 5 percent above the world price of cheddar cheese;
or
(B) the price in the United States for nonfat dry milk is
more than 5 percent above the world price of skim milk
powder; or
(4) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than
$4.00 for two consecutive months, and during the same two
consecutive months--
(A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is
more than 7 percent above the world price of cheddar cheese;
or
(B) the price in the United States for nonfat dry milk is
more than 7 percent above the world price of skim milk
powder.
(c) Enhanced Suspension Thresholds.--If the stabilization
program is not suspended pursuant to subsection (b) for six
consecutive months or more, the stabilization program shall
be suspended whenever the Secretary determines that--
(1) the actual dairy producer margin is greater than $6.00
per hundredweight of milk for two consecutive months;
(2) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than
$6.00 (but greater than $5.00) for two consecutive months,
and during the same two consecutive months--
(A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is
not less than 97 percent of the world price of cheddar
cheese; or
(B) the price in the United States for non-fat dry milk is
not less than 97 percent of the world price of skim milk
powder;
(3) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than
$5.00 (but greater than $4.00) for two consecutive months,
and during the same two consecutive months--
(A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is
more than 3 percent above the world price of cheddar cheese;
or
(B) the price in the United States for non fat dry milk is
more than 3 percent above the world price of skim milk
powder; or
(4) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than
$4.00 for two consecutive months, and during the same two
consecutive months--
(A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is
more than 6 percent above the world price of cheddar cheese;
or
(B) the price in the United States for non fat dry milk is
more than 6 percent above the world price of skim milk
powder.
(d) Implementation by Handlers.--Effective on the day after
the date of the announcement by the Secretary under
subsection (b) or (c) of the suspension of the stabilization
program, the handler shall cease reducing payments to
participating dairy producers under the stabilization
program.
(e) Condition on Resumption of Stabilization Program.--Upon
the announcement by the Secretary under subsection (b) or (c)
that the stabilization program has been suspended, the
stabilization program may not be implemented again until, at
the earliest--
(1) two months have passed, beginning on the first day of
the month immediately following the announcement by the
Secretary; and
(2) the conditions of section 1432(a) are again met.
SEC. 1437. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Unlawful Act.--It shall be unlawful and a violation of
the this subpart for any person subject to the stabilization
program to willfully fail or refuse to provide, or delay the
timely reporting of, accurate information and remittance of
funds to the Secretary in accordance with this subpart.
(b) Order.--After providing notice and opportunity for a
hearing to an affected person, the Secretary may issue an
order against any person to cease and desist from continuing
any violation of this subpart.
(c) Appeal.--An order of the Secretary under subsection (b)
shall be final and conclusive unless an affected person files
an appeal of the order of the Secretary in United States
district court not later than 30 days after the date of the
issuance of the order. A finding of the Secretary in the
order shall be set aside only if the finding is not supported
by substantial evidence.
(d) Noncompliance With Order.--If a person subject to this
subpart fails to obey an order issued under subsection (b)
after the order has become final and unappealable, or after
the appropriate United States district court has entered a
final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the United States
may apply to the appropriate United States district court for
enforcement of the order. If the court determines that the
order was lawfully made and duly served and that the
[[Page H3801]]
person violated the order, the court shall enforce the order.
SEC. 1438. AUDIT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Audits of Producer and Handler Compliance.--
(1) Audits authorized.--If determined by the Secretary to
be necessary to ensure compliance by participating dairy
producers and handlers with the stabilization program, the
Secretary may conduct periodic audits of participating dairy
producers and handlers.
(2) Sample of dairy producers.--Any audit conducted under
this subsection shall include, at a minimum, investigation of
a statistically valid and random sample of participating
dairy producers.
(b) Submission of Results.--The Secretary shall submit the
results of any audit conducted under subsection (a) to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate and include such recommendations as the Secretary
considers appropriate regarding the stabilization program.
Subpart C--Commodity Credit Corporation
SEC. 1451. USE OF COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.
The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and the
authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out
this part.
Subpart D--Initiation and Duration
SEC. 1461. RULEMAKING.
(a) Procedure.--The promulgation of regulations for the
initiation of the margin protection program and the
stabilization program, and for administration of such
programs, shall be made--
(1) without regard to chapter 35 of title 44, United States
Code (commonly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act);
(2) without regard to the Statement of Policy of the
Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed.
Reg. 13804), relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and
public participation in rulemaking; and
(3) subject to subsection (b), pursuant to section 553 of
title 5, United States Code.
(b) Special Rulemaking Requirements.--
(1) Interim rules prohibited for stabilization program.--
With respect to the stabilization program, the Secretary may
not use the authority of subparagraph (B) of section 553(b)
of title 5, United States Code, to promulgate interim rules
or to otherwise avoid the requirements of such section.
(2) Interim rules authorized for margin protection
program.--With respect to the margin protection program, the
Secretary may promulgate interim rules under the authority
provided in subparagraph (B) of section 553(b) of title 5,
United States Code, if the Secretary determines such interim
rules to be needed. Any such interim rules for the margin
protection program shall be effective on publication.
(3) Final rules.--
(A) In general.--With respect to the margin protection
program and stabilization program, the Secretary shall
promulgate final rules, with an opportunity for public notice
and comment, no later than 21 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(B) Additional stabilization program requirement.--The
final rules required for the stabilization program shall
include a certification by the Secretary of compliance with
the requirements contained in sections 1, 3(f), and 6(a) of
Executive Order 12866, as amended (Regulatory Planning and
Review; 5 U.S.C. 601 note) and a detailed description of the
process used by the Secretary to ensure such compliance and
the issues considered, determinations made, and the grounds
for those determinations in such process.
(c) Inclusion of Additional Order.--Section 143(a)(2) of
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7253(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``Subsection (b)(2) does not apply to
the authority of the Secretary under this subsection.''.
SEC. 1462. DURATION.
The margin protection program and the stabilization program
shall end on December 31, 2018.
PART II--REPEAL OR REAUTHORIZATION OF OTHER DAIRY-RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 1481. REPEAL OF DAIRY PRODUCT PRICE SUPPORT AND MILK
INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAMS.
(a) Repeal of Dairy Product Price Support Program.--Section
1501 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 8771) is repealed.
(b) Repeal of Milk Income Loss Contract Program.--Section
1506 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 8773) is repealed.
SEC. 1482. REPEAL OF DAIRY EXPORT INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 153 of the Food Security Act of 1985
(15 U.S.C. 713a-14) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 902(2) of the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22
U.S.C. 7201(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (D); and
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively.
SEC. 1483. EXTENSION OF DAIRY FORWARD PRICING PROGRAM.
Section 1502(e) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8772(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2015'' and inserting
``2021''.
SEC. 1484. EXTENSION OF DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM.
Section 3 of Public Law 90-484 (7 U.S.C. 450l) is amended
by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 1485. EXTENSION OF DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM.
Section 113(e)(2) of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act
of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4504(e)(2)) is amended by striking ``2012''
and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 1486. REPEAL OF FEDERAL MILK MARKETING ORDER REVIEW
COMMISSION.
Section 1509 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1726) is repealed.
PART III--EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 1491. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
Subtitle E--Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs
SEC. 1501. SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible producer on a farm.--
(A) In general.--The term ``eligible producer on a farm''
means an individual or entity described in subparagraph (B)
that, as determined by the Secretary, assumes the production
and market risks associated with the agricultural production
of crops or livestock.
(B) Description.--An individual or entity referred to in
subparagraph (A) is--
(i) a citizen of the United States;
(ii) a resident alien;
(iii) a partnership of citizens of the United States; or
(iv) a corporation, limited liability corporation, or other
farm organizational structure organized under State law.
(2) Farm-raised fish.--The term ``farm-raised fish'' means
any aquatic species that is propagated and reared in a
controlled environment.
(3) Livestock.--The term ``livestock'' includes--
(A) cattle (including dairy cattle);
(B) bison;
(C) poultry;
(D) sheep;
(E) swine;
(F) horses; and
(G) other livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(b) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--
(1) Payments.--For each of the fiscal years 2012 through
2018, the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary of
the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make
livestock indemnity payments to eligible producers on farms
that have incurred livestock death losses in excess of the
normal mortality, as determined by the Secretary, due to--
(A) attacks by animals reintroduced into the wild by the
Federal Government or protected by Federal law, including
wolves and avian predators; or
(B) adverse weather, as determined by the Secretary, during
the calendar year, including losses due to hurricanes,
floods, blizzards, disease, wildfires, extreme heat, and
extreme cold.
(2) Payment rates.--Indemnity payments to an eligible
producer on a farm under paragraph (1) shall be made at a
rate of 75 percent of the market value of the applicable
livestock on the day before the date of death of the
livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
(3) Special rule for payments made due to disease.--The
Secretary shall ensure that payments made to an eligible
producer under paragraph (1) are not made for the same
livestock losses for which compensation is provided pursuant
to section 10407(d) of the Animal Health Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 8306(d)).
(c) Livestock Forage Disaster Program.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Covered livestock.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
term ``covered livestock'' means livestock of an eligible
livestock producer that, during the 60 days prior to the
beginning date of a qualifying drought or fire condition, as
determined by the Secretary, the eligible livestock
producer--
(I) owned;
(II) leased;
(III) purchased;
(IV) entered into a contract to purchase;
(V) is a contract grower; or
(VI) sold or otherwise disposed of due to qualifying
drought conditions during--
(aa) the current production year; or
(bb) subject to paragraph (3)(B)(ii), 1 or both of the 2
production years immediately preceding the current production
year.
(ii) Exclusion.--The term ``covered livestock'' does not
include livestock that were or would have been in a feedlot,
on the beginning date of the qualifying drought or fire
condition, as a part of the normal business operation of the
eligible livestock producer, as determined by the Secretary.
(B) Drought monitor.--The term ``drought monitor'' means a
system for classifying drought severity according to a range
of abnormally dry to exceptional drought, as defined by the
Secretary.
(C) Eligible livestock producer.--
(i) In general.--The term ``eligible livestock producer''
means an eligible producer on a farm that--
(I) is an owner, cash or share lessee, or contract grower
of covered livestock that provides the pastureland or grazing
land, including cash-leased pastureland or grazing land, for
the livestock;
(II) provides the pastureland or grazing land for covered
livestock, including cash-leased pastureland or grazing land
that is physically located in a county affected by drought;
[[Page H3802]]
(III) certifies grazing loss; and
(IV) meets all other eligibility requirements established
under this subsection.
(ii) Exclusion.--The term ``eligible livestock producer''
does not include an owner, cash or share lessee, or contract
grower of livestock that rents or leases pastureland or
grazing land owned by another person on a rate-of-gain basis.
(D) Normal carrying capacity.--The term ``normal carrying
capacity'', with respect to each type of grazing land or
pastureland in a county, means the normal carrying capacity,
as determined under paragraph (3)(D)(i), that would be
expected from the grazing land or pastureland for livestock
during the normal grazing period, in the absence of a drought
or fire that diminishes the production of the grazing land or
pastureland.
(E) Normal grazing period.--The term ``normal grazing
period'', with respect to a county, means the normal grazing
period during the calendar year for the county, as determined
under paragraph (3)(D)(i).
(2) Program.--For each of the fiscal years 2012 through
2018, the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary of
the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide
compensation for losses to eligible livestock producers due
to grazing losses for covered livestock due to--
(A) a drought condition, as described in paragraph (3); or
(B) fire, as described in paragraph (4).
(3) Assistance for losses due to drought conditions.--
(A) Eligible losses.--
(i) In general.--An eligible livestock producer may receive
assistance under this subsection only for grazing losses for
covered livestock that occur on land that--
(I) is native or improved pastureland with permanent
vegetative cover; or
(II) is planted to a crop planted specifically for the
purpose of providing grazing for covered livestock.
(ii) Exclusions.--An eligible livestock producer may not
receive assistance under this subsection for grazing losses
that occur on land used for haying or grazing under the
conservation reserve program 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.).
(B) Monthly payment rate.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
payment rate for assistance under this paragraph for 1 month
shall, in the case of drought, be equal to 60 percent of the
lesser of--
(I) the monthly feed cost for all covered livestock owned
or leased by the eligible livestock producer, as determined
under subparagraph (C); or
(II) the monthly feed cost calculated by using the normal
carrying capacity of the eligible grazing land of the
eligible livestock producer.
(ii) Partial compensation.--In the case of an eligible
livestock producer that sold or otherwise disposed of covered
livestock due to drought conditions in 1 or both of the 2
production years immediately preceding the current production
year, as determined by the Secretary, the payment rate shall
be 80 percent of the payment rate otherwise calculated in
accordance with clause (i).
(C) Monthly feed cost.--
(i) In general.--The monthly feed cost shall equal the
product obtained by multiplying--
(I) 30 days;
(II) a payment quantity that is equal to the feed grain
equivalent, as determined under clause (ii); and
(III) a payment rate that is equal to the corn price per
pound, as determined under clause (iii).
(ii) Feed grain equivalent.--For purposes of clause
(i)(II), the feed grain equivalent shall equal--
(I) in the case of an adult beef cow, 15.7 pounds of corn
per day; or
(II) in the case of any other type of weight of livestock,
an amount determined by the Secretary that represents the
average number of pounds of corn per day necessary to feed
the livestock.
(iii) Corn price per pound.--For purposes of clause
(i)(III), the corn price per pound shall equal the quotient
obtained by dividing--
(I) the higher of--
(aa) the national average corn price per bushel for the 12-
month period immediately preceding March 1 of the year for
which the disaster assistance is calculated; or
(bb) the national average corn price per bushel for the 24-
month period immediately preceding that March 1; by
(II) 56.
(D) Normal grazing period and drought monitor intensity.--
(i) Fsa county committee determinations.--
(I) In general.--The Secretary shall determine the normal
carrying capacity and normal grazing period for each type of
grazing land or pastureland in the county served by the
applicable committee.
(II) Changes.--No change to the normal carrying capacity or
normal grazing period established for a county under
subclause (I) shall be made unless the change is requested by
the appropriate State and county Farm Service Agency
committees.
(ii) Drought intensity.--
(I) D2.--An eligible livestock producer that owns or leases
grazing land or pastureland that is physically located in a
county that is rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor as having a
D2 (severe drought) intensity in any area of the county for
at least 8 consecutive weeks during the normal grazing period
for the county, as determined by the Secretary, shall be
eligible to receive assistance under this paragraph in an
amount equal to 1 monthly payment using the monthly payment
rate determined under subparagraph (B).
(II) D3.--An eligible livestock producer that owns or
leases grazing land or pastureland that is physically located
in a county that is rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor as
having at least a D3 (extreme drought) intensity in any area
of the county at any time during the normal grazing period
for the county, as determined by the Secretary, shall be
eligible to receive assistance under this paragraph--
(aa) in an amount equal to 3 monthly payments using the
monthly payment rate determined under subparagraph (B);
(bb) if the county is rated as having a D3 (extreme
drought) intensity in any area of the county for at least 4
weeks during the normal grazing period for the county, or is
rated as having a D4 (exceptional drought) intensity in any
area of the county at any time during the normal grazing
period, in an amount equal to 4 monthly payments using the
monthly payment rate determined under subparagraph (B); or
(cc) if the county is rated as having a D4 (exceptional
drought) intensity in any area of the county for at least 4
weeks during the normal grazing period, in an amount equal to
5 monthly payments using the monthly rate determined under
subparagraph (B).
(4) Assistance for losses due to fire on public managed
land.--
(A) In general.--An eligible livestock producer may receive
assistance under this paragraph only if--
(i) the grazing losses occur on rangeland that is managed
by a Federal agency; and
(ii) the eligible livestock producer is prohibited by the
Federal agency from grazing the normal permitted livestock on
the managed rangeland due to a fire.
(B) Payment rate.--The payment rate for assistance under
this paragraph shall be equal to 50 percent of the monthly
feed cost for the total number of livestock covered by the
Federal lease of the eligible livestock producer, as
determined under paragraph (3)(C).
(C) Payment duration.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), an eligible
livestock producer shall be eligible to receive assistance
under this paragraph for the period--
(I) beginning on the date on which the Federal agency
excludes the eligible livestock producer from using the
managed rangeland for grazing; and
(II) ending on the last day of the Federal lease of the
eligible livestock producer.
(ii) Limitation.--An eligible livestock producer may only
receive assistance under this paragraph for losses that occur
on not more than 180 days per year.
(5) No duplicative payments.--An eligible livestock
producer may elect to receive assistance for grazing or
pasture feed losses due to drought conditions under paragraph
(3) or fire under paragraph (4), but not both for the same
loss, as determined by the Secretary.
(d) Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and
Farm-raised Fish.--
(1) In general.--For each of the fiscal years 2012 through
2018, the Secretary shall use not more than $20,000,000 of
the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide
emergency relief to eligible producers of livestock, honey
bees, and farm-raised fish to aid in the reduction of losses
due to disease (including cattle tick fever), adverse
weather, or other conditions, such as blizzards and
wildfires, as determined by the Secretary, that are not
covered under subsection (b) or (c).
(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this
subsection shall be used to reduce losses caused by feed or
water shortages, disease, or other factors as determined by
the Secretary.
(3) Availability of funds.--Any funds made available under
this subsection shall remain available until expended.
(e) Tree Assistance Program.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Eligible orchardist.--The term ``eligible orchardist''
means a person that produces annual crops from trees for
commercial purposes.
(B) Natural disaster.--The term ``natural disaster'' means
plant disease, insect infestation, drought, fire, freeze,
flood, earthquake, lightning, or other occurrence, as
determined by the Secretary.
(C) Nursery tree grower.--The term ``nursery tree grower''
means a person who produces nursery, ornamental, fruit, nut,
or Christmas trees for commercial sale, as determined by the
Secretary.
(D) Tree.--The term ``tree'' includes a tree, bush, and
vine.
(2) Eligibility.--
(A) Loss.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for each of the
fiscal years 2012 through 2018, the Secretary shall use such
sums as are necessary of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to provide assistance--
(i) under paragraph (3) to eligible orchardists and nursery
tree growers that planted trees for commercial purposes but
lost the trees as a result of a natural disaster, as
determined by the Secretary; and
(ii) under paragraph (3)(B) to eligible orchardists and
nursery tree growers that have a production history for
commercial purposes on planted or existing trees but lost the
trees as a result of a natural disaster, as determined by the
Secretary.
(B) Limitation.--An eligible orchardist or nursery tree
grower shall qualify for assistance under subparagraph (A)
only if the tree mortality of the eligible orchardist or
nursery tree grower, as a result of damaging weather or
related condition, exceeds 15 percent (adjusted for normal
mortality).
(3) Assistance.--Subject to paragraph (4), the assistance
provided by the Secretary to eligible orchardists and nursery
tree growers for losses described in paragraph (2) shall
consist of--
(A)(i) reimbursement of 65 percent of the cost of
replanting trees lost due to a natural disaster,
[[Page H3803]]
as determined by the Secretary, in excess of 15 percent
mortality (adjusted for normal mortality); or
(ii) at the option of the Secretary, sufficient seedlings
to reestablish a stand; and
(B) reimbursement of 50 percent of the cost of pruning,
removal, and other costs incurred by an eligible orchardist
or nursery tree grower to salvage existing trees or, in the
case of tree mortality, to prepare the land to replant trees
as a result of damage or tree mortality due to a natural
disaster, as determined by the Secretary, in excess of 15
percent damage or mortality (adjusted for normal tree damage
and mortality).
(4) Limitations on assistance.--
(A) Definitions of legal entity and person.--In this
paragraph, the terms ``legal entity'' and ``person'' have the
meaning given those terms in section 1001(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)).
(B) Amount.--The total amount of payments received,
directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity
(excluding a joint venture or general partnership) under this
subsection may not exceed $125,000 for any crop year, or an
equivalent value in tree seedlings.
(C) Acres.--The total quantity of acres planted to trees or
tree seedlings for which a person or legal entity shall be
entitled to receive payments under this subsection may not
exceed 500 acres.
(f) Payment Limitations.--
(1) Definitions of legal entity and person.--In this
subsection, the terms ``legal entity'' and ``person'' have
the meaning given those terms in section 1001(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)).
(2) Amount.--The total amount of disaster assistance
payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or
legal entity (excluding a joint venture or general
partnership) under this section (excluding payments received
under subsection (e)) may not exceed $125,000 for any crop
year.
(3) Direct attribution.--Subsections (e) and (f) of section
1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) or any
successor provisions relating to direct attribution shall
apply with respect to assistance provided under this section.
Subtitle F--Administration
SEC. 1601. ADMINISTRATION GENERALLY.
(a) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall use the funds, facilities, and authorities
of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this title.
(b) Determinations by Secretary.--A determination made by
the Secretary under this title shall be final and conclusive.
(c) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Commodity Credit
Corporation, as appropriate, shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this title and the
amendments made by this title.
(2) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this title and the amendments made by this
title and sections 11003 and 11016 of this Act shall be
made--
(A) pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code,
including by interim rules effective on publication under the
authority provided in subparagraph (B) of subsection (b) of
such section if the Secretary determines such interim rules
to be needed and final rules, with an opportunity for notice
and comment, no later than 21 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act;
(B) without regard to chapter 35 of title 44, United States
Code (commonly known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''); and
(C) without regard to the Statement of Policy of the
Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed.
Reg. 13804), relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and
public participation in rulemaking.
(d) Adjustment Authority Related to Trade Agreements
Compliance.--
(1) Required determination; adjustment.--If the Secretary
determines that expenditures under this title that are
subject to the total allowable domestic support levels under
the Uruguay Round Agreements (as defined in section 2 of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501)) will exceed
the allowable levels for any applicable reporting period, the
Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make
adjustments in the amount of the expenditures during that
period to ensure that the expenditures do not exceed the
allowable levels.
(2) Congressional notification.--Before making any
adjustment under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate a report describing the determination made under
that paragraph and the extent of the adjustment to be made.
SEC. 1602. SUSPENSION OF PERMANENT PRICE SUPPORT AUTHORITY.
(a) Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.--The following
provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 shall
not be applicable to the 2014 through 2018 crops of covered
commodities (as defined in section 1104), cotton, and sugar
and shall not be applicable to milk during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through
December 31, 2018:
(1) Parts II through V of subtitle B of title III (7 U.S.C.
1326 et seq.).
(2) In the case of upland cotton, section 377 (7 U.S.C.
1377).
(3) Subtitle D of title III (7 U.S.C. 1379a et seq.).
(4) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
(b) Agricultural Act of 1949.--The following provisions of
the Agricultural Act of 1949 shall not be applicable to the
2013 through 2018 crops of covered commodities (as defined in
section 1104), cotton, and sugar and shall not be applicable
to milk during the period beginning on the date of enactment
of this Act and through December 31, 2018:
(1) Section 101 (7 U.S.C. 1441).
(2) Section 103(a) (7 U.S.C. 1444(a)).
(3) Section 105 (7 U.S.C. 1444b).
(4) Section 107 (7 U.S.C. 1445a).
(5) Section 110 (7 U.S.C. 1445e).
(6) Section 112 (7 U.S.C. 1445g).
(7) Section 115 (7 U.S.C. 1445k).
(8) Section 201 (7 U.S.C. 1446).
(9) Title III (7 U.S.C. 1447 et seq.).
(10) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.), other than sections
404, 412, and 416 (7 U.S.C. 1424, 1429, and 1431).
(11) Title V (7 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.).
(12) Title VI (7 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.).
(c) Suspension of Certain Quota Provisions.--The joint
resolution entitled ``A joint resolution relating to corn and
wheat marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act
of 1938, as amended'', approved May 26, 1941 (7 U.S.C. 1330,
1340), shall not be applicable to the crops of wheat planted
for harvest in the calendar years 2014 through 2018.
SEC. 1603. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 1001 of the Food Security Act of
1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is amended by striking subsections (b)
and (c) and inserting the following:
``(b) Limitation on Payments for Covered Commodities (other
Than Peanuts).--
``(1) In general.--The total amount of payments received,
directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity (except a
joint venture or general partnership) for any crop year under
section 1101(c) of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk
Management Act of 2013 and subsections (b) and (c) of section
1107 of such Act (other than peanuts) may not exceed
$125,000.
``(2) Additional limitation on payments related to upland
cotton.--The total amount of direct payments received,
directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity (except a
joint venture or a general partnership) for each of the 2014
and 2015 crop years under section 1101(c) of the Federal
Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 may not
exceed $40,000.
``(c) Limitation on Payments for Peanuts.--The total amount
of payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or
legal entity (except a joint venture or general partnership)
for any crop year under subtitle A of title I of the Federal
Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 for
peanuts may not exceed $125,000.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1001(f) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7
U.S.C. 1308(f)) is amended by striking ``or title XII'' each
place it appears in paragraphs (5)(A) and (6)(A) and
inserting ``, title I of the Federal Agriculture Reform and
Risk Management Act of 2013, or title XII''.
(2) Section 1001C(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7
U.S.C. 1308-3(a)) is amended by inserting ``title I of the
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013,''
after ``2008,''.
(c) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply beginning with the 2014 crop year.
SEC. 1604. ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME LIMITATION.
(a) Limitations and Covered Benefits.--Section 1001D(b) of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Limitations''
and inserting ``Limitations on Commodity and Conservation
Programs'';
(2) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following new paragraphs:
``(1) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a person or legal entity shall not be eligible to
receive any benefit described in paragraph (2) during a crop,
fiscal, or program year, as appropriate, if the average
adjusted gross income of the person or legal entity exceeds
$950,000.
``(2) Covered benefits.--Paragraph (1) applies with respect
to a payment or benefit under subtitle A, B, or E of title I,
or title II of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk
Management Act of 2013, title II of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002, title II of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, title XII of the Food
Security Act of 1985, section 524(b) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)), or section 196 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7333).''.
(b) Elimination of Unused Definitions.--Paragraph (1) of
section 1001D(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308-3a(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Average adjusted gross income.--In this section, the
term `average adjusted gross income', with respect to a
person or legal entity, means the average of the adjusted
gross income or comparable measure of the person or legal
entity over the 3 taxable years preceding the most
immediately preceding complete taxable year, as determined by
the Secretary.''.
(c) Income Determination.--Section 1001D of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1001D of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B) of''; and
(B) by striking ``, the average adjusted gross farm income,
and the average adjusted gross nonfarm income'';
(2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``, average adjusted
gross farm income, and average adjusted gross nonfarm
income'' both places it appears;
[[Page H3804]]
(3) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by subsection (c)(2)
of this section)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, average adjusted
gross farm income, and average adjusted gross nonfarm
income'' both places it appears; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraphs (1)(C) and
(2)(B) of subsection (b)'' and inserting ``subsection
(b)(2)''; and
(4) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by subsection (c)(2)
of this section)--
(A) by striking ``paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(B) of
subsection (b)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(2)''; and
(B) by striking ``, average adjusted gross farm income, or
average adjusted gross nonfarm income''.
(e) Effective Period.--Subsection (e) of section 1001D of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a), as
redesignated by subsection (c)(2) of this section, is amended
by striking ``2009 through 2012'' and inserting ``2014
through 2018''.
(f) Limitation on Applicability.--Section 1001(d) of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is amended by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``or
title I of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management
Act of 2013''.
(g) Transition.--Section 1001D of the Food Security Act of
1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a), as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of this Act, shall apply with respect
to the 2013 crop, fiscal, or program year, as appropriate,
for each program described in paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(B) of
subsection (b) of that section (as so in effect on that day).
SEC. 1605. GEOGRAPHICALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS.
Section 1621(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8792(d)) is amended by striking ``2012''
and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 1606. PERSONAL LIABILITY OF PRODUCERS FOR DEFICIENCIES.
Section 164 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7284) is amended by striking
``and title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008'' each place it appears and inserting ``title I of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8702 et
seq.), and title I of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk
Management Act of 2013''.
SEC. 1607. PREVENTION OF DECEASED INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING
PAYMENTS UNDER FARM COMMODITY PROGRAMS.
(a) Reconciliation.--At least twice each year, the
Secretary shall reconcile social security numbers of all
individuals who receive payments under this title, whether
directly or indirectly, with the Commissioner of Social
Security to determined if the individuals are alive.
(b) Preclusion.--The Secretary shall preclude the issuance
of payments to, and on behalf of, deceased individuals that
were not eligible for payments.
SEC. 1608. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) Missing Punctuation.--Section 359f(c)(1)(B) of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C.
1359ff(c)(1)(B)) is amended by adding a period at the end.
(b) Erroneous Cross Reference.--
(1) Amendment.--Section 1603(g) of the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1739)
is amended in paragraphs (2) through (6) and the amendments
made by those paragraphs by striking ``1703(a)'' each place
it appears and inserting ``1603(a)''.
(2) Effective date.--This subsection and the amendments
made by this subsection take effect as if included in the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-
246; 122 Stat. 1651).
(c) Continued Applicability of Appropriations General
Provision.--Section 767 of division A of Public Law 108-7 (7
U.S.C. 7911 note; 117 Stat. 48) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``sections 1101 and 1102 of Public Law 107-
171'' and inserting ``subtitle A of title I of the Federal
Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013''; and
(B) by striking ``such section 1102'' and inserting ``such
subtitle''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(b) This section, as amended by section 1608(c) of the
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013,
shall take effect beginning with the 2014 crop year.''.
SEC. 1609. ASSIGNMENT OF PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--The provisions of section 8(g) of the Soil
Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(g)),
relating to assignment of payments, shall apply to payments
made under this title.
(b) Notice.--The producer making the assignment, or the
assignee, shall provide the Secretary with notice, in such
manner as the Secretary may require, of any assignment made
under this section.
SEC. 1610. TRACKING OF BENEFITS.
As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary may track the benefits provided, directly
or indirectly, to individuals and entities under titles I and
II and the amendments made by those titles.
SEC. 1611. SIGNATURE AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--In carrying out this title and title II
and amendments made by those titles, if the Secretary
approves a document, the Secretary shall not subsequently
determine the document is inadequate or invalid because of
the lack of authority of any person signing the document on
behalf of the applicant or any other individual, entity,
general partnership, or joint venture, or the documents
relied upon were determined inadequate or invalid, unless the
person signing the program document knowingly and willfully
falsified the evidence of signature authority or a signature.
(b) Affirmation.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this section prohibits the
Secretary from asking a proper party to affirm any document
that otherwise would be considered approved under subsection
(a).
(2) No retroactive effect.--A denial of benefits based on a
lack of affirmation under paragraph (1) shall not be
retroactive with respect to third-party producers who were
not the subject of the erroneous representation of authority,
if the third-party producers--
(A) relied on the prior approval by the Secretary of the
documents in good faith; and
(B) substantively complied with all program requirements.
SEC. 1612. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) Streamlining.--In implementing this title, the
Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
(1) seek to reduce administrative burdens and costs to
producers by streamlining and reducing paperwork, forms, and
other administrative requirements;
(2) improve coordination, information sharing, and
administrative work with the Risk Management Agency and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service; and
(3) take advantage of new technologies to enhance
efficiency and effectiveness of program delivery to
producers.
(b) Maintenance of Base Acres and Payment Yields.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain through
September 30, 2018, for each covered commodity and upland
cotton, base acres and payment yields on a farm established
under--
(A)(i) in the case of covered commodities and upland
cotton, sections 1101 and 1102 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7911, 7912); and
(ii) in the case of peanuts, section 1302 of that Act (7
U.S.C. 7952); and
(B)(i) in the case of covered commodities and upland
cotton, sections 1101 and 1102 of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8711, 8712); and
(ii) in the case of peanuts, section 1302 of that Act (7
U.S.C. 8752).
(2) Special rule for long grain and medium grain rice.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain separate base
acres for long grain rice and medium grain rice.
(B) Limitation.--In carrying out this paragraph, the
Secretary shall use the same total base acres and payment
yields established with respect to rice under sections 1108
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
8718), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act, subject to any adjustment under section 1105.
(c) Implementation.--The Secretary shall make available to
the Farm Service Agency to carry out this title $100,000,000.
SEC. 1613. PROTECTION OF PRODUCER INFORMATION.
(a) Prohibition of Public Disclosure of Protected
Information.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Secretary, any officer or employee of the Department of
Agriculture, any contractor or cooperator of the Department,
and any officer or employee of another Federal agency shall
not disclose--
(1) information submitted by a producer or owner of
agricultural land to the Federal Government pursuant to title
I or II of this Act; or
(2) other information provided by a producer or owner of
agricultural land concerning the agricultural operation,
farming or conservation practices, or the land itself in
order to participate in programs of the Department of
Agriculture or other Federal agencies.
(b) Exceptions.--Information described in subsection (a)
may be disclosed if--
(1) the information is required to be made publicly
available under any other provision of Federal law;
(2) the producer or owner of agricultural land who provided
the information has lawfully publicly disclosed the
information;
(3) the producer or owner of agricultural land who provided
the information consents to the disclosure; or
(4) the information is disclosed to the Attorney General,
to the extent necessary, to ensure compliance and law
enforcement.
(c) Notice of Disclosure.--Any disclosure of information
pursuant to an exception provided in subsection (b) shall be
reported to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate within 24 hours after the
disclosure.
(d) Producer Defined.--In this section, the term
``producer'' has the meaning given that term in section
1104(14) of this Act.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
Subtitle A--Conservation Reserve Program
SEC. 2001. EXTENSION AND ENROLLMENT REQUIREMENTS OF
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.
(a) Extension.--Section 1231(a) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(a)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
(b) Eligible Land.--Section 1231(b) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``the date of
enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008''
and inserting ``the date of the enactment of the Federal
Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph
(3) as paragraph (2);
(3) by inserting before paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) grasslands that--
``(A) contain forbs or shrubland (including improved
rangeland and pastureland) for which grazing is the
predominant use;
[[Page H3805]]
``(B) are located in an area historically dominated by
grasslands; and
``(C) could provide habitat for animal and plant
populations of significant ecological value if the land is
retained in its current use or restored to a natural
condition;'';
(4) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ``filterstrips devoted
to trees or shrubs'' and inserting ``filterstrips or riparian
buffers devoted to trees, shrubs, or grasses''; and
(5) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(5) the portion of land in a field not enrolled in the
conservation reserve in a case in which--
``(A) more than 50 percent of the land in the field is
enrolled as a buffer or filterstrip, or more than 75 percent
of the land in the field is enrolled as a conservation
practice other than as a buffer or filterstrip; and
``(B) the remainder of the field is--
``(i) infeasible to farm; and
``(ii) enrolled at regular rental rates.''.
(c) Planting Status of Certain Land.--Section 1231(c) of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(c)) is amended
by striking ``if'' and all that follows through the period at
the end and inserting ``if, during the crop year, the land
was devoted to a conserving use.''.
(d) Enrollment.--Subsection (d) of section 1231 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831) is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Enrollment.--
``(1) Maximum acreage enrolled.--The Secretary may maintain
in the conservation reserve at any one time during--
``(A) fiscal year 2014, no more than 27,500,000 acres;
``(B) fiscal year 2015, no more than 26,000,000 acres;
``(C) fiscal year 2016, no more than 25,000,000 acres;
``(D) fiscal year 2017, no more than 24,000,000 acres; and
``(E) fiscal year 2018, no more than 24,000,000 acres.
``(2) Grasslands.--
``(A) Limitation.--For purposes of applying the limitations
in paragraph (1), no more than 2,000,000 acres of the land
described in subsection (b)(3) may be enrolled in the program
at any one time during the 2014 through 2018 fiscal years.
``(B) Priority.--In enrolling acres under subparagraph (A),
the Secretary may give priority to land with expiring
conservation reserve program contracts.
``(C) Method of enrollment.--In enrolling acres under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall make the program
available to owners or operators of eligible land on a
continuous enrollment basis with one or more ranking
periods.''.
(e) Duration of Contract.--Section 1231(e) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(e)) is amended by
striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(2) Special rule for certain land.--In the case of land
devoted to hardwood trees, shelterbelts, windbreaks, or
wildlife corridors under a contract entered into under this
subchapter, the owner or operator of the land may, within the
limitations prescribed under paragraph (1), specify the
duration of the contract.''.
(f) Conservation Priority Areas.--Section 1231(f) of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``watershed areas of the
Chesapeake Bay Region, the Great Lakes Region, the Long
Island Sound Region, and other'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``watersheds.--
Watersheds'' and inserting ``areas.--Areas''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a watershed's
designation--'' and all that follows through the period at
the end and inserting ``an area's designation if the
Secretary finds that the area no longer contains actual and
significant adverse water quality or habitat impacts related
to agricultural production activities.''.
SEC. 2002. FARMABLE WETLAND PROGRAM.
(a) Extension.--Section 1231B(a)(1) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831b(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''; and
(2) by striking ``a program'' and inserting ``a farmable
wetland program''.
(b) Eligible Acreage.--Section 1231B(b)(1)(B) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831b(b)(1)(B)) is amended by
striking ``flow from a row crop agriculture drainage system''
and inserting ``surface and subsurface flow from row crop
agricultural production''.
(c) Acreage Limitation.--Section 1231B(c)(1)(B) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831b(c)(1)(B)) is amended by
striking ``1,000,000'' and inserting ``750,000''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The heading of section 1231B of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831b) is amended to
read as follows: ``farmable wetland program''.
SEC. 2003. DUTIES OF OWNERS AND OPERATORS.
(a) Limitation on Harvesting, Grazing, or Commercial Use of
Forage.--Section 1232(a)(8) of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(8)) is amended by striking ``except that''
and all that follows through the semicolon at the end of the
paragraph and inserting ``except as provided in subsection
(b) or (c) of section 1233;''.
(b) Conservation Plan Requirements.--Subsection (b) of
section 1232 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3832) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Conservation Plans.--The plan referred to in
subsection (a)(1) shall set forth--
``(1) the conservation measures and practices to be carried
out by the owner or operator during the term of the contract;
and
``(2) the commercial use, if any, to be permitted on the
land during the term.''.
(c) Rental Payment Reduction.--Section 1232 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3832) is amended by striking
subsection (d).
SEC. 2004. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
Section 1233 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3833) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1233. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
``(a) Cost-share and Rental Payments.--In return for a
contract entered into by an owner or operator under the
conservation reserve program, the Secretary shall--
``(1) share the cost of carrying out the conservation
measures and practices set forth in the contract for which
the Secretary determines that cost sharing is appropriate and
in the public interest; and
``(2) for a period of years not in excess of the term of
the contract, pay an annual rental payment in an amount
necessary to compensate for--
``(A) the conversion of highly erodible cropland or other
eligible lands normally devoted to the production of an
agricultural commodity on a farm or ranch to a less intensive
use;
``(B) the retirement of any base history that the owner or
operator agrees to retire permanently; and
``(C) the development and management of grasslands for
multiple natural resource conservation benefits, including to
soil, water, air, and wildlife.
``(b) Specified Activities Permitted.--The Secretary shall
permit certain activities or commercial uses of land that is
subject to a contract under the conservation reserve program
in a manner that is consistent with a plan approved by the
Secretary, as follows:
``(1) Harvesting, grazing, or other commercial use of the
forage in response to a drought or other emergency created by
a natural disaster, without any reduction in the rental rate.
``(2) Consistent with the conservation of soil, water
quality, and wildlife habitat (including habitat during
nesting seasons for birds in the area), and in exchange for a
reduction of not less than 25 percent in the annual rental
rate for the acres covered by the authorized activity--
``(A) managed harvesting and other commercial use
(including the managed harvesting of biomass), except that in
permitting managed harvesting, the Secretary, in coordination
with the State technical committee--
``(i) shall develop appropriate vegetation management
requirements; and
``(ii) shall identify periods during which managed
harvesting may be conducted, such that the frequency is not
more than once every three years;
``(B) routine grazing or prescribed grazing for the control
of invasive species, except that in permitting such routine
grazing or prescribed grazing, the Secretary, in coordination
with the State technical committee--
``(i) shall develop appropriate vegetation management
requirements and stocking rates for the land that are
suitable for continued routine grazing; and
``(ii) shall identify the periods during which routine
grazing may be conducted, such that the frequency is not more
than once every two years, taking into consideration regional
differences such as--
``(I) climate, soil type, and natural resources;
``(II) the number of years that should be required between
routine grazing activities; and
``(III) how often during a year in which routine grazing is
permitted that routine grazing should be allowed to occur;
and
``(C) the installation of wind turbines and associated
access, except that in permitting the installation of wind
turbines, the Secretary shall determine the number and
location of wind turbines that may be installed, taking into
account--
``(i) the location, size, and other physical
characteristics of the land;
``(ii) the extent to which the land contains wildlife and
wildlife habitat; and
``(iii) the purposes of the conservation reserve program
under this subchapter.
``(3) The intermittent and seasonal use of vegetative
buffer practices incidental to agricultural production on
lands adjacent to the buffer such that the permitted use does
not destroy the permanent vegetative cover.
``(c) Authorized Activities on Grasslands.--For eligible
land described in section 1231(b)(3), the Secretary shall
permit the following activities:
``(1) Common grazing practices, including maintenance and
necessary cultural practices, on the land in a manner that is
consistent with maintaining the viability of grassland, forb,
and shrub species appropriate to that locality.
``(2) Haying, mowing, or harvesting for seed production,
subject to appropriate restrictions during the nesting season
for critical bird species in the area.
``(3) Fire presuppression, fire-related rehabilitation, and
construction of fire breaks.
``(4) Grazing-related activities, such as fencing and
livestock watering.
``(d) Resource Conserving Use.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 1 year
before the date of termination of a contract under the
program, the Secretary shall allow an owner or operator to
make conservation and land improvements that facilitate
maintaining protection of enrolled land after expiration of
the contract.
``(2) Conservation plan.--The Secretary shall require an
owner or operator carrying out the activities described in
paragraph (1) to develop and implement a conservation plan.
``(3) Re-enrollment prohibited.--Land improved under
paragraph (1) may not be re-enrolled in the conservation
reserve program for 5 years after the date of termination of
the contract.''.
[[Page H3806]]
SEC. 2005. PAYMENTS.
(a) Trees, Windbreaks, Shelterbelts, and Wildlife
Corridors.--Section 1234(b)(3)(A) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834(b)(3)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) by striking clause (ii); and
(3) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
(b) Annual Rental Payments.--Section 1234(c) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or other eligible
lands'' after ``highly erodible cropland'' both places it
appears; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(2) Methods of determination.--
``(A) In general.--The amounts payable to owners or
operators in the form of rental payments under contracts
entered into under this subchapter may be determined
through--
``(i) the submission of bids for such contracts by owners
and operators in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe;
or
``(ii) such other means as the Secretary determines are
appropriate.
``(B) Grasslands.--In the case of eligible land described
in section 1231(b)(3), the Secretary shall make annual
payments in an amount that is not more than 75 percent of the
grazing value of the land covered by the contract.''.
(c) Payment Schedule.--Subsection (d) of section 1234 of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834) is amended to
read as follows:
``(d) Payment Schedule.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, payments under this subchapter shall be made in cash
in such amount and on such time schedule as is agreed on and
specified in the contract.
``(2) Advance payment.--Payments under this subchapter may
be made in advance of determination of performance.''.
(d) Payment Limitation.--Section 1234(f) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, including rental
payments made in the form of in-kind commodities,'';
(2) by striking paragraph (3); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).
SEC. 2006. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Early Termination by Owner or Operator.--Section
1235(e) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3835(e))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``During
fiscal year 2014, the Secretary''; and
(B) by striking ``before January 1, 1995,'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and
inserting the following:
``(C) Land devoted to hardwood trees.
``(D) Wildlife habitat, duck nesting habitat, pollinator
habitat, upland bird habitat buffer, wildlife food plots,
State acres for wildlife enhancement, shallow water areas for
wildlife, and rare and declining habitat.
``(E) Farmable wetland and restored wetland.
``(F) Land that contains diversions, erosion control
structures, flood control structures, contour grass strips,
living snow fences, salinity reducing vegetation, cross wind
trap strips, and sediment retention structures.
``(G) Land located within a federally-designated wellhead
protection area.
``(H) Land that is covered by an easement under the
conservation reserve program.
``(I) Land located within an average width, according to
the applicable Natural Resources Conservation Service field
office technical guide, of a perennial stream or permanent
water body.''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``60 days after the date
on which the owner or operator submits the notice required
under paragraph (1)(C)'' and inserting ``upon approval by the
Secretary''.
(b) Transition Option for Certain Farmers or Ranchers.--
Section 1235(f) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3835(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``Duties'' and all that follows through ``a beginning
farmer'' and inserting ``Transition to covered farmer or
rancher.--In the case of a contract modification approved in
order to facilitate the transfer of land subject to a
contract from a retired farmer or rancher to a beginning
farmer'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ``, including
preparing to plant an agricultural crop'' after
``improvements'';
(C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``the farmer or
rancher'' and inserting ``the covered farmer or rancher'';
and
(D) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``section
1001A(b)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``section 1001''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``requirement of section
1231(h)(4)(B)'' and inserting ``option pursuant to section
1234(c)(2)(A)(ii)''.
(c) Final Year Contract.--Section 1235 of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3835) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsections:
``(g) Final Year of Contract.--The Secretary shall not
consider an owner or operator to be in violation of a term or
condition of the conservation reserve contract if--
``(1) during the year prior to expiration of the contract,
the land is enrolled in the conservation stewardship program;
and
``(2) the activity required under the conservation
stewardship program pursuant to such enrollment is consistent
with this subchapter.
``(h) Land Enrolled in Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program.--The Secretary may terminate or modify a contract
entered into under this subchapter if eligible land that is
subject to such contract is transferred into the agricultural
conservation easement program under subtitle H.''.
SEC. 2007. CONVERSION OF LAND SUBJECT TO CONTRACT TO OTHER
CONSERVING USES.
Section 1235A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3835a) is repealed.
SEC. 2008. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this subtitle shall
take effect on October 1, 2013, except the amendment made by
section 2001(d), which shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Effect on Existing Contracts.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this subtitle shall not affect the
validity or terms of any contract entered into by the
Secretary of Agriculture 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.) before October 1, 2013, or any payments
required to be made in connection with the contract.
(2) Updating of existing contracts.--The Secretary shall
permit an owner or operator of land subject to 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.) before October 1, 2013, to update the contract to
reflect the activities and uses of land under contract
permitted under the terms and conditions of section 1233(b)
of that Act (as amended by section 2004), as determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
Subtitle B--Conservation Stewardship Program
SEC. 2101. CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Revision of Current Program.--Subchapter B of chapter 2
of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3838d et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``Subchapter B--Conservation Stewardship Program
``SEC. 1238D. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subchapter:
``(1) Agricultural operation.--The term `agricultural
operation' means all eligible land, whether or not
contiguous, that is--
``(A) under the effective control of a producer at the time
the producer enters into a contract under the program; and
``(B) operated with equipment, labor, management, and
production or cultivation practices that are substantially
separate from other agricultural operations, as determined by
the Secretary.
``(2) Conservation activities.--
``(A) In general.--The term `conservation activities' means
conservation systems, practices, or management measures.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `conservation activities'
includes--
``(i) structural measures, vegetative measures, and land
management measures, including agriculture drainage
management systems, as determined by the Secretary; and
``(ii) planning needed to address a priority resource
concern.
``(3) Conservation stewardship plan.--The term
`conservation stewardship plan' means a plan that--
``(A) identifies and inventories priority resource
concerns;
``(B) establishes benchmark data and conservation
objectives;
``(C) describes conservation activities to be implemented,
managed, or improved; and
``(D) includes a schedule and evaluation plan for the
planning, installation, and management of the new and
existing conservation activities.
``(4) Eligible land.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible land' means--
``(i) private or tribal land on which agricultural
commodities, livestock, or forest-related products are
produced; and
``(ii) lands associated with the land described in clause
(i) on which priority resource concerns could be addressed
through a contract under the program.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible land' includes--
``(i) cropland;
``(ii) grassland;
``(iii) rangeland;
``(iv) pasture land;
``(v) nonindustrial private forest land; and
``(vi) other agricultural areas (including cropped
woodland, marshes, and agricultural land used or capable of
being used for the production of livestock), as determined by
the Secretary.
``(5) Priority resource concern.--The term `priority
resource concern' means a natural resource concern or
problem, as determined by the Secretary, that--
``(A) is identified at the national, State, or local level
as a priority for a particular area of a State;
``(B) represents a significant concern in a State or
region; and
``(C) is likely to be addressed successfully through the
implementation of conservation activities under this program.
``(6) Program.--The term `program' means the conservation
stewardship program established by this subchapter.
``(7) Stewardship threshold.--The term `stewardship
threshold' means the level of management required, as
determined by the Secretary, to conserve and improve the
quality and condition of a natural resource.
``SEC. 1238E. CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment and Purpose.--During each of fiscal
years 2014 through 2018, the Secretary shall carry out a
conservation stewardship program to encourage producers to
address
[[Page H3807]]
priority resource concerns in a comprehensive manner--
``(1) by undertaking additional conservation activities;
and
``(2) by improving, maintaining, and managing existing
conservation activities.
``(b) Exclusions.--
``(1) Land enrolled in other conservation programs.--
Subject to paragraph (2), the following land (even if covered
by the definition of eligible land) is not eligible for
enrollment in the program:
``(A) Land enrolled in the conservation reserve program,
unless--
``(i) the conservation reserve contract will expire at the
end of the fiscal year in which the land is to be enrolled in
the program; and
``(ii) conservation reserve program payments for land
enrolled in the program cease before the first program
payment is made to the applicant under this subchapter.
``(B) Land enrolled in a wetland easement through the
agricultural conservation easement program.
``(C) Land enrolled in the conservation security program.
``(2) Conversion to cropland.--Eligible land used for crop
production after October 1, 2013, that had not been planted,
considered to be planted, or devoted to crop production for
at least 4 of the 6 years preceding that date shall not be
the basis for any payment under the program, unless the land
does not meet the requirement because--
``(A) the land had previously been enrolled in the
conservation reserve program;
``(B) the land has been maintained using long-term crop
rotation practices, as determined by the Secretary; or
``(C) the land is incidental land needed for efficient
operation of the farm or ranch, as determined by the
Secretary.
``SEC. 1238F. STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTS.
``(a) Submission of Contract Offers.--To be eligible to
participate in the conservation stewardship program, a
producer shall submit to the Secretary a contract offer for
the agricultural operation that--
``(1) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary
that the producer, at the time of the contract offer, meets
or exceeds the stewardship threshold for at least 2 priority
resource concerns; and
``(2) would, at a minimum, meet or exceed the stewardship
threshold for at least 1 additional priority resource concern
by the end of the stewardship contract by--
``(A) installing and adopting additional conservation
activities; and
``(B) improving, maintaining, and managing existing
conservation activities across the entire agricultural
operation in a manner that increases or extends the
conservation benefits in place at the time the contract offer
is accepted by the Secretary.
``(b) Evaluation of Contract Offers.--
``(1) Ranking of applications.--In evaluating contract
offers submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
rank applications based on--
``(A) the level of conservation treatment on all applicable
priority resource concerns at the time of application;
``(B) the degree to which the proposed conservation
activities effectively increase conservation performance;
``(C) the number of applicable priority resource concerns
proposed to be treated to meet or exceed the stewardship
threshold by the end of the contract;
``(D) the extent to which other priority resource concerns
will be addressed to meet or exceed the stewardship threshold
by the end of the contract period;
``(E) the extent to which the actual and anticipated
conservation benefits from the contract are provided at the
least cost relative to other similarly beneficial contract
offers; and
``(F) the extent to which priority resource concerns will
be addressed when transitioning from the conservation reserve
program to agricultural production.
``(2) Prohibition.--The Secretary may not assign a higher
priority to any application because the applicant is willing
to accept a lower payment than the applicant would otherwise
be eligible to receive.
``(3) Additional criteria.--The Secretary may develop and
use such additional criteria that the Secretary determines
are necessary to ensure that national, State, and local
priority resource concerns are effectively addressed.
``(c) Entering Into Contracts.--After a determination that
a producer is eligible for the program under subsection (a),
and a determination that the contract offer ranks
sufficiently high under the evaluation criteria under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall enter into a conservation
stewardship contract with the producer to enroll the eligible
land to be covered by the contract.
``(d) Contract Provisions.--
``(1) Term.--A conservation stewardship contract shall be
for a term of 5 years.
``(2) Required provisions.--The conservation stewardship
contract of a producer shall--
``(A) state the amount of the payment the Secretary agrees
to make to the producer for each year of the conservation
stewardship contract under section 1238G(d);
``(B) require the producer--
``(i) to implement a conservation stewardship plan that
describes the program purposes to be achieved through 1 or
more conservation activities;
``(ii) to maintain and supply information as required by
the Secretary to determine compliance with the conservation
stewardship plan and any other requirements of the program;
and
``(iii) not to conduct any activities on the agricultural
operation that would tend to defeat the purposes of the
program;
``(C) permit all economic uses of the eligible land that--
``(i) maintain the agricultural nature of the land; and
``(ii) are consistent with the conservation purposes of the
conservation stewardship contract;
``(D) include a provision to ensure that a producer shall
not be considered in violation of the contract for failure to
comply with the contract due to circumstances beyond the
control of the producer, including a disaster or related
condition, as determined by the Secretary;
``(E) include provisions requiring that upon the violation
of a term or condition of the contract at any time the
producer has control of the land--
``(i) if the Secretary determines that the violation
warrants termination of the contract--
``(I) the producer shall forfeit all rights to receive
payments under the contract; and
``(II) the producer shall refund all or a portion of the
payments received by the producer under the contract,
including any interest on the payments, as determined by the
Secretary; or
``(ii) if the Secretary determines that the violation does
not warrant termination of the contract, the producer shall
refund or accept adjustments to the payments provided to the
producer, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate;
``(F) include provisions in accordance with paragraphs (3)
and (4) of this section; and
``(G) include any additional provisions the Secretary
determines are necessary to carry out the program.
``(3) Change of interest in land subject to a contract.--
``(A) In general.--At the time of application, a producer
shall have control of the eligible land to be enrolled in the
program. Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a change in
the interest of a producer in eligible land covered by a
contract under the program shall result in the termination of
the contract with regard to that land.
``(B) Transfer of duties and rights.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply if--
``(i) within a reasonable period of time (as determined by
the Secretary) after the date of the change in the interest
in eligible land covered by a contract under the program, the
transferee of the land provides written notice to the
Secretary that all duties and rights under the contract have
been transferred to, and assumed by, the transferee for the
portion of the land transferred;
``(ii) the transferee meets the eligibility requirements of
the program; and
``(iii) the Secretary approves the transfer of all duties
and rights under the contract.
``(4) Modification and termination of contracts.--
``(A) Voluntary modification or termination.--The Secretary
may modify or terminate a contract with a producer if--
``(i) the producer agrees to the modification or
termination; and
``(ii) the Secretary determines that the modification or
termination is in the public interest.
``(B) Involuntary termination.--The Secretary may terminate
a contract if the Secretary determines that the producer
violated the contract.
``(5) Repayment.--If a contract is terminated, the
Secretary may, consistent with the purposes of the program--
``(A) allow the producer to retain payments already
received under the contract; or
``(B) require repayment, in whole or in part, of payments
received and assess liquidated damages.
``(e) Contract Renewal.--At the end of the initial 5-year
contract period, the Secretary may allow the producer to
renew the contract for 1 additional 5-year period if the
producer--
``(1) demonstrates compliance with the terms of the initial
contract;
``(2) agrees to adopt and continue to integrate
conservation activities across the entire agricultural
operation, as determined by the Secretary; and
``(3) agrees, by the end of the contract period--
``(A) to meet the stewardship threshold of at least two
additional priority resource concerns on the agricultural
operation; or
``(B) to exceed the stewardship threshold of two existing
priority resource concerns that are specified by the
Secretary in the initial contract.
``SEC. 1238G. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
``(a) In General.--To achieve the conservation goals of a
contract under the conservation stewardship program, the
Secretary shall--
``(1) make the program available to eligible producers on a
continuous enrollment basis with 1 or more ranking periods,
one of which shall occur in the first quarter of each fiscal
year;
``(2) identify not less than 5 priority resource concerns
in a particular watershed or other appropriate region or area
within a State; and
``(3) establish a science-based stewardship threshold for
each priority resource concern identified under paragraph
(2).
``(b) Allocation to States.--The Secretary shall allocate
acres to States for enrollment, based--
``(1) primarily on each State's proportion of eligible land
to the total acreage of eligible land in all States; and
``(2) also on consideration of--
``(A) the extent and magnitude of the conservation needs
associated with agricultural production in each State;
``(B) the degree to which implementation of the program in
the State is, or will be, effective in helping producers
address those needs; and
``(C) other considerations to achieve equitable geographic
distribution of funds, as determined by the Secretary.
``(c) Acreage Enrollment Limitation.--During the period
beginning on October 1, 2013,
[[Page H3808]]
and ending on September 30, 2021, the Secretary shall, to the
maximum extent practicable--
``(1) enroll in the program an additional 8,695,000 acres
for each fiscal year; and
``(2) manage the program to achieve a national average rate
of $18 per acre, which shall include the costs of all
financial assistance, technical assistance, and any other
expenses associated with enrollment or participation in the
program.
``(d) Conservation Stewardship Payments.--
``(1) Availability of payments.--The Secretary shall
provide annual payments under the program to compensate the
producer for--
``(A) installing and adopting additional conservation
activities; and
``(B) improving, maintaining, and managing conservation
activities in place at the agricultural operation of the
producer at the time the contract offer is accepted by the
Secretary.
``(2) Payment amount.--The amount of the conservation
stewardship annual payment shall be determined by the
Secretary and based, to the maximum extent practicable, on
the following factors:
``(A) Costs incurred by the producer associated with
planning, design, materials, installation, labor, management,
maintenance, or training.
``(B) Income forgone by the producer.
``(C) Expected conservation benefits.
``(D) The extent to which priority resource concerns will
be addressed through the installation and adoption of
conservation activities on the agricultural operation.
``(E) The level of stewardship in place at the time of
application and maintained over the term of the contract.
``(F) The degree to which the conservation activities will
be integrated across the entire agricultural operation for
all applicable priority resource concerns over the term of
the contract.
``(G) Such other factors as determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(3) Exclusions.--A payment to a producer under this
subsection shall not be provided for--
``(A) the design, construction, or maintenance of animal
waste storage or treatment facilities or associated waste
transport or transfer devices for animal feeding operations;
or
``(B) conservation activities for which there is no cost
incurred or income forgone to the producer.
``(4) Delivery of payments.--In making payments under this
subsection, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable--
``(A) prorate conservation performance over the term of the
contract so as to accommodate, to the extent practicable,
producers earning equal annual payments in each fiscal year;
and
``(B) make payments as soon as practicable after October 1
of each fiscal year for activities carried out in the
previous fiscal year.
``(e) Supplemental Payments for Resource-conserving Crop
Rotations.--
``(1) Availability of payments.--The Secretary shall
provide additional payments to producers that, in
participating in the program, agree to adopt or improve
resource-conserving crop rotations to achieve beneficial crop
rotations as appropriate for the eligible land of the
producers.
``(2) Beneficial crop rotations.--The Secretary shall
determine whether a resource-conserving crop rotation is a
beneficial crop rotation eligible for additional payments
under paragraph (1) based on whether the resource-conserving
crop rotation is designed to provide natural resource
conservation and production benefits.
``(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a payment
described in paragraph (1), a producer shall agree to adopt
and maintain beneficial resource-conserving crop rotations
for the term of the contract.
``(4) Resource-conserving crop rotation.--In this
subsection, the term `resource-conserving crop rotation'
means a crop rotation that--
``(A) includes at least 1 resource conserving crop (as
defined by the Secretary);
``(B) reduces erosion;
``(C) improves soil fertility and tilth;
``(D) interrupts pest cycles; and
``(E) in applicable areas, reduces depletion of soil
moisture or otherwise reduces the need for irrigation.
``(f) Payment Limitations.--A person or legal entity may
not receive, directly or indirectly, payments under the
program that, in the aggregate, exceed $200,000 under all
contracts entered into during fiscal years 2014 through 2018,
excluding funding arrangements with Indian tribes, regardless
of the number of contracts entered into under the program by
the person or legal entity.
``(g) Specialty Crop and Organic Producers.--The Secretary
shall ensure that outreach and technical assistance are
available, and program specifications are appropriate to
enable specialty crop and organic producers to participate in
the program.
``(h) Coordination With Organic Certification.--The
Secretary shall establish a transparent means by which
producers may initiate organic certification under the
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.)
while participating in a contract under the program.
``(i) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations that--
``(1) prescribe such other rules as the Secretary
determines to be necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable
application of the limitations established under subsection
(f); and
``(2) otherwise enable the Secretary to carry out the
program.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
(c) Effect on Existing Contracts.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall
not affect the validity or terms of any contract entered into
by the Secretary of Agriculture under subchapter B of chapter
2 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3838d et seq.) before October 1, 2013, or any
payments required to be made in connection with the contract.
(2) Conservation stewardship program.--Funds made available
under section 1241(a)(4) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3841(a)(4)) (as amended by section 2601(a) of this
title) may be used to administer and make payments to program
participants that enrolled into contracts during any of
fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
Subtitle C--Environmental Quality Incentives Program
SEC. 2201. PURPOSES.
Section 1240 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C)
and, in such subparagraph, by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) developing and improving wildlife habitat; and'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
period; and
(3) by striking paragraph (5).
SEC. 2202. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.
Section 1240B of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-2) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2014'' and inserting
``2018'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following new paragraph:
``(2) Term.--A contract under the program shall have a term
that does not exceed 10 years.'';
(3) in subsection (d)(4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause
(i), by inserting ``, veteran farmer or rancher (as defined
in section 2501(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(e))),'' before ``or a
beginning farmer or rancher''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following new subparagraph:
``(B) Advance payments.--
``(i) In general.--Not more than 50 percent of the amount
determined under subparagraph (A) may be provided in advance
for the purpose of purchasing materials or contracting.
``(ii) Return of funds.--If funds provided in advance are
not expended during the 90-day period beginning on the date
of receipt of the funds, the funds shall be returned within a
reasonable time frame, as determined by the Secretary.'';
(4) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(f) Allocation of Funding.--
``(1) Livestock.--For each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018, at least 60 percent of the funds made available for
payments under the program shall be targeted at practices
relating to livestock production.
``(2) Wildlife habitat.--For each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018, 5 percent of the funds made available for
payments under the program shall be targeted at practices
benefitting wildlife habitat.'';
(5) in subsection (g)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Federally
Recognized Native American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native
Corporations'' and inserting ``Indian Tribes'';
(B) by striking ``federally recognized Native American
Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (including their
affiliated membership organizations)'' and inserting ``Indian
tribes''; and
(C) by striking ``or Native Corporation''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Wildlife Habitat Incentive Practice.--The Secretary
shall provide payments to producers under the program for
practices, including recurring practices for the term of the
contract, that support the restoration, development,
protection, and improvement of wildlife habitat on eligible
land, including--
``(1) upland wildlife habitat;
``(2) wetland wildlife habitat;
``(3) habitat for threatened and endangered species;
``(4) fish habitat;
``(5) habitat on pivot corners and other irregular areas of
a field; and
``(6) other types of wildlife habitat, as determined
appropriate by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 2203. EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS.
Section 1240C(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-3(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``environmental'' and
inserting ``conservation''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``purpose of the
environmental quality incentives program specified in section
1240(1)'' and inserting ``purposes of the program''.
SEC. 2204. DUTIES OF PRODUCERS.
Section 1240D(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-4(2)) is amended by striking ``farm, ranch, or
forest'' and inserting ``enrolled''.
SEC. 2205. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.
Section 1240G of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-7) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1240G. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.
``A person or legal entity may not receive, directly or
indirectly, cost share or incentive payments under this
chapter that, in aggregate, exceed $450,000 for all contracts
entered into under this chapter by the person or legal entity
during the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2018,
regardless of the number of contracts entered into
[[Page H3809]]
under this chapter by the person or legal entity.''.
SEC. 2206. CONSERVATION INNOVATION GRANTS AND PAYMENTS.
Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-8) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(E) facilitate on-farm conservation research and
demonstration activities; and
``(F) facilitate pilot testing of new technologies or
innovative conservation practices.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(b) Reporting.--Not later than December 31, 2014, and
every two years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives a report on the status of projects funded
under this section, including--
``(1) funding awarded;
``(2) project results; and
``(3) incorporation of project findings, such as new
technology and innovative approaches, into the conservation
efforts implemented by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 2207. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this subtitle shall
take effect on October 1, 2013.
(b) Effect on Existing Contracts.--The amendments made by
this subtitle shall not affect the validity or terms of any
contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under
chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) before October 1, 2013, or
any payments required to be made in connection with the
contract.
Subtitle D--Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
SEC. 2301. AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--Title XII of the Food Security Act of
1985 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subtitle:
``Subtitle H--Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
``SEC. 1265. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSES.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
agricultural conservation easement program for the
conservation of eligible land and natural resources through
easements or other interests in land.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program are to--
``(1) combine the purposes and coordinate the functions of
the wetlands reserve program established under section 1237,
the grassland reserve program established under section
1238N, and the farmland protection program established under
section 1238I, as such sections were in effect on September
30, 2013;
``(2) restore, protect, and enhance wetlands on eligible
land;
``(3) protect the agricultural use and related conservation
values of eligible land by limiting nonagricultural uses of
that land; and
``(4) protect grazing uses and related conservation values
by restoring and conserving eligible land.
``SEC. 1265A. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subtitle:
``(1) Agricultural land easement.--The term `agricultural
land easement' means an easement or other interest in
eligible land that--
``(A) is conveyed for the purpose of protecting natural
resources and the agricultural nature of the land; and
``(B) permits the landowner the right to continue
agricultural production and related uses subject to an
agricultural land easement plan, as approved by the
Secretary.
``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
``(A) an agency of State or local government or an Indian
tribe (including a farmland protection board or land resource
council established under State law); or
``(B) an organization that is--
``(i) organized for, and at all times since the formation
of the organization has been operated principally for, 1 or
more of the conservation purposes specified in clause (i),
(ii), (iii), or (iv) of section 170(h)(4)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986;
``(ii) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of
that Code that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a)
of that Code; or
``(iii) described in--
``(I) paragraph (1) or (2) of section 509(a) of that Code;
or
``(II) section 509(a)(3) of that Code and is controlled by
an organization described in section 509(a)(2) of that Code.
``(3) Eligible land.--The term `eligible land' means
private or tribal land that is--
``(A) in the case of an agricultural land easement,
agricultural land, including land on a farm or ranch--
``(i) that is subject to a pending offer for purchase of an
agricultural land easement from an eligible entity;
``(ii) that--
``(I) has prime, unique, or other productive soil;
``(II) contains historical or archaeological resources; or
``(III) the protection of which will further a State or
local policy consistent with the purposes of the program; and
``(iii) that is--
``(I) cropland;
``(II) rangeland;
``(III) grassland or land that contains forbs, or shrubland
for which grazing is the predominate use;
``(IV) pastureland; or
``(V) nonindustrial private forest land that contributes to
the economic viability of an offered parcel or serves as a
buffer to protect such land from development;
``(B) in the case of a wetland easement, a wetland or
related area, including--
``(i) farmed or converted wetlands, together with adjacent
land that is functionally dependent on that land, if the
Secretary determines it--
``(I) is likely to be successfully restored in a cost
effective manner; and
``(II) will maximize the wildlife benefits and wetland
functions and values, as determined by the Secretary in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior at the local
level;
``(ii) cropland or grassland that was used for agricultural
production prior to flooding from the natural overflow of--
``(I) a closed basin lake and adjacent land that is
functionally dependent upon it, if the State or other entity
is willing to provide 50 percent share of the cost of an
easement;
``(II) a pothole and adjacent land that is functionally
dependent on it;
``(iii) farmed wetlands and adjoining lands that--
``(I) are enrolled in the conservation reserve program;
``(II) have the highest wetland functions and values, as
determined by the Secretary; and
``(III) are likely to return to production after they leave
the conservation reserve program;
``(iv) riparian areas that link wetlands that are protected
by easements or some other device that achieves the same
purpose as an easement; or
``(v) other wetlands of an owner that would not otherwise
be eligible, if the Secretary determines that the inclusion
of such wetlands in a wetland easement would significantly
add to the functional value of the easement; or
``(C) in the case of either an agricultural land easement
or wetland easement, other land that is incidental to land
described in subparagraph (A) or (B), if the Secretary
determines that it is necessary for the efficient
administration of the easements under this program.
``(4) Program.--The term `program' means the agricultural
conservation easement program established by this subtitle.
``(5) Wetland easement.--The term `wetland easement' means
a reserved interest in eligible land that--
``(A) is defined and delineated in a deed; and
``(B) stipulates--
``(i) the rights, title, and interests in land conveyed to
the Secretary; and
``(ii) the rights, title, and interests in land that are
reserved to the landowner.
``SEC. 1265B. AGRICULTURAL LAND EASEMENTS.
``(a) Availability of Assistance.--The Secretary shall
facilitate and provide funding for--
``(1) the purchase by eligible entities of agricultural
land easements and other interests in eligible land; and
``(2) technical assistance to provide for the conservation
of natural resources pursuant to an agricultural land
easement plan.
``(b) Cost-share Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall protect the
agricultural use, including grazing, and related conservation
values of eligible land through cost-share assistance to
eligible entities for purchasing agricultural land easements.
``(2) Scope of assistance available.--
``(A) Federal share.--An agreement described in paragraph
(4) shall provide for a Federal share determined by the
Secretary of an amount not to exceed 50 percent of the fair
market value of the agricultural land easement or other
interest in land, as determined by the Secretary using--
``(i) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice;
``(ii) an area-wide market analysis or survey; or
``(iii) another industry-approved method.
``(B) Non-federal share.--
``(i) In general.--Under the agreement, the eligible entity
shall provide a share that is at least equivalent to that
provided by the Secretary.
``(ii) Source of contribution.--An eligible entity may
include as part of its share a charitable donation or
qualified conservation contribution (as defined by section
170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) from the private
landowner if the eligible entity contributes its own cash
resources in an amount that is at least 50 percent of the
amount contributed by the Secretary.
``(C) Exception.--In the case of grassland of special
environmental significance, as determined by the Secretary,
the Secretary may provide an amount not to exceed 75 percent
of the fair market value of the agricultural land easement.
``(3) Evaluation and ranking of applications.--
``(A) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish evaluation
and ranking criteria to maximize the benefit of Federal
investment under the program.
``(B) Considerations.--In establishing the criteria, the
Secretary shall emphasize support for--
``(i) protecting agricultural uses and related conservation
values of the land; and
``(ii) maximizing the protection of areas devoted to
agricultural use.
``(C) Bidding down.--If the Secretary determines that 2 or
more applications for cost-share assistance are comparable in
achieving the purpose of the program, the Secretary shall not
assign a higher priority to any of those applications solely
on the basis of lesser cost to the program.
``(4) Agreements with eligible entities.--
[[Page H3810]]
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into
agreements with eligible entities to stipulate the terms and
conditions under which the eligible entity is permitted to
use cost-share assistance provided under this section.
``(B) Length of agreements.--An agreement shall be for a
term that is--
``(i) in the case of an eligible entity certified under the
process described in paragraph (5), a minimum of five years;
and
``(ii) for all other eligible entities, at least three, but
not more than five years.
``(C) Minimum terms and conditions.--An eligible entity
shall be authorized to use its own terms and conditions for
agricultural land easements so long as the Secretary
determines such terms and conditions--
``(i) are consistent with the purposes of the program;
``(ii) permit effective enforcement of the conservation
purposes of such easements;
``(iii) include a right of enforcement for the Secretary,
that may be used only if the terms of the easement are not
enforced by the holder of the easement;
``(iv) subject the land in which an interest is purchased
to an agricultural land easement plan that--
``(I) describes the activities which promote the long-term
viability of the land to meet the purposes for which the
easement was acquired;
``(II) requires the management of grasslands according to a
grasslands management plan; and
``(III) includes a conservation plan, where appropriate,
and requires, at the option of the Secretary, the conversion
of highly erodible cropland to less intensive uses; and
``(v) include a limit on the impervious surfaces to be
allowed that is consistent with the agricultural activities
to be conducted.
``(D) Substitution of qualified projects.--An agreement
shall allow, upon mutual agreement of the parties,
substitution of qualified projects that are identified at the
time of the proposed substitution.
``(E) Effect of violation.--If a violation occurs of a term
or condition of an agreement under this subsection--
``(i) the Secretary may terminate the agreement; and
``(ii) the Secretary may require the eligible entity to
refund all or part of any payments received by the entity
under the program, with interest on the payments as
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
``(5) Certification of eligible entities.--
``(A) Certification process.--The Secretary shall establish
a process under which the Secretary may--
``(i) directly certify eligible entities that meet
established criteria;
``(ii) enter into long-term agreements with certified
eligible entities; and
``(iii) accept proposals for cost-share assistance for the
purchase of agricultural land easements throughout the
duration of such agreements.
``(B) Certification criteria.--In order to be certified, an
eligible entity shall demonstrate to the Secretary that the
entity will maintain, at a minimum, for the duration of the
agreement--
``(i) a plan for administering easements that is consistent
with the purpose of this subtitle;
``(ii) the capacity and resources to monitor and enforce
agricultural land easements; and
``(iii) policies and procedures to ensure--
``(I) the long-term integrity of agricultural land
easements on eligible land;
``(II) timely completion of acquisitions of such easements;
and
``(III) timely and complete evaluation and reporting to the
Secretary on the use of funds provided under the program.
``(C) Review and revision.--
``(i) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of
eligible entities certified under subparagraph (A) every
three years to ensure that such entities are meeting the
criteria established under subparagraph (B).
``(ii) Revocation.--If the Secretary finds that the
certified eligible entity no longer meets the criteria
established under subparagraph (B), the Secretary may--
``(I) allow the certified eligible entity a specified
period of time, at a minimum 180 days, in which to take such
actions as may be necessary to meet the criteria; and
``(II) revoke the certification of the eligible entity, if
after the specified period of time, the certified eligible
entity does not meet such criteria.
``(c) Method of Enrollment.--The Secretary shall enroll
eligible land under this section through the use of--
``(1) permanent easements; or
``(2) easements for the maximum duration allowed under
applicable State laws.
``(d) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may provide
technical assistance, if requested, to assist in--
``(1) compliance with the terms and conditions of
easements; and
``(2) implementation of an agricultural land easement plan.
``SEC. 1265C. WETLAND EASEMENTS.
``(a) Availability of Assistance.--The Secretary shall
provide assistance to owners of eligible land to restore,
protect, and enhance wetlands through--
``(1) wetland easements and related wetland easement plans;
and
``(2) technical assistance.
``(b) Easements.--
``(1) Method of enrollment.--The Secretary shall enroll
eligible land under this section through the use of--
``(A) 30-year easements;
``(B) permanent easements;
``(C) easements for the maximum duration allowed under
applicable State laws; or
``(D) as an option for Indian tribes only, 30-year
contracts (which shall be considered to be 30-year easements
for the purposes of this subtitle).
``(2) Limitations.--
``(A) Ineligible land.--The Secretary may not acquire
easements on--
``(i) land established to trees under the conservation
reserve program, except in cases where the Secretary
determines it would further the purposes of the program; and
``(ii) farmed wetlands or converted wetlands where the
conversion was not commenced prior to December 23, 1985.
``(B) Changes in ownership.--No wetland easement shall be
created on land that has changed ownership during the
preceding 24-month period unless--
``(i) the new ownership was acquired by will or succession
as a result of the death of the previous owner;
``(ii)(I) the ownership change occurred because of
foreclosure on the land; and
``(II) immediately before the foreclosure, the owner of the
land exercises a right of redemption from the mortgage holder
in accordance with State law; or
``(iii) the Secretary determines that the land was acquired
under circumstances that give adequate assurances that such
land was not acquired for the purposes of placing it in the
program.
``(3) Evaluation and ranking of offers.--
``(A) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish evaluation
and ranking criteria to maximize the benefit of Federal
investment under the program.
``(B) Considerations.--When evaluating offers from
landowners, the Secretary may consider--
``(i) the conservation benefits of obtaining a wetland
easement, including the potential environmental benefits if
the land was removed from agricultural production;
``(ii) the cost-effectiveness of each wetland easement, so
as to maximize the environmental benefits per dollar
expended;
``(iii) whether the landowner or another person is offering
to contribute financially to the cost of the wetland easement
to leverage Federal funds; and
``(iv) such other factors as the Secretary determines are
necessary to carry out the purposes of the program.
``(C) Priority.--The Secretary shall place priority on
acquiring wetland easements based on the value of the wetland
easement for protecting and enhancing habitat for migratory
birds and other wildlife.
``(4) Agreement.--To be eligible to place eligible land
into the program through a wetland easement, the owner of
such land shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary
to--
``(A) grant an easement on such land to the Secretary;
``(B) authorize the implementation of a wetland easement
plan developed for the eligible land under subsection (f);
``(C) create and record an appropriate deed restriction in
accordance with applicable State law to reflect the easement
agreed to;
``(D) provide a written statement of consent to such
easement signed by those holding a security interest in the
land;
``(E) comply with the terms and conditions of the easement
and any related agreements; and
``(F) permanently retire any existing base history for the
land on which the easement has been obtained.
``(5) Terms and conditions of easement.--
``(A) In general.--A wetland easement shall include terms
and conditions that--
``(i) permit--
``(I) repairs, improvements, and inspections on the land
that are necessary to maintain existing public drainage
systems; and
``(II) owners to control public access on the easement
areas while identifying access routes to be used for
restoration activities and management and easement
monitoring;
``(ii) prohibit--
``(I) the alteration of wildlife habitat and other natural
features of such land, unless specifically authorized by the
Secretary;
``(II) the spraying of such land with chemicals or the
mowing of such land, except where such spraying or mowing is
authorized by the Secretary or is necessary--
``(aa) to comply with Federal or State noxious weed control
laws;
``(bb) to comply with a Federal or State emergency pest
treatment program; or
``(cc) to meet habitat needs of specific wildlife species;
``(III) any activities to be carried out on the owner's or
successor's land that is immediately adjacent to, and
functionally related to, the land that is subject to the
easement if such activities will alter, degrade, or otherwise
diminish the functional value of the eligible land; and
``(IV) the adoption of any other practice that would tend
to defeat the purposes of the program, as determined by the
Secretary;
``(iii) provide for the efficient and effective
establishment of wildlife functions and values; and
``(iv) include such additional provisions as the Secretary
determines are desirable to carry out the program or
facilitate the practical administration thereof.
``(B) Violation.--On the violation of the terms or
conditions of a wetland easement, the wetland easement shall
remain in force and the Secretary may require the owner to
refund all or part of any payments received by the owner
under the program, together with interest thereon as
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
``(C) Compatible uses.--Land subject to a wetland easement
may be used for compatible economic uses, including such
activities as hunting and fishing, managed timber harvest, or
periodic haying or grazing, if such use is specifically
permitted by the wetland easement plan developed for the land
under subsection (f) and is consistent with the long-term
protection and
[[Page H3811]]
enhancement of the wetland resources for which the easement
was established.
``(D) Reservation of grazing rights.--The Secretary may
include in the terms and conditions of a wetland easement a
provision under which the owner reserves grazing rights if--
``(i) the Secretary determines that the reservation and use
of the grazing rights--
``(I) is compatible with the land subject to the easement;
``(II) is consistent with the historical natural uses of
the land and the long-term protection and enhancement goals
for which the easement was established; and
``(III) complies with the wetland easement plan developed
for the land under subsection (f); and
``(ii) the agreement provides for a commensurate reduction
in the easement payment to account for the grazing value, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(6) Compensation.--
``(A) Determination.--
``(i) Permanent easements.--The Secretary shall pay as
compensation for a permanent wetland easement acquired under
the program an amount necessary to encourage enrollment in
the program, based on the lowest of--
``(I) the fair market value of the land, as determined by
the Secretary, using the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice or an area-wide market analysis or survey;
``(II) the amount corresponding to a geographical cap, as
determined by the Secretary in regulations; or
``(III) the offer made by the landowner.
``(ii) 30-year easements.--Compensation for a 30-year
wetland easement shall be not less than 50 percent, but not
more than 75 percent, of the compensation that would be paid
for a permanent wetland easement.
``(B) Form of payment.--Compensation for a wetland easement
shall be provided by the Secretary in the form of a cash
payment, in an amount determined under subparagraph (A).
``(C) Payment schedule.--
``(i) Easements valued at $500,000 or less.--For wetland
easements valued at $500,000 or less, the Secretary may
provide easement payments in not more than 10 annual
payments.
``(ii) Easements valued at more than $500,000.--For wetland
easements valued at more than $500,000, the Secretary may
provide easement payments in at least 5, but not more than 10
annual payments, except that, if the Secretary determines it
would further the purposes of the program, the Secretary may
make a lump sum payment for such an easement.
``(c) Easement Restoration.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide financial
assistance to owners of eligible land to carry out the
establishment of conservation measures and practices and
protect wetland functions and values, including necessary
maintenance activities, as set forth in a wetland easement
plan developed for the eligible land under subsection (f).
``(2) Payments.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) in the case of a permanent wetland easement, pay an
amount that is not less than 75 percent, but not more than
100 percent, of the eligible costs, as determined by the
Secretary; and
``(B) in the case of a 30-year wetland easement, pay an
amount that is not less than 50 percent, but not more than 75
percent, of the eligible costs, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(d) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assist owners in
complying with the terms and conditions of wetland easements.
``(2) Contracts or agreements.--The Secretary may enter
into 1 or more contracts with private entities or agreements
with a State, non-governmental organization, or Indian tribe
to carry out necessary restoration, enhancement, or
maintenance of a wetland easement if the Secretary determines
that the contract or agreement will advance the purposes of
the program.
``(e) Wetland Enhancement Option.--The Secretary may enter
into 1 or more agreements with a State (including a political
subdivision or agency of a State), nongovernmental
organization, or Indian tribe to carry out a special wetland
enhancement option that the Secretary determines would
advance the purposes of program.
``(f) Administration.--
``(1) Wetland easement plan.--The Secretary shall develop a
wetland easement plan for eligible lands subject to a wetland
easement, which shall include practices and activities
necessary to restore, protect, enhance, and maintain the
enrolled lands.
``(2) Delegation of easement administration.--The Secretary
may delegate--
``(A) any of the easement management, monitoring, and
enforcement responsibilities of the Secretary to other
Federal or State agencies that have the appropriate
authority, expertise, and resources necessary to carry out
such delegated responsibilities; and
``(B) any of the easement management responsibilities of
the Secretary to other conservation organizations if the
Secretary determines the organization has the appropriate
expertise and resources.
``(3) Payments.--
``(A) Timing of payments.--The Secretary shall provide
payment for obligations incurred by the Secretary under this
section--
``(i) with respect to any easement restoration obligation
under subsection (c), as soon as possible after the
obligation is incurred; and
``(ii) with respect to any annual easement payment
obligation incurred by the Secretary, as soon as possible
after October 1 of each calendar year.
``(B) Payments to others.--If an owner who is entitled to a
payment under this section dies, becomes incompetent, is
otherwise unable to receive such payment, or is succeeded by
another person or entity who renders or completes the
required performance, the Secretary shall make such payment,
in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary
and without regard to any other provision of law, in such
manner as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in
light of all of the circumstances.
``SEC. 1265D. ADMINISTRATION.
``(a) Ineligible Land.--The Secretary may not use program
funds for the purposes of acquiring an easement on--
``(1) lands owned by an agency of the United States, other
than land held in trust for Indian tribes;
``(2) lands owned in fee title by a State, including an
agency or a subdivision of a State, or a unit of local
government;
``(3) land subject to an easement or deed restriction
which, as determined by the Secretary, provides similar
protection as would be provided by enrollment in the program;
or
``(4) lands where the purposes of the program would be
undermined due to on-site or off-site conditions, such as
risk of hazardous substances, proposed or existing rights of
way, infrastructure development, or adjacent land uses.
``(b) Priority.--In evaluating applications under the
program, the Secretary may give priority to land that is
currently enrolled in the conservation reserve program in a
contract that is set to expire within 1 year and--
``(1) in the case of an agricultural land easement, is
grassland that would benefit from protection under a long-
term easement; and
``(2) in the case of a wetland easement, is a wetland or
related area with the highest functions and value and is
likely to return to production after the land leaves the
conservation reserve program.
``(c) Subordination, Exchange, Modification, and
Termination.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may subordinate, exchange,
modify, or terminate any interest in land, or portion of such
interest, administered by the Secretary, either directly or
on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation under the
program if the Secretary determines that--
``(A) it is in the Federal Government's interest to
subordinate, exchange, modify, or terminate the interest in
land;
``(B) the subordination, exchange, modification, or
termination action--
``(i) will address a compelling public need for which there
is no practicable alternative; or
``(ii) such action will further the practical
administration of the program; and
``(C) the subordination, exchange, modification, or
termination action will result in comparable conservation
value and equivalent or greater economic value to the United
States.
``(2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall work with the
owner, and eligible entity if applicable, to address any
subordination, exchange, modification, or termination of the
interest, or portion of such interest, in land.
``(3) Notice.--At least 90 days before taking any
termination action described in paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall provide written notice of such action to the Committee
on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate.
``(d) Land Enrolled in Conservation Reserve Program.--The
Secretary may terminate or modify a contract entered into
under section 1231(a) if eligible land that is subject to
such contract is transferred into the program.
``(e) Allocation of Funds for Agricultural Land
Easements.--Of the funds made available under section 1241 to
carry out the program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall,
to the extent practicable, use for agricultural land
easements--
``(1) no less than 40 percent in each of fiscal years 2014
through 2017; and
``(2) no less than 50 percent in fiscal year 2018.''.
(b) Compliance With Certain Requirements.--Before an
eligible entity or owner of eligible land may receive
assistance under subtitle H of title XII of the Food Security
Act of 1985, the eligible entity or person shall agree,
during the crop year for which the assistance is provided and
in exchange for the assistance--
(1) to comply with applicable conservation requirements
under subtitle B of title XII of that Act (16 U.S.C. 3811 et
seq.); and
(2) to comply with applicable wetland protection
requirements under subtitle C of title XII of that Act (16
U.S.C. 3821 et seq.).
(c) Cross Reference; Calculation.--Section 1244 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3844) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
and
(iii) by striking subparagraph (C);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) the agricultural conservation easement program
established under subtitle H; and''; and
(2) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``programs
administered under subchapters B and C of chapter 1 of
subtitle D'' and inserting ``conservation reserve program
established under subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D and
wetland easements under section 1265C''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``an easement
acquired under subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D'' and
inserting ``a wetland easement under section 1265C''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Calculation.--In calculating the percentages
described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include any
acreage that was included in calculations of percentages made
[[Page H3812]]
under such paragraph, as in effect on September 30, 2013, and
that remains enrolled when the calculation is made after that
date under paragraph (1).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
Subtitle E--Regional Conservation Partnership Program
SEC. 2401. REGIONAL CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985
is amended by inserting after subtitle H, as added by section
2301, the following new subtitle:
``Subtitle I--Regional Conservation Partnership Program
``SEC. 1271. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSES.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
regional conservation partnership program to implement
eligible activities on eligible land through--
``(1) partnership agreements with eligible partners; and
``(2) contracts with producers.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program are as
follows:
``(1) To use covered programs to accomplish purposes and
functions similar to those of the following programs, as in
effect on September 30, 2013:
``(A) The agricultural water enhancement program
established under section 1240I.
``(B) The Chesapeake Bay watershed program established
under section 1240Q.
``(C) The cooperative conservation partnership initiative
established under section 1243.
``(D) The Great Lakes basin program for soil erosion and
sediment control established under section 1240P.
``(2) To further the conservation, restoration, and
sustainable use of soil, water, wildlife, and related natural
resources on eligible land on a regional or watershed scale.
``(3) To encourage eligible partners to cooperate with
producers in--
``(A) meeting or avoiding the need for national, State, and
local natural resource regulatory requirements related to
production on eligible land; and
``(B) implementing projects that will result in the
carrying out of eligible activities that affect multiple
agricultural or nonindustrial private forest operations on a
local, regional, State, or multi-State basis.
``SEC. 1271A. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subtitle:
``(1) Covered program.--The term `covered program' means
the following:
``(A) The agricultural conservation easement program.
``(B) The environmental quality incentives program.
``(C) The conservation stewardship program.
``(2) Eligible activity.--The term `eligible activity'
means any of the following conservation activities:
``(A) Water quality or quantity conservation, restoration,
or enhancement projects relating to surface water and
groundwater resources, including--
``(i) the conversion of irrigated cropland to the
production of less water-intensive agricultural commodities
or dryland farming; or
``(ii) irrigation system improvement and irrigation
efficiency enhancement.
``(B) Drought mitigation.
``(C) Flood prevention.
``(D) Water retention.
``(E) Air quality improvement.
``(F) Habitat conservation, restoration, and enhancement.
``(G) Erosion control and sediment reduction.
``(H) Other related activities that the Secretary
determines will help achieve conservation benefits.
``(3) Eligible land.--The term `eligible land' means land
on which agricultural commodities, livestock, or forest-
related products are produced, including--
``(A) cropland;
``(B) grassland;
``(C) rangeland;
``(D) pastureland;
``(E) nonindustrial private forest land; and
``(F) other land incidental to agricultural production
(including wetlands and riparian buffers) on which
significant natural resource issues could be addressed under
the program.
``(4) Eligible partner.--The term `eligible partner' means
any of the following:
``(A) An agricultural or silvicultural producer association
or other group of producers.
``(B) A State or unit of local government.
``(C) An Indian tribe.
``(D) A farmer cooperative.
``(E) A water district, irrigation district, rural water
district or association, or other organization with specific
water delivery authority to producers on agricultural land.
``(F) An institution of higher education.
``(G) An organization or entity with an established history
of working cooperatively with producers on agricultural land,
as determined by the Secretary, to address--
``(i) local conservation priorities related to agricultural
production, wildlife habitat development, or nonindustrial
private forest land management; or
``(ii) critical watershed-scale soil erosion, water
quality, sediment reduction, or other natural resource
issues.
``(5) Partnership agreement.--The term `partnership
agreement' means an agreement entered into under section
1271B between the Secretary and an eligible partner.
``(6) Program.--The term `program' means the regional
conservation partnership program established by this
subtitle.
``SEC. 1271B. REGIONAL CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPS.
``(a) Partnership Agreements Authorized.--The Secretary may
enter into a partnership agreement with an eligible partner
to implement a project that will assist producers with
installing and maintaining an eligible activity on eligible
land.
``(b) Length.--A partnership agreement shall be for a
period not to exceed 5 years, except that the Secretary may
extend the agreement one time for up to 12 months when an
extension is necessary to meet the objectives of the program.
``(c) Duties of Partners.--
``(1) In general.--Under a partnership agreement, the
eligible partner shall--
``(A) define the scope of a project, including--
``(i) the eligible activities to be implemented;
``(ii) the potential agricultural or nonindustrial private
forest land operations affected;
``(iii) the local, State, multi-State, or other geographic
area covered; and
``(iv) the planning, outreach, implementation, and
assessment to be conducted;
``(B) conduct outreach to producers for potential
participation in the project;
``(C) at the request of a producer, act on behalf of a
producer participating in the project in applying for
assistance under section 1271C;
``(D) leverage financial or technical assistance provided
by the Secretary with additional funds to help achieve the
project objectives;
``(E) conduct an assessment of the project's effects; and
``(F) at the conclusion of the project, report to the
Secretary on its results and funds leveraged.
``(2) Contribution.--An eligible partner shall provide a
significant portion of the overall costs of the scope of the
project that is the subject of the agreement entered into
under subsection (a), as determined by the Secretary.
``(d) Applications.--
``(1) Competitive process.--The Secretary shall conduct a
competitive process to select applications for partnership
agreements and may assess and rank applications with similar
conservation purposes as a group.
``(2) Criteria used.--In carrying out the process described
in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make public the
criteria used in evaluating applications.
``(3) Content.--An application to the Secretary shall
include a description of--
``(A) the scope of the project, as described in subsection
(c)(1)(A);
``(B) the plan for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on
progress made towards achieving the project's objectives;
``(C) the program resources requested for the project,
including the covered programs to be used and estimated
funding needed from the Secretary;
``(D) eligible partners collaborating to achieve project
objectives, including their roles, responsibilities,
capabilities, and financial contribution; and
``(E) any other elements the Secretary considers necessary
to adequately evaluate and competitively select applications
for funding under the program.
``(4) Priority to certain applications.--The Secretary may
give a higher priority to applications that--
``(A) assist producers in meeting or avoiding the need for
a natural resource regulatory requirement;
``(B) have a high percentage of eligible producers in the
area to be covered by the agreement;
``(C) significantly leverage non-Federal financial and
technical resources and coordinate with other local, State,
or national efforts;
``(D) deliver high percentages of applied conservation to
address conservation priorities or regional, State, or
national conservation initiatives;
``(E) provide innovation in conservation methods and
delivery, including outcome-based performance measures and
methods; or
``(F) meet other factors that are important for achieving
the purposes of the program, as determined by the Secretary.
``SEC. 1271C. ASSISTANCE TO PRODUCERS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into contracts
with producers to provide financial and technical assistance
to--
``(1) producers participating in a project with an eligible
partner, as described in section 1271B; or
``(2) producers that fit within the scope of a project
described in section 1271B or a critical conservation area
designated under section 1271F, but who are seeking to
implement an eligible activity on eligible land independent
of a partner.
``(b) Terms and Conditions.--
``(1) Consistency with program rules.--Except as provided
in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall ensure that the terms
and conditions of a contract under this section are
consistent with the applicable rules of the covered programs
to be used as part of the project, as described in the
application under section 1271B(d)(3)(C).
``(2) Adjustments.--Except with respect to statutory
program requirements governing appeals, payment limitations,
and conservation compliance, the Secretary may adjust the
discretionary program rules of a covered program--
``(A) to provide a simplified application and evaluation
process; and
``(B) to better reflect unique local circumstances and
purposes if the Secretary determines such adjustments are
necessary to achieve the purposes of the program.
``(c) Payments.--
``(1) In general.--In accordance with statutory
requirements of the covered programs involved, the Secretary
may make payments to a producer in an amount determined by
the Secretary to be necessary to achieve the purposes of the
program.
``(2) Payments to producers in states with water quantity
concerns.--The Secretary may
[[Page H3813]]
provide payments to producers participating in a project that
addresses water quantity concerns for a period of five years
in an amount sufficient to encourage conversion from
irrigated farming to dryland farming.
``(3) Waiver authority.--To assist in the implementation of
the program, the Secretary may waive the applicability of the
limitation in section 1001D(b)(2) of this Act for
participating producers if the Secretary determines that the
waiver is necessary to fulfill the objectives of the program.
``SEC. 1271D. FUNDING.
``(a) Availability of Funds.--The Secretary shall use
$100,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation
for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018 to carry out the
program.
``(b) Duration of Availability.--Funds made available under
subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.
``(c) Additional Funding and Acres.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to the funds made available
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall reserve 6 percent
of the funds and acres made available for a covered program
for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018 in order to ensure
additional resources are available to carry out this program.
``(2) Unused funds and acres.--Any funds or acres reserved
under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year from a covered program
that are not obligated under this program by April 1 of that
fiscal year shall be returned for use under the covered
program.
``(d) Allocation of Funding.--Of the funds and acres made
available for the program under subsections (a) and (c), the
Secretary shall allocate--
``(1) 25 percent of the funds and acres to projects based
on a State competitive process administered by the State
Conservationist, with the advice of the State technical
committee established under subtitle G;
``(2) 50 percent of the funds and acres to projects based
on a national competitive process to be established by the
Secretary; and
``(3) 25 percent of the funds and acres to projects for the
critical conservation areas designated under section 1271F.
``(e) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--None of the
funds made available under the program may be used to pay for
the administrative expenses of eligible partners.
``SEC. 1271E. ADMINISTRATION.
``(a) Disclosure.--In addition to the criteria used in
evaluating applications as described in section 1271B(d)(2),
the Secretary shall make publicly available information on
projects selected through the competitive process described
in section 1271B(d)(1).
``(b) Reporting.--Not later than December 31, 2014, and
every two years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate a report on the status of projects funded under the
program, including--
``(1) the number and types of eligible partners and
producers participating in the partnership agreements
selected;
``(2) the number of producers receiving assistance; and
``(3) total funding committed to projects, including from
Federal and non-Federal resources.
``SEC. 1271F. CRITICAL CONSERVATION AREAS.
``(a) In General.--In administering funds under section
1271D(d)(3), the Secretary shall select applications for
partnership agreements and producer contracts within critical
conservation areas designated under this section.
``(b) Critical Conservation Area Designations.--
``(1) Priority.--In designating critical conservation areas
under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to
geographical areas based on the degree to which the
geographical area--
``(A) includes multiple States with significant
agricultural production;
``(B) is covered by an existing regional, State,
binational, or multistate agreement or plan that has
established objectives, goals, and work plans and is adopted
by a Federal, State, or regional authority;
``(C) would benefit from water quality improvement,
including through reducing erosion, promoting sediment
control, and addressing nutrient management activities
affecting large bodies of water of regional, national, or
international significance;
``(D) would benefit from water quantity improvement,
including improvement relating to--
``(i) groundwater, surface water, aquifer, or other water
sources; or
``(ii) a need to promote water retention and flood
prevention; or
``(E) contains producers that need assistance in meeting or
avoiding the need for a natural resource regulatory
requirement that could have a negative economic impact on
agricultural operations within the area.
``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary may not designate more
than 8 geographical areas as critical conservation areas
under this section.
``(c) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall administer any partnership agreement or
producer contract under this section in a manner that is
consistent with the terms of the program.
``(2) Relationship to existing activity.--The Secretary
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that
eligible activities carried out in critical conservation
areas designated under this section complement and are
consistent with other Federal and State programs and water
quality and quantity strategies.
``(3) Additional authority.--For a critical conservation
area described in subsection (b)(1)(D), the Secretary may use
authorities under the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), other than section
14 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1012), to carry out projects for
the purposes of this section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
Subtitle F--Other Conservation Programs
SEC. 2501. CONSERVATION OF PRIVATE GRAZING LAND.
Section 1240M(e) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3839bb(e)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 2502. GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM.
Section 1240O(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3839bb-2) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
``(2) Availability of funds.--In addition to funds made
available under paragraph (1), of the funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall use $5,000,000, to
remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 2503. VOLUNTARY PUBLIC ACCESS AND HABITAT INCENTIVE
PROGRAM.
(a) Funding.--Section 1240R(f)(1) of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-5(f)(1)) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``and $30,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.
(b) Report on Program Effectiveness.--Not later than two
years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a
report evaluating the effectiveness of the voluntary public
access program established by section 1240R of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-5), including--
(1) identifying cooperating agencies;
(2) identifying the number of land holdings and total acres
enrolled by each State and tribal government;
(3) evaluating the extent of improved access on eligible
lands, improved wildlife habitat, and related economic
benefits; and
(4) any other relevant information and data relating to the
program that would be helpful to such Committees.
SEC. 2504. AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION EXPERIENCED SERVICES
PROGRAM.
(a) Funding.--Subsection (c) of section 1252 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3851) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out the ACES
program using funds made available to carry out each program
under this title.
``(2) Exclusion.--Funds made available to carry out the
conservation reserve program may not be used to carry out the
ACES program.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2505. SMALL WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM.
(a) Availability of Funds.--Section 14(h)(1) of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1012(h)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon;
(3) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2014, to remain
available until expended.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 14(h)(2)(E)
of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16
U.S.C. 1012(h)(2)(E)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 2506. AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Uses.--Section 524(b)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating
subparagraphs (C) through (F) as subparagraphs (B) through
(E), respectively; and
(2) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``or
resource conservation practices''; and
(B) by striking clause (i) and redesignating clauses (ii)
through (iv) as clauses (i) through (iii), respectively.
(b) Commodity Credit Corporation.--
(1) Funding.--Section 524(b)(4)(B) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)(4)(B)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(B) Funding.--The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make
available to carry out this subsection not less than
$10,000,000 for each fiscal year.''.
(2) Certain uses.--Section 524(b)(4)(C) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)(4)(C)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``50'' and inserting ``30''; and
(ii) by striking ``(A), (B), and (C)'' and inserting ``(A)
and (B)''; and
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``40'' and inserting
``60''.
Subtitle G--Funding and Administration
SEC. 2601. FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1241 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841) is amended to read as
follows:
``(a) Annual Funding.--For each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018, the Secretary shall use the funds, facilities,
and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry
out the following programs under this title (including the
provision of technical assistance):
[[Page H3814]]
``(1) The conservation reserve program under subchapter B
of chapter 1 of subtitle D, including, to the maximum extent
practicable, $25,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2014
through 2018 to carry out section 1235(f) to facilitate the
transfer of land subject to contracts from retired or
retiring owners and operators to beginning farmers or
ranchers and socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.
``(2) The agriculture conservation easement program under
subtitle H, using, to the maximum extent practicable--
``(A) $425,000,000 in fiscal year 2014;
``(B) $450,000,000 in fiscal year 2015;
``(C) $475,000,000 in fiscal year 2016;
``(D) $500,000,000 in fiscal year 2017; and
``(E) $200,000,000 in fiscal year 2018.
``(3) The conservation security program under subchapter A
of chapter 2 of subtitle D, using such sums as are necessary
to administer contracts entered into before September 30,
2008.
``(4) The conservation stewardship program under subchapter
B of chapter 2 of subtitle D.
``(5) The environmental quality incentives program under
chapter 4 of subtitle D, using, to the maximum extent
practicable, $1,750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018.''.
(b) Regional Equity; Guaranteed Availability of Funds.--
Section 1241 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3841) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (d);
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts made available by
subsection (a) shall be used by the Secretary to carry out
the programs specified in such subsection for fiscal years
2014 through 2018 and shall remain available until expended.
Amounts made available for the programs specified in such
subsection during a fiscal year through modifications,
cancellations, terminations, and other related administrative
actions and not obligated in that fiscal year shall remain
available for obligation during subsequent fiscal years, but
shall reduce the amount of additional funds made available in
the subsequent fiscal year by an amount equal to the amount
remaining unobligated.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2602. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 1241 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841), as redesignated by
section 2601(b)(2) of this Act, is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) Availability of funds.--Commodity Credit Corporation
funds made available for a fiscal year for each of the
programs specified in subsection (a)--
``(A) shall be available for the provision of technical
assistance for the programs for which funds are made
available as necessary to implement the programs effectively;
and
``(B) shall not be available for the provision of technical
assistance for conservation programs specified in subsection
(a) other than the program for which the funds were made
available.
``(2) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2013, the
Secretary shall submit (and update as necessary in subsequent
years) to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a report--
``(A) detailing the amount of technical assistance funds
requested and apportioned in each program specified in
subsection (a) during the preceding fiscal year; and
``(B) any other data relating to this subsection that would
be helpful to such Committees.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2603. RESERVATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO
CERTAIN FARMERS OR RANCHERS FOR CONSERVATION
ACCESS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 1241 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Preference.--In providing assistance under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall give preference to a veteran farmer
or rancher (as defined in section 2501(e) of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
2279(e))) that qualifies under subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2604. ANNUAL REPORT ON PROGRAM ENROLLMENTS AND
ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 1241 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``wetlands reserve
program'' and inserting ``agricultural conservation easement
program'';
(2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and redesignating
paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (2), (3), and (4),
respectively; and
(3) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking ``agricultural water enhancement program''
and inserting ``regional conservation partnership program'';
and
(B) by striking ``1240I(g)'' and inserting ``1271C(c)(3)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2605. REVIEW OF CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARDS.
Section 1242(h)(1)(A) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3842(h)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008'' and inserting ``the
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2606. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Section 1244 of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3844) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(E) Veteran farmers or ranchers (as defined in section
2501(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act
of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(e))).'';
(2) in subsection (d), by inserting ``, H, and I'' before
the period at the end;
(3) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``country'' and
inserting ``county''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``subsection (c)(2)(B) or
(f)(4)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii) or
(f)(2)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(j) Improved Administrative Efficiency and
Effectiveness.--In administrating a conservation program
under this title, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent
practicable--
``(1) seek to reduce administrative burdens and costs to
producers by streamlining conservation planning and program
resources; and
``(2) take advantage of new technologies to enhance
efficiency and effectiveness.
``(k) Relation to Other Payments.--Any payment received by
an owner or operator under this title, including an easement
payment or rental payment, shall be in addition to, and not
affect, the total amount of payments that the owner or
operator is otherwise eligible to receive under any of the
following:
``(1) This Act.
``(2) The Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.).
``(3) The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management
Act of 2013.
``(4) Any law that succeeds a law specified in paragraph
(1), (2), or (3).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2607. STANDARDS FOR STATE TECHNICAL COMMITTEES.
Section 1261(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3861(b)) is amended by striking ``Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008, the Secretary shall develop'' and
inserting ``The Secretary shall review and update as
necessary''.
SEC. 2608. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.
Subtitle E of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 1246. REGULATIONS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement programs under this
title, including such regulations as the Secretary determines
to be necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable application
of the limitations established under section 1244(f).
``(b) Rulemaking Procedure.--The promulgation of
regulations and administration of programs under this title--
``(1) shall be carried out without regard to--
``(A) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary effective
July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to notices of
proposed rulemaking and public participation in rulemaking;
and
``(B) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the Paperwork Reduction Act); and
``(2) shall be made pursuant to section 553 of title 5,
United States Code, including by interim rules effective on
publication under the authority provided in subparagraph (B)
of subsection (b) of such section if the Secretary determines
such interim rules to be needed and final rules, with an
opportunity for notice and comment, no later than 21 months
after the date of the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.''.
Subtitle H--Repeal of Superseded Program Authorities and Transitional
Provisions; Technical Amendments
SEC. 2701. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 1230 of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3830) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of chapter 1 of
subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3830 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``CONSERVATION RESERVE''.
SEC. 2702. EMERGENCY FORESTRY CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 1231A of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3831a) is repealed.
(b) Transitional Provisions.--
(1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by
this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any
contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under
section 1231A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3831a) before October 1, 2013, or any payments required to be
made in connection with the contract.
(2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to
carry out the conservation reserve program 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.) to continue to carry out
contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the provisions
of law and regulation applicable to such contracts as they
existed on September 30, 2013.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
[[Page H3815]]
SEC. 2703. WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D of
title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837 et
seq.) is repealed.
(b) Transitional Provisions.--
(1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by
this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any
contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under
subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837 et seq.) before
October 1, 2013, or any payments required to be made in
connection with the contract.
(2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to
carry out the agricultural conservation easement program
under subtitle H of title XII of the Food Security Act of
1985, as added by section 2301 of this Act, to continue to
carry out contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the
provisions of law and regulation applicable to such contracts
as they existed on September 30, 2013.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2704. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM AND FARM VIABILITY
PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Subchapter C of chapter 2 of subtitle D of
title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838h
et seq.) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of chapter 2 of
subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3838 et seq.) is amended by striking ``AND FARMLAND
PROTECTION''.
(c) Transitional Provisions.--
(1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendments made by
this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any
contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under
subchapter C of chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838h et seq.) before
October 1, 2013, or any payments required to be made in
connection with the contract.
(2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to
carry out the agricultural conservation easement program
under subtitle H of title XII of the Food Security Act of
1985, as added by section 2301 of this Act, to continue to
carry out contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the
provisions of law and regulation applicable to such contracts
as they existed on September 30, 2013.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2705. GRASSLAND RESERVE PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Subchapter D of chapter 2 of subtitle D of
title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838n
et seq.) is repealed.
(b) Transitional Provisions.--
(1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by
this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any
contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under
subchapter D of chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838n et seq.) before
October 1, 2013, or any payments required to be made in
connection with the contract.
(2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to
carry out the agricultural conservation easement program
under subtitle H of title XII of the Food Security Act of
1985, as added by section 2301 of this Act, to continue to
carry out contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the
provisions of law and regulation applicable to such contracts
as they existed on September 30, 2013.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2706. AGRICULTURAL WATER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 1240I of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3839aa-9) is repealed.
(b) Transitional Provisions.--
(1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by
this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any
contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under
section 1240I of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-9) before October 1, 2013, or any payments required to
be made in connection with the contract.
(2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to
carry out the regional conservation partnership program under
subtitle I of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as
added by section 2401 of this Act, to continue to carry out
contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the provisions
of law and regulation applicable to such contracts as they
existed on September 30, 2013.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2707. WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 1240N of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3839bb-1) is repealed.
(b) Transitional Provisions.--
(1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by
this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any
contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under
section 1240N of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839bb-1) before October 1, 2013, or any payments required to
be made in connection with the contract.
(2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to
carry out the environmental quality incentives program under
chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) to continue to carry out
contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the provisions
of law and regulation applicable to such contracts as they
existed on September 30, 2013.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2708. GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 1240P of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3839bb-3) is repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2709. CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 1240Q of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3839bb-4) is repealed.
(b) Transitional Provisions.--
(1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by
this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any
contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under
section 1240Q of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839bb-4) before October 1, 2013, or any payments required to
be made in connection with the contract.
(2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to
carry out the regional conservation partnership program under
subtitle I of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as
added by section 2401 of this Act, to continue to carry out
contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the provisions
of law and regulation applicable to such contracts as they
existed on September 30, 2013.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2710. COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.
(a) Repeal.--Section 1243 of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3843) is repealed.
(b) Transitional Provisions.--
(1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by
this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any
contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under
section 1243 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3843) before October 1, 2013, or any payments required to be
made in connection with the contract.
(2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to
carry out the regional conservation partnership program under
subtitle I of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as
added by section 2401 of this Act, to continue to carry out
contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the provisions
of law and regulation applicable to such contracts as they
existed on September 30, 2013.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 2711. ENVIRONMENTAL EASEMENT PROGRAM.
Chapter 3 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839 et seq.) is repealed.
SEC. 2712. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Definitions.--Section 1201(a) of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801(a)) is amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``E'' and inserting
``I''.
(b) Program Ineligibility.--Section 1211(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)) is amended by
striking ``predominate'' each place it appears and inserting
``predominant''.
(c) Specialty Crop Producers.--Section 1242(i) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3842(i)) is amended in the
header by striking ``Speciality'' and inserting
``Specialty''.
TITLE III--TRADE
Subtitle A--Food for Peace Act
SEC. 3001. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
Section 201 of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1721) is
amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``(to be implemented by the Administrator)'' after ``under
this title''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (7) and the second sentence and
inserting the following new paragraph:
``(7) build resilience to mitigate and prevent food crises
and reduce the future need for emergency aid.''.
SEC. 3002. SUPPORT FOR ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH WHICH ASSISTANCE
IS PROVIDED.
Section 202(e)(1) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C.
1722(e)(1)) is amended by striking ``13 percent'' and
inserting ``11 percent''.
SEC. 3003. FOOD AID QUALITY.
Section 202(h) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1722(h))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``The Administrator shall use funds made
available for fiscal year 2009'' and inserting ``In
consultation with the Secretary, the Administrator shall use
funds made available for fiscal year 2013''; and
(ii) by inserting ``to establish a mechanism'' after ``this
title'';
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following new paragraphs:
``(C) to evaluate, as necessary, the use of current and new
agricultural commodities and products thereof in different
program settings and for particular recipient groups,
including the testing of prototypes;
``(D) to establish and implement appropriate protocols for
quality assurance of food products procured by the Secretary
for food aid programs; and
``(E) to periodically update program guidelines on the
recommended use of agricultural commodities and food products
in food aid programs to reflect findings from the
implementation of this subsection and other relevant
information.'';
[[Page H3816]]
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``The Administrator'' and
inserting ``In consultation with the Secretary, the
Administrator''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 207(f)'' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting
the following: ``section 207(f)--
``(A) for fiscal years 2009 through 2013, not more than
$4,500,000 may be used to carry out this subsection; and
``(B) for fiscal years 2014 through 2018, not more than
$1,000,000 may be used to carry out this subsection.''.
SEC. 3004. MINIMUM LEVELS OF ASSISTANCE.
Section 204(a) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1724(a))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 3005. FOOD AID CONSULTATIVE GROUP.
(a) Membership.--Section 205(b) of the Food for Peace Act
(7 U.S.C. 1725(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new
paragraph:
``(7) representatives from the United States agricultural
processing sector involved in providing agricultural
commodities for programs under this Act; and''.
(b) Consultation.--Section 205(d) of the Food for Peace Act
(7 U.S.C. 1725(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following:
``(1) Consultation in advance of issuance of implementation
regulations, handbooks, and guidelines.--Not later than 45
days before a proposed regulation, handbook, or guideline
implementing this title, or a proposed significant revision
to a regulation, handbook, or guideline implementing this
title, becomes final, the Administrator shall provide the
proposal to the Group for review and comment.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Consultation regarding food aid quality efforts.--The
Administrator shall seek input from and consult with the
Group on the implementation of section 202(h).''.
(c) Reauthorization.--Section 205(f) of the Food for Peace
Act (7 U.S.C. 1725(f)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 3006. OVERSIGHT, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION.
(a) Regulations and Guidance.--Section 207(c) of the Food
for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1726a(c)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``and
Guidance'' after ``Regulations'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``Not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk
Management Act of 2013, the Administrator shall issue all
regulations and revisions to agency guidance necessary to
implement the amendments made to this title by such Act.'';
and
(3) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and guidance'' after
``develop regulations''.
(b) Funding.--Section 207(f) of the Food for Peace Act (7
U.S.C. 1726a(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
(B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting the period; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (F);
(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4); and
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(4) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``2012'' and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting ``2013,
and up to $10,000,000 of such funds for each of fiscal years
2014 through 2018.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
(c) Implementation Reports.--Not later than 270 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of
the Agency for International Development shall submit to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate and the Committees on Agriculture and Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives a report describing--
(1) the implementation of section 207(c) of the Food for
Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1726a(c));
(2) the surveys, studies, monitoring, reporting, and audit
requirements for programs conducted under title II of such
Act (7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq.) by an eligible organization that
is a nongovernmental organization (as such term is defined in
section 402 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1732)); and
(3) the surveys, studies, monitoring, reporting, and audit
requirements for such programs by an eligible organization
that is an intergovernmental organization, such as the World
Food Program or other multilateral organization.
SEC. 3007. ASSISTANCE FOR STOCKPILING AND RAPID
TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY, AND DISTRIBUTION OF
SHELF-STABLE PREPACKAGED FOODS.
Section 208(f) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C.
1726b(f)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 3008. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(a) Impact on Local Farmers and Economy.--Section 403(b) of
the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1733(b)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The Secretary
or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall seek information,
as part of the regular proposal and submission process, from
implementing agencies on the potential benefits to the local
economy of sales of agricultural commodities within the
recipient country.''.
(b) Prevention of Price Disruptions.--Section 403(e) of the
Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1733(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``reasonable market
price'' and inserting ``fair market value''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Coordination on assessments.--The Secretary and the
Administrator shall coordinate in assessments to carry out
paragraph (1) and in the development of approaches to be used
by implementing agencies for determining the fair market
value described in paragraph (2).''.
(c) Report on Use of Funds.--Section 403 of the Food for
Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1733) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(m) Report on Use of Funds.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, and annually
thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a
report--
``(1) specifying the amount of funds (including funds for
administrative costs, indirect cost recovery, and internal
transportation, storage and handling, and associated
distribution costs) provided to each eligible organization
that received assistance under this Act in the previous
fiscal year; and
``(2) describing how those funds were used by the eligible
organization.''.
SEC. 3009. PREPOSITIONING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.
Section 407(c)(4) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C.
1736a(c)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''; and
(B) by striking ``for each such fiscal year not more than
$10,000,000 of such funds'' and inserting ``for each of
fiscal years 2001 through 2013 not more than $10,000,000 of
such funds and for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018 not
more than $15,000,000 of such funds''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following new subparagraph:
``(B) Additional prepositioning sites.--The Administrator
may establish additional sites for prepositioning in foreign
countries or change the location of current sites for
prepositioning in foreign countries after conducting, and
based on the results of, assessments of need, the
availability of appropriate technology for long-term storage,
feasibility, and cost.''.
SEC. 3010. ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING FOOD AID PROGRAMS AND
ACTIVITIES.
Section 407(f)(1) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C.
1736a(f)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``agricultural
trade'' and inserting ``food aid'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting before the
semicolon at the end the following: ``and the total number of
beneficiaries of the project and the activities carried out
through such project''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B)(iii)--
(A) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by inserting ``,
and the total number of beneficiaries in,'' after
``commodities made available to'';
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (I);
(C) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subclause (II); and
(D) by inserting after subclause (II) the following new
subclause:
``(III) the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
and Child Nutrition Program established by section 3107 of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
1736o-1);''.
SEC. 3011. DEADLINE FOR AGREEMENTS TO FINANCE SALES OR TO
PROVIDE OTHER ASSISTANCE.
Section 408 of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1736b) is
amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 3012. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 412(a)(1) of
the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f(a)(1)) is amended by
striking ``for fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year
thereafter, $2,500,000,000'' and inserting ``$2,500,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 and $2,000,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.
(b) Minimum Level of Nonemergency Food Assistance.--
Paragraph (1) of section 412(e) of the Food for Peace Act (7
U.S.C. 1736f(e)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Funds and commodities.--For each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018, of the amounts made available to carry out
emergency and nonemergency food assistance programs under
title II, not less than $400,000,000 shall be expended for
nonemergency food assistance programs under such title.''.
SEC. 3013. MICRONUTRIENT FORTIFICATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Elimination of Obsolete Reference to Study.--Section
415(a)(2)(B) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1736g-
2(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``, using
recommendations'' and all that follows through ``quality
enhancements''.
(b) Extension.--Section 415(c) of the Food for Peace Act (7
U.S.C. 1736g-2(c)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 3014. JOHN OGONOWSKI AND DOUG BEREUTER FARMER-TO-FARMER
PROGRAM.
Section 501 of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1737) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (d), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013, and not less
than the greater of $15,000,000 or 0.5 percent of the amounts
made available for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018,'';
and
(2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
[[Page H3817]]
Subtitle B--Agricultural Trade Act of 1978
SEC. 3101. FUNDING FOR EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
Section 211(b) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7
U.S.C. 5641(b)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 3102. FUNDING FOR MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.
Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978
(7 U.S.C. 5641(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 3103. FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM.
Section 703(a) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7
U.S.C. 5723(a)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
Subtitle C--Other Agricultural Trade Laws
SEC. 3201. FOOD FOR PROGRESS ACT OF 1985.
(a) Extension.--The Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1736o) is amended--
(1) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018'';
(2) in subsection (g), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018'';
(3) in subsection (k), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''; and
(4) in subsection (l)(1), by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
(b) Repeal of Completed Project.--Subsection (f) of the
Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o) is amended by
striking paragraph (6).
SEC. 3202. BILL EMERSON HUMANITARIAN TRUST.
Section 302 of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act (7
U.S.C. 1736f-1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)(B)(i), by striking ``2012'' both
places it appears and inserting ``2018''; and
(2) in subsection (h), by striking ``2012'' both places it
appears and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 3203. PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS TO EMERGING
MARKETS.
(a) Direct Credits or Export Credit Guarantees.--Section
1542(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act
of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 5622 note) is amended
by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
(b) Development of Agricultural Systems.--Section
1542(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 5622 note) is
amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 3204. MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM.
(a) Reauthorization.--Section 3107(l)(2) of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-
1(l)(2)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
(b) Technical Correction.--Section 3107(d) of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-
1(d)) is amended by striking ``to'' in the matter preceding
paragraph (1).
SEC. 3205. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIALTY CROPS.
(a) Purpose.--Section 3205(b) of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 5680(b)) is amended by
striking ``related barriers to trade'' and inserting
``technical barriers to trade''.
(b) Funding.--Section 3205(e)(2) of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 5680(e)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
and
(2) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) and inserting the
following new subparagraph:
``(D) $9,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through
2018.''.
SEC. 3206. GLOBAL CROP DIVERSITY TRUST.
Section 3202(c) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 22 U.S.C. 2220a note) is amended
by striking ``section'' and all that follows through the
period and inserting the following: ``section--
``(1) $60,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013; and
``(2) $50,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2014
through 2018.''.
SEC. 3207. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FOREIGN
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 is amended by
inserting after section 225 (7 U.S.C. 6931) the following new
section:
``SEC. 225A. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FOREIGN
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to
establish in the Department the position of Under Secretary
of Agriculture for Foreign Agricultural Services.
``(b) Confirmation Required.--If the Secretary establishes
the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Foreign
Agricultural Services under subsection (a), the Under
Secretary shall be appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
``(c) Functions of Under Secretary.--
``(1) Principal functions.--Upon establishment, the
Secretary shall delegate to the Under Secretary of
Agriculture for Foreign Agricultural Services those functions
under the jurisdiction of the Department that are related to
foreign agricultural services.
``(2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of
Agriculture for Foreign Agricultural Services shall perform
such other functions as may be required by law or prescribed
by the Secretary.
``(d) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Under
Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services on the date of the enactment of this section and who
was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall not be required to be
reappointed under subsection (b) or section 225(b) to the
successor position authorized under subsection (a) or section
225(a) if the Secretary establishes the position, and the
official occupies the new position, with 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this section (or such later date set
by the Secretary if litigation delays rapid succession).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 225 of the Department
of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6931) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm
and Foreign Agricultural Services'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm
Services''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``and foreign
agricultural''.
(c) Permanent Authority.--Section 296(b) of the Department
of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7014(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6)(C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) the authority of the Secretary to establish in the
Department the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for
Foreign Agricultural Services in accordance with section
225A;''.
TITLE IV--NUTRITION
Subtitle A--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SEC. 4001. PREVENTING PAYMENT OF CASH TO RECIPIENTS OF
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE BENEFITS FOR
THE RETURN OF EMPTY BOTTLES AND CANS USED TO
CONTAIN FOOD PURCHASED WITH BENEFITS PROVIDED
UNDER THE PROGRAM.
Section 3(k)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2012(k)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and hot foods'' and inserting ``hot
foods''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``and any deposit
fee in excess of amount of the State fee reimbursement (if
any) required to purchase any food or food product contained
in a returnable bottle or can, regardless of whether such fee
is included in the shelf price posted for such food or food
product,''.
SEC. 4002. RETAILERS.
(a) Definition of Retail Food Store.--Section 3(p)(1)(A) of
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(p)(1)(A))
is amended by striking ``at least 2'' and inserting ``at
least 3''.
(b) Alternative Benefit Delivery.--Section 7(f) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Imposition of costs.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Secretary shall require participating retailers
(including restaurants participating in a State option
restaurant program intended to serve the elderly, disabled,
and homeless) to pay 100 percent of the costs of acquiring,
and arrange for the implementation of, electronic benefit
transfer point-of-sale equipment and supplies.
``(B) Exemptions.--The Secretary may exempt from
subparagraph (A)--
``(i) farmers' markets and other direct-to-consumer
markets, military commissaries, nonprofit food buying
cooperatives, and establishments, organizations, programs, or
group living arrangements described in paragraphs (5), (7),
and (8) of section 3(k); and
``(ii) establishments described in paragraphs (3), (4), and
(9) of section 3(k), other than restaurants participating in
a State option restaurant program.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Termination of manual vouchers.--
``(A) In general.--Effective beginning on the effective
date of this paragraph, except as provided in subparagraph
(B), no State shall issue manual vouchers to a household that
receives supplemental nutrition assistance under this Act or
allow retailers to accept manual vouchers as payment, unless
the Secretary determines that the manual vouchers are
necessary, such as in the event of an electronic benefit
transfer system failure or a disaster situation.
``(B) Exemptions.--The Secretary may exempt categories of
retailers or individual retailers from subparagraph (A) based
on criteria established by the Secretary.
``(5) Unique identification number required.--In an effort
to enhance the antifraud protections of the program, the
Secretary shall require all parties providing electronic
benefit transfer services to provide for and maintain a
unique business identification and a unique terminal
identification number information through the supplemental
nutrition assistance program electronic benefit transfer
transaction routing system. In developing the regulations
implementing this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider
existing commercial practices for other point-of-sale debit
transactions. The Secretary shall issue proposed regulations
implementing this paragraph not earlier than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
(c) Electronic Benefit Transfers.--Section 7(h)(3)(B) of
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(3)(B))
is amended by striking ``is operational--'' and all that
follows through ``(ii) in the case of other participating
stores,'' and inserting ``is operational''.
(d) Approval of Retail Food Stores and Wholesale Food
Concerns.--Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2018) is amended--
(1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a)(1) by striking ``;
and (C)'' and inserting ``; (C) whether the applicant is
located in an area with significantly limited access to food;
and (D)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) EBT Service Requirement.--An approved retail food
store shall provide adequate EBT service as described in
section 7(h)(3)(B).''.
[[Page H3818]]
SEC. 4003. ENHANCING SERVICES TO ELDERLY AND DISABLED
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
PARTICIPANTS.
(a) Enhancing Services to Elderly and Disabled Program
Participants.--Section 3(p) of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(p)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and'', and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) a governmental or private nonprofit food purchasing
and delivery service that--
``(A) purchases food for, and delivers such food to,
individuals who are--
``(i) unable to shop for food; and
``(ii)(I) not less than 60 years of age; or
``(II) physically or mentally handicapped or otherwise
disabled;
``(B) clearly notifies the participating household at the
time such household places a food order--
``(i) of any delivery fee associated with the food purchase
and delivery provided to such household by such service; and
``(ii) that a delivery fee cannot be paid with benefits
provided under supplemental nutrition assistance program; and
``(C) sells food purchased for such household at the price
paid by such service for such food and without any additional
cost markup.''.
(b) Implementation.--
(1) Issuance of rules.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
issue regulations that--
(A) establish criteria to identify a food purchasing and
delivery service referred to in section 3(p)(5) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 as amended by this Act, and
(B) establish procedures to ensure that such service--
(i) does not charge more for a food item than the price
paid by the such service for such food item,
(ii) offers food delivery service at no or low cost to
households under such Act,
(iii) ensures that benefits provided under the supplemental
nutrition assistance program are used only to purchase food,
as defined in section 3 of such Act,
(iv) limits the purchase of food, and the delivery of such
food, to households eligible to receive services described in
section 3(p)(5) of such Act as so amended,
(v) has established adequate safeguards against fraudulent
activities, including unauthorized use of electronic benefit
cards issued under such Act, and
(vi) such other requirements as the Secretary deems to be
appropriate.
(2) Limitation.--Before the issuance of rules under
paragraph (1) , the Secretary of Agriculture may not approve
more than 20 food purchasing and delivery services referred
to in section 3(p)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
as amended by this Act, to participate as retail food stores
under the supplemental nutrition assistance program.
SEC. 4004. FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS.
Section 4(b)(6)(F) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2013(b)(6)(F)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 4005. UPDATING PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY.
Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2014) is amended--
(1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a) by striking
``households in which each member receives benefits'' and
inserting ``households in which each member receives cash
assistance'', and
(2) in subsection (j) by striking ``or who receives
benefits under a State program'' and inserting ``or who
receives cash assistance under a State program''.
SEC. 4006. EXCLUSION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM EXCESS MEDICAL
EXPENSE DEDUCTION.
Section 5(e)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2014(e)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Exclusion of medical marijuana.--The Secretary shall
promulgate rules to ensure that medical marijuana is not
treated as a medical expense for purposes of this
paragraph.''.
SEC. 4007. STANDARD UTILITY ALLOWANCES BASED ON THE RECEIPT
OF ENERGY ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS.
(a) Standard Utility Allowances in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.--Section 5(e)(6)(C) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (i) by inserting ``, subject to clause (iv)''
after ``Secretary''; and
(2) by striking subclause (I) of clause (iv) and inserting
the following:
``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), if a State
agency elects to use a standard utility allowance that
reflects heating and cooling costs, the standard utility
allowance shall be made available to households that received
a payment, or on behalf of which a payment was made, under
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C.
8621 et seq.) or other similar energy assistance program, if
in the current month or in the immediately preceding 12
months, the household either received such payment, or such
payment was made on behalf of the household, that was greater
than $20 annually, as determined by the Secretary.''; and
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2605(f)(2)(A) of the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C.
8624(f)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, except that, for purposes of the
supplemental nutrition assistance program established under
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.),
such payments or allowances were greater than $20 annually,
consistent with section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of that Act (7
U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I)), as determined by the Secretary
of Agriculture''.
(c) Effective Date and Implementation.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this
section and the amendments made by this section shall take
effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply with respect to
certification periods that begin after such date.
(2) State option to delay implementation for current
recipients.--A State may, at the option of the State,
implement a policy that eliminates or reduces the effect of
the amendments made by this section on households that
received a standard utility allowance as of the date of
enactment of this Act, for not more than a 180-day period
that begins on the date on which such amendments would
otherwise apply to the respective household.
SEC. 4008. ELIGIBILITY DISQUALIFICATIONS.
Section 6(e)(3)(B) of Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2015(e)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``section;'' and
inserting the following: ``section, subject to the condition
that the course or program of study--''
``(i) is part of a program of career and technical
education (as defined in section 3 of the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302))
that may be completed in not more than 4 years at an
institution of higher education (as defined in section 102 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)); or
``(ii) is limited to remedial courses, basic adult
education, literacy, or English as a second language;''.
SEC. 4009. ENDING SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
BENEFITS FOR LOTTERY OR GAMBLING WINNERS.
(a) In General.--Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(r) Ineligibility for Benefits Due to Receipt of
Substantial Lottery or Gambling Winnings.--
``(1) In general.--Any household in which a member receives
substantial lottery or gambling winnings, as determined by
the Secretary, shall lose eligibility for benefits
immediately upon receipt of the winnings.
``(2) Duration of ineligibility.--A household described in
paragraph (1) shall remain ineligible for participation until
the household meets the allowable financial resources and
income eligibility requirements under subsections (c), (d),
(e), (f), (g), (i), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of section 5.
``(3) Agreements.--As determined by the Secretary, each
State agency, to the maximum extent practicable, shall
establish agreements with entities responsible for the
regulation or sponsorship of gaming in the State to determine
whether individuals participating in the supplemental
nutrition assistance program have received substantial
lottery or gambling winnings.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 5(a) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(a)) is amended in the 2d
sentence by striking ``sections 6(b), 6(d)(2), and 6(g)'' and
inserting ``subsections (b), (d)(2), (g), and (r) of section
6''.
SEC. 4010. IMPROVING SECURITY OF FOOD ASSISTANCE.
Section 7(h)(8) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2016(h)(8)) is amended--
(1) in the heading by striking ``card fee'' and inserting
``of cards'';
(2) by striking ``A State'' and inserting the following:
``(A) Fees.--A State''; and
(3) by adding after subparagraph (A) (as so designated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(B) Purposeful loss of cards.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to terms and conditions
established by the Secretary in accordance with clause (ii),
if a household makes excessive requests for replacement of
the electronic benefit transfer card of the household, the
Secretary may require a State agency to decline to issue a
replacement card to the household unless the household, upon
request of the State agency, provides an explanation for the
loss of the card.
``(ii) Requirements.--The terms and conditions established
by the Secretary shall provide that--
``(I) the household be given the opportunity to provide the
requested explanation and meet the requirements under this
paragraph promptly;
``(II) after an excessive number of lost cards, the head of
the household shall be required to review program rights and
responsibilities with State agency personnel authorized to
make determinations under section 5(a); and
``(III) any action taken, including actions required under
section 6(b)(2), other than the withholding of the electronic
benefit transfer card until an explanation described in
subclause (I) is provided, shall be consistent with the due
process protections under section 6(b) or 11(e)(10), as
appropriate.
``(C) Protecting vulnerable persons.--In implementing this
paragraph, a State agency shall act to protect homeless
persons, persons with disabilities, victims of crimes, and
other vulnerable persons who lose electronic benefit transfer
cards but are not intentionally committing fraud.
``(D) Effect on eligibility.--While a State may decline to
issue an electronic benefits transfer card until a household
satisfies the requirements under this paragraph, nothing in
this paragraph shall be considered a denial of, or limitation
on, the eligibility for benefits under section 5.''.
SEC. 4011. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ON ACCEPTANCE OF BENEFITS
OF MOBILE TRANSACTIONS.
Section 7(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2016(h)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
[[Page H3819]]
``(14) Demonstration projects on acceptance of benefits of
mobile transactions.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pilot the use of
mobile technologies determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate to test the feasibility and implications for
program integrity, by allowing retail food stores, farmers
markets, and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing
outlets to accept benefits from recipients of supplemental
nutrition assistance through mobile transactions.
``(B) Demonstration projects.--To be eligible to
participate in a demonstration project under subsection (a),
a retail food store, farmers market, or other direct
producer-to-consumer marketing outlet shall submit to the
Secretary for approval a plan that includes--
``(i) a description of the technology;
``(ii) the manner by which the retail food store, farmers
market or other direct producer-to-consumer marketing outlet
will provide proof of the transaction to households;
``(iii) the provision of data to the Secretary, consistent
with requirements established by the Secretary, in a manner
that allows the Secretary to evaluate the impact of the
demonstration on participant access, ease of use, and program
integrity; and
``(iv) such other criteria as the Secretary may require.
``(C) Date of completion.--The demonstration projects under
this paragraph shall be completed and final reports submitted
to the Secretary by not later than July 1, 2016.
``(D) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit a
report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate that includes a finding, based on
the data provided under subparagraph (C) whether or not
implementation in all States is in the best interest of the
supplemental nutrition assistance program.''.
SEC. 4012. USE OF BENEFITS FOR PURCHASE OF COMMUNITY-
SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE SHARE.
Section 10 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2019) is amended in the 1st sentence by inserting
``agricultural producers who market agricultural products
directly to consumers shall be authorized to redeem benefits
for the initial cost of the purchase of a community-supported
agriculture share,'' after ``food so purchased,''.
SEC. 4013. RESTAURANT MEALS PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 11(e) of the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (22) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (23)(C) by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) if the State elects to carry out a program to
contract with private establishments to offer meals at
concessional prices, as described in paragraphs (3), (4), and
(9) of section 3(k)--
``(A) the plans of the State agency for operating the
program, including--
``(i) documentation of a need that eligible homeless,
elderly, and disabled clients are underserved in a particular
geographic area;
``(ii) the manner by which the State agency will limit
participation to only those private establishments that the
State determines necessary to meet the need identified in
clause (i); and
``(iii) any other conditions the Secretary may prescribe,
such as the level of security necessary to ensure that only
eligible recipients participate in the program; and
``(B) a report by the State agency to the Secretary
annually, the schedule of which shall be established by the
Secretary, that includes--
``(i) the number of households and individual recipients
authorized to participate in the program, including any
information on whether the individual recipient is elderly,
disabled, or homeless; and
``(ii) an assessment of whether the program is meeting an
established need, as documented under subparagraph (A)(i).''.
(b) Approval of Retail Food Stores and Wholesale Food
Concerns.--Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2018) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Private Establishments.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), no private
establishment that contracts with a State agency to offer
meals at concessional prices as described in paragraphs (3),
(4), and (9) of section 3(k) may be authorized to accept and
redeem benefits unless the Secretary determines that the
participation of the private establishment is required to
meet a documented need in accordance with section 11(e)(24).
``(2) Existing contracts.--
``(A) In general.--If, on the day before the effective date
of this subsection, a State has entered into a contract with
a private establishment described in paragraph (1) and the
Secretary has not determined that the participation of the
private establishment is necessary to meet a documented need
in accordance with section 11(e)(24), the Secretary shall
allow the operation of the private establishment to continue
without that determination of need for a period not to exceed
180 days from the date on which the Secretary establishes
determination criteria, by regulation, under section
11(e)(24).
``(B) Justification.--If the Secretary determines to
terminate a contract with a private establishment that is in
effect on the effective date of this subsection, the
Secretary shall provide justification to the State in which
the private establishment is located for that termination.
``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after
September 30, 2014, and 90 days after the last day of each
fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate on the effectiveness of a program under this
subsection using any information received from States under
section 11(e)(24) as well as any other information the
Secretary may have relating to the manner in which benefits
are used.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3(k) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(k)) is amended by
inserting ``subject to section 9(h)'' after ``concessional
prices'' each place it appears.
SEC. 4014. MANDATING STATE IMMIGRATION VERIFICATION.
Section 11(p) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2020(p)) is amended to read as follows:
``(p) State Verification Option.--In carrying out the
supplemental nutrition assistance program, a State agency
shall be required to use an income and eligibility, or an
immigration status, verification system established under
section 1137 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7),
in accordance with standards set by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 4015. DATA EXCHANGE STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED
INTEROPERABILITY.
(a) Data Exchange Standardization.--Section 11 of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(v) Data Exchange Standardization for Improved
Interoperability.--
``(1) Data exchange standards.--
``(A) Designation.--The Secretary, in consultation with an
interagency work group which shall be established by the
Office of Management and Budget, and considering State
perspectives, shall, by rule, designate a data exchange
standard for any category of information required to be
reported under this Act.
``(B) Data exchange standards must be nonproprietary and
interoperable.--The data exchange standard designated under
subparagraph (A) shall, to the extent practicable, be
nonproprietary and interoperable.
``(C) Other requirements.--In designating data exchange
standards under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the
extent practicable, incorporate--
``(i) interoperable standards developed and maintained by
an international voluntary consensus standards body, as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, such as the
International Organization for Standardization;
``(ii) interoperable standards developed and maintained by
intergovernmental partnerships, such as the National
Information Exchange Model; and
``(iii) interoperable standards developed and maintained by
Federal entities with authority over contracting and
financial assistance, such as the Federal Acquisition
Regulatory Council.
``(2) Data exchange standards for reporting.--
``(A) Designation.--The Secretary, in consultation with an
interagency work group established by the Office of
Management and Budget, and considering State perspectives,
shall, by rule, designate data exchange standards to govern
the data reporting required under this part.
``(B) Requirements.--The data exchange standards required
by subparagraph (A) shall, to the extent practicable--
``(i) incorporate a widely-accepted, nonproprietary,
searchable, computer-readable format;
``(ii) be consistent with and implement applicable
accounting principles; and
``(iii) be capable of being continually upgraded as
necessary.
``(C) Incorporation of nonproprietary standards.--In
designating reporting standards under this subsection, the
Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate
existing nonproprietary standards, such as the eXtensible
Markup Language.''.
(b) Effective Dates.--
(1) Data exchange standards.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall issue a proposed rule under section 11(v)(1) of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 within 12 months after the
effective date of this section, and shall issue a final rule
under such section after public comment, within 24 months
after such effective date.
(2) Data reporting standards.--The reporting standards
required under section 11(v)(2) of such Act shall become
effective with respect to reports required in the first
reporting period, after the effective date of the final rule
referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection, for which
the authority for data collection and reporting is
established or renewed under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
SEC. 4016. PILOT PROJECTS TO IMPROVE FEDERAL-STATE
COOPERATION IN IDENTIFYING AND REDUCING FRAUD
IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.
Section 12 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2021) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Pilot Projects to Improve Federal-State Cooperation
in Identifying and Reducing Fraud in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, under
such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary,
pilot projects to test innovative Federal-State partnerships
to identify, investigate, and reduce retailer fraud in the
supplemental nutrition assistance program, including allowing
States to operate retail Food Store investigation programs.
``(2) Selection criteria.--Pilot projects shall be selected
based on criteria the Secretary establishes, which shall
include--
``(A) enhancing existing efforts by the Secretary to reduce
retailer fraud;
``(B) requiring participant States to maintain their
overall level of effort at addressing recipient fraud, as
determined by the Secretary, prior to participation in the
pilot project;
``(C) collaborating with other law enforcement authorities
as necessary to carry out an effective pilot project;
[[Page H3820]]
``(D) commitment of the participant State agency to follow
Federal rules and procedures with respect to retailer
investigations; and
``(E) the extent to which a State has committed resources
to recipient fraud and the relative success of those efforts.
``(3) Evaluation.--
``(A) The Secretary shall evaluate the projects selected
under this subsection to measure the impact of the pilot
projects.
``(B) Such evaluation shall include--
``(i) each pilot project's impact on increasing the
Secretary's capacity to address retailer fraud;
``(ii) the effectiveness of the pilot projects in
identifying, preventing and reducing retailer fraud; and
``(iii) the cost effectiveness of such pilot projects.
``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than September 30,
2017, the Secretary shall 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 includes a description of the results of each
pilot project, including an evaluation of the impact of the
project on retailer fraud and the costs associated with each
pilot project.
``(5) Funding.--Any costs incurred by the State to operate
the pilot projects in excess of the amount expended under
this Act for retailer fraud in the respective State in the
previous fiscal year shall not be eligible for Federal
reimbursement under this Act.''.
SEC. 4017. PROHIBITING GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED RECRUITMENT
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Administrative Cost-sharing and Quality Control.--
Section 16(a)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2025(a)(4)) is amended by inserting after
``recruitment activities'' the following: ``designed to
persuade an individual to apply for program benefits or that
promote the program via television, radio, or billboard
advertisements''.
(b) Limitation on Use of Funds Authorized to Be
Appropriated Under Act.--Section 18 of the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2027) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(g) Ban on Recruitment and Promotion Activities.--(1)
Except as provided in paragraph (2), no funds authorized to
be appropriated under this Act shall be used by the Secretary
for--
``(A) recruitment activities designed to persuade an
individual to apply for supplemental nutrition assistance
program benefits;
``(B) television, radio, or billboard advertisements that
are designed to promote supplemental nutrition assistance
program benefits and enrollment; or
``(C) any agreements with foreign governments designed to
promote supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits
and enrollment.
``(2) Paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to programmatic
activities undertaken with respect to benefits made available
in response to a natural disaster.''.
(c) Ban on Recruitment Activities by Entities That Receive
Funds.--Section 18 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2027) is amended by adding at the end the following :
``(h) Ban on Recruitment by Entities That Receive Funds.--
The Secretary shall issue regulations that forbid entities
that receive funds under this Act to compensate any person
for conducting outreach activities relating to participation
in, or for recruiting individuals to apply to receive
benefits under, the supplemental nutrition assistance program
if the amount of such compensation would be based on the
number of individuals who apply to receive such benefits.''.
SEC. 4018. REPEAL OF BONUS PROGRAM.
Section 16(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2025(d)) is repealed.
SEC. 4019. FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.
Section 16(h)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)(A)) is amended by striking
``$90,000,000'' and all that follows through ``$79,000,000'',
and inserting ``$79,000,000 for each fiscal year''.
SEC. 4020. MONITORING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.
(a) Reporting Measures.--Section 16(h)(5) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(5)) is amended to
read:
``(5)(A) In general.--The Secretary shall monitor the
employment and training programs carried out by State
agencies under section 6(d)(4) and assess their effectiveness
in--
``(i) preparing members of households participating in the
supplemental nutrition assistance program for employment,
including the acquisition of basic skills necessary for
employment; and
``(ii) increasing the numbers of household members who
obtain and retain employment subsequent to their
participation in such employment and training programs.
``(B) Reporting measures.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Labor, shall develop reporting measures
that identify improvements in the skills, training education
or work experience of members of households participating in
the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Measures shall
be based on common measures of performance for federal
workforce training programs, so long as they reflect the
challenges facing the types of members of households
participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance
program who participate in a specific employment and training
component. The Secretary shall require that each State
employment and training plan submitted under section
11(3)(19) identify appropriate reporting measures for each of
their proposed components that serve at least 100 people.
Such measures may include:
``(i) the percentage and number of program participants who
received employment and training services and are in
unsubsidized employment subsequent to the receipt of those
services;
``(ii) the percentage and number of program participants
who obtain a recognized postsecondary credential, including a
registered apprenticeship, or a regular secondary school
diploma or its recognized equivalent, while participating in
or within 1 year after receiving employment and training
services;
``(iii) the percentage and number of program participants
who are in an education or training program that is intended
to lead to a recognized postsecondary credential, including a
registered apprenticeship or on-the-job training program, a
regular secondary school diploma or its recognized
equivalent, or unsubsidized employment;
``(iv) subject to the terms and conditions set by the
Secretary, measures developed by each State agency to assess
the skills acquisition of employment and training program
participants that reflect the goals of their specific
employment and training program components, which may
include, but are not limited to--
``(I) the percentage and number of program participants who
are meeting program requirements in each component of the
State's education and training program; and
``(II) the percentage and number of program participants
who are gaining skills likely to lead to employment as
measured through testing, quantitative or qualitative
assessment or other method; and
``(v) other indicators as approved by the Secretary.
``(C) State report.--Each State agency shall annually
prepare and submit to the Secretary a report on the State's
employment and training program that includes the numbers of
supplemental nutrition assistance program participants who
have gained skills, training, work or experience that will
increase their ability to obtain regular employment using
measures identified in subparagraph (B).
``(D) Modifications to the state employment and training
plan.--Subject to the terms and conditions established by the
Secretary, if the Secretary determines that the state
agency's performance with respect to employment and training
outcomes is inadequate, the Secretary may require the State
agency to make modifications to their employment and training
plan to improve such outcomes.
``(E) Periodic evaluation.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to terms and conditions
established by the Secretary, not later than October 1, 2016,
and not less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to review existing
practice and research to identify employment and training
program components and practices that--
``(I) effectively assist members of households
participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance
program in gaining skills, training, work, or experience that
will increase their ability to obtain regular employment, and
``(II) are best integrated with statewide workforce
development systems.
``(ii) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit a
report that describes the results of the study under clause
(i) to the Committee on Agriculture in the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry in the Senate.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 4(c) of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(a)), the
Secretary shall issue interim final regulations implementing
the amendment made by subsection (a) no later than 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act. States shall include
such reporting measures in their employment and training
plans for the 1st fiscal year thereafter that begins no
sooner than 6 months after the date that such regulations are
published.
SEC. 4021. COOPERATION WITH PROGRAM RESEARCH AND EVALUATION.
Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2026) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Cooperation With Program Research and Evaluation.--
States, State agencies, local agencies, institutions,
facilities such as data consortiums, and contractors
participating in programs authorized under this Act shall
cooperate with officials and contractors acting on behalf of
the Secretary in the conduct of evaluations and studies under
this Act and shall submit information at such time and in
such manner as the Secretary may require.''.
SEC. 4022. PILOT PROJECTS TO REDUCE DEPENDENCY AND INCREASE
WORK EFFORT IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2026), as amended by section 4021, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(m) Pilot Projects to Reduce Dependency and Increase Work
Effort in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, under
such terms and conditions as the Secretary considers to be
appropriate, pilot projects to identify best practices for
employment and training programs under this Act to raise the
number of work registrants who obtain unsubsidized
employment, increase their earned income, and reduce their
reliance on public assistance, including but not limited to
the supplemental nutrition assistance program.
``(2) Selection criteria.--Pilot projects shall be selected
based on criteria the Secretary establishes, that shall
include--
``(A) enhancing existing employment and training programs
in the State;
``(B) agreeing to participate in the evaluation described
in paragraph (3), including making
[[Page H3821]]
available data on participants' employment activities and
post-participation employment, earnings, and public benefit
receipt;
``(C) collaborating with the State workforce board and
other job training programs in the State and local area;
``(D) the extent to which the pilot project's components
can be easily replicated by other States or political
subdivisions; and
``(E) such additional criteria that ensure that the pilot
projects--
``(i) target a variety of populations of work registrants,
including childless adults, parents, and individuals with low
skills or limited work experience;
``(ii) are selected from a range of existing employment and
training programs including programs that provide--
``(I) section 20 workfare;
``(II) skills development for work registrants with limited
employment history;
``(III) post-employment support services necessary for
maintaining employment; and
``(IV) education leading to a recognized postsecondary
credential, registered apprenticeship, or secondary school
diploma or its equivalent;
``(iii) are located in a range of geographic areas,
including rural, urban, and Indian reservations; and
``(iv) include participants who are exempt and not exempt
under section (6)(d)(2).
``(3) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall provide for an
independent evaluation of projects selected under this
subsection to measure the impact of the pilot projects on the
ability of each pilot project target population to find and
retain employment that leads to increased household income
and reduced dependency, compared to what would have occurred
in the absence of the pilot project.
``(4) Report to congress.--By September 30, 2017, the
Secretary shall 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 includes a description of--
``(A) the results of each pilot project, including an
evaluation of the impact of the project on the employment,
income, and public benefit receipt of the targeted population
of work registrants;
``(B) the Federal, State, and other costs of each pilot
project;
``(C) the planned dissemination of the reports' findings
with State agencies; and
``(D) the steps and funding necessary to incorporate
components of pilot projects that demonstrate increased
employment and earnings into State employment and training
programs.
``(5) Funding.--From amounts made available to under
section 18(a)(1), the Secretary shall make $10,000,000
available for each of the fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016
to carry out this subsection. Such amounts shall remain
available until expended.
``(6) Use of funds.--
``(A) Funds provided under this subsection for pilot
projects shall be used only for--
``(i) pilot projects that comply with the provisions of
this Act;
``(ii) the costs and administration of the pilot projects;
``(iii) the costs incurred in providing information and
data to the independent evaluation under paragraph (3); and
``(iv) the costs of the evaluation under paragraph (3).
``(B) Funds made available under this subsection may not be
used to supplant non-Federal funds used for existing
employment and training activities.''.
SEC. 4023. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2027(a)(1)) is amended in the 1st sentence by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 4024. LIMITATION ON USE OF BLOCK GRANT TO PUERTO RICO.
Section 19(a)(2)(B) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2028(a)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(iii) Limitation on use of funds.--None of the funds made
available to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under this
subparagraph may be used to provide nutrition assistance in
the form of cash benefits.''.
SEC. 4025. ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY FOOD PROJECTS.
(a) Definition.--Section 25(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2034(a)(1)(B)(i)) is
amended--
(1) in subclause (II) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subclause (III) by striking ``or'' at the end and
inserting ``and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(IV) to provide incentives for the consumption of fruits
and vegetables among low-income individuals; or''.
(b) Additional Funding.--Section 25(b) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2034) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(3) Funding.--
``(A) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer to the Secretary to carry out this section not less
than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year
thereafter. Of the amount made available under this
subparagraph for each such fiscal year, $5,000,000 shall be
available to carry out subsection (a)(1)(B)(I)(IV).
``(B) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be
entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out
this section, the funds transferred under subparagraph (A)
without further appropriation.
``(C) Maintenance of funding.--The funding provided under
subparagraph (A) shall supplement (and not supplant) other
Federal funding made available to the Secretary to carry out
this section.''.
SEC. 4026. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE.
(a) Purchase of Commodities.--Section 27(a) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2036(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and
inserting ``2013 through 2018'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the
following:
``(A) for fiscal year 2013, $265,750,000;
``(B) for fiscal year 2014 the dollar amount of commodities
specified in subparagraph (A) adjusted by the percentage by
which the thrifty food plan has been adjusted under section
3(u)(4) between June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2013, and
subsequently increased by $20,000,000;''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by striking ``2010 through 2012, the dollar amount of
commodities specified in'' and inserting ``2015 through 2018,
the total amount of commodities under''; and
(ii) by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Funds availability.--For purposes of the funds
described in this subsection, the Secretary shall--
``(A) make the funds available for 2 fiscal years; and
``(B) allow States to carry over unexpended balances to the
next fiscal year pursuant to such terms and conditions as are
determined by the Secretary.''.
(b) Emergency Food Program Infrastructure Grants.--Section
209(d) of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C.
7511a(d)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 4027. NUTRITION EDUCATION.
Section 28 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2036a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by inserting ``and physical
activity'' after ``healthy food choices''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``$401,000,000;'' and
inserting ``$375,000,000; and'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (E); and
(C) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``(F) for fiscal year
2016'' and inserting ``(E) for fiscal year 2015''.
SEC. 4028. RETAILER TRAFFICKING.
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 29. RETAILER TRAFFICKING.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide
the Department of Agriculture with additional resources to
prevent trafficking in violation of this Act by strengthening
recipient and retailer program integrity. Additional funds
are provided to supplement the Department's payment accuracy,
and retailer and recipient integrity activities.
``(b) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer to the Secretary to carry out this section not less
than $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year
thereafter.
``(2) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be
entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out
this section the funds transferred under paragraph (1)
without further appropriation.
``(3) Maintenance of funding.--The funding provided under
paragraph (1) shall supplement (and not supplant) other
Federal funding for programs carried out under this Act.''.
SEC. 4029. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Section 3 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2012) is amended--
(1) in subsection (g) by striking ``coupon,'' the last
place it appears and inserting ``coupon'';
(2) in subsection (k)(7) by striking ``or are'' and
inserting ``and'';
(3) by striking subsection (l);
(4) by redesignating subsections (m) through (t) as
subsections (l) through (s), respectively; and
(5) by inserting after subsection (s) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(t) `Supplemental nutritional assistance program' means
the program operated pursuant to this Act.''.
(b) Section 4(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2013(a)) is amended by striking ``benefits'' the last
place it appears and inserting ``Benefits''.
(c) Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
(1) in the last sentence of subsection (i)(2)(D) by
striking ``section 13(b)(2)'' and inserting ``section
13(b)''; and
(2) in subsection (k)(4)(A) by striking ``paragraph
(2)(H)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)(G)''.
(d) Section 6(d)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)(vii) by moving the left margin 4
ems to the left, and
(2) in subparagraph (F)(iii) by moving the left margin 6
ems to the left.
(e) Section 7(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2016(h)) is amended by redesignating the 2d paragraph
(12) as paragraph (13).
(f) Section 12 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2021) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(3)(C) by striking ``civil money
penalties'' and inserting ``civil penalties''; and
(2) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ``(7 U.S.C. 1786)''
and inserting ``(42 U.S.C. 1786)''.
(g) Section 15(b)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2024(b)(1)) is amended in the 1st sentence by
striking ``an benefit'' both places it appears and inserting
``a benefit''.
[[Page H3822]]
(h) Section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2025(a)) is amended in the proviso following paragraph
(8) by striking ``, as amended.''.
(i) Section 18(e) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2027(e)) is amended in the 1st sentence by striking
``sections 7(f)'' and inserting ``section 7(f)''.
(j) Section 22(b)(10)(B)(i) of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2031(b)(10)(B)(i)) is amended in the last
sentence by striking ``Food benefits'' and inserting
``Benefits''.
(k) Section 26(f)(3)(C) of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 2035(f)(3)(C)) is amended by striking
``subsection'' and inserting ``subsections''.
(l) Section 27(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2036(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``(Public Law
98-8; 7 U.S.C. 612c note)'' and inserting ``(7 U.S.C.
7515)''.
(m) Section 509 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3056g) is amended in the section heading by striking
``FOOD STAMP PROGRAMS'' and inserting ``SUPPLEMENTAL
NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM''.
(n) Section 4115(c)(2)(H) of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1871) is
amended by striking ``531'' and inserting ``454''.
(o) Section 3803(c)(2)(C)(vii) of title 31 of the United
States Code is amended by striking ``section 3(l)'' and
inserting ``section 3(s)''.
(p) Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and
inserting ``section 3(s)'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and
inserting ``section 3(s)''; and
(3) in subsection (e)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and
inserting ``section 3(s)''.
(q) The Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7
U.S.C. 612c) is amended--
(1) in section 4(a) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of 1977''
and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
(2) in section 5--
(A) in subsection (i)(1) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of
1977'' and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
(B) in subsection (l)(2)(B) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of
1977'' and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''.
(r) The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in the heading of section 453(j)(10) by striking ``food
stamp'' and inserting ``supplemental nutrition assistance'';
(2) in section 1137--
(A) in subsection (a)(5)(B) by striking ``food stamp'' and
inserting ``supplemental nutrition assistance''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(4) by striking ``food stamp program
under the Food Stamp Act of 1977'' and inserting
``supplemental nutrition assistance program under the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
(3) in the heading of section 1631(n) by striking ``Food
Stamp'' and inserting ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance''.
SEC. 4030. TOLERANCE LEVEL FOR EXCLUDING SMALL ERRORS.
The Secretary shall set the tolerance level for excluding
small errors for the purposes of section 16(c) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(c))--
(1) for fiscal year 2014 at an amount no greater than $25;
and
(2) for each fiscal year thereafter, the amount specified
in paragraph (1) adjusted by the percentage by which the
thrifty food plan is adjusted under section 3(u)(4) of such
Act between June 30, 2012, and June 30 of the immediately
preceding fiscal year.
SEC. 4031. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS PILOT
PROGRAM.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--Prior to establishing the pilot program
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall conduct a study to
be completed not later than 2 years after the effective date
of this section to assess--
(A) the capabilities of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands to operate the supplemental nutrition
assistance program in the same manner in which the program is
operated in the States (as defined in section 3 of the Food
and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq)); and
(B) alternative models of the supplemental nutrition
assistance program operation and benefit delivery that best
meet the nutrition assistance needs of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands.
(2) Scope.--The study conducted under paragraph (1)(A) will
assess the capability of the Commonwealth to fulfill the
responsibilities of a State agency, including--
(A) extending and limiting participation to eligible
households, as prescribed by sections 5 and 6 of the Act;
(B) issuing benefits through EBT cards, as prescribed by
section 7 of the Act;
(C) maintaining the integrity of the program, including
operation of a quality control system, as prescribed by
section 16(c) of the Act;
(D) implementing work requirements, including operating an
employment and training program, as prescribed by section
6(d) of the Act; and
(E) paying a share of administrative costs with non-Federal
funds, as prescribed by section 16(a) of the Act.
(b) Establishment.--If the Secretary determines that a
pilot program is feasible, the Secretary shall establish a
pilot program for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands to operate the supplemental nutrition assistance
program in the same manner in which the program is operated
in the States.
(c) Scope.--The Secretary shall utilize the information
obtained from the study conducted under subsection (a) to
establish the scope of the pilot program established under
subsection (b).
(d) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2019, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a report on the pilot program
carried out under this section, including an analysis of the
feasibility of operating in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands the supplemental nutrition assistance program
as it is operated in the States.
(e) Funding.--
(1) Study.--Of the funds made available under section
18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the Secretary
may use not more than $1,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2014
and 2015 to conduct the study described in subsection (a).
(2) Pilot program.--Of the funds made available under
section 18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, for
the purposes of establishing and carrying out the pilot
program established under subsection (b) of this section,
including the Federal costs for providing technical
assistance to the Commonwealth, authorizing and monitoring
retail food stores, and assessing pilot operations, the
Secretary may use not more than--
(A) $13,500,000 in fiscal year 2016; and
(B) $8,500,000 in each of fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
SEC. 4032. ANNUAL STATE REPORT ON VERIFICATION OF SNAP
PARTICIPATION.
(a) Annual Report.--Not later 1 year after the date
specified by the Secretary in the 180-period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter,
each State agency that carries out the supplemental nutrition
assistance program shall submit to the Secretary a report
containing sufficient information for the Secretary to
determine whether the State agency has, for the then most
recently concluded fiscal year preceding such annual date,
verified that households to which such State agency provided
such assistance in such fiscal year--
(1) did not obtain benefits attributable to a deceased
individual;
(2) did not include an individual who was simultaneously
included in a household receiving such assistance in another
State; and
(3) did not include, during the time benefits were
provided, an individual who was then disqualified from
receiving benefits.
(b) Penalty for Noncompliance.--For any fiscal year for
which a State agency fails to comply with subsection (a), the
Secretary shall reduce by 50 percent the amount otherwise
payable to such State agency under section 16(a) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 with respect to such fiscal year.
Subtitle B--Commodity Distribution Programs
SEC. 4101. COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM.
Section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) is amended in
the 1st sentence by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 4102. COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM.
Section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of
1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(B) of subsection (a) by
striking ``2012'' each place it appears and inserting
``2018'';
(2) in the 1st sentence of subsection (d)(2) by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2018'';
(3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
``(g) Eligibility.--Except as provided in subsection (m),
the States shall only provide assistance under the commodity
supplemental food program to low-income individuals aged 60
and older.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(m) Phase-out.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an individual who receives assistance under the
commodity supplemental food program on the day before the
effective date of this subsection shall continue to receive
that assistance until the date on which the individual no
longer qualifies for assistance under the eligibility
criteria for the program in effect on the day before the
effective date of this subsection.''.
SEC. 4103. DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS COMMODITIES TO SPECIAL
NUTRITION PROJECTS.
Section 1114(a)(2)(A) of the Agriculture and Food Act of
1981 (7 U.S.C. 1431e(2)(A)) is amended in the 1st sentence by
striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 4104. PROCESSING OF COMMODITIES.
(a) Section 17 of the Commodity Distribution Reform Act and
WIC Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended by--
(1) striking the heading and inserting ``COMMODITY
DONATIONS AND PROCESSING''; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(c) Processing.--For any program included in subsection
(b), the Secretary may, notwithstanding any other provision
of State or Federal law relating to the procurement of goods
and services--
``(1) retain title to commodities delivered to a processor,
on behalf of a State (including a State distributing agency
and a recipient agency), until such time as end products
containing such commodities, or similar commodities as
approved by the Secretary, are delivered to a State
distributing agency or to a recipient agency; and
``(2) promulgate regulations to ensure accountability for
commodities provided to a processor for processing into end
products, and to facilitate processing of commodities into
end
[[Page H3823]]
products for use by recipient agencies. Such regulations may
provide that--
``(A) a processor that receives commodities for processing
into end products, or provides a service with respect to such
commodities or end products, in accordance with its agreement
with a State distributing agency or a recipient agency,
provide to the Secretary a bond or other means of financial
assurance to protect the value of such commodities; and
``(B) in the event a processor fails to deliver to a State
distributing agency or a recipient agency an end product in
conformance with the processing agreement entered into under
this Act, the Secretary take action with respect to the bond
or other means of financial assurance pursuant to regulations
promulgated under this paragraph and distribute any proceeds
obtained by the Secretary to one or more State distributing
agencies and recipient agencies as determined appropriate by
the Secretary.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 18 of the Commodity Distribution
Reform Act and WIC Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is
amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) The term `commodities' means agricultural commodities
and their products that are donated by the Secretary for use
by recipient agencies.
``(2) The term `end product' means a food product that
contains processed commodities.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 3 of the
Commodity Distribution Reform Act and WIC Amendments of 1987
(7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 100-237) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) the program established under section 4(b) of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b));''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(D) by striking ``the Committee on
Education and Labor'' and inserting ``the Committee on
Education and the Workforce'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii) by striking ``section 32 of
the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)'' and
inserting ``section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7
U.S.C. 612c)'';
(3) in subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii) by striking subclause (II)
and inserting the following:
``(II) the program established under section 4(b) of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b));''; and
(4) in subsection (k) by striking ``the Committee on
Education and Labor'' and inserting ``the Committee on
Education and the Workforce''.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous
SEC. 4201. FARMERS' MARKET NUTRITION PROGRAM.
Section 4402 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3007) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``SENIORS'';
(2) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use to carry
out and expand the farmers market nutrition program
$20,600,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.
``(2) Additional funding.--There is authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this
subsection for each of the fiscal years specified in
paragraph (1).'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``seniors''; and
(B) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``, and low-income
families who are determined to be at nutritional risk'' after
``low-income seniors'';
(4) in subsection (c) by striking ``seniors'';
(5) in subsection (d) by striking ``seniors'';
(6) in subsection (e) by striking ``seniors'';
(7) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
(8) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) State Grants and Other Assistance.--The Secretary
shall carry out the Program through grants and other
assistance provided in accordance with agreements made with
States, for implementation through State agencies and local
agencies, that include provisions--
``(1) for the issuance of coupons or vouchers to
participating individuals;
``(2) establishing an appropriate annual percentage
limitation on the use of funds for administrative costs; and
``(3) specifying other terms and conditions as the
Secretary deems appropriate to encourage expanding the
participation of small scale farmers in Federal nutrition
programs.''.
SEC. 4202. NUTRITION INFORMATION AND AWARENESS PILOT PROGRAM.
Section 4403 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3171 note; Public Law 107-171) is repealed.
SEC. 4203. FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM.
Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act (42 U.S.C. 1769a) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``FRESH'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``fresh'';
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ``fresh''; and
(4) in subsection (e), by striking ``fresh''.
SEC. 4204. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF FRESH FRUITS,
VEGETABLES, AND OTHER SPECIALTY FOOD CROPS.
Section 10603 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 612c-4) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Pilot Grant Program for Purchase of Fresh Fruits and
Vegetables.--
``(1) In general.--Using amounts made available to carry
out subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture shall
conduct a pilot program under which the Secretary will give
not more than five participating States the option of
receiving a grant in an amount equal to the value of the
commodities that the participating State would otherwise
receive under this section for each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018.
``(2) Use of grant funds.--A participating State receiving
a grant under this subsection may use the grant funds solely
to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables for distribution to
schools and service institutions in the State that
participate in the food service programs under the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.)
and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.).
``(3) Selection of participating states.--The Secretary
shall select participating States from applications submitted
by the States.
``(4) Reporting requirements.--
``(A) School and service institution requirement.--Schools
and service institutions in a participating State shall keep
records of purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables made
using the grant funds and report such records to the State.
``(B) State requirement.--Each participating State shall
submit to the Secretary a report on the success of the pilot
program in the State, including information on--
``(i) the amount and value of each type of fresh fruit and
vegetable purchased by the State; and
``(ii) the benefit provided by such purchases in conducting
the school food service in the State, including meeting
school meal requirements.''.
SEC. 4205. ENCOURAGING LOCALLY AND REGIONALLY GROWN AND
RAISED FOOD.
(a) Commodity Purchase Streamlining.--The Secretary may
permit each school food authority with a low annual commodity
entitlement value, as determined by the Secretary, to elect
to substitute locally and regionally grown and raised food
for the authority's allotment, in whole or in part, of
commodity assistance for the school meal programs under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751
et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771
et seq.), if--
(1) the election is requested by the school food authority;
(2) the Secretary determines that the election will reduce
State and Federal administrative costs; and
(3) the election will provide the school food authority
with greater flexibility to purchase locally and regionally
grown and raised foods.
(b) Farm-to-school Demonstration Programs.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may establish farm-to-school
demonstration programs under which school food authorities,
agricultural producers producing for local and regional
markets, and other farm-to-school stakeholders will
collaborate with the Agriculture Marketing Service to, on a
cost neutral basis, source food for the school meal programs
under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42
U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) from local farmers and ranchers in lieu
of the commodity assistance provided to the school food
authorities for the school meal programs.
(2) Requirements.--
(A) In general.--Each demonstration program carried out
under this subsection shall--
(i) facilitate and increase the purchase of unprocessed and
minimally processed locally and regionally grown and raised
agricultural products to be served under the school meal
programs;
(ii) test methods to improve procurement, transportation,
and meal preparation processes for the school meal programs;
(iii) assess whether administrative costs can be saved
through increased school food authority flexibility to source
locally and regionally produced foods for the school meal
programs; and
(iv) undertake rigorous evaluation and share information
about results of the demonstration program, including cost
savings, with the Secretary, other school food authorities,
agricultural producers producing for the local and regional
market, and the general public.
(B) Plans.--In order to be selected to carry out a
demonstration program under this subsection, a school food
authority shall submit to the Secretary a plan at such time
and in such manner as the Secretary may require, and
containing information with respect to the requirements
described in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (A).
(3) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance to demonstration program participants to
assist such participants to acquire bids from potential
vendors in a timely and cost-effective manner.
(4) Length.--The Secretary shall determine the appropriate
length of time for each demonstration program under this
subsection.
(5) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate among
relevant agencies of the Department of Agriculture and non-
governmental organizations with appropriate expertise to
facilitate the provision of training and technical assistance
necessary to successfully carry out demonstration programs
under this subsection.
(6) Number.--Subject to the availability of funds to carry
out this subsection, the Secretary shall select at least 10
demonstration programs to be carried out under this
subsection.
(7) Diversity and balance.--In selecting demonstration
programs to be carried out under this subsection, the
Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure--
[[Page H3824]]
(A) geographical diversity;
(B) that at least half of the demonstration programs are
completed in collaboration with school food authorities with
small annual commodity entitlements, as determined by the
Secretary;
(C) that at least half of the demonstration programs are
completed in rural or tribal communities;
(D) equitable treatment of school food authorities with a
high percentage of students eligible for free or reduced
price lunches, as determined by the Secretary; and
(E) that at least one of the demonstration programs is
completed on a military installation as defined in section
2687(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 4206. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF WHITE
POTATOES.
The Secretary shall conduct a review of the economic and
public health benefits of white potatoes on low-income
families who are determined to be at nutritional risk. Not
later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall report the findings of this review
to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate.
SEC. 4207. HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--Subtitle D of title II of the Department
of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6951 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 242. HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to enhance
the authorities of the Secretary to support efforts to
provide access to healthy food by establishing an initiative
to improve access to healthy foods in underserved areas, to
create and preserve quality jobs, and to revitalize low-
income communities by providing loans and grants to eligible
fresh, healthy food retailers to overcome the higher costs
and initial barriers to entry in underserved areas.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Community development financial institution.--The
term `community development financial institution' has the
meaning given the term in section 103 of the Community
Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994
(12 U.S.C. 4702).
``(2) Initiative.--The term `Initiative' means the Healthy
Food Financing Initiative established under subsection
(c)(1).
``(3) National fund manager.--The term `national fund
manager' means a community development financial institution
that is--
``(A) in existence on the date of enactment of this
section; and
``(B) certified by the Community Development Financial
Institution Fund of the Department of Treasury to manage the
Initiative for purposes of--
``(i) raising private capital;
``(ii) providing financial and technical assistance to
partnerships; and
``(iii) funding eligible projects to attract fresh, healthy
food retailers to underserved areas, in accordance with this
section.
``(4) Partnership.--The term `partnership' means a
regional, State, or local public-private partnership that--
``(A) is organized to improve access to fresh, healthy
foods;
``(B) provides financial and technical assistance to
eligible projects; and
``(C) meets such other criteria as the Secretary may
establish.
``(5) Perishable food.--The term `perishable food' means a
staple food that is fresh, refrigerated, or frozen.
``(6) Quality job.--The term `quality job' means a job that
provides wages and other benefits comparable to, or better
than, similar positions in existing businesses of similar
size in similar local economies.
``(7) Staple food.--
``(A) In general.--The term `staple food' means food that
is a basic dietary item.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `staple food' includes--
``(i) bread;
``(ii) flour;
``(iii) fruits;
``(iv) vegetables; and
``(v) meat.
``(c) Initiative.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
initiative to achieve the purpose described in subsection (a)
in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Implementation.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) In general.--In carrying out the Initiative, the
Secretary shall provide funding to entities with eligible
projects, as described in subparagraph (B), subject to the
priorities described in subparagraph (C).
``(ii) Use of funds.--Funds provided to an entity pursuant
to clause (i) shall be used--
``(I) to create revolving loan pools of capital or other
products to provide loans to finance eligible projects or
partnerships;
``(II) to provide grants for eligible projects or
partnerships;
``(III) to provide technical assistance to funded projects
and entities seeking Initiative funding; and
``(IV) to cover administrative expenses of the national
fund manager in an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the
Federal funds provided.
``(B) Eligible projects.--Subject to the approval of the
Secretary, the national fund manager shall establish
eligibility criteria for projects under the Initiative, which
shall include the existence or planned execution of
agreements--
``(i) to expand or preserve the availability of staple
foods in underserved areas with moderate- and low-income
populations by maintaining or increasing the number of retail
outlets that offer an assortment of perishable food and
staple food items, as determined by the Secretary, in those
areas; and
``(ii) to accept benefits under the supplemental nutrition
assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
``(C) Priorities.--In carrying out the Initiative, priority
shall be given to projects that--
``(i) are located in severely distressed low-income
communities, as defined by the Community Development
Financial Institutions Fund of the Department of Treasury;
and
``(ii) include 1 or more of the following characteristics:
``(I) The project will create or retain quality jobs for
low-income residents in the community.
``(II) The project supports regional food systems and
locally grown foods, to the maximum extent practicable.
``(III) In areas served by public transit, the project is
accessible by public transit.
``(IV) The project involves women- or minority-owned
businesses.
``(V) The project receives funding from other sources,
including other Federal agencies.
``(VI) The project otherwise advances the purpose of this
section, as determined by the Secretary.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$125,000,000, to remain available until expended.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the Department
of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7014(b)),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended, by adding at the end the following:
``(9) the authority of the Secretary to establish and carry
out the Health Food Financing Initiative under section
242;''.
TITLE V--CREDIT
Subtitle A--Farm Ownership Loans
SEC. 5001. ELIGIBILITY FOR FARM OWNERSHIP LOANS.
(a) In General.--Section 302(a) of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1922(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) In General.--The'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Eligibility requirements.--The'';
(2) in the 1st sentence, by inserting after ``limited
liability companies'' the following: ``, and such other legal
entities as the Secretary deems appropriate,'';
(3) in the 2nd sentence, by redesignating clauses (1)
through (4) as clauses (A) through (D), respectively;
(4) in each of the 2nd and 3rd sentences, by striking ``and
limited liability companies'' each place it appears and
inserting ``limited liability companies, and such other legal
entities'';
(5) in the 3rd sentence, by striking ``(3)'' and ``(4)''
and inserting ``(C)'' and ``(D)'', respectively; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Special deeming rules.--
``(A) Eligibility of certain operating-only entities.--An
entity that is or will become only the operator of a family
farm is deemed to meet the owner-operator requirements of
paragraph (1) if the individuals that are the owners of the
family farm own more than 50 percent (or such other
percentage as the Secretary determines is appropriate) of the
entity.
``(B) Eligibility of certain embedded entities.--An entity
that is an owner-operator described in paragraph (1), or an
operator described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph that
is owned, in whole or in part, by other entities, is deemed
to meet the direct ownership requirement imposed under
paragraph (1) if at least 75 percent of the ownership
interests of each embedded entity of such entity is owned
directly or indirectly by the individuals that own the family
farm.''.
(b) Direct Farm Ownership Experience Requirement.--Section
302(b)(1) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1922(b)(1)) is amended by
inserting ``or has other acceptable experience for a period
of time, as determined by the Secretary,'' after ``3 years''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 304(c)(2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1924(c)(2)) by
striking ``paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 302(a)'' and
inserting ``clauses (A) and (B) of section 302(a)(1)''.
(2) Section 310D of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1934) is amended--
(A) by inserting after ``partnership'' the following: ``,
or such other legal entities as the Secretary deems
appropriate,''; and
(B) by striking ``or partners'' each place it appears and
inserting ``partners, or owners''.
SEC. 5002. CONSERVATION LOAN AND LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
(a) Eligibility.--Section 304(c) of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1924(c)) is amended by
inserting after ``limited liability companies'' the
following: ``, or such other legal entities as the Secretary
deems appropriate,''.
(b) Limitation on Loan Guarantee Amount.--Section 304(e) of
such Act (7 U.S.C. 1924(e)) is amended by striking ``75
percent'' and inserting ``90 percent''.
(c) Extension of Program.--Section 304(h) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 1924(h)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 5003. DOWN PAYMENT LOAN PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 310E(b)(1)(C) of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1935(b)(1)(C)) is
amended by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$667,000''.
(b) Technical Correction.--Section 310E(b) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 1935(b)) is amended by striking the 2nd paragraph (2).
[[Page H3825]]
SEC. 5004. ELIMINATION OF MINERAL RIGHTS APPRAISAL
REQUIREMENT.
Section 307 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1927) is amended by striking subsection (d) and
redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
Subtitle B--Operating Loans
SEC. 5101. ELIGIBILITY FOR FARM OPERATING LOANS.
Section 311(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1941(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) In General.--The'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Eligibility requirements.--The'';
(2) in the 1st sentence, by inserting after ``limited
liability companies'' the following: ``, and such other legal
entities as the Secretary deems appropriate,'';
(3) in the 2nd sentence, by redesignating clauses (1)
through (4) as clauses (A) through (D), respectively;
(4) in each of the 2nd and 3rd sentences, by striking ``and
limited liability companies'' each place it appears and
inserting ``limited liability companies, and such other legal
entities'';
(5) in the 3rd sentence, by striking ``(3)'' and ``(4)''
and inserting ``(C)'' and ``(D)'', respectively; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Special deeming rule.--An entity that is an operator
described in paragraph (1) that is owned, in whole or in
part, by other entities, is deemed to meet the direct
ownership requirement imposed under paragraph (1) if at least
75 percent of the ownership interests of each embedded entity
of such entity is owned directly or indirectly by the
individuals that own the family farm.''.
SEC. 5102. ELIMINATION OF RURAL RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR
OPERATING LOANS TO YOUTH.
Section 311(b)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1941(b)(1)) is amended by striking
``who are rural residents''.
SEC. 5103. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR YOUTH
LOANS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND BORROWER
CONTROL.
Section 311(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1941(b)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(5) The Secretary may, on a case by case basis, waive the
personal liability of a borrower for a loan made under this
subsection if any default on the loan was due to
circumstances beyond the control of the borrower.''.
SEC. 5104. MICROLOANS.
(a) In General.--Section 313 of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1943) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(c) Microloans.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
may establish a program to make or guarantee microloans.
``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not make or
guarantee a microloan under this subsection that exceeds
$35,000 or that would cause the total principal indebtedness
outstanding at any 1 time for microloans made under this
chapter to any 1 borrower to exceed $70,000.
``(3) Applications.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
Secretary shall limit the administrative burdens and
streamline the application and approval process for
microloans under this subsection.
``(4) Cooperative lending projects.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary may contract with community-based and
nongovernmental organizations, State entities, or other
intermediaries, as the Secretary determines appropriate--
``(i) to make or guarantee a microloan under this
subsection; and
``(ii) to provide business, financial, marketing, and
credit management services to borrowers.
``(B) Requirements.--Before contracting with an entity
described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary--
``(i) shall review and approve--
``(I) the loan loss reserve fund for microloans established
by the entity; and
``(II) the underwriting standards for microloans of the
entity; and
``(ii) establish such other requirements for contracting
with the entity as the Secretary determines necessary.''.
(b) Exceptions for Direct Loans.--Section 311(c)(2) of such
Act (7 U.S.C. 1941(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Exceptions.--In this subsection, the term `direct
operating loan' shall not include--
``(A) a loan made to a youth under subsection (b); or
``(B) a microloan made to a beginning farmer or rancher or
a veteran farmer or rancher (as defined in section 2501(e) of
the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 2279(e)).''.
(c) Section 312(a) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1942(a)) is
amended by inserting ``(including a microloan, as defined by
the Secretary)'' after ``A direct loan''.
(d) Section 316(a)(2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1946(a)(2)) is
amended by inserting ``a microloan to a beginning farmer or
rancher or veteran farmer or rancher (as defined in section
2501(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act
of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(e)) or'' after ``The interest rate
on''.
Subtitle C--Emergency Loans
SEC. 5201. ELIGIBILITY FOR EMERGENCY LOANS.
Section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``owner-operators (in the case of loans for
a purpose under subtitle A) or operators (in the case of
loans for a purpose under subtitle B)'' each place it appears
and inserting ``(in the case of farm ownership loans in
accordance with subtitle A) owner-operators or operators, or
(in the case of loans for a purpose under subtitle B)
operators'';
(2) by inserting after ``limited liability companies'' the
1st place it appears the following: ``, or such other legal
entities as the Secretary deems appropriate''; and
(3) by inserting after ``limited liability companies'' the
2nd place it appears the following: ``, or other legal
entities'';
(4) by striking ``and limited liability companies,'' and
inserting ``limited liability companies, and such other legal
entities'';
(5) by striking ``ownership and operator'' and inserting
``ownership or operator''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following: ``An entity that is
an owner-operator or operator described in this subsection is
deemed to meet the direct ownership requirement imposed under
this subsection if at least 75 percent of the ownership
interests of each embedded entity of such entity is owned
directly or indirectly by the individuals that own the family
farm.''.
Subtitle D--Administrative Provisions
SEC. 5301. BEGINNING FARMER AND RANCHER INDIVIDUAL
DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS PILOT PROGRAM.
Section 333B(h) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983b(h)) is amended by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 5302. ELIGIBLE BEGINNING FARMERS AND RANCHERS.
(a) Conforming Amendments Relating to Changes in
Eligibility Rules.--Section 343(a)(11) of such Act (7 U.S.C.
1991(a)(11)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``joint operation,'' the 1st place
it appears the following: ``or such other legal entity as the
Secretary deems appropriate,'';
(2) by striking ``or joint operators'' each place it
appears and inserting ``joint operators, or owners''; and
(3) by inserting after ``joint operation,'' the 2nd and 3rd
place it appears the following: ``or such other legal
entity,''.
(b) Modification of Acreage Ownership Limitation.--Section
343(a)(11)(F) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(11)(F)) is
amended by striking ``median acreage'' and inserting
``average acreage''.
SEC. 5303. LOAN AUTHORIZATION LEVELS.
Section 346(b)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1994(b)(1)) is amended in the
matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 5304. PRIORITY FOR PARTICIPATION LOANS.
Section 346(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1994(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(III) Priority.--In order to maximize the number of
borrowers served under this clause, the Secretary--
``(aa) shall give priority to applicants who apply under
the down payment loan program under section 310E or joint
financing arrangements under section 307(a)(3)(D); and
``(bb) may offer other financing options under this
subtitle to applicants only if the Secretary determines that
down payment or other participation loan options are not a
viable approach for the applicants.''.
SEC. 5305. LOAN FUND SET-ASIDES.
Section 346(b)(2)(A)(ii)(III) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1994(b)(2)(A)(ii)(III)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''; and
(2) by striking ``of the total amount''.
SEC. 5306. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO BORROWER TRAINING
PROVISION, RELATING TO ELIGIBILITY CHANGES.
Section 359(c)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006a(c)(2)) is amended by striking
``section 302(a)(2) or 311(a)(2)'' and inserting ``section
302(a)(1)(B) or 311(a)(1)(B)''.
Subtitle E--State Agricultural Mediation Programs
SEC. 5401. STATE AGRICULTURAL MEDIATION PROGRAMS.
Section 506 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7
U.S.C. 5106) is amended by striking ``2015'' and inserting
``2018''.
Subtitle F--Loans to Purchasers of Highly Fractionated Land
SEC. 5501. LOANS TO PURCHASERS OF HIGHLY FRACTIONATED LAND.
The first section of Public Law 91-229 (25 U.S.C. 488) is
amended in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``pursuant to
section 205(c) of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25
U.S.C. 2204(c))'' and inserting ``or to intermediaries in
order to establish revolving loan funds for the purchase of
highly fractionated land''.
TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Subtitle A--Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
SEC. 6001. WATER, WASTE DISPOSAL, AND WASTEWATER FACILITY
GRANTS.
Section 306(a)(2)(B)(vii) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2)(B)(vii)) is
amended by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and inserting
``2014 through 2018''.
SEC. 6002. RURAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY GRANTS.
Section 306(a)(11)(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(11)(D)) is amended by
striking ``$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012'' and inserting ``$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2014 through 2018''.
[[Page H3826]]
SEC. 6003. ELIMINATION OF RESERVATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS.
Section 306(a)(19) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(19)) is amended by striking
subparagraph (C).
SEC. 6004. UTILIZATION OF LOAN GUARANTEES FOR COMMUNITY
FACILITIES.
Section 306(a)(24) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(24)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(C) Utilization of loan guarantees for community
facilities.--The Secretary shall consider the benefits to
communities that result from using loan guarantees in the
Community Facilities Program and to the maximum extent
possible utilize guarantees to enhance community
involvement.''.
SEC. 6005. RURAL WATER AND WASTEWATER CIRCUIT RIDER PROGRAM.
Section 306(a)(22) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(22)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(22) Rural water and wastewater circuit rider program.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall continue a national
rural water and wastewater circuit rider program that--
``(i) is consistent with the activities and results of the
program conducted before the date of enactment of this
paragraph, as determined by the Secretary; and
``(ii) receives funding from the Secretary, acting through
the Rural Utilities Service.
``(B) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $20,000,000
for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year thereafter.''.
SEC. 6006. TRIBAL COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY
FACILITIES.
Section 306(a)(25)(C) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(25)(C)) is amended by
striking ``$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012'' and inserting ``$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2014 through 2018''.
SEC. 6007. ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.
Section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(19)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(26) Essential community facilities technical assistance
and training.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to public
bodies and private nonprofit corporations, such as States,
counties, cities, townships, and incorporated towns and
villages, boroughs, authorities, districts and Indian tribes
on Federal and State reservations which will serve rural
areas for the purpose of enabling them to provide to
associations described in this subsection technical
assistance and training, with respect to essential community
facilities programs authorized under this subsection, to--
``(i) assist communities in identifying and planning for
community facility needs;
``(ii) identify public and private resources to finance
community facilities needs;
``(iii) prepare reports and surveys necessary to request
financial assistance to develop community facilities;
``(iv) prepare applications for financial assistance;
``(v) improve the management, including financial
management, related to the operation of community facilities;
or
``(vi) assist with other areas of need identified by the
Secretary.
``(B) Selection priority.--In selecting recipients of
grants under this paragraph, the Secretary shall give
priority to private, nonprofit, or public organizations that
have experience in providing technical assistance and
training to rural entities.
``(C) Funding.--Not less than 3 nor more than 5 percent of
any funds appropriated to carry out each of the essential
community facilities grant, loan and loan guarantee programs
as authorized under this subsection for any fiscal year shall
be reserved for grants under this paragraph.''.
SEC. 6008. EMERGENCY AND IMMINENT COMMUNITY WATER ASSISTANCE
GRANT PROGRAM.
Section 306A(i)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926a(i)(2)) is amended by striking
``$35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012''
and inserting ``$27,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018''.
SEC. 6009. HOUSEHOLD WATER WELL SYSTEMS.
Section 306E(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926e(d)) is amended by striking
``$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012''
and inserting ``$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018''.
SEC. 6010. RURAL BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY LOAN PROGRAM.
(a) Flexibility for the Business and Loan Program.--Section
310B(a)(2)(A) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting
``including working capital'' after ``employment''.
(b) Greater Flexibility for Adequate Collateral Through
Accounts Receivable.--Section 310B(g)(7) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 1932(g)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``In the discretion of the Secretary, if the
Secretary determines that the action would not create or
otherwise contribute to an unreasonable risk of default or
loss to the Federal Government, the Secretary may take
account receivables as security for the obligations entered
into in connection with loans and a borrower may use account
receivables as collateral to secure a loan made or guaranteed
under this subsection.''.
(c) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate
such regulations as are necessary to implement the amendments
made by this section.
SEC. 6011. RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
Section 310B(e)(12) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)(12)) is amended by striking
``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012''
and inserting ``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018''.
SEC. 6012. LOCALLY OR REGIONALLY PRODUCED AGRICULTURAL FOOD
PRODUCTS.
Section 310B(g)(9)(B)(v)(I) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(g)(9)(B)(v)(I)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''; and
(2) by inserting ``and not more than 7 percent'' after ``5
percent''.
SEC. 6013. INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1922-1936a) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 310H. INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make loans to the
entities, for the purposes, and subject to the terms and
conditions specified in the 1st, 2nd, and last sentences of
section 623(a) of the Community Economic Development Act of
1981 (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)).
``(b) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--For
loans under subsection (a), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary not more than $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1323(b)(2) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-198; 7 U.S.C. 1932 note)
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (C).
SEC. 6014. RURAL COLLEGE COORDINATED STRATEGY.
Section 331 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1981) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Rural College Coordinated Strategy.--The Secretary
shall develop a coordinated strategy across the relevant
programs within the Rural Development mission areas to serve
the specific, local needs of rural communities when making
investments in rural community colleges and technical
colleges through other current authorities. During the
development of a coordinated strategy, the Secretary shall
consult with groups representing rural-serving community
colleges and technical colleges to coordinate critical
investments in rural community colleges and technical
colleges involved in workforce training. Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to provide a priority for
funding within current authorities. The Secretary shall use
the coordinated strategy and information developed for the
strategy to more effectively serve rural communities with
respect to investments in community colleges and technical
colleges.''.
SEC. 6015. RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
Section 333 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--
(1) by striking ``require'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``require'' after
``(1)'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, require'' after
``314'';
(4) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``require'' after
``loans,'';
(5) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``require'' after ``(4)''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
(6) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by inserting ``require'' after ``(5)''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) with respect to water and waste disposal direct and
guaranteed loans provided under section 306, encourage, to
the maximum extent practicable, private or cooperative
lenders to finance rural water and waste disposal facilities
by--
``(A) maximizing the use of loan guarantees to finance
eligible projects in rural communities where the population
exceeds 5,500;
``(B) maximizing the use of direct loans to finance
eligible projects in rural communities where the impact on
rate payers will be material when compared to financing with
a loan guarantee;
``(C) establishing and applying a materiality standard when
determining the difference in impact on rate payers between a
direct loan and a loan guarantee;
``(D) in the case of projects that require interim
financing in excess of $500,000, requiring that such projects
initially seek such financing from private or cooperative
lenders; and
``(E) determining if an existing direct loan borrower can
refinance with a private or cooperative lender, including
with a loan guarantee, prior to providing a new direct
loan.''.
SEC. 6016. SIMPLIFIED APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 333A of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983a) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(h) Simplified Application Forms.--Except as provided in
subsection (g)(2) of this section, the Secretary shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, develop a simplified
application process, including a single page application
where possible, for grants and relending authorized under
sections 306, 306C, 306D, 306E,
[[Page H3827]]
310B(b), 310B(c), 310B(e), 310B(f), 310H, 379B, and 379E.''.
(b) Report to the Congress.--Within 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate a written report that contains an evaluation of
the implementation of the amendment made by subsection (a).
SEC. 6017. GRANTS FOR NOAA WEATHER RADIO TRANSMITTERS.
Section 379B(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008p(d)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
SEC. 6018. RURAL MICROENTREPRENEUR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 379E(d)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008s(d)(2)) is amended by striking
``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012''
and inserting ``$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018''.
SEC. 6019. DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 382M(a) of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
2009aa-12(a)) is amended by striking ``$30,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' and inserting
``$12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.
(b) Termination of Authority.--Section 382N of such Act (7
U.S.C. 2009aa-13) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 6020. NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL AUTHORITY.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 383N(a) of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
2009bb-12(a)) is amended by striking ``$30,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' and inserting
``$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.
(b) Termination of Authority.--Section 383O of such Act (7
U.S.C. 2009bb-13) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 6021. RURAL BUSINESS INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
Section 384S of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 2009cc-18) is amended by striking ``$50,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' and
inserting ``$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018''.
Subtitle B--Rural Electrification Act of 1936
SEC. 6101. RELENDING FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7
U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 2(a), by inserting ``(including relending
for this purpose as provided in section 4)'' after
``efficiency'';
(2) in section 4(a), by inserting ``(including relending to
ultimate consumers for this purpose by borrowers enumerated
in the proviso in this section)'' after ``efficiency''; and
(3) in section 313(b)(2)(B)--
(A) by inserting ``(acting through the Rural Utilities
Service)'' after ``Secretary''; and
(B) by inserting ``energy efficiency (including relending
to ultimate consumers for this purpose),'' after
``promoting''.
(b) Current Authority.--The authority provided in this
section is in addition to any other relending authority of
the Secretary under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7
U.S.C. 901 et. seq.) or any other law.
(c) Administration.--The Secretary (acting through the
Rural Utilities Service) shall continue to carry out section
313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 940c)
in the same manner as on the day before enactment of this Act
until such time as any regulations necessary to carry out the
amendments made by this section are fully implemented.
SEC. 6102. FEES FOR CERTAIN LOAN GUARANTEES.
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 4 the following:
``SEC. 5. FEES FOR CERTAIN LOAN GUARANTEES.
``(a) In General.--For electrification baseload generation
loan guarantees, the Secretary shall, at the request of the
borrower, charge an upfront fee to cover the costs of the
loan guarantee.
``(b) Fee.--The fee described in subsection (a) for a loan
guarantee shall be equal to the costs of the loan guarantee
(within the meaning of section 502(5)(C) of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a(5)(C))).
``(c) Limitation.--Funds received from a borrower to pay
the fee described in this section shall not be derived from a
loan or other debt obligation that is made or guaranteed by
the Federal Government.''.
SEC. 6103. GUARANTEES FOR BONDS AND NOTES ISSUED FOR
ELECTRIFICATION OR TELEPHONE PURPOSES.
Section 313A(f) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7
U.S.C. 940c-1(f)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 6104. EXPANSION OF 911 ACCESS.
Section 315(d) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7
U.S.C. 940e(d)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 6105. ACCESS TO BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN
RURAL AREAS.
Section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7
U.S.C. 950bb) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Priorities.--In making or guaranteeing loans under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give--
``(A) the highest priority to applicants that offer to
provide broadband service to the greatest proportion of
households that, prior to the provision of the broadband
service, had no incumbent service provider; and
``(B) priority to applicants that offer in their
applications to provide broadband service not predominantly
for business service, but where at least 25 percent of
customers in the proposed service territory are commercial
interests.'';
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) the amount and type of support requested; and
``(E) a list of the census block groups or tracts proposed
to be so served.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Additional process.--The Secretary shall establish a
process under which an incumbent service provider which, as
of the date of the publication of notice under paragraph (5)
with respect to an application submitted by the provider, is
providing broadband service to a remote rural area, may (but
shall not be required to) submit to the Secretary, not less
than 15 and not more than 30 days after that date,
information regarding the broadband services that the
provider offers in the proposed service territory, so that
the Secretary may assess whether the application meets the
requirements of this section with respect to eligible
projects.'';
(3) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Requirement.--In considering the technology needs of
customers in a proposed service territory, the Secretary
shall take into consideration the upgrade or replacement cost
for the construction or acquisition of facilities and
equipment in the territory.''; and
(4) in each of subsections (k)(1) and (l), by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous
SEC. 6201. DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2335A of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 950aaa-5) is amended by striking ``$100,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 1996 through 2012'' and inserting
``$65,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1(b) of Public Law 102-
551 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa note) is amended by striking ``2012''
and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 6202. VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURAL MARKET DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM GRANTS.
Section 231(b)(7) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act
of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 1632a(b)(7)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''; and
(B) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting
``$50,000,000''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 6203. AGRICULTURE INNOVATION CENTER DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.
Section 6402(i) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1632b(i)) is amended by striking
``$6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' and
inserting ``$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018''.
SEC. 6204. PROGRAM METRICS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall collect
data regarding economic activities created through grants and
loans, including any technical assistance provided as a
component of the grant or loan program, and measure the short
and long term viability of award recipients and any entities
to whom those recipients provide assistance using award funds
under section 231 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law 106-224), section 9007
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7
U.S.C. 8107), section 313(b)(2) of the Rural Electrification
Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 940c(b)(2)), or section 306(a)(11),
310B(c), 310B(e), 310B(g), 310H, or 379E, or subtitle E, of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1926(a)(11), 1932(c), 1932(e), 1932(g), 2008s, or 2009
through 2009m).
(b) Data.--The data collected under subsection (a) shall
include information collected from recipients both during the
award period and after the period as determined by the
Secretary, but not less than 2 years after the award period
ends.
(c) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Secretary shall 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 contains
the data described in subsection (a). The report shall
include detailed information regarding--
(1) actions taken by the Secretary to utilize the data;
(2) the number of jobs, including self-employment and the
value of salaries and wages;
(3) how the provision of funds from the grant or loan
involved affected the local economy;
(4) any benefit, such as an increase in revenue or customer
base; and
(5) such other information as the Secretary deems
appropriate.
SEC. 6205. STUDY OF RURAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of Transportation shall publish an updated version
of the study described
[[Page H3828]]
in section 6206 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (as amended by subsection (b)).
(b) Addition to Study.--Section 6206(b) of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122
Stat. 1971) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) the sufficiency of infrastructure along waterways in
the United States and the impact of such infrastructure on
the movement of agricultural goods in terms of safety,
efficiency and speed, as well as the benefits derived through
upgrades and repairs to locks and dams.''.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the
Congress the updated version of the study required by
subsection (a).
SEC. 6206. CERTAIN FEDERAL ACTIONS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
MAJOR.
In the case of a loan, loan guarantee, or grant program in
the rural development mission area of the Department of
Agriculture, an action of the Secretary before, on, or after
the date of enactment of this Act that does not involve the
provision by the Department of Agriculture of Federal dollars
or a Federal loan guarantee, including--
(1) the approval by the Department of Agriculture of the
decision of a borrower to commence a privately funded
activity;
(2) a lien accommodation or subordination;
(3) a debt settlement or restructuring; or
(4) the restructuring of a business entity by a borrower,
shall not be considered a major Federal action.
TITLE VII--RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND RELATED MATTERS
Subtitle A--National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977
SEC. 7101. OPTION TO BE INCLUDED AS NON-LAND-GRANT COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE.
Section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103) is
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(5) Cooperating forestry school.--
``(A) In general.--The term `cooperating forestry school'
means an institution--
``(i) that is eligible to receive funds under the Act of
October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.), commonly known as
the McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962; and
``(ii) with respect to which the Secretary has not received
a declaration of the intent of that institution to not be
considered a cooperating forestry school.
``(B) Termination of declaration.--A declaration of the
intent of an institution to not be considered a cooperating
forestry school submitted to the Secretary shall be in effect
until September 30, 2018.''; and
(2) in paragraph (10)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``that'';
(ii) in clause (i)--
(I) by inserting ``that'' before ``qualify''; and
(II) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in clause (ii)--
(I) by inserting ``that'' before ``offer''; and
(II) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) with respect to which the Secretary has not
received a statement of the declaration of the intent of a
college or university to not be considered a Hispanic-serving
agricultural college or university.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Termination of declaration of intent.--A declaration
of the intent of a college or university to not be considered
a Hispanic-serving agricultural college or university
submitted to the Secretary shall be in effect until September
30, 2018.''.
SEC. 7102. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION,
EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS ADVISORY BOARD.
(a) Extension of Termination Date.--Section 1408(h) of the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123(h)) is amended by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
(b) Duties of National Agricultural Research, Extension,
Education, and Economics Advisory Board.--Section 1408(c) of
the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) consult with industry groups on agricultural
research, extension, education, and economics, and make
recommendations to the Secretary based on that
consultation.''.
SEC. 7103. SPECIALTY CROP COMMITTEE.
Section 1408A(c) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3123a(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Measures'' and
inserting ``Programs'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2);
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively; and
(4) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``Programs that would'' and inserting ``Research, extension,
and teaching programs designed to improve competitiveness in
the specialty crop industry, including programs that would'';
(B) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``, including
improving the quality and taste of processed specialty
crops'' before the semicolon; and
(C) in subparagraph (G), by inserting ``the remote sensing
and the'' before ``mechanization''.
SEC. 7104. VETERINARY SERVICES GRANT PROGRAM.
The National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 is amended by inserting after section
1415A (7 U.S.C. 3151a) the following new section:
``SEC. 1415B. VETERINARY SERVICES GRANT PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Qualified entity.--The term `qualified entity'
means--
``(A) a for-profit or nonprofit entity located in the
United States that, or an individual who, operates a
veterinary clinic providing veterinary services--
``(i) in a rural area, as defined in section 343(a) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1991(a)); and
``(ii) in a veterinarian shortage situation;
``(B) a State, national, allied, or regional veterinary
organization or specialty board recognized by the American
Veterinary Medical Association;
``(C) a college or school of veterinary medicine accredited
by the American Veterinary Medical Association;
``(D) a university research foundation or veterinary
medical foundation;
``(E) a department of veterinary science or department of
comparative medicine accredited by the Department of
Education;
``(F) a State agricultural experiment station; or
``(G) a State, local, or tribal government agency.
``(2) Veterinarian shortage situation.--The term
`veterinarian shortage situation' means a veterinarian
shortage situation as determined by the Secretary under
section 1415A.
``(b) Establishment.--
``(1) Competitive grants.--The Secretary shall carry out a
program to make competitive grants to qualified entities that
carry out programs or activities described in paragraph (2)
for the purpose of developing, implementing, and sustaining
veterinary services.
``(2) Eligibility requirements.--A qualified entity shall
be eligible to receive a grant described in paragraph (1) if
the entity carries out programs or activities that the
Secretary determines will--
``(A) substantially relieve veterinarian shortage
situations;
``(B) support or facilitate private veterinary practices
engaged in public health activities; or
``(C) support or facilitate the practices of veterinarians
who are providing or have completed providing services under
an agreement entered into with the Secretary under section
1415A(a)(2).
``(c) Award Processes and Preferences.--
``(1) Application, evaluation, and input processes.--In
administering the grant program established under this
section, the Secretary shall--
``(A) use an appropriate application and evaluation
process, as determined by the Secretary; and
``(B) seek the input of interested persons.
``(2) Coordination preference.--In selecting recipients of
grants to be used for any of the purposes described in
subsection (d)(1), the Secretary shall give a preference to
qualified entities that provide documentation of coordination
with other qualified entities, with respect to any such
purpose.
``(3) Consideration of available funds.--In selecting
recipients of grants to be used for any of the purposes
described in subsection (d), the Secretary shall take into
consideration the amount of funds available for grants and
the purposes for which the grant funds will be used.
``(4) Nature of grants.--A grant awarded under this section
shall be considered to be a competitive research, extension,
or education grant.
``(d) Use of Grants To Relieve Veterinarian Shortage
Situations and Support Veterinary Services.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
qualified entity may use funds provided by a grant awarded
under this section to relieve veterinarian shortage
situations and support veterinary services for any of the
following purposes:
``(A) To promote recruitment (including for programs in
secondary schools), placement, and retention of
veterinarians, veterinary technicians, students of veterinary
medicine, and students of veterinary technology.
``(B) To allow veterinary students, veterinary interns,
externs, fellows, and residents, and veterinary technician
students to cover expenses (other than the types of expenses
described in section 1415A(c)(5)) to attend training programs
in food safety or food animal medicine.
``(C) To establish or expand accredited veterinary
education programs (including faculty recruitment and
retention), veterinary residency and fellowship programs, or
veterinary internship and externship programs carried out in
coordination with accredited colleges of veterinary medicine.
``(D) To provide continuing education and extension,
including veterinary telemedicine and other distance-based
education, for veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and
other health professionals needed to strengthen veterinary
programs and enhance food safety.
[[Page H3829]]
``(E) To provide technical assistance for the preparation
of applications submitted to the Secretary for designation as
a veterinarian shortage situation under this section or
section 1415A.
``(2) Qualified entities operating veterinary clinics.--A
qualified entity described in subsection (a)(1)(A) may only
use funds provided by a grant awarded under this section to
establish or expand veterinary practices, including--
``(A) equipping veterinary offices;
``(B) sharing in the reasonable overhead costs of such
veterinary practices, as determined by the Secretary; or
``(C) establishing mobile veterinary facilities in which a
portion of the facilities will address education or extension
needs.
``(e) Special Requirements for Certain Grants.--
``(1) Terms of service requirements.--
``(A) In general.--Funds provided through a grant made
under this section to a qualified entity described in
subsection (a)(1)(A) and used by such entity under subsection
(d)(2) shall be subject to an agreement between the Secretary
and such entity that includes a required term of service for
such entity (including a qualified entity operating as an
individual), as prospectively established by the Secretary.
``(B) Considerations.--In establishing a term of service
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consider only--
``(i) the amount of the grant awarded; and
``(ii) the specific purpose of the grant.
``(2) Breach remedies.--
``(A) In general.--An agreement under paragraph (1) shall
provide remedies for any breach of the agreement by the
qualified entity referred to in paragraph (1)(A), including
repayment or partial repayment of the grant funds, with
interest.
``(B) Waiver.--The Secretary may grant a waiver of the
repayment obligation for breach of contract if the Secretary
determines that such qualified entity demonstrates extreme
hardship or extreme need.
``(C) Treatment of amounts recovered.--Funds recovered
under this paragraph shall--
``(i) be credited to the account available to carry out
this section; and
``(ii) remain available until expended without further
appropriation.
``(f) Prohibition on Use of Grant Funds for Construction.--
Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), funds made available
for grants under this section may not be used--
``(1) to construct a new building or facility; or
``(2) to acquire, expand, remodel, or alter an existing
building or facility, including site grading and improvement
and architect fees.
``(g) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations to carry out this section.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out
this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal
year thereafter, to remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 7105. GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
SCIENCES EDUCATION.
Section 1417(m) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3152(m))
is amended by striking ``section $60,000,000'' and all that
follows and inserting the following: ``section--
``(1) $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1990 through
2013; and
``(2) $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7106. POLICY RESEARCH CENTERS.
Section 1419A of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3155) is
amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``AGRICULTURAL AND
FOOD'' before ``policy'';
(2) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1)--
(A) by striking ``Secretary may'' and inserting ``Secretary
shall, acting through the Office of the Chief Economist,'';
(B) by striking ``make grants, competitive grants, and
special research grants to, and enter into cooperative
agreements and other contracting instruments with,'' and
inserting ``make competitive grants to, or enter into
cooperative agreements with,''; and
(C) by inserting ``with a history of providing unbiased,
nonpartisan economic analysis to Congress'' after
``subsection (b)'';
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ``other research
institutions'' and all that follows through ``shall be
eligible'' and inserting ``and other public research
institutions and organizations shall be eligible'';
(4) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively;
(5) by inserting after subsection (b), the following new
subsection:
``(c) Preference.--In awarding grants under this section,
the Secretary shall give a preference to policy research
centers that have extensive databases, models, and
demonstrated experience in providing Congress with
agricultural market projections, rural development analysis,
agricultural policy analysis, and baseline projections at the
farm, multiregional, national, and international levels.'';
and
(6) by striking subsection (e) (as redesignated by
paragraph (4)) and inserting the following new subsection:
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
1996 through 2013; and
``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7107. REPEAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION INTERVENTION AND HEALTH
PROMOTION RESEARCH PROGRAM.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 1424 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3174) is repealed.
SEC. 7108. REPEAL OF PILOT RESEARCH PROGRAM TO COMBINE
MEDICAL AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 1424A of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3174a) is repealed.
SEC. 7109. NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAM.
Section 1425(f) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3175(f))
is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 7110. CONTINUING ANIMAL HEALTH AND DISEASE RESEARCH
PROGRAMS.
Section 1433 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3195) is
amended by striking the section designation and heading and
all that follows through subsection (a) and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 1433. APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONTINUING ANIMAL HEALTH AND
DISEASE RESEARCH PROGRAMS.
``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to support continuing animal health and disease research
programs at eligible institutions--
``(A) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1991 through
2013; and
``(B) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.
``(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this
section shall be used--
``(A) to meet the expenses of conducting animal health and
disease research, publishing and disseminating the results of
such research, and contributing to the retirement of
employees subject to the Act of March 4, 1940 (7 U.S.C. 331);
``(B) for administrative planning and direction; and
``(C) to purchase equipment and supplies necessary for
conducting the research described in subparagraph (A).''.
SEC. 7111. REPEAL OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR RESEARCH ON NATIONAL
OR REGIONAL PROBLEMS.
(a) Repeal.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 1434 of the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3196) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Matching funds.--Section 1438 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3200) is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``, exclusive of the funds provided for research on
specific national or regional animal health and disease
problems under the provisions of section 1434 of this
title,''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations for existing and
certain new agricultural research programs.--Section 1463(c)
of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3311(c)) is amended by
striking ``sections 1433 and 1434'' and inserting ``section
1433''.
SEC. 7112. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCES
FACILITIES AT 1890 LAND-GRANT COLLEGES,
INCLUDING TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY.
Section 1447(b) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3222b(b)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 7113. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCE
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT AT INSULAR AREA LAND-
GRANT INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Supporting Tropical and Subtropical Agricultural
Research.--
(1) In general.--Section 1447B(a) of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222b-2(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Purpose.--It is the intent of Congress to assist the
land-grant colleges and universities in the insular areas in
efforts to--
``(1) acquire, alter, or repair facilities or relevant
equipment necessary for conducting agricultural research; and
``(2) support tropical and subtropical agricultural
research, including pest and disease research.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1447B of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222b-2) is amended in the heading--
(A) by inserting ``AND SUPPORT TROPICAL AND SUBTROPICAL
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH'' after ``EQUIPMENT''; and
(B) by striking ``INSTITUTIONS'' and inserting ``COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES''.
(b) Extension.--Section 1447B(d) of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222b-2(d)) is amended by striking ``2012''
and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 7114. REPEAL OF NATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING VIRTUAL
CENTERS.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 1448 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222c) is repealed.
SEC. 7115. HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.
Section 1455(c) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3241(c))
is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 7116. COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS AND YOUTH.
Section 1456(e)(1) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3243(e)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a
competitive grants program--
[[Page H3830]]
``(A) to fund fundamental and applied research and
extension at Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and
universities in agriculture, human nutrition, food science,
bioenergy, and environmental science; and
``(B) to award competitive grants to Hispanic-serving
agricultural colleges and universities to provide for
training in the food and agricultural sciences of Hispanic
agricultural workers and Hispanic youth working in the food
and agricultural sciences.''.
SEC. 7117. COMPETITIVE GRANTS FOR INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Section 1459A(c) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3292b(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
1999 through 2013; and
``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7118. REPEAL OF RESEARCH EQUIPMENT GRANTS.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 1462A of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310a) is repealed.
SEC. 7119. UNIVERSITY RESEARCH.
Section 1463 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3311) is
amended in both of subsections (a) and (b) by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 7120. EXTENSION SERVICE.
Section 1464 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3312) is
amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 7121. AUDITING, REPORTING, BOOKKEEPING, AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS.
Section 1469 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3315) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(B) by striking paragraph (3); and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3);
(2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsections:
``(b) Administrative Expenses.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may
retain not more than 4 percent of amounts made available for
agricultural research, extension, and teaching assistance
programs for the administration of those programs authorized
under this Act or any other Act.
``(2) Exceptions.--The limitation on administrative
expenses under paragraph (1) shall not apply to peer panel
expenses under subsection (d) or any other provision of law
related to the administration of agricultural research,
extension, and teaching assistance programs that contains a
limitation on administrative expenses that is less than the
limitation under paragraph (1).
``(c) Agreements With Non-Federal Entities.--
``(1) Former agricultural research facilities of the
department.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
Secretary, for purposes of supporting ongoing research and
information dissemination activities, including supporting
research and those activities through co-locating scientists
and other technical personnel, sharing of laboratory and
field equipment, and providing financial support, shall enter
into grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other
legal instruments with former Department of Agriculture
agricultural research facilities.
``(2) Agreements with agricultural research
organizations.--The Secretary, for purposes of receiving from
a non-Federal agricultural research organization support for
agricultural research, including staffing, laboratory and
field equipment, or direct financial assistance, may enter
into grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other
legal instruments with a non-Federal agricultural research
organization, the operation of which is consistent with the
research mission and programs of an agricultural research
facility of the Department of Agriculture.''.
SEC. 7122. SUPPLEMENTAL AND ALTERNATIVE CROPS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations and Termination.--
Section 1473D of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3319d)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and
``(2) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
(b) Competitive Grants.--Section 1473D(c)(1) of the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3319d(c)(1)) is amended by
striking ``use such research funding, special or competitive
grants, or other means, as the Secretary determines,'' and
inserting ``make competitive grants''.
SEC. 7123. CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS FOR NLGCA INSTITUTIONS.
Section 1473F(b) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
3319i(b)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 7124. AQUACULTURE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Competitive Grants.--Section 1475(b) of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3322(b)) is amended in the matter preceding
paragraph (1), by inserting ``competitive'' before
``grants''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1477 of the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3324) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 1477. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this subtitle--
``(1) $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1991 through
2013; and
``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.
``(b) Prohibition on Use.--Funds made available under this
section may not be used to acquire or construct a
building.''.
SEC. 7125. RANGELAND RESEARCH PROGRAMS.
Section 1483(a) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3336(a))
is amended by striking ``subtitle'' and all that follows and
inserting the following: ``subtitle--
``(1) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1991 through
2013; and
``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7126. SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR BIOSECURITY PLANNING AND
RESPONSE.
Section 1484(a) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3351(a))
is amended by striking ``response such sums as are
necessary'' and all that follows and inserting the following:
``response--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2013; and
``(2) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7127. DISTANCE EDUCATION AND RESIDENT INSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM FOR INSULAR AREA INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION.
(a) Distance Education Grants for Insular Areas.--
(1) Competitive grants.--Section 1490(a) of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3362(a)) is amended by striking ``or
noncompetitive''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 1490(f) of
the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3362(f)) is amended by striking
``section'' and all that follows and inserting the following:
``section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2013; and
``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
(b) Resident Instruction Grants for Insular Areas.--Section
1491(c) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3363(c)) is amended by
striking ``such sums as are necessary'' and all that follows
and inserting the following: ``to carry out this section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2013; and
``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7128. MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--The National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subtitle:
``Subtitle P--General Provisions
``SEC. 1492. MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENT.
``(a) In General.--The recipient of a competitive grant
that is awarded by the Secretary under a covered law shall
provide funds, in-kind contributions, or a combination of
both, from sources other than funds provided through such
grant in an amount at least equal to the amount of such
grant.
``(b) Exception.--The matching funds requirement under
subsection (a) shall not apply to grants awarded--
``(1) to a research agency of the Department of
Agriculture;
``(2) to an entity eligible to receive funds under a
capacity and infrastructure program (as defined in section
251(f)(1)(C) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971(f)(1)(C))), including a partner of
such entity.
``(c) Covered Law.--In this section, the term `covered law'
means each of the following provisions of law:
``(1) This title.
``(2) Title XVI of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.).
``(3) The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.).
``(4) Part III of subtitle E of title VII of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 3202 et seq.).
``(5) The Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research
Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (9) of subsection (b)
of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant
Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (B);
(2) in the heading, by inserting ``for equipment grants''
after ``funds'';
(3) by striking ``(A) Equipment grants.--''; and
(4) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subparagraphs
(A) and (B), respectively, and moving the margins of such
subparagraphs two ems to the left.
[[Page H3831]]
(c) Application to Amendments.--
(1) New grants.--Section 1492 of the National Agricultural,
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as
added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to grants
described in such section awarded after October 1, 2013,
unless the provision of a covered law under which such grants
are awarded specifically exempts such grants from the
matching funds requirement under such section.
(2) Existing grants.--A matching funds requirement in
effect on or before October 1, 2013, under a covered law
shall continue to apply to a grant awarded under such
provision of law on or before that date.
Subtitle B--Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
SEC. 7201. BEST UTILIZATION OF BIOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS.
Section 1624 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5814) is amended in the first
sentence--
(1) by striking ``$40,000,000 for each fiscal year''; and
(2) by inserting ``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2013 through 2018'' after ``chapter''.
SEC. 7202. INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.
Section 1627(d) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5821(d)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2018.''.
SEC. 7203. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND
TRANSFER PROGRAM.
Section 1628(f) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5831(f)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and
``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7204. NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM.
Section 1629(i) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5832(i)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out the National
Training Program $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013
through 2018.''.
SEC. 7205. NATIONAL GENETICS RESOURCES PROGRAM.
Section 1635(b) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5844(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``such funds as may be necessary''; and
(2) by striking ``subtitle'' and all that follows and
inserting the following: ``subtitle--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
1991 through 2013; and
``(2) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7206. REPEAL OF NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL WEATHER
INFORMATION SYSTEM.
Effective October 1, 2013, subtitle D of title XVI of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 5851 et seq.) is repealed.
SEC. 7207. REPEAL OF RURAL ELECTRONIC COMMERCE EXTENSION
PROGRAM.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 1670 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
5923) is repealed.
SEC. 7208. REPEAL OF AGRICULTURAL GENOME INITIATIVE.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 1671 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
5924) is repealed.
SEC. 7209. HIGH-PRIORITY RESEARCH AND EXTENSION INITIATIVES.
Section 1672 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``subsections (e) through (i)'' and inserting ``subsections
(e) and (f)'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2), in the first sentence, by
striking ``subsections (e) through (i)'' and inserting
``subsections (e) and (f)'';
(3) by striking subsections (e), (f), and (i);
(4) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), and (j) as
subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
(5) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (4))--
(A) by striking ``2012'' each place it appears in
paragraphs (1)(B), (2)(B), and (3) and inserting ``2018'';
and
(B) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and honey bee
health disorders'' after ``collapse''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, including best
management practices'' after ``strategies''; and
(6) in subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph (4)),
by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 7210. REPEAL OF NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION INITIATIVE.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 1672A of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
5925a) is repealed.
SEC. 7211. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
INITIATIVE.
Section 1672B of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925b) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(e) Farm Business Management Encouraged.--Following the
completion of a peer review process for grant proposals
received under this section, the Secretary shall give a
priority to grant proposals found in the review process to be
scientifically meritorious using the same criteria the
Secretary uses to give priority to grants under section
1672D(b).''; and
(2) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the heading of such paragraph, by striking ``2012''
and inserting ``2018'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the heading of such paragraph, by striking ``2009
through 2012'' and inserting ``2014 through 2018''; and
(ii) by striking ``2009 through 2012'' and inserting ``2014
through 2018''.
SEC. 7212. REPEAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOENERGY FEEDSTOCK AND
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
INITIATIVE.
(a) Repeal.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 1672C of
the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 5925e) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 251(f)(1)(D) of the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 6971(f)(1)(D)) is amended--
(1) by striking clause (xi); and
(2) by redesignating clauses (xii) and (xiii) as clauses
(xi) and (xii), respectively.
SEC. 7213. FARM BUSINESS MANAGEMENT.
Section 1672D(d) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925f(d)) is amended by
striking ``such sums as are necessary to carry out this
section.'' and inserting the following: ``to carry out this
section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and
``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7214. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.
The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
is amended by inserting after section 1672D (7 U.S.C. 5925f)
the following new section:
``SEC. 1673. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.
``(a) Funding Priorities.--The Secretary shall prioritize
centers of excellence established for specific agricultural
commodities for the receipt of funding for any competitive
research or extension program administered by the Secretary.
``(b) Composition.--A center of excellence is composed of 1
or more of the eligible entities specified in subsection
(b)(7) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research
Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(7)) that provide financial or in-
kind support to the center of excellence.
``(c) Criteria for Centers of Excellence.--
``(1) Required efforts.--The criteria for consideration to
be recognized as a center of excellence shall include
efforts--
``(A) to ensure coordination and cost effectiveness by
reducing unnecessarily duplicative efforts regarding
research, teaching, and extension;
``(B) to leverage available resources by using public/
private partnerships among agricultural industry groups,
institutions of higher education, and the Federal Government;
``(C) to implement teaching initiatives to increase
awareness and effectively disseminate solutions to target
audiences through extension activities; and
``(D) to increase the economic returns to rural communities
by identifying, attracting, and directing funds to high-
priority agricultural issues.
``(2) Additional efforts.--Where practicable, the criteria
for consideration to be recognized as a center of excellence
shall include efforts to improve teaching capacity and
infrastructure at colleges and universities (including land-
grant institutions, schools of forestry, schools of
veterinary medicine, and NLGCA Institutions).''.
SEC. 7215. REPEAL OF RED MEAT SAFETY RESEARCH CENTER.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 1676 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
5929) is repealed.
SEC. 7216. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM FOR FARMERS WITH
DISABILITIES.
Section 1680(c)(1) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5933(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``is'' and inserting ``are''; and
(2) by striking ``section'' and all that follows and
inserting the following: ``section--
``(A) $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2013; and
``(B) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7217. NATIONAL RURAL INFORMATION CENTER CLEARINGHOUSE.
Section 2381(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 3125b(e)) is amended by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
Subtitle C--Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act
of 1998
SEC. 7301. RELEVANCE AND MERIT OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION FUNDED BY THE
DEPARTMENT.
Section 103(a)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613(a)(2)) is
amended--
(1) in the heading by striking ``Merit review of
extension'' and inserting ``Relevance and merit review of
research, extension,'';
[[Page H3832]]
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by inserting ``relevance and'' before ``merit''; and
(B) by striking ``extension or education'' and inserting
``research, extension, or education''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``on a continuous
basis'' after ``procedures''.
SEC. 7302. INTEGRATED RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION
COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM.
Section 406(f) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626(f)) is amended by
striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 7303. REPEAL OF COORDINATED PROGRAM OF RESEARCH,
EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION TO IMPROVE VIABILITY
OF SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZE DAIRY, LIVESTOCK, AND
POULTRY OPERATIONS.
(a) Repeal.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 407 of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7627) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 251(f)(1)(D) of the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 6971(f)(1)(D)), as amended by section 7212(b), is
further amended--
(1) by striking clause (xi) (as redesignated by section
7212(b)); and
(2) by redesignating clause (xii) (as redesignated by
section 7212(b)) as clause (xi).
SEC. 7304. FUSARIUM GRAMINEARUM GRANTS.
Section 408(e) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7628(e)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 1999 through 2013; and
``(2) $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7305. REPEAL OF BOVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE CONTROL PROGRAM.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 409 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7
U.S.C. 7629) is repealed.
SEC. 7306. GRANTS FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 410(d) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7630(d)) is amended by
striking ``section such sums as are necessary'' and all that
follows and inserting the following: ``section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2008 through 2013; and
``(2) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7307. SPECIALTY CROP RESEARCH INITIATIVE.
Section 412 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7632) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and genomics'' and
inserting ``genomics, and other methods''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``handling and
processing,'' after ``production efficiency,'';
(2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(d) Research Projects.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall award competitive grants on the basis of--
``(1) an initial scientific peer review conducted by a
panel of subject matter experts from Federal agencies, non-
Federal entities, and the specialty crop industry; and
``(2) a final funding determination made by the Secretary
based on a review and ranking for merit, relevance, and
impact conducted by a panel of specialty crop industry
representatives for the specific specialty crop.''; and
(3) in subsection (h)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``(1) Mandatory funding for
fiscal years 2008 through 2012.--Of the funds'' and inserting
the following:
``(1) Mandatory funding.--
``(A) Fiscal years 2008 through 2012.--Of the funds''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Subsequent funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall make available to
carry out this section--
``(i) $50,000,000 for fiscal years 2014 and 2015;
``(ii) $55,000,000 for fiscal years 2016 and 2017; and
``(iii) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2018 and each fiscal
year thereafter.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and
inserting ``2014 through 2018''; and
(ii) by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and inserting ``2014
through 2018''.
SEC. 7308. FOOD ANIMAL RESIDUE AVOIDANCE DATABASE PROGRAM.
Section 604(e) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7642(e)) is amended by
striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 7309. REPEAL OF NATIONAL SWINE RESEARCH CENTER.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 612 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public
Law 105-185; 112 Stat. 605) is repealed.
SEC. 7310. OFFICE OF PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY.
Section 614(f) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7653(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``such sums as are necessary''; and
(2) by striking ``section'' and all that follows and
inserting the following: ``section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
1999 through 2013; and
``(2) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7311. REPEAL OF STUDIES OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION.
Effective October 1, 2013, subtitle C of title VI of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7671 et seq.) is repealed.
Subtitle D--Other Laws
SEC. 7401. CRITICAL AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS ACT.
Section 16(a) of the Critical Agricultural Materials Act (7
U.S.C. 178n(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``such sums as are necessary''; and
(2) by striking ``Act'' and all that follows and inserting
the following: ``Act--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
1991 through 2013; and
``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7402. EQUITY IN EDUCATIONAL LAND-GRANT STATUS ACT OF
1994.
(a) Definition of 1994 Institutions.--Section 532 of the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
301 note; Public Law 103-382) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``Memorial'';
(2) in paragraph (26), by striking ``Community'';
(3) by striking paragraphs (5), (10), and (27);
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (6),
(7), (8), (9), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20),
(21), (22), (23), (24), (25), (26), (28), (29), (30), (31),
(32), (33), and (34) as paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (7), (8),
(9), (5), (10), (15), (17), (18), (19), (20), (22), (23),
(24), (25), (32), (26), (27), (28), (29), (30), (31), (33),
(34), (35), and (14), respectively, and transferring the
paragraphs so as to appear in numerical order;
(5) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated),
the following new paragraph:
``(1) Aaniih Nakoda College.'';
(6) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as so redesignated),
the following new paragraph:
``(6) College of the Muscogee Nation.'';
(7) by inserting after paragraph (15) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraph:
``(16) Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College.''; and
(8) by inserting after paragraph (20) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraph:
``(21) Navajo Technical College.''.
(b) Endowment for 1994 Institutions.--Section 533(b) of the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
301 note; Public Law 103-382) is amended in the first
sentence by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
(c) Institutional Capacity Building Grants.--Section 535 of
the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 301 note; Public Law 103-382) is amended by striking
``2012'' each place it appears in subsections (b)(1) and (c)
and inserting ``2018''.
(d) Research Grants.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 536(c) of the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
301 note; Public Law 103-382) is amended in the first
sentence by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
(2) Research grant requirements.--Section 536(b) of the
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.
301 note; Public Law 103-382) is amended by striking ``with
at least 1 other land-grant college or university'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``with--
``(1) the Agricultural Research Service of the Department
of Agriculture; or
``(2) at least 1--
``(A) other land-grant college or university (exclusive of
another 1994 Institution);
``(B) non-land-grant college of agriculture (as defined in
section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103));
or
``(C) cooperating forestry school (as defined in that
section).''.
SEC. 7403. RESEARCH FACILITIES ACT.
Section 6(a) of the Research Facilities Act (7 U.S.C.
390d(a)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 7404. REPEAL OF CARBON CYCLE RESEARCH.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 221 of the Agricultural
Risk Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 6711) is repealed.
SEC. 7405. COMPETITIVE, SPECIAL, AND FACILITIES RESEARCH
GRANT ACT.
(a) Extension.--Subsection (b)(11)(A) of the Competitive,
Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C.
450i(b)(11)(A)) is amended in the matter preceding clause (i)
by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
(b) Priority Areas.--Subsection (b)(2) of the Competitive,
Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C.
450i(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (vii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(viii) plant-based foods that are major sources of
nutrients of concern (as determined by the Secretary).'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (vii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (viii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
``(ix) the research and development of surveillance
methods, vaccines, vaccination delivery systems, or
diagnostic tests for pests and diseases (especially zoonotic
diseases) in wildlife
[[Page H3833]]
reservoirs presenting a potential concern to public health or
domestic livestock and pests and diseases in minor species
(including deer, elk, and bison); and
``(x) the identification of animal drug needs and the
generation and dissemination of data for safe and effective
therapeutic applications of animal drugs for minor species
and minor uses of such drugs in major species.'';
(3) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) in clause (ii), by inserting before the semicolon ``,
including the effects of plant-based foods that are major
sources of nutrients of concern on diet and health'';
(B) in clause (iii), by inserting before the semicolon ``,
including plant-based foods that are major sources of
nutrients of concern'';
(C) in clause (iv), by inserting before the semicolon ``,
including postharvest practices conducted with respect to
plant-based foods that are major sources of nutrients of
concern''; and
(D) in clause (v), by inserting before the period ``,
including improving the functionality of plant-based foods
that are major sources of nutrients of concern'';
(4) in subparagraph (D)--
(A) by redesignating clauses (iv), (v), and (vi) as clauses
(v), (vi), and (vii), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after clause (iii) the following new
clause:
``(iv) the effectiveness of conservation practices and
technologies designed to address nutrient losses and improve
water quality;''; and
(5) in subparagraph (F)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting
``economics,'' after ``trade,'';
(B) by redesignating clauses (v) and (vi) as clauses (vi)
and (vii), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after clause (iv) the following new
clause:
``(v) the economic costs, benefits, and viability of
producers adopting conservation practices and technologies
designed to improve water quality;''.
(c) General Administration.--Subsection (b)(4) of the
Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7
U.S.C. 450i(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) establish procedures under which a commodity board
established under a commodity promotion law (as such term is
defined under section 501(a) of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401(a))) or a
State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity) may
directly submit to the Secretary proposals for requests for
applications to specifically address particular issues
related to the priority areas specified in paragraph (2).''.
(d) Special Considerations.--Subsection (b)(6) of the
Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7
U.S.C. 450i(b)(6)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) to eligible entities to carry out the specific
research proposals submitted under procedures established
under paragraph (4)(F).''.
(e) Eligible Entities.--Subsection (b)(7)(G) of the
Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7
U.S.C. 450i(b)(7)(G)) is amended by striking ``or
corporations'' and inserting ``, foundations, or
corporations''.
(f) Inter-Regional Research Project Number 4.--Subsection
(e) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research
Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``minor use
pesticides'' and inserting ``pesticides for minor
agricultural use and for use on specialty crops (as defined
in section 3 of the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of
2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note)''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and for use on
specialty crops'' after ``minor agricultural use'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (G);
and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(C) prioritize potential pest management technology for
minor agricultural use and for use on specialty crops;
``(D) conduct research to develop the data necessary to
facilitate pesticide registrations, reregistrations, and
associated tolerances;
``(E) assist in removing trade barriers caused by residues
of pesticides registered for minor agricultural use and for
use on domestically grown specialty crops;
``(F) assist in the registration and reregistration of pest
management technologies for minor agricultural use and for
use on specialty crops; and''.
(g) Emphasis on Sustainable Agriculture.--The Competitive,
Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i) is
amended by striking subsection (k).
SEC. 7406. RENEWABLE RESOURCES EXTENSION ACT OF 1978.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 6 of the
Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1675) is
amended in the first sentence by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018''.
(b) Termination Date.--Section 8 of the Renewable Resources
Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 note; Public Law 95-
306) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 7407. NATIONAL AQUACULTURE ACT OF 1980.
Section 10 of the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16
U.S.C. 2809) is amended by striking ``2012'' each place it
appears and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 7408. REPEAL OF USE OF REMOTE SENSING DATA.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 892 of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.
5935) is repealed.
SEC. 7409. REPEAL OF REPORTS UNDER FARM SECURITY AND RURAL
INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002.
(a) Repeal of Report on Producers and Handlers for Organic
Products.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 7409 of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
5925b note; Public Law 107-171) is repealed.
(b) Repeal of Report on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected
Plants.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 7410 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
171; 116 Stat. 462) is repealed.
(c) Repeal of Study on Nutrient Banking.--Effective October
1, 2013, section 7411 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 5925a note; Public Law 107-
171) is repealed.
SEC. 7410. BEGINNING FARMER AND RANCHER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
Section 7405 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3319f) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (A) through
(R) and inserting the following new subparagraphs:
``(A) basic livestock, forest management, and crop farming
practices;
``(B) innovative farm, ranch, and private, nonindustrial
forest land transfer strategies;
``(C) entrepreneurship and business training;
``(D) financial and risk management training (including the
acquisition and management of agricultural credit);
``(E) natural resource management and planning;
``(F) diversification and marketing strategies;
``(G) curriculum development;
``(H) mentoring, apprenticeships, and internships;
``(I) resources and referral;
``(J) farm financial benchmarking;
``(K) assisting beginning farmers or ranchers in acquiring
land from retiring farmers and ranchers;
``(L) agricultural rehabilitation and vocational training
for veterans; and
``(M) other similar subject areas of use to beginning
farmers or ranchers.'';
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and community-based
organizations'' and inserting ``, community-based
organizations, and school-based agricultural educational
organizations'';
(C) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(8) Military veteran beginning farmers and ranchers.--
``(A) In general.--Not less than 5 percent of the funds
used to carry out this subsection for a fiscal year shall be
used to support programs and services that address the needs
of military veteran beginning farmers and ranchers.
``(B) Coordination permitted.--A recipient of a grant under
this section using the grant as described in subparagraph (A)
may coordinate with a recipient of a grant under section 1680
of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
(7 U.S.C. 5933) in addressing the needs of military veteran
beginning farmers and ranchers with disabilities.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Limitation on indirect costs.--A recipient of a
grant under this section may not use more than 10 percent of
the funds provided by the grant for the indirect costs of
carrying out the initiatives described in paragraph (1).'';
(2) in subsection (h)(1)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2018'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018, to remain available until expended.''; and
(3) in subsection (h)(2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``2008 through
2012'' and inserting ``2014 through 2018''; and
(B) by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and inserting ``2014
through 2018''.
SEC. 7411. INCLUSION OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS AS A STATE
UNDER MCINTIRE-STENNIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY
ACT.
Section 8 of Public Law 87-788 (commonly known as the
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act; 16 U.S.C. 582a-7)
is amended by striking ``and Guam'' and inserting ``Guam, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''.
Subtitle E--Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
PART 1--AGRICULTURAL SECURITY
SEC. 7501. AGRICULTURAL BIOSECURITY COMMUNICATION CENTER.
Section 14112(c) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8912(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2008 through 2013; and
``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
[[Page H3834]]
SEC. 7502. ASSISTANCE TO BUILD LOCAL CAPACITY IN AGRICULTURAL
BIOSECURITY PLANNING, PREPARATION, AND
RESPONSE.
Section 14113 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 8913) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by striking ``such sums as may be necessary''; and
(B) by striking ``subsection'' and all that follows and
inserting the following: ``subsection--
``(A) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2008 through 2013; and
``(B) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection'' and all that
follows and inserting the following: ``are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection--
``(A) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2013; and
``(B) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7503. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
COUNTERMEASURES.
Section 14121(b) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8921(b)) is amended by striking ``is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section'' and
all that follows and inserting the following: ``are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2013; and
``(2) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 7504. AGRICULTURAL BIOSECURITY GRANT PROGRAM.
Section 14122(e) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8922(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``sums as are necessary''; and
(2) by striking ``section'' and all that follows and
inserting the following: ``section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2008 through 2013, to remain available until expended; and
``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018, to remain available until expended.''.
PART 2--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 7511. ENHANCED USE LEASE AUTHORITY PILOT PROGRAM.
Section 308 of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 3125a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(6)(A), by striking ``5 years'' and
inserting ``10 years''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``1, 3, and 5 years''
and inserting ``6, 8, and 10 years''.
SEC. 7512. GRAZINGLANDS RESEARCH LABORATORY.
Section 7502 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2019) is amended by
striking ``5-year period'' and inserting ``10-year period''.
SEC. 7513. BUDGET SUBMISSION AND FUNDING.
Section 7506 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 7614c) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered program.--The term `covered program' means--
``(A) each research program carried out by the Agricultural
Research Service or the Economic Research Service for which
annual appropriations are requested in the annual budget
submission of the President; and
``(B) each competitive program carried out by the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture for which annual
appropriations are requested in the annual budget submission
of the President.
``(2) Request for awards.--The term `request for awards'
means a funding announcement published by the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture that provides detailed
information on funding opportunities at the Institute,
including the purpose, eligibility, restriction, focus areas,
evaluation criteria, regulatory information, and instructions
on how to apply for such opportunities.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(e) Additional Presidential Budget Submission
Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--Each year, the President shall submit to
Congress, together with the annual budget submission of the
President, the information described in paragraph (2) for
each funding request for a covered program.
``(2) Information described.--The information described in
this paragraph includes--
``(A) baseline information, including with respect to each
covered program--
``(i) the funding level for the program for the fiscal year
preceding the year the annual budget submission of the
President is submitted;
``(ii) the funding level requested in the annual budget
submission of the President, including any increase or
decrease in the funding level; and
``(iii) an explanation justifying any change from the
funding level specified in clause (i) to the level specified
in clause (ii);
``(B) with respect to each covered program that is carried
out by the Economic Research Service or the Agricultural
Research Service, the location and staff years of the
program;
``(C) the proposed funding levels to be allocated to, and
the expected publication date, scope, and allocation level
for, each request for awards to be published under or
associated with--
``(i) each priority area specified in subsection (b)(2) of
the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act
(7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(2));
``(ii) each research and extension project carried out
under section 1621(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5811(a));
``(iii) each grant to be awarded under section 1672B(a) of
the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 5925b(a));
``(iv) each grant awarded under section 412(d) of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7632(d)); and
``(v) each grant awarded under 7405(c)(1) of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
3319f(c)(1)); or
``(D) any other information the Secretary determines will
increase congressional oversight with respect to covered
programs.
``(3) Prohibition.--Unless the President submits the
information described in paragraph (2)(C) for a fiscal year,
the President may not carry out any program during the fiscal
year that is authorized under--
``(A) subsection (b) of the Competitive, Special, and
Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b));
``(B) section 1621 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5811);
``(C) section 1672B of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925b);
``(D) section 412 of the Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7632); or
``(E) section 7405 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3319f).
``(f) Report of the Secretary of Agriculture.--Each year on
a date that is not later than the date on which the President
submits the annual budget, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report containing a description of the
agricultural research, extension, and education activities
carried out by the Federal Government during the fiscal year
that immediately precedes the year for which the report is
submitted, including--
``(1) a review of the extent to which those activities--
``(A) are duplicative or overlap within the Department of
Agriculture; or
``(B) are similar to activities carried out by--
``(i) other Federal agencies;
``(ii) the States (including the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and other territories or
possessions of the United States);
``(iii) institutions of higher education (as defined in
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001)); or
``(iv) the private sector; and
``(2) for each report submitted under this section on or
after January 1, 2013, a 5-year projection of national
priorities with respect to agricultural research, extension,
and education, taking into account domestic needs.''.
SEC. 7514. REPEAL OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION GRANTS FOR THE
STUDY OF ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT BACTERIA.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 7521 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 3202) is
repealed.
SEC. 7515. REPEAL OF FARM AND RANCH STRESS ASSISTANCE
NETWORK.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 7522 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 5936) is
repealed.
SEC. 7516. REPEAL OF SEED DISTRIBUTION.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 7523 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 415-1) is
repealed.
SEC. 7517. NATURAL PRODUCTS RESEARCH PROGRAM.
Section 7525(e) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 5937(e)) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
SEC. 7518. SUN GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 7526 of the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8114) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4)(B), by striking ``the Department
of Energy'' and inserting ``other appropriate Federal
agencies (as determined by the Secretary)'';
(2) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``multistate'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``integrated,
multistate research, extension, and education programs on
technology development and technology implementation.'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C);
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``in accordance with paragraph (2)'';
(ii) by striking ``gasification'' and inserting
``bioproducts''; and
(iii) by striking ``the Department of Energy'' and
inserting ``other appropriate Federal agencies'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively; and
(4) in subsection (g), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 7526(f)(1) of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8114(f)(1)) is
amended by striking ``subsection (c)(1)(D)(i)'' and inserting
``subsection (c)(1)(C)(i)''.
SEC. 7519. REPEAL OF STUDY AND REPORT ON FOOD DESERTS.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 7527 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122
Stat. 2039) is repealed.
[[Page H3835]]
SEC. 7520. REPEAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 7529 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 5938) is
repealed.
Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 7601. AGREEMENTS WITH NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS FOR
NATIONAL ARBORETUM.
Section 6 of the Act of March 4, 1927 (20 U.S.C. 196), is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following new paragraph:
``(1) negotiate agreements for the National Arboretum with
nonprofit scientific or educational organizations, the
interests of which are complementary to the mission of the
National Arboretum, or nonprofit organizations that support
the purpose of the National Arboretum, except that the net
proceeds of the organizations from the agreements shall be
used exclusively for research and educational work for the
benefit of the National Arboretum and the operation and
maintenance of the facilities of the National Arboretum,
including enhancements, upgrades, restoration, and
conservation;''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Recognition of Donors.--A non-profit organization
that entered into an agreement under subsection (a)(1) may
recognize donors if that recognition is approved in advance
by the Secretary. In considering whether to approve such
recognition, the Secretary shall broadly exercise the
discretion of the Secretary to the fullest extent allowed
under Federal law in effect on the date of the enactment of
this subsection.''.
SEC. 7602. COTTON DISEASE RESEARCH REPORT.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on
the fungus fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum race 4
(referred to in this section as ``FOV Race 4'') and the
impact of such fungus on cotton, including--
(1) an overview of the threat FOV Race 4 poses to the
cotton industry in the United States;
(2) the status and progress of Federal research initiatives
to detect, contain, or eradicate FOV Race 4, including
current FOV Race 4-specific research projects; and
(3) a comprehensive strategy to combat FOV Race 4 that
establishes--
(A) detection and identification goals;
(B) containment goals;
(C) eradication goals; and
(D) a plan to partner with the cotton industry in the
United States to maximize resources, information sharing, and
research responsiveness and effectiveness.
SEC. 7603. ACCEPTANCE OF FACILITY FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
SERVICE.
(a) Construction Authorized.--Subject to subsections (b)
and (c), the Secretary of Agriculture may authorize a non-
Federal entity to construct, at no cost and without
obligation to the Federal Government, a facility for use by
the Agricultural Research Service on land owned by the
Agricultural Research Service and managed by the Secretary.
(b) Acceptance of Gift.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon the
completion of the construction of the facility by the non-
Federal entity under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
accept the facility as a gift in accordance with Public Law
95-442 (7 U.S.C. 2269).
(2) Certification.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall
certify in advance that the acceptance under paragraph (1)
complies with the limitations specified in paragraphs (1) and
(2) of subsection (c).
(c) Limitations.--
(1) Value.--The Secretary may not accept a facility as a
gift under this section if the fair market value of the
facility is more than $5,000,000.
(2) No federal cost.--The Secretary shall not enter into
any acquisitions, demonstrations, exchanges, grants,
contracts, incentives, leases, procurements, sales, or other
transaction authorities or arrangements that would obligate
future appropriations with respect to the facility
constructed under subsection (a).
(d) Termination of Authority.--No facility may be accepted
by the Secretary for use by the Agricultural Research Service
under this section after September 30, 2018.
SEC. 7604. MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
Sections 7408 and 7409 of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2013) are
both amended by striking ``Title III of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994'' and inserting
``Title III of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994''.
TITLE VIII--FORESTRY
Subtitle A--Repeal of Certain Forestry Programs
SEC. 8001. FOREST LAND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 4 of the Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8002 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
171; 16 U.S.C. 2103 note) is amended by striking subsection
(a).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 8002. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 6 of the Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103b) is repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 8003. EXPIRED COOPERATIVE NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS
MARKETING PROGRAM.
Section 18 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2112) is repealed.
SEC. 8004. HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTION AGRICULTURAL LAND
NATIONAL RESOURCES LEADERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 8402 of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (16 U.S.C. 1649a) is repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 8005. TRIBAL WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Section 303 of the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6542) is repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
SEC. 8006. SEPARATE FOREST SERVICE DECISIONMAKING AND APPEALS
PROCESS.
Section 322 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16
U.S.C. 1612 note) is repealed. Section 428 of division E of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74;
125 Stat. 1046; 16 U.S.C. 6515 note) shall not apply to any
project or activity implementing a land and resource
management plan developed under section 6 of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.
1604) that is categorically excluded from documentation in an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Subtitle B--Reauthorization of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 Programs
SEC. 8101. STATE-WIDE ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGIES FOR FOREST
RESOURCES.
Section 2A(c) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101a(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
``(5) as feasible, appropriate military installations where
the voluntary participation and management of private or
State-owned or other public forestland is able to support,
promote, and contribute to the missions of such
installations; and''.
SEC. 8102. FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM.
Subsection (m) of section 7 of the Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103c) is amended to read
as follows:
``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this
section, there are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and
``(2) $55,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 8103. COMMUNITY FOREST AND OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION
PROGRAM.
Subsection (g) of section 7A of the Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103d) is amended to read
as follows:
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this
section, there are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and
``(2) $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
Subtitle C--Reauthorization of Other Forestry-Related Laws
SEC. 8201. RURAL REVITALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES.
Section 2371(d)(2) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6601(d)(2)) is amended by
striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 8202. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY.
Subsection (d) of section 2405 of the Global Climate Change
Prevention Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6704) is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this
section, there are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
1996 through 2013; and
``(2) $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 8203. CHANGE IN FUNDING SOURCE FOR HEALTHY FORESTS
RESERVE PROGRAM.
Section 508 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(16 U.S.C. 6578) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``In General'' and
inserting ``Fiscal Years 2009 Through 2013'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsections:
``(b) Fiscal Years 2014 Through 2018.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry
out this section $9,750,000 for each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018.
``(c) Additional Source of Funds.--In addition to funds
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary may use
such amount of the funds appropriated for that fiscal year to
carry out the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act
(16 U.S.C. 590a et seq.) as the Secretary determines
necessary to cover the
[[Page H3836]]
cost of technical assistance, management, and enforcement
responsibilities for land enrolled in the healthy forests
reserve program pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of
section 504.''.
SEC. 8204. STEWARDSHIP END RESULT CONTRACTING PROJECT
AUTHORITY.
Section 347 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section
101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 16 U.S.C. 2104
note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2013'' and inserting
``2018''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(6) Contract for sale of property.--At the discretion of
the Secretary of Agriculture, a contract entered into by the
Forest Service under this section may be considered a
contract for the sale of property under such terms as the
Secretary may prescribe without regard to any other provision
of law.''.
Subtitle D--National Forest Critical Area Response
SEC. 8301. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Critical area.--The term ``critical area'' means an
area of the National Forest System designated by the
Secretary under section 8302
(2) National forest system.--The term ``National Forest
System'' has the meaning given that term in section 11(a) of
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
SEC. 8302. DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL AREAS.
(a) Designation Requirements.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall designate critical areas within the National Forest
System for the purposes of addressing--
(1) deteriorating forest health conditions in existence as
of the date of the enactment of this Act due to insect
infestation, drought, disease, or storm damage; and
(2) the future risk of insect infestations or disease
outbreaks through preventative treatments.
(b) Designation Method.--In considering National Forest
System land for designation as a critical area, the Secretary
shall use--
(1) for purposes of subsection (a)(1), the most recent
annual forest health aerial surveys of mortality and
defoliation; and
(2) for purposes of subsection (a)(2), the National Insect
and Disease Risk Map.
(c) Time for Initial Designations.--The first critical
areas shall be designated by the Secretary not later than 60
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Duration of Designation.--The designation of a critical
area shall expire not later than 10 years after the date of
the designation.
SEC. 8303. APPLICATION OF EXPEDITED PROCEDURES AND ACTIVITIES
OF THE HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003
TO CRITICAL AREAS.
(a) Applicability.--Subject to subsections (b) through (e),
title I of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16
U.S.C. 6511 et seq.) (including the environmental analysis
requirements of section 104 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 6514), the
special administrative review process under section 105 of
that Act (16 U.S.C. 6515), and the judicial review process
under section 106 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 6516)), shall apply
to all Forest Service projects and activities carried out in
a critical area.
(b) Application of Other Law.--Section 322 of Public Law
102-381 (16 U.S.C. 1612 note; 106 Stat. 1419) shall not apply
to projects conducted in accordance with this section.
(c) Required Modifications.--In applying title I of the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511 et
seq.) to Forest Service projects and activities in a critical
area, the Secretary shall make the following modifications:
(1) The authority shall apply to the entire critical area,
including land that is outside of a wildland-urban interface
area or that does not satisfy any of the other eligibility
criteria specified in section 102(a) of that Act (16 U.S.C.
6512(a)).
(2) All projects and activities of the Forest Service,
including necessary connected actions (as described in
section 1508.25(a)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation)), shall be considered
to be authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects for
purposes of applying the title.
(d) Smaller Projects.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
project conducted in a critical area in accordance with this
section that comprises less than 10,000 acres shall be--
(A) considered an action categorically excluded from the
requirements for an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement under section 1508.4 of title
40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation);
and
(B) exempt from the special administrative review process
under section 105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of
2003 (16 U.S.C. 6515).
(2) Exclusion of certain areas.--Paragraph (1) does not
apply to--
(A) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System;
(B) any Federal land on which, by Act of Congress or
Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is
restricted or prohibited;
(C) a congressionally designated wilderness study area; or
(D) an area in which activities under paragraph (1) would
be inconsistent with the applicable land and resource
management plan.
(e) Forest Management Plans.--All projects and activities
carried out in a critical area pursuant to this subtitle
shall be consistent with the land and resource management
plan established under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) for
the unit of the National Forest System containing the
critical area.
SEC. 8304. GOOD NEIGHBOR AUTHORITY.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' means a
State that contains National Forest System land.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(3) State forester.--The term ``State forester'' means the
head of a State agency with jurisdiction over State forestry
programs in an eligible State.
(b) Cooperative Agreements and Contracts.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a cooperative
agreement or contract (including a sole source contract) with
a State forester to authorize the State forester to provide
the forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration and
protection services described in paragraph (2) on National
Forest System land in the eligible State.
(2) Authorized services.--The forest, rangeland, and
watershed restoration and protection services referred to in
paragraph (1) include the conduct of--
(A) activities to treat insect infected trees;
(B) activities to reduce hazardous fuels; and
(C) any other activities to restore or improve forest,
rangeland, and watershed health, including fish and wildlife
habitat.
(3) State as agent.--Except as provided in paragraph (6), a
cooperative agreement or contract entered into under
paragraph (1) may authorize the State forester to serve as
the agent for the Secretary in providing the restoration and
protection services authorized under that paragraph.
(4) Subcontracts.--In accordance with applicable contract
procedures for the eligible State, a State forester may enter
into subcontracts to provide the restoration and protection
services authorized under a cooperative agreement or contract
entered into under paragraph (1).
(5) Timber sales.--Subsections (d) and (g) of section 14 of
the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a)
shall not apply to services performed under a cooperative
agreement or contract entered into under paragraph (1).
(6) Retention of nepa responsibilities.--Any decision
required to be made under the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to any
restoration and protection services to be provided under this
section by a State forester on National Forest System land
shall not be delegated to a State forester or any other
officer or employee of the eligible State.
(7) Applicable law.--The restoration and protection
services to be provided under this section shall be carried
out on a project-to-project basis under existing authorities
of the Forest Service.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 8401. REVISION OF STRATEGIC PLAN FOR FOREST INVENTORY
AND ANALYSIS.
(a) Revision Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall revise the strategic plan for forest
inventory and analysis initially prepared pursuant to section
3(e) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research
Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1642(e)) to address the requirements
imposed by subsection (b).
(b) Elements of Revised Strategic Plan.--In revising the
strategic plan, the Secretary of Agriculture shall describe
in detail the organization, procedures, and funding needed to
achieve each of the following:
(1) Complete the transition to a fully annualized forest
inventory program and include inventory and analysis of
interior Alaska.
(2) Implement an annualized inventory of trees in urban
settings, including the status and trends of trees and
forests, and assessments of their ecosystem services, values,
health, and risk to pests and diseases.
(3) Report information on renewable biomass supplies and
carbon stocks at the local, State, regional, and national
level, including by ownership type.
(4) Engage State foresters and other users of information
from the forest inventory and analysis in reevaluating the
list of core data variables collected on forest inventory and
analysis plots with an emphasis on demonstrated need.
(5) Improve the timeliness of the timber product output
program and accessibility of the annualized information on
that database.
(6) Foster greater cooperation among the forest inventory
and analysis program, research station leaders, and State
foresters and other users of information from the forest
inventory and analysis.
(7) Promote availability of and access to non-Federal
resources to improve information analysis and information
management.
(8) Collaborate with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and United
States Geological Survey to integrate remote sensing, spatial
analysis techniques, and other new technologies in the forest
inventory and analysis program.
(9) Understand and report on changes in land cover and use.
(10) Expand existing programs to promote sustainable forest
stewardship through increased understanding, in partnership
with other Federal agencies, of the over 10 million family
forest owners, their demographics, and the barriers to forest
stewardship.
(11) Implement procedures to improve the statistical
precision of estimates at the sub-State level.
(c) Submission of Revised Strategic Plan.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall submit the revised strategic plan to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
[[Page H3837]]
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate.
SEC. 8402. FOREST SERVICE PARTICIPATION IN ACES PROGRAM.
The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of
the Forest Service, may use funds derived from conservation-
related programs executed on National Forest System lands to
utilize the Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services
Program established pursuant to section 1252 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3851) to provide technical
services for conservation-related programs and authorities
carried out by the Secretary on National Forest System lands.
SEC. 8403. GREEN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER RESEARCH
UNDER FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLE RESOURCES
RESEARCH ACT OF 1978.
(a) Additional Forestry and Rangeland Research and
Education High Priority.--Section 3(d)(2) of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
1642(d)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) Science and technology transfer, through the Forest
Products Laboratory, to demonstrate the beneficial
characteristics of wood as a green building material,
including investments in life cycle assessment for wood
products.''.
(b) Research Facilities and Cooperation.--Section 4 of the
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 1643) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate an
annual report describing, for the period covered by the
report--
``(1) the research conducted in furtherance of the research
and education priority specified in section 3(d)(2)(F);
``(2) the number of buildings the Forest Service has built
with wood as the primary structural material; and
``(3) the investments made by the Forest Service in green
building wood promotion.''.
SEC. 8404. EXTENSION OF STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTS AUTHORITY
REGARDING USE OF DESIGNATION BY PRESCRIPTION TO
ALL THINNING SALES UNDER NATIONAL FOREST
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976.
Subsection (g) of section 14 of the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) is amended to read as
follows:
``(g) Designation, including but not limited to, marking
when necessary, designation by description, or designation by
prescription, and supervision of harvesting of trees,
portions of trees, or forest products shall be conducted by
persons employed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Such
persons shall have no personal interest in the purchase or
harvest of such products and shall not be directly or
indirectly in the employment of the purchaser thereof.
Designation by prescription and designation by prescription
shall be considered valid methods for designation, and may be
supervised by use of post-harvest cruise, sample weight
scaling, or other methods determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate.''.
SEC. 8405. REIMBURSEMENT OF FIRE FUNDS EXPENDED BY A STATE
FOR MANAGEMENT AND SUPPRESSION OF CERTAIN
WILDFIRES.
(a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term
``State'' includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(b) Reimbursement Authority.--If a State seeks
reimbursement for amounts expended for resources and services
provided to another State for the management and suppression
of a wildfire, the Secretary of Agriculture, subject to
subsections (c) and (d)--
(1) may accept the reimbursement amounts from the other
State; and
(2) shall pay those amounts to the State seeking
reimbursement.
(c) Mutual Assistance Agreement.--As a condition of seeking
and providing reimbursement under subsection (b), the State
seeking reimbursement and the State providing reimbursement
must each have a mutual assistance agreement with the Forest
Service or an agency of the Department of the Interior for
providing and receiving wildfire management and suppression
resources and services.
(d) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
prescribe the terms and conditions determined to be necessary
to carry out subsection (b).
(e) Effect on Prior Reimbursements.--Any acceptance of
funds or reimbursements made by the Secretary of Agriculture
before the date of enactment of this Act that otherwise would
have been authorized under this section shall be considered
to have been made in accordance with this section.
SEC. 8406. ABILITY OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS TO MEET
NEEDS OF LOCAL WOOD PRODUCING FACILITIES FOR
RAW MATERIALS.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to
Congress a report containing--
(1) an assessment of the raw material needs of wood
producing facilities located within the boundaries of each
unit of the National Forest System or located outside of the
unit, but within 100 miles of such boundaries;
(2) the volume of timber which would be available if the
unit of the National Forest System annually sold its
Allowable Sale Quantity in the current Forest Plan;
(3) the volume of timber actually sold and harvested from
each unit of the National Forest System for the previous
decade,
(4) a comparison of the volume actually sold and harvested
from the previous decade to the Allowable Sale Quantity
calculated in that decade by preceding or current forest
plans; and
(5) an assessment of the ability of each unit of National
Forest System to meet the needs of these facilities for raw
materials.
SEC. 8407. REPORT ON THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROADS.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on
the following:
(1) The total mileage of National Forest System roads and
trails not meeting forest plan standards and guidelines.
(2) The total amount, in dollars, of Capital Improvement &
Maintenance deferred maintenance needs for National Forest
System roads, including a five-year analysis in the trend in
total deferred maintenance costs.
(3) The sources of funds used for capital improvement &
maintenance roads, including appropriated funds, mandatory
funds, and receipts from activities on National Forest System
lands.
(4) The impact of road closures on recreational activities
and timber harvesting.
(5) The impact on land acquisitions, whether through fee
acquisition, donation, or easement, on the maintenance
backlog.
TITLE IX--ENERGY
SEC. 9001. DEFINITION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM.
Section 9001 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8101) is amended by--
(1) striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Biobased product.--
``(A) In general.--The term `biobased product' means a
product determined by the Secretary to be a commercial or
industrial product (other than food or feed) that is--
``(i) composed, in whole or in significant part, of
biological products, including renewable domestic
agricultural materials and forestry materials; or
``(ii) an intermediate ingredient or feedstock.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `biobased product', with respect
to forestry materials, includes forest products that meet
biobased content requirements, notwithstanding the market
share the product holds, the age of the product, or whether
the market for the product is new or emerging.'';
(2) redesignating paragraphs (9), (10), (11), (12), (13),
and (14) as paragraphs (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), and
(16);
(3) inserting after paragraph (8), the following new
paragraph:
``(9) Forest product.--
``(A) In general.--The term `forest product' means a
product made from materials derived from the practice of
forestry or the management of growing timber.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `forest product' includes--
``(i) pulp, paper, paperboard, pellets, lumber, and other
wood products; and
``(ii) any recycled products derived from forest
materials.''; and
(4) inserting after paragraph (14) (as so redesignated),
the following new paragraph:
``(15) Renewable energy system.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
`renewable energy system' means a system that--
``(i) produces usable energy from a renewable energy
source; and
``(ii) may include distribution components necessary to
move energy produced by such system to the initial point of
sale.
``(B) Limitation.--A system described in subparagraph (A)
may not include a mechanism for dispensing energy at
retail.''.
SEC. 9002. BIOBASED MARKETS PROGRAM.
Section 9002(h) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8102(h)) is amended by--
(1) striking ``(h) Funding.--'' and all that follows
through ``to carry out this section, there'' and inserting
``(h) Funding.--There''; and
(2) striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 9003. BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE.
(a) Program Adjustments.--Section 9003 of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8103) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by striking ``to eligible entities''
and all that follows through ``guarantees for loans'' and
inserting ``to eligible entities guarantees for loans'';
(2) by striking subsection (d);
(3) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h) as
subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
(4) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking ``subsection (c)(2)'' each place it appears
and inserting ``subsection (c)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``subsection (h)'' and
inserting ``subsection (g)''.
(b) Funding.--Section 9003(g) of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002, as redesignated by subsection
(a)(3), is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
(3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Discretionary funding''
and inserting ``Fiscal years 2009 through 2013''; and
(B) by striking ``In addition to any other funds made
available to carry out this section, there'' and inserting
``There''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $75,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
SEC. 9004. REPOWERING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 9004(d) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8104(d)) is amended--
[[Page H3838]]
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
(3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Discretionary funding''
and inserting ``Fiscal years 2009 through 2013''; and
(B) by striking ``In addition to any other funds made
available to carry out this section, there'' and inserting
``There''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
SEC. 9005. BIOENERGY PROGRAM FOR ADVANCED BIOFUELS.
Section 9005(g) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8105(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
(3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Discretionary funding''
and inserting ``Fiscal years 2009 through 2013''; and
(B) by striking ``In addition to any other funds made
available to carry out this section, there'' and inserting
``There''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraph:
``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
SEC. 9006. BIODIESEL FUEL EDUCATION PROGRAM.
Section 9006(d) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
(3) in the heading of paragraph (1) (as so redesignated),
by striking ``Authorization of appropriations'' and inserting
``Fiscal year 2013''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
SEC. 9007. RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM.
(a) Program Adjustments.--
(1) Repeal of feasibility studies.--Section 9007(c) of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
8107(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
(2) Tiered application process.--Section 9007(c) of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
8107(c)) is further amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Tiered application process.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Secretary shall establish a three-tiered
application, evaluation, and oversight process that varies
based on the cost of the proposed project with the process
most simplified for projects referred to in subparagraph (A),
more comprehensive for projects referred to in subparagraph
(B), and most comprehensive for projects referred to in
subparagraph (C). The three tiers for such process shall be
as follows:
``(A) Tier 1.--Projects for which the cost of the project
funded under this subsection is not more than $80,000.
``(B) Tier 2.--Projects for which the cost of the project
funded under this subsection is more than $80,000 but less
than $200,000.
``(C) Tier 3.--Projects for which the cost of the project
funded under this subsection is $200,000 or more.''.
(b) Funding.--Section 9007(g) of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107(g)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (1);
(3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Discretionary funding''
and inserting ``Fiscal years 2009 through 2013''; and
(B) by striking ``In addition to any other funds made
available to carry out this section, there'' and inserting
``There''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $45,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
SEC. 9008. BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 9008(h) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8108(h)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
(3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Discretionary funding''
and inserting ``Fiscal years 2009 through 2013''; and
(B) by striking ``In addition to any other funds made
available to carry out this section, there'' and inserting
``There''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
SEC. 9009. FEEDSTOCK FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM FOR BIOENERGY
PRODUCERS.
Section 9010(b) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8110(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``2013'' and inserting
``2018''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``2013'' and inserting
``2018''.
SEC. 9010. BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 9011 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8111) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking paragraph (6); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs
(6) and (7), respectively;
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``Program to'' and all that follows through
``support the establishment'' and inserting ``Program to
support the establishment'';
(B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (2);
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(B)--
(i) in clause (viii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(ii) by redesignating clause (ix) as clause (x); and
(iii) by inserting after clause (viii) the following new
clause:
``(ix) existing project areas that have received funding
under this section and the continuation of funding of such
project areas to advance the maturity of such project areas;
and''; and
(B) in paragraph (5)(C)(ii)--
(i) by striking subclause (III); and
(ii) by redesignating subclauses (IV) and (V) as subclauses
(III) and (IV), respectively;
(4) by striking subsection (d);
(5) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(6) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
(C) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
(i) by striking ``Fiscal year 2013'' and all that follows
through ``There is authorized'' and inserting ``Fiscal year
2013.--There is authorized''; and
(ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as paragraph (3) and
moving the margin of such paragraph (as so redesignated) two
ems to the left;
(D) by inserting after paragraph (1), the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $75,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''; and
(E) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(C)(ii) of this paragraph), by striking ``this paragraph''
and inserting ``this subsection''.
SEC. 9011. COMMUNITY WOOD ENERGY PROGRAM.
Section 9013(e) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8113(e)) is amended by striking ``carry
out this section'' and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``carry out this section--
``(1) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through
2013; and
``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 9012. REPEAL OF BIOFUELS INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY.
Section 9002 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2095) is repealed.
SEC. 9013. REPEAL OF RENEWABLE FERTILIZER STUDY.
Section 9003 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2096) is repealed.
TITLE X--HORTICULTURE
SEC. 10001. SPECIALTY CROPS MARKET NEWS ALLOCATION.
Section 10107(b) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 1622b(b)) is amended by striking ``2012''
and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 10002. REPEAL OF GRANT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE MOVEMENT OF
SPECIALTY CROPS.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 10403 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 1622c) is
repealed.
SEC. 10003. FARMERS MARKET AND LOCAL FOOD PROMOTION PROGRAM.
Section 6 of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of
1976 (7 U.S.C. 3005) is amended--
(1) in the heading of such section, by inserting ``AND
LOCAL FOOD'' after ``FARMERS' MARKET'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``and Local Food'' after ``Farmers'
Market'';
(B) by striking ``farmers' markets and to promote''; and
(C) by striking the period and inserting ``and assist in
the development of local food business enterprises.'';
(3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(b) Program Purposes.--The purposes of the Program are to
increase domestic consumption of, and consumer access to,
locally and regionally produced agricultural products by
assisting in the development, improvement, and expansion of--
``(1) domestic farmers' markets, roadside stands,
community-supported agriculture programs, agritourism
activities, and other direct producer-to-consumer market
opportunities; and
``(2) local and regional food business enterprises that
process, distribute, aggregate, and store locally or
regionally produced food products.'';
[[Page H3839]]
(4) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``or other agricultural business entity''
after ``cooperative''; and
(B) by inserting ``, including a community supported
agriculture network or association'' after ``association'';
(5) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f);
(6) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Funds Requirements for Eligible Entities.--
``(1) Matching funds.--An entity receiving a grant under
this section for a project to carry out a purpose described
in subsection (b)(2) shall provide matching funds in the form
of cash or an in-kind contribution in an amount equal to 25
percent of the total cost of such project.
``(2) Limitation on use of funds.--An eligible entity may
not use a grant or other assistance provided under this
section for the purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of
a building or structure.''; and
(7) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (5))--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.'';
(B) by striking paragraphs (3) and (5);
(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraphs:
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.
``(4) Use of funds.--Of the funds made available to carry
out this section for a fiscal year, 50 percent of such funds
shall be used for the purposes described in paragraph (1) of
subsection (b) and 50 percent of such funds shall be used for
the purposes described in paragraph (2) of such subsection.
``(5) Limitation on administrative expenses.--Not more than
3 percent of the total amount made available to carry out
this section for a fiscal year may be used for administrative
expenses.''.
SEC. 10004. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE.
(a) Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives.--
Section 7407(d)(2) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 5925c(d)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the heading of such paragraph, by striking ``2008
through 2012'' and inserting ``2014 through 2018''; and
(2) by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and inserting ``2014
through 2018''.
(b) Modernization and Technology Upgrade for National
Organic Program.--Section 2122 of the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6521) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Modernization and Technology Upgrade for National
Organic Program.--The Secretary shall modernize database and
technology systems of the national organic program.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations for National Organic
Program.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 2123(b)(6) of
the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
6522(b)(6)) is amended to read as follows:
``(6) $11,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
(d) National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program.--
Effective October 1, 2013, section 10606 of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 6523) is repealed.
(e) Exemption of Certified Organic Products From Promotion
Order Assessments.--Subsection (e) of section 501 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7401) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Exemption of Certified Organic Products From
Promotion Order Assessments.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of a
commodity promotion law, a person that produces, handles,
markets, or imports organic products may be exempt from the
payment of an assessment under a commodity promotion law with
respect to any agricultural commodity that is certified as
`organic' or `100 percent organic' (as defined in part 205 of
title 7, Code of Federal Regulations or a successor
regulation).
``(2) Split operations.--The exemption described in
paragraph (1) shall apply to the certified `organic' or `100
percent organic' (as defined in part 205 of title 7 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)
products of a producer, handler, or marketer regardless of
whether the agricultural commodity subject to the exemption
is produced, handled, or marketed by a person that also
produces, handles, or markets conventional or nonorganic
agricultural products, including conventional or nonorganic
agricultural products of the same agricultural commodity as
that for which the exemption is claimed.
``(3) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve the exemption
of a person under this subsection if the person maintains a
valid organic certificate issued under the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.).
``(4) Termination of effectiveness.--This subsection shall
be effective until the date on which the Secretary issues an
organic commodity promotion order in accordance with
subsection (f).
``(5) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations concerning eligibility and compliance for an
exemption under paragraph (1).''.
(f) Organic Commodity Promotion Order.--Section 501 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7401) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(f) Organic Commodity Promotion Order.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Certified organic farm.--The term `certified organic
farm' has the meaning given the term in section 2103 of the
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6502).
``(B) Covered person.--The term `covered person' means a
producer, handler, marketer, or importer of an organic
agricultural commodity.
``(C) Dual-covered agricultural commodity.--The term `dual-
covered agricultural commodity' means an agricultural
commodity that--
``(i) is produced on a certified organic farm; and
``(ii) is covered under both--
``(I) an organic commodity promotion order issued pursuant
to paragraph (2); and
``(II) any other agricultural commodity promotion order
issued under section 514.
``(2) Authorization.--The Secretary may issue an organic
commodity promotion order under section 514 that includes any
agricultural commodity that--
``(A) is produced or handled (as defined in section 2103 of
the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6502)) and
that is certified to be sold or labeled as `organic' or `100
percent organic' (as defined in part 205 of title 7, Code of
Federal Regulations or a successor regulation)); or
``(B) is imported with a valid organic certificate (as
defined in such part).
``(3) Election.--If the Secretary issues an organic
commodity promotion order described in paragraph (2), a
covered person may elect, for applicable dual-covered
agricultural commodities and in the sole discretion of the
covered person, whether to be assessed under the organic
commodity promotion order or another applicable agricultural
commodity promotion order.
``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations concerning eligibility and compliance for an
exemption under paragraph (1).''.
(g) Definition of Agricultural Commodity.--Section 513(1)
of the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of
1996 (7 U.S.C. 7412(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) products, as a class, that are produced on a
certified organic farm (as defined in section 2103 of the
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6502)) and
that are certified to be sold or labeled as `organic' or `100
percent organic' (as defined in part 205 of title 7, Code of
Federal Regulations or a successor regulation));''.
SEC. 10005. INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORGANIC
FOODS PRODUCTION ACT OF 1990.
The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 is amended by
inserting after section 2122 (7 U.S.C. 6521) the following
new section:
``SEC. 2122A. INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
``(a) Expedited Administrative Hearing.--The Secretary
shall establish an expedited administrative hearing procedure
under which the Secretary may suspend or revoke the organic
certification of a producer or handler or the accreditation
of a certifying agent in accordance with subsection (d). Such
a hearing may be conducted in addition to a hearing conducted
pursuant to section 2120.
``(b) Investigation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may take such
investigative actions as the Secretary considers to be
necessary to carry out this title--
``(A) to verify the accuracy of any information reported or
made available under this title; and
``(B) to determine, with regard to actions, practices, or
information required under this title, whether a person
covered by this title has committed a violation of this
title.
``(2) Investigative powers.--The Secretary may administer
oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel attendance
of witnesses, take evidence, and require the production of
any records required to be maintained under section 2112(d)
or 2116(c) that are relevant to the investigation.
``(c) Unlawful Act.--It shall be unlawful and a violation
of this title for any person covered by this title--
``(1) to refuse to provide information required by the
Secretary under this title; or
``(2) to violate--
``(A) a suspension or revocation of the organic
certification of a producer or handler; or
``(B) a suspension or revocation of the accreditation of a
certifying agent.
``(d) Enforcement.--
``(1) Suspension.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may, after notice and
opportunity for an expedited administrative hearing, suspend
the organic certification of a producer, handler or the
accreditation of a certifying agent if--
``(i) the Secretary, during such expedited administrative
hearing, proved that--
``(I) in the case of a producer or handler, the producer or
handler--
``(aa) has recklessly committed a violation of a term,
condition, or requirement of the organic plan to which the
producer or handler is subject; or
``(bb) has recklessly committed, or is recklessly
committing, a violation of this title; or
``(II) in the case of a certifying agent, the agent has
recklessly committed, or is recklessly committing, a
violation of this title; or
[[Page H3840]]
``(ii) the producer, handler, or certifying agent has
waived such expedited administrative hearing.
``(B) Issuance of suspension.--A suspension issued under
this paragraph shall be issued not later than five days after
the date on which--
``(i) the expedited administrative hearing referred to in
clause (i) of subparagraph (A) concludes; or
``(ii) the Secretary receives notice of the waiver referred
to in clause (ii) of such subparagraph.
``(C) Duration of suspension.--The period of a suspension
issued under this paragraph shall be not more than 90 days,
beginning on the date on which the Secretary issues the
suspension.
``(D) Curing of violations.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary may not issue a suspension
of a certification or accreditation under this paragraph if
the producer, handler, or certifying agent subject to such
suspension--
``(I) before the date on which the suspension would
otherwise have been issued, cures, or corrects the deficiency
giving rise to, the violation for which the certification or
accreditation would have been suspended; or
``(II) within a reasonable timeframe (as determined by the
Secretary), enters into a settlement with the Secretary
regarding a deficiency referred to in subclause (I).
``(ii) During suspension.--The Secretary shall terminate
the suspension of an organic certification or accreditation
issued under this paragraph if the producer, handler, or
certifying agent subject to such suspension cures the
violation for which the certification or accreditation was
suspended under this paragraph before the date on which the
period of the suspension ends.
``(2) Revocation.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may, after notice and
opportunity for an expedited administrative hearing under
this section and an expedited administrative appeal under
section 2121, revoke the organic certification of a producer
or handler, or the accreditation of a certifying agent if--
``(i) the Secretary, during such hearing, proved that--
``(I) in the case of a producer or handler, the producer or
handler--
``(aa) has knowingly committed an egregious violation of a
term, condition, or requirement of the organic plan to which
the producer or handler is subject; or
``(bb) has knowingly committed, or is knowingly committing,
an egregious violation of this title; or
``(II) in the case of a certifying agent, the agent has
knowingly committed, or is knowingly committing, an egregious
violation of this title; or
``(ii) the producer, handler, or certifying agent has
waived such expedited administrative hearing and such an
expedited administrative appeal.
``(B) Initiation of revocation proceedings.--
``(i) In general.--If the Secretary finds, during an
investigation or during the period of a suspension under
paragraph (1), that a producer, handler, or certifying agent
has knowingly committed an egregious violation of this title,
the Secretary shall initiate revocation proceedings with
respect to such violation not later than 30 days after the
date on which the producer, handler, or certifying agent
receives notice of such finding in accordance with clause
(ii). The Secretary may not initiate revocation proceedings
with respect to such violation after the date on which that
30-day period ends.
``(ii) Notice.--Not later than five days after the date on
which the Secretary makes the finding described in clause
(i), the Secretary shall provide to the producer, handler, or
certifying agent notice of such finding.
``(e) Appeal.--
``(1) Suspensions.--
``(A) In general.--The suspension of a certification or
accreditation under subsection (d)(1) by the Secretary may be
appealed to a United States district court in accordance with
section 2121(b) not later than 30 business days after the
date on which the person subject to such suspension receives
notice of the suspension.
``(B) Suspension final and conclusive.--A suspension of a
certification or accreditation under subsection (d)(1) by the
Secretary shall be final and conclusive--
``(i) in the case of a suspension that is appealed under
subparagraph (A) within the 30-day period specified in such
subparagraph, on the date on which judicial review of such
suspension is complete; or
``(ii) in the case of a suspension that is not so appealed,
the date on which such 30-day period ends.
``(2) Revocations.--
``(A) In general.--The revocation of a certification or an
accreditation under subsection (d)(2) by the Secretary may be
appealed to a United States district court in accordance with
section 2121(b) not later than 30 business days after the
date on which the person subject to such revocation receives
notice of the revocation.
``(B) Revocation final and conclusive.--A revocation of a
certification or an accreditation under subsection (d)(2) by
the Secretary shall be final and conclusive--
``(i) in the case of a revocation that is appealed under
subparagraph (A) within the 30-day period specified in such
subparagraph, on the date on which judicial review of such
revocation is complete; or
``(ii) in the case of a revocation that is not so appealed,
the date on which such 30-day period ends.
``(3) Standards for review of suspensions and
revocations.--A suspension or revocation of a certification
or an accreditation under subsection (d) shall be reviewed in
accordance with the standards of review specified in section
706(2) of title 5, United States Code.
``(f) Noncompliance.--
``(1) In general.--If a person covered by this title fails
to obey a revocation of a certification or an accreditation
under subsection (d)(2) after such revocation has become
final and conclusive or after the appropriate United States
district court has entered a final judgment in favor of the
Secretary, the United States may apply to the appropriate
United States district court for enforcement of such
revocation.
``(2) Enforcement.--If the court determines that the
revocation was lawfully made and duly served and that the
person violated the revocation, the court shall enforce the
revocation.
``(3) Civil penalty.--If the court finds that the person
violated the revocation of a certification or an
accreditation under subsection (d)(2), the person shall be
subject to one or more of the penalties provided in
subsections (a) and (b) of section 2120.
``(g) Violation of This Title Defined.--In this section,
the term `violation of this title' means a violation
specified in section 2120.''.
SEC. 10006. FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION INITIATIVES.
Section 10105(c) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7655a(c)) is amended by striking ``2012''
and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 10007. SPECIALTY CROP BLOCK GRANTS.
Section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of
2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law 108-465) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``subsection (j)'' and inserting
``subsection (l)''; and
(B) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018'';
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(b) Grants Based on Value and Acreage.--Subject to
subsection (c), for each State whose application for a grant
for a fiscal year that is accepted by the Secretary under
subsection (f), the amount of the grant for such fiscal year
to the State under this section shall bear the same ratio to
the total amount made available under subsection (l)(1) for
such fiscal year as--
``(1) the average of the most recent available value of
specialty crop production in the State and the acreage of
specialty crop production in the State, as demonstrated in
the most recent Census of Agriculture data; bears to
``(2) the average of the most recent available value of
specialty crop production in all States and the acreage of
specialty crop production in all States, as demonstrated in
the most recent Census of Agriculture data.'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) an assurance that any grant funds received under this
section that are used for equipment or capital-related
research costs determined to enhance the competitiveness of
specialty crops--
``(A) shall be supplemented by the expenditure of State
funds in an amount that is not less than 50 percent of such
costs during the fiscal year in which such costs were
incurred; and
``(B) shall be completely replaced by State funds on the
day after the date on which such fiscal year ends.'';
(4) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (l);
(5) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new
subsections:
``(j) Multistate Projects.--Not later than 180 days after
the effective date of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk
Management Act of 2013, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
issue guidance for the purpose of making grants to multistate
projects under this section for projects involving--
``(1) food safety;
``(2) plant pests and disease;
``(3) research;
``(4) crop-specific projects addressing common issues; and
``(5) any other area that furthers the purposes of this
section, as determined by the Secretary.
``(k) Administration.--
``(1) Department.--The Secretary of Agriculture may not use
more than 3 percent of the funds made available to carry out
this section for a fiscal year for administrative expenses.
``(2) States.--A State receiving a grant under this section
may not use more than 8 percent of the funds received under
the grant for a fiscal year for administrative expenses.'';
and
(6) in subsection (l) (as redesignated by paragraph (4))--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and moving the
margins of such subparagraphs two ems to the right;
(B) by striking ``Of the funds'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Of the funds'';
(C) in paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
(i) in subparagraph (B) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A)), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A)), by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(D) $72,500,000 for fiscal years 2014 through 2017; and
``(E) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Multistate projects.--Of the funds made available
under paragraph (1), the Secretary may use to carry out
subsection (j), to remain available until expended--
[[Page H3841]]
``(A) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2014;
``(B) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2015;
``(C) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2016;
``(D) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2017; and
``(E) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.''.
SEC. 10008. REPORT ON HONEY.
(a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with persons affected by the potential
establishment of a Federal standard for the identity of
honey, shall submit to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs a
report describing how an appropriate Federal standard for the
identity of honey would be in the interest of consumers, the
honey industry, and United States agriculture.
(b) Considerations.--In preparing the report required under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall take into consideration
the March 2006, Standard of Identity citizens petition filed
with the Food and Drug Administration, including any current
industry amendments or clarifications necessary to update
such petition.
SEC. 10009. BULK SHIPMENTS OF APPLES TO CANADA.
(a) Bulk Shipment of Apples to Canada.--Section 4 of the
Export Apple Act (7 U.S.C. 584) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Apples in'' and inserting ``(a) Apples
in''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Apples may be shipped to Canada in bulk bins without
complying with the provisions of this Act.''.
(b) Definition of Bulk Bin.--Section 9 of the Export Apple
Act (7 U.S.C. 589) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) The term `bulk bin' means a bin that contains a
quantity of apples weighing more than 100 pounds.''.
(c) Regulations.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
issue regulations to carry out the amendments made by this
section.
SEC. 10010. INCLUSION OF OLIVE OIL IN IMPORT CONTROLS UNDER
THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.
Section 8e(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C.
608e-1(a)) is amended by inserting ``olive oil,'' after
``olives (other than Spanish-style green olives),''.
SEC. 10011. CONSOLIDATION OF PLANT PEST AND DISEASE
MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER PREVENTION PROGRAMS.
(a) Relocation of Legislative Language Relating to National
Clean Plant Network.--Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act
(7 U.S.C. 7721) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) National Clean Plant Network.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program
to be known as the `National Clean Plant Network' (referred
to in this subsection as the `Program').
``(2) Requirements.--Under the Program, the Secretary shall
establish a network of clean plant centers for diagnostic and
pathogen elimination services--
``(A) to produce clean propagative plant material; and
``(B) to maintain blocks of pathogen-tested plant material
in sites located throughout the United States.
``(3) Availability of clean plant source material.--Clean
plant source material may be made available to--
``(A) a State for a certified plant program of the State;
and
``(B) private nurseries and producers.
``(4) Consultation and collaboration.--In carrying out the
Program, the Secretary shall--
``(A) consult with--
``(i) State departments of agriculture; and
``(ii) land-grant colleges and universities and NLGCA
Institutions (as those terms are defined in section 1404 of
the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)); and
``(B) to the extent practicable and with input from the
appropriate State officials and industry representatives, use
existing Federal or State facilities to serve as clean plant
centers.
``(5) Funding for fiscal year 2013.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out the Program $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2013.''.
(b) Funding.--Subsection (f) of section 420 of the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) (as so redesignated) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and each fiscal year
thereafter.'' and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) $62,500,000 for fiscal years 2014 through 2017; and
``(6) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.''.
(c) Repeal of Existing Provision.--Section 10202 of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7761) is
repealed.
(d) Clarification of Use of Funds for Technical
Assistance.--Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 7721), as amended by subsection (a), is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Relationship to Other Law.--The use of Commodity
Credit Corporation funds under this section to provide
technical assistance shall not be considered an allotment or
fund transfer from the Commodity Credit Corporation for
purposes of the limit on expenditures for technical
assistance imposed by section 11 of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i).''.
(e) Use of Funds for Clean Plant Network.--Section 420 of
the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721), as amended by
subsections (a) and (d), is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(h) Use of Funds for Clean Plant Network.--Of the funds
made available under subsection (f) to carry out this section
for a fiscal year, not less than $5,000,000 shall be
available to carry out the national clean plant network under
subsection (e).''.
SEC. 10012. MODIFICATION, CANCELLATION, OR SUSPENSION ON
BASIS OF A BIOLOGICAL OPINION.
(a) In General.--Except in the case of a voluntary request
from a pesticide registrant to amend a registration under
section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a), a registration of a
pesticide may be modified, canceled, or suspended on the
basis of the implementation of a Biological Opinion issued by
the National Marine Fisheries Service or the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the date of completion of
the study referred to in subsection (b), or January 1, 2015,
whichever is earlier, only if--
(1) the modification, cancellation, or suspension is
undertaken pursuant to section 6 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136d);
and
(2) the Biological Opinion complies with the
recommendations contained in the study referred to in
subsection (b).
(b) National Academy of Sciences Study.--The study
commissioned by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency on March 10, 2011, shall include, at a
minimum, each of the following:
(1) A formal, independent, and external peer review,
consistent with Office of Management and Budget policies, of
each Biological Opinion described in subsection (a).
(2) Assessment of economic impacts of measures or
alternatives recommended in each such Biological Opinion.
(3) An examination of the specific scientific and
procedural questions and issues pertaining to economic
feasibility contained in the June 23, 2011, letter sent to
the Administrator (and other Federal officials) by the
Chairmen of the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on
Natural Resources, and the Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations, of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 10013. USE AND DISCHARGES OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013''.
(b) Use of Authorized Pesticides.--Section 3(f) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.
136a(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Use of authorized pesticides.--Except as provided in
section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
the Administrator or a State may not require a permit under
such Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable
waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or
use under this Act, or the residue of such a pesticide,
resulting from the application of such pesticide.''.
(c) Discharges of Pesticides.--Section 402 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(s) Discharges of Pesticides.--
``(1) No permit requirement.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the
Administrator or a State under this Act for a discharge from
a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide
authorized for sale, distribution, or use under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or the residue
of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such
pesticide.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide residue:
``(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a
pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that is relevant
to protecting water quality, if--
``(i) the discharge would not have occurred but for the
violation; or
``(ii) the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue in the
discharge is greater than would have occurred without the
violation.
``(B) Stormwater discharges subject to regulation under
subsection (p).
``(C) The following discharges subject to regulation under
this section:
``(i) Manufacturing or industrial effluent.
``(ii) Treatment works effluent.
``(iii) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel, including a discharge resulting from ballasting
operations or vessel biofouling prevention.''.
SEC. 10014. SEED NOT PESTICIDE OR DEVICE FOR PURPOSES OF
IMPORTATION.
Section 17(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136o(c)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new sentences: ``Solely for purposes of
notifications of arrival upon importation, for purposes of
this subsection, seed, including treated seed, shall not be
considered a pesticide or device. Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed as precluding or limiting the authority of
the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the importation
or movement of plants, plant products, or seeds, under the
Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) or the Federal
Seed Act (7 U.S.C. 1551 et seq.).''.
SEC. 10015. STAY OF REGULATIONS RELATED TO CHRISTMAS TREE
PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION ORDER.
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall lift the
administrative stay that was imposed by the rule entitled
``Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information
[[Page H3842]]
Order; Stay of Regulations'' and published by the Department
of Agriculture on November 17, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 71241), on
the regulations in subpart A of part 214 of title 7, Code of
Federal Regulations, establishing an industry-funded
promotion, research, and information program for fresh cut
Christmas trees.
SEC. 10016. STUDY ON PROPOSED ORDER PERTAINING TO SULFURYL
FLUORIDE.
Not later than two years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, in conjunction with the Secretary of Agriculture,
shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives a report on the potential economic and public
health effects that would result from finalization of the
proposed order published in the January 19, 2011, Federal
Register (76 Fed. Reg. 3422) pertaining to the pesticide
sulfuryl fluoride, including the anticipated impacts of such
finalization on the production of an adequate, wholesome, and
economical food supply and on farmers and related
agricultural sectors.
SEC. 10017. STUDY ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL FOOD PRODUCTION AND
PROGRAM EVALUATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
(1) collect data on the production and marketing of locally
or regionally produced agricultural food products;
(2) facilitate interagency collaboration and data sharing
on programs related to local and regional food systems; and
(3) monitor the effectiveness of programs designed to
expand or facilitate local food systems.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall--
(1) collect and distribute comprehensive reporting of
prices of locally or regionally produced agricultural food
products;
(2) conduct surveys and analysis and publish reports
relating to the production, handling, distribution, and
retail sales of, and trend studies (including consumer
purchasing patterns) on, locally or regionally produced
agricultural food products;
(3) evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs in
growing local and regional food systems, including--
(A) the impact of local food systems on job creation and
economic development;
(B) the level of participation in the Farmers' Market and
Local Food Promotion Program established under section 6 of
the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 (7 U.S.C.
3005), including the percentage of projects funded in
comparison to applicants and the types of eligible entities
receiving funds;
(C) the ability for participants to leverage private
capital and a synopsis of the places from which non-Federal
funds are derived; and
(D) any additional resources required to aid in the
development or expansion of local and regional food systems;
(4) expand the Agricultural Resource Management Survey to
include questions on locally or regionally produced
agricultural food products; and
(5) seek to establish or expand private-public partnerships
to facilitate, to the maximum extent practicable, the
collection of data on locally or regionally produced
agricultural food products, including the development of a
nationally coordinated and regionally balanced evaluation of
the redevelopment of locally or regionally produced food
systems.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until
September 30, 2018, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate a report describing the progress that has been made in
implementing this section and identifying any additional
needs related to developing local and regional food systems.
TITLE XI--CROP INSURANCE
SEC. 11001. INFORMATION SHARING.
Section 502(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1502(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Information.--
``(A) Request.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Farm
Service Agency shall, in a timely manner, provide to an agent
or an approved insurance provider authorized by the producer
any information (including Farm Service Agency Form 578s (or
any successor form) or maps (or any corrections to those
forms or maps) that may assist the agent or approved
insurance provider in insuring the producer under a policy or
plan of insurance under this subtitle.
``(B) Privacy.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), an
agent or approved insurance provider that receives the
information of a producer pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall
treat the information in accordance with paragraph (1).
``(C) Sharing.--Nothing in this section prohibits the
sharing of the information of a producer pursuant to
subparagraph (A) between the agent and the approved insurance
provider of the producer.''.
SEC. 11002. PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ON VIOLATIONS OF
PROHIBITION ON PREMIUM ADJUSTMENTS.
Section 508(a)(9) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(a)(9)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) Publication of violations.--
``(i) Publication required.--Subject to clause (ii), the
Corporation shall publish in a timely manner on the website
of the Risk Management Agency information regarding each
violation of this paragraph, including any sanctions imposed
in response to the violation, in sufficient detail so that
the information may serve as effective guidance to approved
insurance providers, agents, and producers.
``(ii) Protection of privacy.--In providing information
under clause (i) regarding violations of this paragraph, the
Corporation shall redact the identity of the persons and
entities committing the violations in order to protect their
privacy.''.
SEC. 11003. SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OPTION.
(a) Availability of Supplemental Coverage Option.--
Paragraph (3) of section 508(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Yield and loss basis options.--A producer shall have
the option of purchasing additional coverage based on--
``(A)(i) an individual yield and loss basis; or
``(ii) an area yield and loss basis;
``(B) an individual yield and loss basis, supplemented with
coverage based on an area yield and loss basis to cover a
part of the deductible under the individual yield and loss
policy, as described in paragraph (4)(C); or
``(C) a margin basis alone or in combination with the
coverages available in subparagraph (A) or (B).''.
(b) Level of Coverage.--Paragraph (4) of section 508(c) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(c)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(4) Level of coverage.--
``(A) Dollar denomination and percentage of yield.--Except
as provided in subparagraph (C), the level of coverage--
``(i) shall be dollar denominated; and
``(ii) may be purchased at any level not to exceed 85
percent of the individual yield or 95 percent of the area
yield (as determined by the Corporation).
``(B) Information.--The Corporation shall provide producers
with information on catastrophic risk and additional coverage
in terms of dollar coverage (within the allowable limits of
coverage provided in this paragraph).
``(C) Supplemental coverage option.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the
case of the supplemental coverage option described in
paragraph (3)(B), the Corporation shall offer producers the
opportunity to purchase coverage in combination with a policy
or plan of insurance offered under this subtitle that would
allow indemnities to be paid to a producer equal to a part of
the deductible under the policy or plan of insurance--
``(I) at a county-wide level to the fullest extent
practicable; or
``(II) in counties that lack sufficient data, on the basis
of such larger geographical area as the Corporation
determines to provide sufficient data for purposes of
providing the coverage.
``(ii) Trigger.--Coverage offered under paragraph (3)(B)
and clause (i) shall be triggered only if the losses in the
area exceed 10 percent of normal levels (as determined by the
Corporation).
``(iii) Coverage.--Subject to the trigger described in
clause (ii), coverage offered under paragraph (3)(B) and
clause (i) shall not exceed the difference between--
``(I) 90 percent; and
``(II) the coverage level selected by the producer for the
underlying policy or plan of insurance.
``(iv) Ineligible crops and acres.--Crops for which the
producer has elected under section 1107(c)(1) of the Federal
Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 to receive
revenue loss coverage and acres that are enrolled in the
stacked income protection plan under section 508B shall not
be eligible for supplemental coverage under this
subparagraph.
``(v) Calculation of premium.--Notwithstanding subsection
(d), the premium for coverage offered under paragraph (3)(B)
and clause (i) shall--
``(I) be sufficient to cover anticipated losses and a
reasonable reserve; and
``(II) include an amount for operating and administrative
expenses established in accordance with subsection
(k)(4)(F).''.
(c) Payment of Portion of Premium by Corporation.--Section
508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(e)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) In the case of the supplemental coverage option
authorized in subsection (c)(4)(C), the amount shall be equal
to the sum of--
``(i) 65 percent of the additional premium associated with
the coverage; and
``(ii) the amount determined under subsection
(c)(4)(C)(vi)(II), subject to subsection (k)(4)(F), for the
coverage to cover operating and administrative expenses.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
shall begin to provide additional coverage based on an
individual yield and loss basis, supplemented with coverage
based on an area yield and loss basis, not later than for the
2014 crop year.
SEC. 11004. PREMIUM AMOUNTS FOR CATASTROPHIC RISK PROTECTION.
Subparagraph (A) of section 508(d)(2) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(d)(2)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) In the case of catastrophic risk protection, the
amount of the premium established by the Corporation for each
crop for which catastrophic risk protection is available
shall be reduced by the percentage equal to the difference
between the average loss ratio for the crop and 100 percent,
plus a reasonable reserve.''.
SEC. 11005. REPEAL OF PERFORMANCE-BASED DISCOUNT.
(a) Repeal.--Section 508(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3); and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 508(a)(9)(B) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(a)(9)(B)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
[[Page H3843]]
(2) by striking clause (ii); and
(3) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
SEC. 11006. PERMANENT ENTERPRISE UNIT SUBSIDY.
Subparagraph (A) of section 508(e)(5) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)(5)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) In general.--The Corporation may pay a portion of the
premiums for plans or policies of insurance for which the
insurable unit is defined on a whole farm or enterprise unit
basis that is higher than would otherwise be paid in
accordance with paragraph (2).''.
SEC. 11007. ENTERPRISE UNITS FOR IRRIGATED AND NONIRRIGATED
CROPS.
Section 508(e)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(e)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(D) Nonirrigated crops.--Beginning with the 2014 crop
year, the Corporation shall make available separate
enterprise units for irrigated and nonirrigated acreage of
crops in counties.''.
SEC. 11008. DATA COLLECTION.
Section 508(g)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(g)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(E) Sources of yield data.--To determine yields under
this paragraph, the Corporation--
``(i) shall use county data collected by the Risk
Management Agency or the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, or both; or
``(ii) if sufficient county data is not available, may use
other data considered appropriate by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 11009. ADJUSTMENT IN ACTUAL PRODUCTION HISTORY TO
ESTABLISH INSURABLE YIELDS.
Section 508(g)(4)(B) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(g)(4)(B)) is amended by striking ``60'' each
place it appears and inserting ``70''.
SEC. 11010. SUBMISSION AND REVIEW OF POLICIES.
(a) In General.--Section 508(h) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
(B) by striking ``(1) In general.--In addition'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) Authority to submit.--
``(A) In general.--In addition''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Review and submission by corporation.--The
Corporation shall review any policy developed under section
522(c) or any pilot program developed under section 523 and
submit the policy or program to the Board under this
subsection if the Corporation, at the sole discretion of the
Corporation, finds that the policy or program--
``(i) will likely result in a viable and marketable policy
consistent with this subsection;
``(ii) would provide crop insurance coverage in a
significantly improved form; and
``(iii) adequately protects the interests of producers.'';
and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``A policy'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--A policy''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Specified review and approval priorities.--In
reviewing policies and other materials submitted to the Board
under this subsection for approval, the Board--
``(i) shall make the development and approval of a revenue
policy for peanut producers a priority so that a revenue
policy is available to peanut producers in time for the 2014
crop year;
``(ii) shall make the development and approval of a margin
coverage policy for rice producers a priority so that a
margin coverage policy is available to rice producers in time
for the 2014 crop year; and
``(iii) may approve a submission that is made pursuant to
this subsection that would, beginning with the 2014 crop
year, allow producers that purchase policies in accordance
with subsection (e)(5)(A) to separate enterprise units by
risk rating for acreage of crops in counties.''.
(b) Advance Payments.--Section 522(b)(2)(E) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(b)(2)(E)) is amended by
striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``75 percent''.
SEC. 11011. EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR SPECIALTY CROP POLICIES.
Section 508(k)(8)(E) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act of
1938 (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(8)(E)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new clause:
``(iii) Equitable relief for specialty crop policies.--
``(I) In general.--For each of the 2011 through 2015
reinsurance years, in addition to the total amount of funding
for reimbursement of administrative and operating costs that
is otherwise required to be made available in each such
reinsurance year pursuant to an agreement entered into by the
Corporation, the Corporation shall use $41,000,000 to provide
additional reimbursement with respect to eligible insurance
contracts for any agricultural commodity that is not eligible
for a benefit under subtitles A, B or C of title I of the
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.
``(II) Treatment.--Additional reimbursements made under
this clause shall be included as part of the base level of
administrative and operating expense reimbursement to which
any limit on compensation to persons involved in the direct
sale and service of any eligible crop insurance contract
required under an agreement entered into by the Corporation
is applied.
``(III) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this clause shall
be construed as statutory assent to the limit described in
subclause (II).''.
SEC. 11012. BUDGET LIMITATIONS ON RENEGOTIATION OF THE
STANDARD REINSURANCE AGREEMENT.
Section 508(k)(8) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1938
(7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(8)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(F) Budget.--
``(i) In general.--The Board shall ensure that any Standard
Reinsurance Agreement negotiated under subparagraph (A)(ii),
as compared to the previous Standard Reinsurance Agreement--
``(I) to the maximum extent practicable, shall be budget
neutral; and
``(II) in no event, may significantly depart from budget
neutrality.
``(ii) Use of savings.--To the extent that any budget
savings is realized in the renegotiation of a Standard
Reinsurance Agreement under subparagraph (A)(ii), and the
savings are determined not to be a significant departure from
budget neutrality under clause (i), the savings shall be used
to increase the obligations of the Corporation under
subsections (e)(2) or (k)(4) or section 523.''.
SEC. 11013. CROP PRODUCTION ON NATIVE SOD.
(a) Federal Crop Insurance.--Section 508(o) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(o)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``, or the producer
cannot substantiate that the ground has ever been tilled,''
after ``tilled'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Ineligibility
for'' and inserting ``Reduction in''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``for benefits under--
'' and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting ``for--
``(i) a portion of crop insurance premium subsidies under
this subtitle in accordance with paragraph (3);
``(ii) benefits under section 196 of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.
7333); and
``(iii) payments described in subsection (b) or (c) of
section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308).''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following
new paragraphs:
``(3) Administration.--
``(A) In general.--During the first 4 crop years of
planting on native sod acreage by a producer described in
paragraph (2)--
``(i) paragraph (2) shall apply to 65 percent of the
transitional yield of the producer; and
``(ii) the crop insurance premium subsidy provided for the
producer under this subtitle shall be 50 percentage points
less than the premium subsidy that would otherwise apply.
``(B) Yield substitution.--During the period native sod
acreage is covered by this subsection, a producer may not
substitute yields for the native sod acreage.
``(4) Application.--This subsection shall only apply to
native sod in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area.''.
(b) Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance.--Section 196(a)(4)
of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(7 U.S.C. 7333(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``ineligibility''
and inserting ``benefit reduction'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by inserting ``, or the
producer cannot substantiate that the ground has ever been
tilled,'' after ``tilled'';
(3) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in the subparagraph heading, by striking
``Ineligibility'' and inserting ``Reduction in''; and
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``for benefits under--'' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting
``for--
``(I) benefits under this section;
``(II) a portion of crop insurance premium subsidies under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) in
accordance with subparagraph (C); and
``(III) payments described in subsection (b) or (c) of
section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308).''; and
(4) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following new subparagraphs:
``(C) Administration.--
``(i) In general.--During the first 4 crop years of
planting on native sod acreage by a producer described in
subparagraph (B)--
``(I) subparagraph (B) shall apply to 65 percent of the
transitional yield of the producer; and
``(II) the crop insurance premium subsidy provided for the
producer under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.) shall be 50 percentage points less than the premium
subsidy that would otherwise apply.
``(ii) Yield substitution.--During the period native sod
acreage is covered by this paragraph, a producer may not
substitute yields for the native sod acreage.
``(D) Application.--This paragraph shall only apply to
native sod in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area.''.
(c) Cropland Report.--
(1) Baseline.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
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 describes the
cropland acreage in each applicable county and State, and the
change in cropland acreage from the preceding year in each
applicable county and State, beginning with calendar year
2000 and including that information for the most recent year
for which that information is available.
(2) Annual updates.--Not later than January 1, 2015, and
each January 1 thereafter through January 1, 2018, the
Secretary of Agriculture
[[Page H3844]]
shall 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 describes--
(A) the cropland acreage in each applicable county and
State as of the date of submission of the report; and
(B) the change in cropland acreage from the preceding year
in each applicable county and State.
SEC. 11014. COVERAGE LEVELS BY PRACTICE.
Section 508 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1938 (7
U.S.C. 1508) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(p) Coverage Levels by Practice.--Beginning with the 2015
crop year, a producer that produces an agricultural commodity
on both dry land and irrigated land may elect a different
coverage level for each production practice.''.
SEC. 11015. BEGINNING FARMER AND RANCHER PROVISIONS.
(a) Definition.--Section 502(b) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (9) as
paragraphs (4) through (10), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Beginning farmer or rancher.--The term `beginning
farmer or rancher' means a farmer or rancher who has not
actively operated and managed a farm or ranch with a bona
fide insurable interest in a crop or livestock as an owner-
operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper for more than 5
crop years, as determined by the Secretary.''.
(b) Premium Adjustments.--Section 508 of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(5)(E), by inserting ``and beginning
farmers or ranchers'' after ``limited resource farmers'';
(2) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(8) Premium for beginning farmers or ranchers.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection
regarding payment of a portion of premiums, a beginning
farmer or rancher shall receive premium assistance that is 10
percentage points greater than premium assistance that would
otherwise be available under paragraphs (2) (except for
subparagraph (A) of that paragraph), (5), (6), and (7) for
the applicable policy, plan of insurance, and coverage level
selected by the beginning farmer or rancher.''; and
(3) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(B)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in clause (ii)(III), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) if the producer is a beginning farmer or rancher
who was previously involved in a farming or ranching
operation, including involvement in the decisionmaking or
physical involvement in the production of the crop or
livestock on the farm, for any acreage obtained by the
beginning farmer or rancher, a yield that is the higher of--
``(I) the actual production history of the previous
producer of the crop or livestock on the acreage determined
under subparagraph (A); or
``(II) a yield of the producer, as determined in clause
(i).''; and
(B) in paragraph (4)(B)(ii) (as amended by section 11009)--
(i) by inserting ``(I)'' after ``(ii)'';
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(II) in the case of beginning farmers or ranchers,
replace each excluded yield with a yield equal to 80 percent
of the applicable transitional yield.''.
SEC. 11016. STACKED INCOME PROTECTION PLAN FOR PRODUCERS OF
UPLAND COTTON.
(a) Availability of Stacked Income Protection Plan for
Producers of Upland Cotton.--The Federal Crop Insurance Act
is amended by inserting after section 508A (7 U.S.C. 1508a)
the following new section:
``SEC. 508B. STACKED INCOME PROTECTION PLAN FOR PRODUCERS OF
UPLAND COTTON.
``(a) Availability.--Beginning not later than the 2014 crop
of upland cotton, the Corporation shall make available to
producers of upland cotton an additional policy (to be known
as the `Stacked Income Protection Plan'), which shall provide
coverage consistent with the Group Risk Income Protection
Plan (and the associated Harvest Revenue Option Endorsement)
offered by the Corporation for the 2011 crop year.
``(b) Required Terms.--The Corporation may modify the
Stacked Income Protection Plan on a program-wide basis,
except that the Stacked Income Protection Plan shall comply
with the following requirements:
``(1) Provide coverage for revenue loss of not less than 10
percent and not more than 30 percent of expected county
revenue, specified in increments of 5 percent. The deductible
is the minimum percent of revenue loss at which indemnities
are triggered under the plan, not to be less than 10 percent
of the expected county revenue.
``(2) Be offered to producers of upland cotton in all
counties with upland cotton production--
``(A) at a county-wide level to the fullest extent
practicable; or
``(B) in counties that lack sufficient data, on the basis
of such larger geographical area as the Corporation
determines to provide sufficient data for purposes of
providing the coverage.
``(3) Be purchased in addition to any other individual or
area coverage in effect on the producer's acreage or as a
stand-alone policy, except that if a producer has an
individual or area coverage for the same acreage, the maximum
coverage available under the Stacked Income Protection Plan
shall not exceed the deductible for the individual or area
coverage.
``(4) Establish coverage based on--
``(A) the expected price established under existing Group
Risk Income Protection or area wide policy offered by the
Corporation for the applicable county (or area) and crop
year; and
``(B) an expected county yield that is the higher of--
``(i) the expected county yield established for the
existing area-wide plans offered by the Corporation for the
applicable county (or area) and crop year (or, in geographic
areas where area-wide plans are not offered, an expected
yield determined in a manner consistent with those of area-
wide plans); or
``(ii) the average of the applicable yield data for the
county (or area) for the most recent 5 years, excluding the
highest and lowest observations, from the Risk Management
Agency or the National Agricultural Statistics Service (or
both) or, if sufficient county data is not available, such
other data considered appropriate by the Secretary.
``(5) Use a multiplier factor to establish maximum
protection per acre (referred to as a `protection factor') of
not less than the higher of the level established on a
program wide basis or 120 percent.
``(6) Pay an indemnity based on the amount that the
expected county revenue exceeds the actual county revenue, as
applied to the individual coverage of the producer.
Indemnities under the Stacked Income Protection Plan shall
not include or overlap the amount of the deductible selected
under paragraph (1).
``(7) In all counties for which data are available,
establish separate coverage levels for irrigated and non-
irrigated practices.
``(c) Premium.--Notwithstanding section 508(d), the premium
for the Stacked Income Protection Plan shall--
``(1) be sufficient to cover anticipated losses and a
reasonable reserve; and
``(2) include an amount for operating and administrative
expenses established in accordance with section 508(k)(4)(F).
``(d) Payment of Portion of Premium by Corporation.--
Subject to section 508(e)(4), the amount of premium paid by
the Corporation for all qualifying coverage levels of the
Stacked Income Protection Plan shall be--
``(1) 80 percent of the amount of the premium established
under subsection (c) for the coverage level selected; and
``(2) the amount determined under subsection (c)(2),
subject to section 508(k)(4)(F), for the coverage to cover
administrative and operating expenses.
``(e) Relation to Other Coverages.--The Stacked Income
Protection Plan is in addition to all other coverages
available to producers of upland cotton.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 508(k)(4)(F) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)(F)) is
amended by inserting ``or authorized under subsection
(c)(4)(C) or section 508B'' after ``of this subparagraph''.
SEC. 11017. PEANUT REVENUE CROP INSURANCE.
The Federal Crop Insurance Act is amended by inserting
after section 508B, as added by the previous section, the
following new section:
``SEC. 508C. PEANUT REVENUE CROP INSURANCE.
``(a) In General.--Effective beginning with the 2014 crop
year, the Risk Management Agency and the Corporation shall
make available to producers of peanuts a revenue crop
insurance program for peanuts.
``(b) Effective Price.--Subject to subsection (c), for
purposes of the revenue crop insurance program and the
multiperil crop insurance program under this Act, the
effective price for peanuts shall be equal to the Rotterdam
price index for peanuts, as adjusted to reflect the farmer
stock price of peanuts in the United States.
``(c) Adjustments.--
``(1) In general.--The effective price for peanuts
established under subsection (b) may be adjusted by the Risk
Management Agency and the Corporation to correct distortions.
``(2) Administration.--If an adjustment is made under
paragraph (1), the Risk Management Agency and the Corporation
shall--
``(A) make the adjustment in an open and transparent
manner; and
``(B) 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 describes
the reasons for the adjustment.''.
SEC. 11018. AUTHORITY TO CORRECT ERRORS.
Section 515(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1515(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary''
and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Beginning with''
and inserting the following:
``(2) Frequency.--Beginning with''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Corrections.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to the corrections permitted
by the Corporation as of the date of enactment of the Federal
Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, the
Corporation shall allow an agent or an approved insurance
provider, subject to subparagraph (B)--
``(i) within a reasonable amount of time following the
applicable sales closing date, to correct unintentional
errors in information that is provided by a producer for the
purpose of obtaining coverage under any policy or plan of
insurance made available under this subtitle to ensure that
the eligibility information is correct;
``(ii) within a reasonable amount of time following--
``(I) the acreage reporting date, to correct unintentional
errors in factual information that is
[[Page H3845]]
provided by a producer after the sales closing date to
reconcile the information with the information reported by
the producer to the Farm Service Agency; or
``(II) the date of any subsequent correction of data by the
Farm Service Agency made as a result of the verification of
information; and
``(iii) at any time, to correct unintentional errors that
were made by the Farm Service Agency or an agent or approved
insurance provider in transmitting the information provided
by the producer to the approved insurance provider or the
Corporation.
``(B) Limitation.--In accordance with the procedures of the
Corporation, correction to the information described in
clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) may only be made if
the corrections do not allow the producer--
``(i) to avoid ineligibility requirements for insurance;
``(ii) to obtain, enhance, or increase an insurance
guarantee or indemnity, or avoid premium owed, if a cause of
loss exists or has occurred before any correction has been
made; or
``(iii) to avoid an obligation or requirement under any
Federal or State law.
``(C) Exception to late filing sanctions.--Any corrections
made pursuant to this paragraph shall not be subject to any
late filing sanctions authorized in the reinsurance agreement
with the Corporation.''.
SEC. 11019. IMPLEMENTATION.
Section 515 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1515) is amended--
(1) in subsection (j), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following new paragraph:
``(1) Systems maintenance and upgrades.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain and upgrade
the information management systems of the Corporation used in
the administration and enforcement of this subtitle.
``(B) Requirement.--
``(i) In general.--In maintaining and upgrading the
systems, the Secretary shall ensure that new hardware and
software are compatible with the hardware and software used
by other agencies of the Department to maximize data sharing
and promote the purposes of this section.
``(ii) Acreage report streamlining initiative project.--As
soon as practicable, the Secretary shall develop and
implement an acreage report streamlining initiative project
to allow producers to report acreage and other information
directly to the Department.''; and
(2) in subsection (k), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following new paragraph:
``(1) Information technology.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (j)(1), the
Corporation may use, from amounts made available from the
insurance fund established under section 516(c), not more
than--
``(i)(I) for fiscal year 2014, $25,000,000; and
``(II) for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2018,
$10,000,000; or
``(ii) if the Acreage Crop Reporting Streamlining
Initiative (ACRSI) project is substantially completed by
September 30, 2015, not more than $15,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2015 through 2018.
``(B) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate of the substantial completion of the Acreage Crop
Reporting Streamlining Initiative (ACRSI) project not later
than July 1, 2015.''.
SEC. 11020. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES.
(a) Authority to Conduct Research and Development,
Priorities.--Section 522(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act
(7 U.S.C. 1522(c)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Contracting'';
(2) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``may enter into contracts to carry out
research and development to'' and inserting ``may conduct
activities or enter into contracts to carry out research and
development to maintain or improve existing policies or
develop new policies to'';
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``conduct research
and development or'' after ``The Corporation may''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``conducting research
and development or'' after ``Before'';
(4) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``after expert review in
accordance with section 505(e)'' after ``approved by the
Board''; and
(5) in paragraph (6), by striking ``a pasture, range, and
forage program'' and inserting ``policies that increase
participation by producers of underserved agricultural
commodities, including sweet sorghum, biomass sorghum, rice,
peanuts, sugarcane, alfalfa, and specialty crops''.
(b) Funding.--Section 522(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``(A) Authority.--'' and inserting ``(A)
Conducting and contracting for research and development.--'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``conduct research
and development and'' after ``the Corporation may use to'';
and
(C) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``conduct research
and development and'' after ``for the fiscal year to'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``to provide either
reimbursement payments or contract payments''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (4).
SEC. 11021. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING
REQUIREMENTS.
Section 522(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1522(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (17) as paragraph (24); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (16), the following new
paragraphs:
``(17) Margin coverage for catfish.--
``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall offer to enter
into a contract with a qualified entity to conduct research
and development regarding a policy to insure producers
against reduction in the margin between the market value of
catfish and selected costs incurred in the production of
catfish.
``(B) Eligibility.--Eligibility for the policy described in
subparagraph (A) shall be limited to freshwater species of
catfish that are propagated and reared in controlled or
selected environments.
``(C) Implementation.--The Board shall review the policy
described in subparagraph (B) under subsection 508(h) and
approve the policy if the Board finds that the policy--
``(i) will likely result in a viable and marketable policy
consistent with this subsection;
``(ii) would provide crop insurance coverage in a
significantly improved form;
``(iii) adequately protects the interests of producers; and
``(iv) the proposed policy meets other requirements of this
subtitle determined appropriate by the Board.
``(18) Biomass and sweet sorghum energy crop insurance
policies.--
``(A) Authority.--The Corporation shall offer to enter into
1 or more contracts with qualified entities to carry out
research and development regarding--
``(i) a policy to insure biomass sorghum that is grown
expressly for the purpose of producing a feedstock for
renewable biofuel, renewable electricity, or biobased
products; and
``(ii) a policy to insure sweet sorghum that is grown for a
purpose described in clause (i).
``(B) Research and development.--Research and development
with respect to each of the policies required in subparagraph
(A) shall evaluate the effectiveness of risk management tools
for the production of biomass sorghum or sweet sorghum,
including policies and plans of insurance that--
``(i) are based on market prices and yields;
``(ii) to the extent that insufficient data exist to
develop a policy based on market prices and yields, evaluate
the policies and plans of insurance based on the use of
weather indices, including excessive or inadequate rainfall,
to protect the interest of crop producers; and
``(iii) provide protection for production or revenue
losses, or both.
``(19) Study on swine catastrophic disease program.--
``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall contract with a
qualified person to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of insuring swine producers for a catastrophic
event.
``(B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall 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 describes the results of the study
conducted under subparagraph (A).
``(20) Whole farm diversified risk management insurance
plan.--
``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall conduct activities
or enter into contracts to carry out research and development
to develop a whole farm risk management insurance plan, with
a liability limitation of $1,250,000, that allows a
diversified crop or livestock producer the option to qualify
for an indemnity if actual gross farm revenue is below 85
percent of the average gross farm revenue or the expected
gross farm revenue that can reasonably be expected of the
producer, as determined by the Corporation.
``(B) Eligible producers.--The Corporation shall permit
producers (including direct-to-consumer marketers and
producers servicing local and regional and farm identity-
preserved markets) who produce multiple agricultural
commodities, including specialty crops, industrial crops,
livestock, and aquaculture products, to participate in the
plan in lieu of any other plan under this subtitle.
``(C) Diversification.--The Corporation may provide
diversification-based additional coverage payment rates,
premium discounts, or other enhanced benefits in recognition
of the risk management benefits of crop and livestock
diversification strategies for producers that grow multiple
crops or that may have income from the production of
livestock that uses a crop grown on the farm.
``(D) Market readiness.--The Corporation may include
coverage for the value of any packing, packaging, or any
other similar on-farm activity the Corporation determines to
be the minimum required in order to remove the commodity from
the field.
``(E) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall 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 describes the results and
feasibility of the research and development conducted under
this paragraph, including an analysis of potential adverse
market distortions.
``(21) Study on poultry catastrophic disease program.--
``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall contract with a
qualified person to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of insuring poultry producers for a catastrophic
event.
``(B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall 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 describes the results of the study
conducted under subparagraph (A).
[[Page H3846]]
``(22) Poultry business interruption insurance policy.--
``(A) Authority.--The Corporation shall offer to enter into
a contract or cooperative agreement with a university or
other legal entity to carry out research and development
regarding a policy to insure the commercial production of
poultry against business interruptions caused by integrator
bankruptcy.
``(B) Research and development.--As part of the research
and development conducted pursuant to a contract or
cooperative agreement entered into under subparagraph (A),
the entity shall--
``(i) evaluate the market place for business interruption
insurance that is available to poultry growers;
``(ii) determine what statutory authority would be
necessary to implement a business interruption insurance
through the Corporation;
``(iii) assess the feasibility of a policy or plan of
insurance offered under this subtitle to insure against
losses due to the bankruptcy of an business integrator; and
``(iv) analyze the costs to the Federal Government of a
Federal business interruption insurance program for poultry
growers.
``(C) Definitions.--In this paragraph, the terms `poultry'
and `poultry grower' have the meanings given those terms in
section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7
U.S.C. 182(a)).
``(D) Deadline for contract or cooperative agreement.--Not
later than six months after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, the Corporation shall enter into the contract or
cooperative agreement required by subparagraph (A).
``(E) Deadline for completion of research and
development.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall 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 describes the results of the
research and development conducted pursuant to the contract
or cooperative agreement entered into under subparagraph (A).
``(23) Study of food safety insurance.--
``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall offer to enter
into a contract with 1 or more qualified entities to conduct
a study to determine whether offering policies that provide
coverage for specialty crops from food safety and
contamination issues would benefit agricultural producers.
``(B) Subject.--The study described in subparagraph (A)
shall evaluate policies and plans of insurance coverage that
provide protection for production or revenue impacted by food
safety concerns including, at a minimum, government, retail,
or national consumer group announcements of a health
advisory, removal, or recall related to a contamination
concern.
``(C) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall 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 describes the results of the study
conducted under subparagraph (A).''.
SEC. 11022. PROGRAM COMPLIANCE PARTNERSHIPS.
Paragraph (1) of section 522(d) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(d)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Purpose.--The purpose of this subsection is to
authorize the Corporation to enter into partnerships with
public and private entities for the purpose of either--
``(A) increasing the availability of loss mitigation,
financial, and other risk management tools for producers,
with a priority given to risk management tools for producers
of agricultural commodities covered by section 196 of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7333), specialty
crops, and underserved agricultural commodities; or
``(B) improving analysis tools and technology regarding
compliance or identifying and using innovative compliance
strategies.''.
SEC. 11023. PILOT PROGRAMS.
Section 523(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1523(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, at the sole
discretion of the Corporation,'' after ``may''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5).
SEC. 11024. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Eligibility for Department Programs.--Section 508(b) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (7); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (11) as
paragraphs (7) through (10), respectively.
(b) Exclusions to Assistance for Losses Due to Drought
Conditions.--
(1) In general.--Section 531(d)(3)(A) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1531(d)(3)(A)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(A) Eligible losses.--'' and all that
follows through ``An eligible'' in clause (i) and inserting
the following:
``(A) Eligible losses.--An eligible'';
(B) by striking clause (ii); and
(C) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses (i)
and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 901(d)(3)(A) of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2497(d)(3)(A)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(A) Eligible losses.--'' and all that
follows through ``An eligible'' in clause (i) and inserting
the following:
``(A) Eligible losses.--An eligible'';
(B) by striking clause (ii); and
(C) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses (i)
and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately.
TITLE XII--MISCELLANEOUS
Subtitle A--Livestock
SEC. 12101. NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT CENTER.
Section 375(e)(6)(C) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008j(e)(6)(C)) is amended by
striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 12102. REPEAL OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS UNDER THE PACKERS
AND STOCKYARDS ACT, 1921.
(a) Repeal of Certain Regulation Requirement.--Section
11006 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2120) is repealed.
(b) Repeal of Certain Existing Regulation.--Subsection (n)
of section 201.2 of title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, is
repealed.
(c) Prohibition on Enforcement of Certain Regulations or
Issuance of Similar Regulations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall not--
(1) enforce subsection (n) of section 201.2 of title 9,
Code of Federal Regulations;
(2) finalize or implement sections 201.2(l), 201.2(t),
201.2(u), 201.3(c), 201.210, 201.211, 201.213, and 201.214 of
title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be added
by the proposed rule entitled ``Implementation of Regulations
Required Under Title XI of the Food, Conservation and Energy
Act of 2008; Conduct in Violation of the Act'' published by
the Department of Agriculture on June 22, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg.
35338); or
(3) issue regulations or adopt a policy similar to the
provisions--
(A) referred to in paragraph (1) or (2); or
(B) rescinded by the Secretary pursuant to section 742 of
the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
2013 (Public Law 113-6).
SEC. 12103. TRICHINAE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.
(a) Alternative Certification Process.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall amend the rule made under paragraph (2) of
section 11010(a) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 8304(a)) to implement the voluntary trichinae
certification program established under paragraph (1) of such
section, to include a requirement to establish an alternative
trichinae certification process based on surveillance or
other methods consistent with international standards for
categorizing compartments as having negligible risk for
trichinae.
(b) Final Regulations.--Not later than one year after the
date on which the international standards referred to in
subsection (a) are adopted, the Secretary shall finalize the
rule amended under such subsection.
(c) Reauthorization.--Section 10405(d)(1) of the Animal
Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8304(d)(1)) is amended in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) by striking ``2012'' each place it
appears and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 12104. NATIONAL AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH PLAN.
Section 11013(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8322(d)) is amended by striking ``2012''
and inserting ``2018''.
SEC. 12105. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture,
acting through the Office of the Chief Economist, shall
conduct an economic analysis of the proposed rule entitled
``Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb,
Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild and Farm-raised Fish and Shellfish,
Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng
and Macadamia Nuts'' published by the Department of
Agriculture on March 12, 2013 (76 Fed. Reg. 15645).
(b) Contents.--The economic analysis described in
subsection (a) shall include, with respect to the labeling of
beef, pork, and chicken, an analysis of the impact on
consumers, producers, and packers in the United States of--
(1) the implementation of subtitle D of the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.); and
(2) the proposed rule referred to in subsection (a).
SEC. 12106. NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORY NETWORK.
Subtitle E of title X of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 is amended by inserting after section
10409 (7 U.S.C. 8308) the following new section:
``SEC. 10409A. NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORY NETWORK.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into
contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or other legal
instruments with eligible laboratories for any of the
following purposes:
``(1) To enhance the capability of the Secretary to detect,
and respond in a timely manner to, emerging or existing
threats to animal health and to support the protection of
public health, the environment, and the agricultural economy
of the United States.
``(2) To provide the capacity and capability for
standardized--
``(A) test procedures, reference materials, and equipment;
``(B) laboratory biosafety and biosecurity levels;
``(C) quality management system requirements;
``(D) interconnected electronic reporting and transmission
of data; and
``(E) evaluation for emergency preparedness.
``(3) To coordinate the development, implementation, and
enhancement of national veterinary diagnostic laboratory
capabilities, with special emphasis on surveillance planning
and vulnerability analysis, technology development and
validation, training, and outreach.
``(b) Eligibility.--An eligible laboratory under this
section is a diagnostic laboratory meeting specific criteria
developed by the Secretary, in consultation with State animal
health
[[Page H3847]]
officials and State and university veterinary diagnostic
laboratories.
``(c) Priority.--To the extent practicable and to the
extent capacity and specialized expertise may be necessary,
the Secretary shall give priority to existing Federal, State,
and university facilities.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
SEC. 12107. REPEAL OF DUPLICATIVE CATFISH INSPECTION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Effective on the date of the enactment of
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701
et seq.), section 11016 of such Act (Public Law 110-246; 122
Stat. 2130) and the amendments made by such section are
repealed.
(b) Application.--The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7
U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) and the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) shall be applied and administered as if
section 11016 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2130) of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et
seq.) and the amendments made by such section had not been
enacted.
SEC. 12108. NATIONAL POULTRY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall ensure that the
Department of Agriculture continues to administer the
diagnostic surveillance program for H5/H7 low pathogenic
avian influenza with respect to commercial poultry under
section 146.14 of title 9, Code of Federal Regulations (or a
successor regulation) without amending the regulations in
section 147.43 of title 9, Code of Federal Regulations (or a
successor regulation) with respect to the governance of the
General Conference Committee established under such section.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall maintain--
(1) the operations of the General Conference Committee--
(A) in the physical location at which the Committee was
located on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) with the organizational structure within the Department
of Agriculture in effect as of such date; and
(2) the funding levels for the National Poultry Improvement
Plan for Commercial Poultry (established under part 146 of
title 9, Code of Federal Regulations or a successor
regulation) at the fiscal year 2013 funding levels for the
Plan.
SEC. 12109. REPORT ON BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN TEXAS.
Not later than December 31, 2014, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report
on the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle in Texas.
The report shall cover the period beginning on January 1,
1997, and ending on December 31, 2013.
Subtitle B--Socially Disadvantaged Producers and Limited Resource
Producers
SEC. 12201. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE FOR SOCIALLY
DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS AND VETERAN
FARMERS AND RANCHERS.
(a) Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged
Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers.--
Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND VETERAN
FARMERS AND RANCHERS'' after ``RANCHERS'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and veteran farmers or
ranchers'' after ``ranchers'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(B)(i), by inserting ``and veteran
farmers or ranchers'' after ``ranchers''; and
(C) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) in the heading of such subparagraph, by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2018'';
(II) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(III) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(IV) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.'';
(3) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``or veteran farmers
and ranchers'' after ``socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers'';
(4) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``veteran farmers or
ranchers and'' before ``members''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``veteran farmers or
ranchers and'' before ``members''; and
(5) in subsection (e)(5)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ``and veteran farmers or
ranchers'' after ``ranchers''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and veteran farmers or
ranchers'' after ``ranchers''.
(b) Definition of Veteran Farmer or Rancher.--Section
2501(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act
of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(e)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(7) Veteran farmer or rancher.--The term `veteran farmer
or rancher' means a farmer or rancher who served in the
active military, naval, or air service, and who was
discharged or released from the service under conditions
other than dishonorable.''.
SEC. 12202. OFFICE OF ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH.
Paragraph (3) of section 226B(f) of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6934(f)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
``(A) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2013; and
``(B) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 12203. SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS
POLICY RESEARCH CENTER.
Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279), as amended by section
12201, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(i) Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Policy
Research Center.--The Secretary shall award a grant to a
college or university eligible to receive funds under the Act
of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including Tuskegee
University, to establish a policy research center to be known
as the `Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Policy
Research Center' for the purpose of developing policy
recommendations for the protection and promotion of the
interests of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.''.
Subtitle C--Other Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 12302. GRANTS TO IMPROVE SUPPLY, STABILITY, SAFETY, AND
TRAINING OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR FORCE.
Subsection (d) of section 14204 of the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2008q-1) is amended to read
as follows:
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2008 through 2013; and
``(2) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018.''.
SEC. 12303. PROGRAM BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY STATUS FOR
PARTICIPANTS IN HIGH PLAINS WATER STUDY.
Section 2901 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1818) is amended by
striking ``this Act or an amendment made by this Act'' and
inserting ``this Act, an amendment made by this Act, the
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013,
or an amendment made by the Federal Agriculture Reform and
Risk Management Act of 2013''.
SEC. 12304. OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994 is amended by adding after section 308 (7 U.S.C. 3125a
note; Public Law 103-354) the following new section:
``SEC. 309. OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS.
``The Secretary shall establish in the Office of the
Secretary an Office of Tribal Relations to advise the
Secretary on policies related to Indian tribes.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the Department
of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7014(b))
is amended by inserting after paragraph (9), as added by
section 4207, the following new paragraph:
``(10) the authority of the Secretary to establish in the
Office of the Secretary the Office of Tribal Relations in
accordance with section 309; and''.
SEC. 12305. MILITARY VETERANS AGRICULTURAL LIAISON.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 is amended by
inserting after section 218 (7 U.S.C. 6918) the following new
section:
``SEC. 219. MILITARY VETERANS AGRICULTURAL LIAISON.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary shall establish in the
Department the position of Military Veterans Agricultural
Liaison.
``(b) Duties.--The Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison
shall--
``(1) provide information to returning veterans about, and
connect returning veterans with, beginning farmer training
and agricultural vocational and rehabilitation programs
appropriate to the needs and interests of returning veterans,
including assisting veterans in using Federal veterans
educational benefits for purposes relating to beginning a
farming or ranching career;
``(2) provide information to veterans concerning the
availability of and eligibility requirements for
participation in agricultural programs, with particular
emphasis on beginning farmer and rancher programs;
``(3) serve as a resource for assisting veteran farmers and
ranchers, and potential farmers and ranchers, in applying for
participation in agricultural programs; and
``(4) advocate on behalf of veterans in interactions with
employees of the Department.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the Department
of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7014(b))
is amended by inserting after paragraph (10), as added by
section 12304, the following new paragraph:
``(11) the authority of the Secretary to establish in the
Department the position of Military Veterans Agricultural
Liaison in accordance with section 219.''.
SEC. 12306. PROHIBITION ON KEEPING GSA LEASED CARS OVERNIGHT.
Effective immediately, a Federal employee of a State office
of the Farm Service Agency in the field and non-Federal
employees of county and area committees established under
section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5)) shall keep leased
interagency motor pool vehicles at a location listed on the
General Services Administration inventory of owned and leased
properties or a location owned or leased by the Department of
[[Page H3848]]
Agriculture overnight unless the employee assigned the
vehicle is on overnight, approved travel status involving per
diem.
SEC. 12307. NONINSURED CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333), as amended by section
11013(b), is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Coverages.--In the case of an eligible crop described
in paragraph (2), the Secretary of Agriculture shall operate
a noninsured crop disaster assistance program to provide
coverages based on individual yields (other than for value-
loss crops) equivalent to--
``(i) catastrophic risk protection available under section
508(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b));
or
``(ii) additional coverage available under subsections (c)
and (h) of section 508 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) that does
not exceed 65 percent.
``(B) Administration.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section through the Farm Service Agency (referred to in this
section as the `Agency').''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon
at the end;
(II) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
(III) by inserting after clause (i) the following new
clause:
``(ii) for which additional coverage under subsections (c)
and (h) of section 508 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) is not
available; and''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``sweet sorghum,
biomass sorghum,'' before ``and industrial crops'';
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``The Secretary'' and
inserting ``Subject to subsection (l), the Secretary''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Payment Equivalent to Additional Coverage.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make available to a
producer eligible for noninsured assistance under this
section a payment equivalent to an indemnity for additional
coverage under subsections (c) and (h) of section 508 of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) that does not
exceed 65 percent of the established yield for the eligible
crop on the farm, computed by multiplying--
``(A) the quantity that is not greater than 65 percent of
the established yield for the crop, as determined by the
Secretary, specified in increments of 5 percent;
``(B) 100 percent of the average market price for the crop,
as determined by the Secretary; and
``(C) a payment rate for the type of crop, as determined by
the Secretary, that reflects--
``(i) in the case of a crop that is produced with a
significant and variable harvesting expense, the decreasing
cost incurred in the production cycle for the crop that is,
as applicable--
``(I) harvested;
``(II) planted but not harvested; or
``(III) prevented from being planted because of drought,
flood, or other natural disaster, as determined by the
Secretary; or
``(ii) in the case of a crop that is produced without a
significant and variable harvesting expense, such rate as
shall be determined by the Secretary.
``(2) Premium.--To be eligible to receive a payment under
this subsection, a producer shall pay--
``(A) the service fee required by subsection (k); and
``(B) a premium for the applicable crop year that is equal
to the product obtained by multiplying--
``(i) the number of acres devoted to the eligible crop;
``(ii) the established yield for the eligible crop, as
determined by the Secretary under subsection (e);
``(iii) the coverage level elected by the producer;
``(iv) the average market price, as determined by the
Secretary; and
``(v) .0525.
``(3) Limited resource, beginning, and socially
disadvantaged farmers.--The additional coverage made
available under this subsection shall be available to limited
resource, beginning, and socially disadvantaged producers, as
determined by the Secretary, in exchange for a premium that
is 50 percent of the premium determined for a producer under
paragraph (2).
``(4) Premium payment and application deadline.--
``(A) Premium payment.--A producer electing additional
coverage under this subsection shall pay the premium amount
owed for the additional coverage by September 30 of the crop
year for which the additional coverage is purchased.
``(B) Application deadline.--The latest date on which
additional coverage under this subsection may be elected
shall be the application closing date described in subsection
(b)(1).
``(5) Effective date.--Additional coverage under this
subsection shall be available beginning with the 2015
crop.''.
SEC. 12308. ENSURING HIGH STANDARDS FOR AGENCY USE OF
SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.
(a) Requirement for Final Guidelines.--Not later than
January 1, 2014, each Federal agency shall have in effect
guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of scientific information
relied upon by such agency.
(b) Content of Guidelines.--The guidelines described in
subsection (a), with respect to a Federal agency, shall
ensure that--
(1) when scientific information is considered by the agency
in policy decisions--
(A) the information is subject to well-established
scientific processes, including peer review where
appropriate;
(B) the agency appropriately applies the scientific
information to the policy decision;
(C) except for information that is protected from
disclosure by law or administrative practice, the agency
makes available to the public the scientific information
considered by the agency;
(D) the agency gives greatest weight to information that is
based on experimental, empirical, quantifiable, and
reproducible data that is developed in accordance with well-
established scientific processes; and
(E) with respect to any proposed rule issued by the agency,
such agency follows procedures that include, to the extent
feasible and permitted by law, an opportunity for public
comment on all relevant scientific findings;
(2) the agency has procedures in place to make policy
decisions only on the basis of the best reasonably obtainable
scientific, technical, economic, and other evidence and
information concerning the need for, consequences of, and
alternatives to the decision; and
(3) the agency has in place procedures to identify and
address instances in which the integrity of scientific
information considered by the agency may have been
compromised, including instances in which such information
may have been the product of a scientific process that was
compromised.
(c) Approval Needed for Policy Decisions To Take Effect.--
No policy decision issued after January 1, 2014, by an agency
subject to this section may take effect prior to such date
that the agency has in effect guidelines under subsection (a)
that have been approved by the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy.
(d) Policy Decisions Not in Compliance.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a policy
decision of an agency that does not comply with guidelines
approved under subsection (c) shall be deemed to be
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise
not in accordance with law.
(2) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply to policy
decisions that are deemed to be necessary because of an
imminent threat to health or safety or because of another
emergency.
(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given such
term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Policy decision.--The term ``policy decision'' means,
with respect to an agency, an agency action as defined in
section 551(13) of title 5, United States Code, (other than
an adjudication, as defined in section 551(7) of such title),
and includes--
(A) the listing, labeling, or other identification of a
substance, product, or activity as hazardous or creating risk
to human health, safety, or the environment; and
(B) agency guidance.
(3) Agency guidance.--The term ``agency guidance'' means an
agency statement of general applicability and future effect,
other than a regulatory action, that sets forth a policy on a
statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or on an
interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.
SEC. 12309. EVALUATION REQUIRED FOR PURPOSES OF PROHIBITION
ON CLOSURE OR RELOCATION OF COUNTY OFFICES FOR
THE FARM SERVICE AGENCY.
(a) Prohibition on Closure or Relocation of Offices With
High Workload Volume.--Section 14212 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 6932a) is
amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following new subsection:
``(a) Prohibition on Closure or Relocation of Offices With
High Workload Volume.--The Secretary of Agriculture may not
close or relocate a county or field office of the Farm
Service Agency in a State if the Secretary determines, after
conducting the evaluation required under subsection
(b)(1)(B), that the office has a high workload volume
compared with other county offices in the State.''.
(b) Workload Evaluation.--Section 14212(b)(1) of such Act
(7 U.S.C. 6932a(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively, and moving the margins of such
clauses two ems to the right;
(2) by striking ``the Farm Service Agency, to the maximum
extent practicable'' and inserting ``the Farm Service
Agency--
``(A) to the maximum extent practicable'';
(3) in clause (ii) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by inserting ``as of the date of the enactment of this
Act'' after ``employees''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) conduct and complete an evaluation of all workload
assessments for Farm Service Agency county offices that were
open and operational as of January 1, 2012, during the period
that begins on a date that is not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Reform
and Risk Management Act of 2013 and ends on the date that is
18 months after such date of enactment.''.
(c) Notice Required.--Section 14212(b)(2) of such Act (7
U.S.C. 6932a(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``After the period referred to in subsection (a)(1), the
Secretary of Agriculture may not close a county or field
office of the Farm Service Agency unless--'' and inserting
``After
[[Page H3849]]
carrying out each of the activities required under paragraph
(1), the Secretary of Agriculture shall, before closing a
county or field office of the Farm Service Agency--'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the Secretary
holds'' and inserting ``hold''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Secretary
notifies'' and inserting ``notify''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 14212(b)(1) of such Act
(7 U.S.C. 6932a(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``After the
period referred to in subsection (a)(1), the Secretary'' and
inserting ``The Secretary''.
SEC. 12310. ACER ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
make competitive grants to States, tribal governments, and
research institutions to support the efforts of such States,
tribal governments, and research institutions to promote the
domestic maple syrup industry through the following
activities:
(1) Promotion of research and education related to maple
syrup production.
(2) Promotion of natural resource sustainability in the
maple syrup industry.
(3) Market promotion for maple syrup and maple-sap
products.
(4) Encouragement of owners and operators of privately-held
land containing species of trees in the genus Acer--
(A) to initiate or expand maple-sugaring activities on the
land; or
(B) to voluntarily make the land available, including by
lease or other means, for access by the public for maple-
sugaring activities.
(b) Application.--In submitting an application for a
competitive grant under this section, a State, tribal
government, or research institution shall include--
(1) a description of the activities to be supported using
the grant funds;
(2) a description of the benefits that the State, tribal
government, or research institution intends to achieve as a
result of engaging in such activities; and
(3) an estimate of the increase in maple-sugaring
activities or maple syrup production that the State, tribal
government, or research institution anticipates will occur as
a result of engaging in such activities.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed so as to preempt a State or tribal government law,
including a State or tribal government liability law.
(d) Definition of Maple-sugaring.--In this section, the
term ``maple-sugaring'' means the collection of sap from any
species of tree in the genus Acer for the purpose of boiling
to produce food.
(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out
this section.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.
SEC. 12311. REGULATORY REVIEW BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE.
(a) Review of Regulatory Agenda.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall review publications that may give notice
that the Environmental Protection Agency is preparing or
plans to prepare any guidance, policy, memorandum,
regulation, or statement of general applicability and future
effect that may have a significant impact on a substantial
number of agricultural entities, including--
(1) any regulatory agenda of the Environmental Protection
Agency published pursuant to section 602 of title 5, United
States Code;
(2) any regulatory plan or agenda published by the
Environmental Protection Agency or the Office of Management
and Budget pursuant to an Executive order, including
Executive Order 12866; and
(3) any other publication issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency or the Office of Management and Budget that
may reasonably be foreseen to contain notice of plans by the
Environmental Protection Agency to prepare any guidance,
policy, memorandum, regulation, or statement of general
applicability and future effect that may have a significant
impact on a substantial number of agricultural entities.
(b) Information Gathering.--For a publication item reviewed
under subsection (a) that the Secretary determines may have a
significant impact on a substantial number of agricultural
entities, the Secretary shall--
(1) solicit from the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency any information the Administrator may
provide to facilitate a review of the publication item;
(2) utilize the Chief Economist of the Department of
Agriculture to produce an economic impact statement for the
publication item that contains a detailed estimate of
potential costs to agricultural entities;
(3) identify individuals representative of potentially
affected agricultural entities for the purpose of obtaining
advice and recommendations from such individuals about the
potential impacts of the publication item; and
(4) convene a review panel for analysis of the publication
item that includes the Secretary, any full-time Federal
employee of the Department of Agriculture appointed to the
panel by the Secretary, and any employee of the Environmental
Protection Agency or the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget that
accepts an invitation from the Secretary to participate in
the panel.
(c) Duties of the Review Panel.--A review panel convened
for a publication item under subsection (b)(4) shall--
(1) review any information or material obtained by the
Secretary and prepared in connection with the publication
item, including any draft proposed guidance, policy,
memorandum, regulation, or statement of general applicability
and future effect;
(2) collect advice and recommendations from agricultural
entity representatives identified by the Administrator after
consultation with the Secretary;
(3) compile and analyze such advice and recommendations;
and
(4) make recommendations to the Secretary based on the
information gathered by the review panel or provided by
agricultural entity representatives.
(d) Comments.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date the
Secretary convenes a review panel pursuant to subsection
(b)(4), the Secretary shall submit to the Administrator
comments on the planned or proposed guidance, policy,
memorandum, regulation, or statement of general applicability
and future effect for consideration and inclusion in any
related administrative record, including--
(A) a report by the Secretary on the concerns of
agricultural entities;
(B) the findings of the review panel;
(C) the findings of the Secretary, including any adopted
findings of the review panel; and
(D) recommendations of the Secretary.
(2) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish the comments
in the Federal Register and make the comments available to
the public on the public Internet website of the Department
of Agriculture.
(e) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive initiation of the
review panel under subsection (b)(4) as the Secretary
determines appropriate.
(f) Definition of Agricultural Entity.--In this section,
the term ``agricultural entity'' means any entity involved in
or related to agricultural enterprise, including enterprises
that are engaged in the business of production of food and
fiber, ranching and raising of livestock, aquaculture, and
all other farming and agricultural related industries.
SEC. 12312. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY DEFINITION.
Section 513(1) of the Commodity Promotion, Research, and
Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7412(1)), as amended by
section 10004(g), is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) (as
added or redesignated by such section 10004(g), as the case
may be) as subparagraphs (F), (G), and (H), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) the products of natural stone;''.
SEC. 12313. PROHIBITION ON ATTENDING AN ANIMAL FIGHTING
VENTURE OR CAUSING A MINOR TO ATTEND AN ANIMAL
FIGHTING VENTURE.
Section 26(a)(1) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.
2156(a)(1)) is amended by striking the period and inserting
``or to knowingly attend or knowingly cause a minor to attend
an animal fighting venture.''.
SEC. 12314. PROHIBITION AGAINST INTERFERENCE BY STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH PRODUCTION OR
MANUFACTURE OF ITEMS IN OTHER STATES.
(a) In General.--Consistent with Article I, section 8,
clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, the
government of a State or locality therein shall not impose a
standard or condition on the production or manufacture of any
agricultural product sold or offered for sale in interstate
commerce if--
(1) such production or manufacture occurs in another State;
and
(2) the standard or condition is in addition to the
standards and conditions applicable to such production or
manufacture pursuant to--
(A) Federal law; and
(B) the laws of the State and locality in which such
production or manufacture occurs.
(b) Agricultural Product Defined.--In this section, the
term ``agricultural product'' has the meaning given such term
in section 207 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7
U.S.C. 1626).
SEC. 12315. INCREASED PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS
IN THE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Record runoff occurred in the Missouri River basin
during 2011 as a result of historic rainfall over portions of
the upper basin coupled with heavy plains and mountain
snowpack.
(2) Runoff above Sioux City, Iowa, during the 5-month
period of March through July totaled an estimated 48.4
million acre-feet (referred to in this section as ``MAF'').
This runoff volume was more than 20 percent greater than the
design storm for the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System
(referred to in this section as the ``System''), which was
based on the 1881 runoff of 40.0 MAF during the same 5-month
period.
(3) During the 2011 runoff season, nearly 61 million acre-
feet of water entered the Missouri River system, far
surpassing the previous record of 49 MAF in runoff that was
set during the flood of 1997.
(4) Given the incredible amount of water entering the
System, the summer months were spent working to evacuate as
much water from the System as possible, ultimately leading to
record high water releases from Gavins Point Dam of 160,000
cubic feet per second, a rate that more than doubled the
previous release record of 70,000 cubic feet per second set
in 1997.
(5) For nearly four months, those extremely high releases
from Gavins Point were maintained, resulting in severe and
sustained flooding, with much of western Iowa and eastern
Nebraska as well as portions of South Dakota, Kansas, and
Missouri inundated by a flooding river three to five feet
deep, up to 11 miles wide, and flowing at a rate of 4 to 11
miles per hour.
(6) Thousands of homes and businesses were damaged or
destroyed and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage was
done to roads and other public infrastructure.
[[Page H3850]]
(7) In addition to the homes, businesses, and
infrastructure impacted by the flooding, hundreds of
thousands of acres of cropland were affected.
(8) The Department of Agriculture has estimated that
400,000 to 500,000 acres of some of the most productive crop
land in the world was flooded in 2011.
(9) Local Farm Services Agency representatives have
estimated that $82,100,000 was lost in 2011 alone due to
damaged or lost crops and unplanted acres.
(10) Not only did the flooding eliminate the 2011 crop, but
it is highly unlikely that many farmers will be able to put
that land back into production at any point in the near
future.
(11) Producers will have to contend with large piles of
sand, silt, and other debris that have been deposited in
their fields, meaning the impact of the 2011 flood will be
felt in the agricultural communities up and down the Missouri
River for many years to come.
(12) Currently, the amount of storage capacity in the
System that is set aside for flood control is based upon the
vacated space required to control the 1881 flood, because
prior to the 2011 flood, the 1881 flood was seen as the
``high water mark''.
(13) Given the historic flooding that took place in 2011,
it is clear that that year's flooding now represents a new
``high water mark'', surpassing the flooding of even the 1881
flood.
(14) It is important that the flood control related
functions of the System management be adjusted to reflect the
reality of the 2011 flood as the new ``worst case scenario''
for flooding along the Missouri River.
(15) System management may begin to be adjusted to account
for the 2011 flood through a recalculation of the amount of
storage space within the System that is allocated to flood
control, using the model not of the 1881 flood, but of the
greatest flood experienced--the flood of 2011.
(16) As a result of the flooding in 2011, many States
received disaster declarations from the Department of
Agriculture to help farmers and producers recover from the
damage done by the high water.
(17) Though helpful, even the assistance provided by the
Department of Agriculture will not provide many in the
agriculture community with the resources to put their land
back into production any time soon.
(18) Without the protection that will come from a
fundamental change in the System's flood control storage
allocations, farmers, producers, and other agricultural
interests who may be in a position to restart their
operations will find it difficult to justify doing so, given
the fact that they will not be protected from similar
flooding in the future.
(b) Updated Management of the Missouri River To Protect
Agricultural Interests.--In order to strengthen the
agricultural economy, revitalize the rural communities, and
conserve the natural resources of the Missouri River basin,
the Congress directs that the Secretary of Agriculture take
action to promote immediate increased flood protection to
farmers, producers, and other agricultural interests in the
Missouri River basin by working within its jurisdiction to
support efforts--
(1) to recalculate the amount of space within the System
that is allocated to flood control storage using the 2011
flood as the model; and
(2) to increase the Missouri River's channel capacity
between the reservoirs and below Gavins Point.
SEC. 12316. INCREASED PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS
IN THE BLACK DIRT REGION.
In order to strengthen the agricultural economy, revitalize
the rural communities, and conserve the natural resources of
the Black Dirt region, the Congress directs that the
Secretary of Agriculture take action to promote immediate
increased flood protection to farmers, producers, and other
agricultural interests around the Wallkill River and in the
Black Dirt region.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute made in order as original text shall be in order except
those printed in part B of House Report 113-117 and amendments en bloc
described in section 3 of House Resolution 271.
Except as specified in the order of the House of today, each
amendment printed in part B of House Report 113-117 shall be considered
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by its
proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on
Agriculture or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of
amendments printed in part B of House Report 113-117 not earlier
disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture or their
designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question. The original proponent of an
amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in
the Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of the
amendments en bloc.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McGovern
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike sections 1101(c), 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, and 1109.
In section 1501(f), add the following new paragraph:
(4) Delay in initial payments.--Payments required under
this section for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 shall not
be distributed before October 1, 2014.
Strike sections 4005, 4007, 4018, and 4027.
Strike section 11003.
In section 11016(a), strike ``2014'' after ``Beginning not
later than the'' and insert ``2015''.
In section 11016(d)(1), strike ``80 percent'' and insert
``65 percent''.
In section 11017, strike ``2014'' after ``Effective
beginning with the'' and insert ``2015''.
At the end of title XI, add the following new section:
SEC. 11025. CAP ON OVERALL RATE OF RETURN FOR CROP INSURANCE
PROVIDERS AND ON REIMBURSEMENTS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING EXPENSES.
(a) Cap on Overall Rate of Return.--Section 508(k)(3) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act 26 (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is
amended--
(1) by designating paragraph (3) as subparagraph (A) and,
before such subparagraph, by inserting ``(3) Risk.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Cap on overall rate of return.--The target rate of
return for all the companies combined for the 2013 and
subsequent reinsurance years shall be 12 percent of retained
premium.''.
(b) Additional Cap on Reimbursements.--Section 508(k)(4) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) Additional cap on reimbursements.--Notwithstanding
subparagraphs (A) through (F), total reimbursements for
administrative and operating costs for the 2013 insurance
year for all types of policies and plans of insurance shall
not exceed $900,000,000. For each subsequent insurance year,
the dollar amount in effect pursuant to the preceding
sentence shall be increased by the same inflation factor as
established for the administrative and operating costs cap in
the 2011 Standard Reinsurance Agreement.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma will be recognized.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a list of
cosponsors to McGovern amendment No. 1.
Cosponsors
DeLauro, Negrete McLeod, Jackson Lee, Moore, Connolly,
Grijalva, Schakowsky, Delaney, Wilson, Grayson, Meeks, Chu,
Lee, Conyers, Wasserman Schultz, Deutch, Esty, Capuano,
Tsongas, Fudge, Cardenas.
Langevin, Doggett, Ellison, Welch, DelBene, Cicilline,
Doyle, Bonamici, Gallego, Blumenauer, Holt, Kennedy,
Horsford, DeGette, Courtney, Pallone, Serrano, Tonko, Kilmer,
Pingree, Hastings.
Edwards, DeFazio, Cohen, Sires, McDermott, Brown (FL),
Clarke, Tierney, Veasey, Gene Green, Johnson (GA), Norton,
Frankel, Titus, Pocan, Sarbanes, Danny Davis (IL), Roybal-
Allard, Brady (PA), Lowenthal, Ben Ray Lujan.
Crowley, Matsui, Beatty, Meng, Waters, Honda, Al Green,
Himes, Bera, Huffman, Engel, Kuster, O'Rourke, Jeffries,
Rush, Loebsack, Castor, Smith (WA), Markey, Payne Jr.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
(Mr. NOLAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program and in opposition to some of the arguments we have heard
against the program.
First, I want to point out that the average SNAP recipient receives
assistance for less than one year. And, more importantly, the
[[Page H3851]]
people who do depend on assistance for a longer period of time are
populations such as the elderly, children, or the disabled: people who
can't work their way out of poverty as easily.
The SNAP program faces a great deal of criticism, but I believe much
of it is undeserved. The program is not perfect, but a few bad actors
should not give us reason to push millions out of the system. The
simple fact is, SNAP is not an isolate acronym. It represents real
children and hardworking families who are just trying to make ends
meet.
About 1 in 10 Minnesota residents receive SNAP benefits. That might
be below the national average, but for those Minnesotans who do receive
benefits, they are absolutely critical. In my state, more than 68
percent of all SNAP participants are in families with children. More
than \1/4\ of all SNAP participants are in families with elderly or
disabled members. And finally, 44 percent of all SNAP participants in
Minnesota are in working families.
Now is not the time to rip assistance away from those who need it
most. I will join Congressman McGovern in voting to restore funding for
SNAP.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ellison).
(Mr. ELLISON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern
amendment.
Mr. Chair, cuts to SNAP will devastate the most vulnerable in our
communities.
550,000 Minnesotans rely on SNAP to put food on their tables.
Cuts to SNAP take away benefits for 32,000 Minnesotans.
While the FARRM Bill gives hundreds of billions of dollars to
producers and processors at the very top, it balances these benefits on
the backs of America's poorest citizens.
These cuts are not just statistics. They are the stories of real
people in my District.
Jessica, a single mother whose SNAP benefits are essential in keeping
her children clothed, fed, and in school while she takes online classes
towards a degree, and works as a housekeeper. She would be living on
$47 a month without the help of SNAP.
Justina and her husband, a homeless couple in Minneapolis, are both
unable to work due to disability and are expecting a child. Justina
relies on SNAP to stay healthy and strong throughout her pregnancy, and
could not afford adequate nutrition without the help. Justina's life
and the life of her baby depend on this program.
Lashonda, a mother of three who works hard at a minimum wage job and
still lives below the poverty line. Without SNAP, she would have to
choose between food, heat, and electricity. She depends on the SNAP
program to keep the lights and heat on in her small apartment, and
without it she could not provide for her family.
SNAP is good policy. SNAP works. SNAP saves lives. Do not cut funding
for this program.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
This is a debate about values and priorities.
This amendment would restore the $20.5 billion in cuts to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as
``food stamps.'' It would restore those cuts by eliminating or reducing
some of the wasteful, excessive subsidies to the highly profitable big
agribusiness. Not only that, the amendment would actually reduce the
deficit by $12 billion beyond the base bill.
At a time when millions of Americans are struggling with
unemployment, with poverty and with hunger, the FARRM Bill before us
today would cause 2 million of our neighbors to lose their SNAP
benefits. It would kick 210,000 kids off of the free school breakfast
and lunch program. That's a rotten thing to do.
Mr. Lucas and others will argue that these SNAP cuts will only force
poor people to fill out a few more forms, to jump through a few more
hoops to get the assistance that they need to qualify for.
Let's think about that for a minute.
Aren't we a country that reaches out to those in need? When Americans
see their neighbors having a hard time, don't we show up to help
without being asked? Our churches and our food banks are doing
extraordinary work, but they are already stretched to the limits.
Values and priorities.
Critics of the SNAP program talk about waste, fraud and abuse, but
SNAP is one of the most efficiently run government programs we have,
and some of the errors in SNAP are as a result of people getting less
help than they qualify for. The base bill would cut $2 billion per year
from a program that helps struggling families put food on the table--$2
billion.
{time} 1500
I would remind my colleagues that we spend more than $2 billion every
single week propping up a corrupt Karzai government in Afghanistan.
Some people who have no problem with nation-building in Afghanistan,
turn their backs on nation building here at home.
Values and priorities.
Fifty million Americans struggle with hunger; 17 million of those are
our children. Hunger costs our Nation dearly. There is over $100
billion a year in avoidable health care costs, lost productivity, and
hungry kids who can't learn in school. SNAP is one tool to address
hunger in America. Like every other human endeavor, it is not perfect.
It can be improved. But it would be shortsighted and cruel to make
hunger worse in America, which is exactly what this bill would do.
If we want to reduce spending on SNAP, the best way to do that is to
strengthen our economy, to invest in putting people back to work.
Values and priorities.
Mr. Chair, let us stay true to our values of compassion and decency
and justice. Let us give priority to those among us who are struggling
in these hard times, to the least of these.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee
chairman of primary jurisdiction from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee for yielding, and I want to also thank him for
his leadership on this bill.
This is a carefully balanced bill that we have, and I don't challenge
the convictions of the gentleman from Massachusetts. We've had enough
exchanges on this topic to know that we have a difference of opinion
without a difference in disagreeable personalities by any means.
However, when I came to this Congress a little more than a decade
ago, I was looking already at this growth in, then, food stamps. The
number that I memorized at the time was that there were 19 million
people on food stamps. That was a lot of people. Our population hasn't
grown so much that it ought to grow to 48 million people. But when we
see the expansion of the dependency class in America and you add this
to the 79 other means-tested welfare programs that we have in the
United States and each time you add another brick to that wall, it's a
barrier to people that might go out and succeed.
We're of the same heart here. We don't want people who need them and
people who deserve them to go without SNAP benefits. On the other hand,
we don't want to hand these out to people that are gaming the system,
so to speak. So we've tightened the qualifications down on SNAP, and
we've done so for a number of reasons. One of them is reports of a neon
sign up on a tattoo parlor that says, ``We take EBT cards.'' You also
have the report of an individual who bailed himself out of jail with an
EBT card. I don't think that we want to borrow money from the Chinese
to fund such a thing. I think those people can figure out how to bail
themselves out and how to pay for their own tattoos.
Instead, we tighten this down, and it's a savings of $20.5 billion.
It was a tough enough negotiation to get to that point. I don't know
what the gentleman from Massachusetts would say is enough, and maybe I
don't know what I would say is too little. Someplace in between his
opinion and mine is where we've settled today on this $20.5 billion
that came out of this top line that is roughly 80 percent of the
overall benefits that are in this bill.
It's carefully balanced. It's carefully negotiated. It's something
that has had the cooperation with the ranking member, as well. And I
think it's an important thing for us to understand that you can't
simply be spending advertising dollars out there to sign more people up
on food stamps. That's what
[[Page H3852]]
our Secretary of Agriculture has been doing. In this bill, we eliminate
the advertising to sign people up on food stamps. That's a good thing.
If people need it, they're going to figure out how to sign up without
somebody knocking on their door and advertising in the newspaper, on
the radio, or on the TV.
So we tighten up the system. We keep the resources for the people
that need them, and we reduce this to say it's a 2.5 percent reduction
in this massive growth from 19 million to 48 million. That's not too
much to ask.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Let me again remind my colleagues that the reason why we've seen an
uptick in the number of people registered for SNAP is because we are
coming out of this recession, the worst economy we've had since the
Great Depression.
The gentleman from Iowa says it's a carefully negotiated, carefully
studied compromise. We didn't have a single hearing on it, not in his
subcommittee and not in the full committee. And the people we're
talking about here are people who are good, honorable, decent Americans
who are going to lose their benefit.
The Congressional Budget Office says 2 million people will lose their
benefits. These aren't targeted at people who somehow abuse the system.
These are just 2 million people who lose their benefits, 200,000 kids
off the free breakfast and lunch. That's wrong.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Lucas for yielding.
SNAP is an incredibly important program in the United States. I don't
think there's anybody that I've met on my side of the aisle or on
theirs--and I particularly appreciate Mr. McGovern's position on the
fact that we need to make sure that hungry children in this country get
food to eat. We want them to have good, healthy meals.
On behalf of the taxpayer, however, the data doesn't support that we
continue to increase funding for SNAP. In fact, if you follow the red
line here, that's unemployment in America. You see during the recession
unemployment went up, as did SNAP spending. It was almost exactly at
the same ratio. And as the economy began to recover and unemployment
went down, as did poverty go down, SNAP funding continued to go up. In
fact, from 2008 to 2011, SNAP funding went up 119 percent while poverty
went up only 16 percent. Between 2010 and 2011, poverty actually went
down while SNAP spending went up.
It's not just an either/or, Mr. Chairman, that we can either provide
food for the poor or charge the taxpayer money. We need to do both. But
as fiduciaries of the taxpayers' dollars, we must do it reasonably.
We don't want any child to go without food, but we recognize that the
economy has begun to recover since 2009, where we were spending only
$53 billion on SNAP. ``Only'' is the appropriate word. Today we're
going to be spending $82 billion on SNAP. Unemployment went from 10.2
percent in 2009 down to 7.6 percent today. Under this basis, I wonder
at what point could we ever have SNAP go down.
Here's the reality. We keep talking about $20 billion. In fact, next
year, with a $2 billion cut annually, we won't even roll SNAP back
effectively 1 year.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Agriculture Committee, Mr.
Schrader.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that we've got a
deficit problem. I think most Americans agree with that. But I don't
think most Americans would agree that we balance our deficit on the
backs of the most vulnerable people out there, particularly the
children. As was alluded to a moment ago by my good friend from
Wisconsin, half the people on food stamps are children. They didn't get
a job. They're still hungry.
The other point I think that is well-known by Americans is that while
unemployment may have gone down, there's a lot of underemployed people
and there are a lot of people that have given up searching for work
because the recession lingers.
The real world is that the SNAP program is a lagging indicator.
People struggle. They try and keep their job, they go into savings,
they rely on friends; and then after several years, they lose their
house, maybe they've already lost their job, and then they need food
stamps.
I think it's egregious that we would deny them that.
There may be some inefficiencies in the program. We've been working
on that for years. There's an error rate in my home State of Oregon
that we're proud to say we've driven down. We were guilty of not
overseeing the program. That's been driven down. We should be rewarding
good behavior, not penalizing it at the end of the day.
I still have over 20 percent of my folks in Oregon that are on food
stamps, and that has not changed. That's not because they're glad to be
on food stamps. My folks want a job. They want to be able to feed their
own families. But the real world is this was a horrible recession, the
worst recession since the Great Depression, and you don't balance that
budget on the backs of these kids.
If we had had a chance to vote on another food stamp bill that may
have gotten down to the Senate levels of reductions, I think you
wouldn't see some folks here worried about it. But this is the only
game in town in trying to protect vulnerable Americans.
There's other ways to cut the program. The direct payments that we
did in the Agriculture Committee, that's the way to go about it, not
with the most vulnerable population.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
{time} 1510
Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, the changes made to SNAP are directed at
reducing fraud, not at those in true need. And affecting inefficiencies
that we've been dealing with for years, we have a chance to affect
those inefficiencies right now in this year's farm bill, not 5 years
from now.
Without the changes proposed by the committee, and made with
bipartisan support, Congress tells the American people that taxpayers
should support fraudulent payments. Are we seriously debating a 2
percent reduction that centers on fraud elimination and ensuring that
those we help actually qualify?
This farm bill eliminates advertising for food stamps, eliminates
recruitment bonuses and payments to lottery winners, all of which
divert funds away from the program's actual goal. Any individual can
apply or reapply by simply meeting the income and asset requirements.
These are simple, commonsense reforms that save taxpayers billions and
continue to protect those truly in need. I ask my colleagues to oppose
this amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. I insert in the Record CBO's statement that shows the
number of people on SNAP going from 47 million to 34 million over the
next 10 years.
CBO'S FEBRUARY 2013 BASELINE FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASELINE
Budget Authority................................. 82,563 79,574 79,075 79,107 77,774 76,323 75,086 74,093 73,361 72,914 72,776
Outlays.......................................... 82,472 79,672 79,091 79,106 77,816 76,368 75,125 74,124 73,384 72,928 72,780
PROGRAM COMPONENTS (budget authority)
Total Benefits................................... 76,370 73,198 72,663 72,551 71,066 69,455 68,058 66,898 65,994 65,371 65,052
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico and AS...... 2,009 2,009 1,966 2,005 2,045 2,086 2,128 2,171 2,214 2,258 2,303
Administrative Costs/Other....................... 4,185 4,368 4,446 4,551 4,663 4,782 4,900 5,025 5,153 5,285 5,420
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS
Average monthly benefits (dollars per person).... 133.42 128.15 130.22 133.46 136.77 140.14 143.58 147.09 150.67 154.32 158.05
[[Page H3853]]
Average monthly, participation (millions of 47.7 47.6 46.5 45.3 43.3 41.3 39.5 37.9 36.5 35.3 34.3
people).........................................
Thrifty Food Plan estimated change June/June 102.6% 102.5% 101.6% 102.0% 102.0% 102.0% 102.0% 102.0% 102.0% 102.0% 102.0%
preceding year lagged \3\.......................
Unemployment rate fiscal year average............ 7.9% 7.9% 7.3% 6.5% 5.7% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
AS = American Samoa
\3\ The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) raised the maximum benefit to 113.6% of the Thrifty Food Plan in FY 2009 and froze it at that level until regular inflation
adjustments exceed it. Subsequent legislation sunsets that increase after October 31, 2013. FY 2014 number below includes the full year effect for Puerto Rico block grant.
Estimated spending from ARRA (in millions) $6,113, 374.
DETAIL OF SNAP BUDGET AUTHORITY OTHER THAN BENEFITS AND NUTRITION ASSISTANCE FOR PUERTO RICO AND AMERICAN SAMOA
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Administration Other Than E&T.............. 3,068 3,123 3,182 3,261 3,347 3,438 3,527 3,623 3,721 3,821 3,925
Employment and Training (E&T).................... 323 327 331 336 342 349 355 362 368 376 383
Other Program Costs.............................. 124 123 125 128 131 135 138 142 145 149 153
Nutrition Education.............................. 285 401 407 416 425 434 444 454 464 475 486
Northern Mariana Islands......................... 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Community Food Projects.......................... 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Program Access Grants............................ 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Emergency Food Assistance Commodities............ 267 274 278 284 289 295 301 307 313 320 326
Food Donations on Indian Reservations............ 96 99 101 104 107 109 112 115 119 122 125
Total........................................ 4,185 4,368 4,446 4,551 4,663 4,782 4,900 5,025 5,153 5,285 5,420
DETAIL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING FUNDS, BUDGET AUTHORITY
100 Percent Federal Funds........................ 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99
50 Percent Federal Funds......................... 224 228 232 237 243 250 256 263 269 277 284
Total Budget Authority........................... 323 327 331 336 342 349 355 362 368 376 383
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; but
more importantly, I thank him for his outstanding leadership for
helping us live the Bible here in the Congress. He has been a
relentless, dissatisfied, persistent champion for feeding the hungry in
America and throughout the world. He is the living example,
personification of the Gospel of Matthew, and I appreciate the
statements you made earlier about priorities and the least of our
brethren.
I thank you, Mr. McGovern, for your leadership day in and day out of
the task force on hunger and working with Congresswoman DeLauro, an
appropriator, who shares your value on this subject. You both have been
magnificent.
And I thank you as a mom, because we all have our motivation for
going into politics or deciding that we're going to run for office, and
my motivation can be described in three words: the children, the
children, the children. As a mother of five myself and as a
grandmother, I know how children thrive when they have the attention,
the love, the food, and the care that they need.
It is always a wonderment to me that in this, the greatest country
that ever existed in the history of the world, that one in four or one
in five children goes to sleep hungry at night. So it is another
wonderment to me why we should even have to have this conversation on
the floor of the House as to whether we, as a nation, are prepared to
feed our children.
We are all familiar with the comment, ``from the mouths of babes.''
From the mouth of babes. It's sometimes followed by ``come gems.'' In
this case, ``from the mouths of babes comes food.'' Food to live, to be
sustained, to be healthy, food to study and do well in school, food to
have respect in their family and their friends and all the rest.
What's really interesting about it, though, for all the sentiment
that is involved about feeding the children of our country, it makes
economic sense to do so as well. The CBO, the Congressional Budget
Office, says that rate increases of SNAP benefits is one of the two
best options to boost growth and jobs in a weak economy. For every $1
invested in the SNAP program, for every $1 invested in that initiative,
$1.70 is injected into the economy for economic activity. This
purchasing power given to families who will spend it immediately
because this is a necessity, this purchasing, injects demand into the
economy, creating jobs. Don't take it from me. The Congressional Budget
Office says this is one of the two best ways to boost growth.
Another economic aspect of this is that, as has been said over and
over again, nearly 20 million children--20 million children--are the
beneficiaries of food stamps.
Why do those families need food stamps? Well, some of them are
families that are making the minimum wage. In fact, if you're a family
of four and you have two wage earners, Mr. Chairman, the income you
make from two wage earners making the minimum wage still has you below
the poverty line and eligible for food stamps. Two wage earners making
the minimum wage cannot afford to put food on the table; hence, they
qualify for food stamps.
These food stamps in some ways are subsidizing a too low minimum wage
in our country. So, speaking of the children, the children, the
children, I hope that one of the other things that we will do here is
to raise minimum wage, because that is the decent thing to do.
But many of the same people who want to cut food stamps--in fact, 2
million families out of food stamps--are the same people who are
opposed to increasing the minimum wage. So it's a question of fairness.
It's a question of decency. It's a question of respect for all of God's
children. It's also a question of doing the right thing not only for
the children but for our economy--$1.70 of economic growth injected for
every $1 spent on food stamps.
Now, to cut food stamps and, therefore, reduce that economic growth
might be considered one of the least smart ideas that you will hear
here, but there is so much competition for that designation that it
just fits comfortably among initiatives to suppress the wages and to
cut food stamps. It's all part of a package, and it is not a pretty
sight.
That's why, Mr. McGovern, your relentless, persistent, dissatisfied
advocacy is such a beautiful thing in this arena where people take very
lightly cutting 2 million people off of food stamps.
I urge our colleagues to support the McGovern amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Ag Committee has worked diligently in a bipartisan manner to
craft these reforms to the food stamp program that this amendment would
strip out totally. The argument that somehow we can food stamp our way
into a great economy is a bit false in the sense that it doesn't
reflect that we are
[[Page H3854]]
borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we are putting into the
program.
The families that the previous speaker referenced will still remain
on food stamps. If you qualify on the income and asset side, you'll
stay on the program. If you make too much money to qualify directly for
food stamps, those are the folks who will be getting out as part of the
$20 billion that we'll save in this program. It's a 2 percent
reduction. I'm hard pressed to understand how we could have a near 5
percent reduction in the beneficiaries by cutting only 2 percent of the
spending. We'll trim it from $80 billion a year to $78 billion a year.
Much of the conversation you'll hear and justification for not going
along with these reforms sounds like we're gutting and destroying the
entire program. We are not. These are modest reforms that we believe
are appropriate at this time, and I urge my colleagues to vote against
the McGovern amendment and support what the bipartisan Committee on
Agriculture did.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) who has been a champion on this issue, and I'm proud that
she's here.
Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank Congressman McGovern for yielding
and also for your tremendous leadership, not only in preserving our
safety net, but your tireless work to eliminate hunger, which really
should be an oxymoron in America.
I'm a proud cosponsor and rise in strong support of this amendment to
safeguard hungry children and families across America.
Mr. Chairman, this farm bill would make heartless and harmful cuts to
our Nation's frontline defense against hunger, the SNAP program.
Oftentimes, people need a safety net, a bridge over troubled waters to
help them through difficult economic times.
{time} 1520
And yet these huge cuts come, even while they preserve wasteful
subsidies for huge agribusiness, that really don't need corporate
subsidies to continue with their huge profits.
Taking away food from hungry children hurts their health, their
educational outcome, and restricts their economic prospects for their
entire adult lives. And the Federal Government will end up paying more
for their health care and their education, and get less revenue from
their taxes.
As a former food stamp recipient, I know for a fact no one wants to
be on food stamps. People want to work.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Dr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to Mr. McGovern's amendment
because the amount removed from the food stamp program will not remove
one calorie off anyone's plate that deserves it or requires this
assistance.
And I know the importance, personally, of having to go on food
stamps. When my wife and I first got married, we were 19\1/2\. The
interest rates in the economy went to 20 percent, and we had to get on
food stamps for a short period of time. So I understand the need for
those.
But yet let's look at the facts here. Out of the whole bill, of $940
billion being spent over 10 years we're looking at here, 80 percent of
that goes to the food stamp program, which is approximately $752
billion. Eighty percent of the farm bill is going to that. Only 20
percent is actually going to the farmers, and we've cut that
drastically over the last couple of years.
And so this is just a commonsense approach of reducing the amount of
money that we're spending in this country. And I stand in opposition to
this amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Let me just say to my colleague a few minutes ago who
was up on this floor and talking against the food stamp program and
against the McGovern amendment, I think it's important to note this is
not my making this up, but this is an individual who has received
almost $4.7 million in farm subsidies since 1995, including nearly $1.2
million in direct payments.
Now, I don't know whether that is a program that is means tested,
that's asset tested, and that has a cap on it. No, this is free money
for people who serve in this body. And these are the same folks who
want to cut the food stamp program.
I rise in strong support of this amendment to replace those deep cuts
to the food stamp program, which is our Nation's most important anti-
hunger program. All across the country, cities, suburbs, rural
communities, from the coast to the heartland, nearly 50 million
Americans are struggling with hunger, and almost 20 million of them are
our children. No part of the country is immune.
We should not destroy what has been a longstanding, bipartisan
tradition to give crucial nutrition assistance. This is what this farm
bill does. It cuts out the nutrition program for 2 million people, a
million of whom are children.
And the research has shown us that the food stamp program is the most
effective program pushing against the steep rise in poverty. Ninety-
nine percent of recipients live under the poverty line. They're not
getting $4.7 million in subsidies from the Federal Government.
By the way, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk
about waste, fraud and abuse, this is a program with a 3.8 percent
error rate. I defy you to go to any other agency of the Federal
Government and find that they have as low an error rate.
You want to talk about a program that really ought to be challenged
in this farm bill?
Let's take a look at the crop insurance program. Look at the crop
insurance program.
Support the McGovern amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire about how much time remains on
both sides on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 3 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. LUCAS. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think it's worth noting that, when the Ag Committee
put this bill together, a bill which had bipartisan support,
overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in the process, we
understood that reform had to be achieved across the board.
We have reforms in the commodity title. The direct payment program
goes away. We have reforms in the conservation program, $6 billion
worth of savings through reforms. And, yes, we address the nutrition
title.
We tried, in good faith, to pick programs that would not, in the eyes
of the committee as a whole, create huge hardship on citizens.
How did we do that?
Well, categorical eligibility. If you receive some other Federal
welfare benefit, under present law, you automatically get food stamps.
We simply say, you have to apply. Demonstrate your income, demonstrate
your assets. If you qualify, we help you. But you've got to prove you
qualify.
Now, some may argue about what those assets and income levels are,
but that's not the debate today. It's automatic food stamps.
Something called LIHEAP, where a number of States use the flexibility
of the '96 law to say we'll help you with your home heating, and then
you can automatically qualify for food stamps. There are actually some
States that send out a dollar to qualify for a free month's worth of
automatic food stamps.
We simply say in the bill, States, if you want to do this, power to
you. But put $20 a month out. Buy more than just a cup or a pint of
home heating oil. Actually put something up. That saves about $8
billion.
We tried very hard to come up with ways that would not deny the needy
the help they need but, by the same token, make sure those who
qualified got the help. That's only fair to the recipients who need
help. It's only fair to their fellow citizens who pay for that help.
We tried, in the best way we could, to achieve reform and to help
those who need the help.
Now, will these CBO numbers be in fruition when it's all calculated?
I suspect a number of people who receive automatic food stamps will
be eligible. They'll fill out the paperwork,
[[Page H3855]]
they'll demonstrate the need, they'll qualify.
But I can only work with the CBO numbers that are given to me under
the rules of the House. And the rules say these two changes save $20.5
billion, half of the approximate $40 billion we save out of the overall
FARRM Bill.
It's tough economic times. It's a challenging Federal budget. We're
trying to do the right thing. We're trying to do it in the most
difficult of circumstances.
I respect my friends, my colleagues. We just happen to disagree about
how the policy will work. I sincerely believe the perspective I've
offered is accurate. If my friends are accurate and I'm wrong, then
we'll address this issue sometime in the very near future. If I'm
right, then the people who need help will continue to get help. The
Treasury will have $20-some billion of a $40 billion package to spend
in other places.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, because of prior cuts in the program already, even if
we do nothing in terms of this farm bill, in terms of reducing SNAP, a
family of three, on average, would lose about $30 a month in SNAP
benefits. That's if we do nothing. They're already going to receive a
reduction come November.
Then, on top of that is what we have in this farm bill. The CBO says
that 2 million people will be thrown off the benefit. They say that
over 200,000 kids will lose their free breakfast and lunch at school.
I have great respect for Chairman Lucas. I wanted very much to
support a bill that he put together; but, to me, this cut is too big
and is too harsh and is going to hurt too many people.
All of us came here to help people. We all came here to help our
constituents, rich and poor alike. But this here will hurt people, and
that is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
This cut is too big. It is too harsh. We don't need to do this. The
price for a farm bill should not be to result in more hunger in
America. We can do so much better. Our country is better than this.
So I urge all my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to come
together and support this amendment. Let's not make hunger worse in
America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment,
which I am proud to cosponsor, and I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue of vital importance to
my constituents and to struggling families across the country.
It has been nearly six months since we voted on an eight month Farm
Bill extension, and in that time I have spoken with people across
Oregon's First Congressional District about their priorities. In those
conversations, three central goals emerged for reauthorization. Provide
certainty to the agriculture community through a five year extension,
support specialty crop producers in Oregon, and fully fund the
nutrition programs that provide a safety net for our friends and
neighbors who are still trying to bounce back from the hard times of
the latest economic recession.
The bill before us today accomplishes two of these goals, but on the
third, it falls absolutely flat. To remove more than $20 billion from
the SNAP program at a time when economic conditions mean that even more
families are becoming eligible, is irresponsible and unfair.
Our economy continues to recover, but millions of American children
and families remain in poverty. According to the Oregon Food Bank, the
SNAP cuts in this year's farm bill will cause about 90,000 Oregonians
to lose the assistance they rely on to put food on the table. If we're
really concerned about the cost of this program, we should focus
addressing the root cause. Let's cut poverty, not nutrition assistance.
For this reason I have joined the gentleman from Massachussetts, Mr.
McGovern, in cosponsoring this amendment that will restore funding for
the SNAP program in the bill. I urge compassion for those families who
are still struggling and ask that my colleagues vote in favor of the
amendment.
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Chair, the proposed SNAP cuts in this bill will be
devastating to our most vulnerable populations.
Many of the poorest Americans depend on SNAP as their only means of
assistance to feed their families.
We should not turn our backs on low-income families, children,
seniors and disabled.
Today, I was told a story about one of my constituents--a mother who
receives a very small amount of food stamp assistance.
She said that if SNAP is cut, her kids will starve. Period.
This is the reality that so many families face, including the 2
million this bill would leave to face hunger if this amendment is not
adopted.
In Franklin County, Ohio alone, there are an estimated 59,450 kids
who live daily with the threat of hunger.
Without inclusion of this amendment, the current farm bill will
destroy our efforts to relieve hunger within our districts and will
dramatically increase the number of children, families, and older
adults who are already struggling and push them to below the poverty
level.
This is a commonsense amendment.
It will restore the $20.5 billion cuts in SNAP by offsetting the Farm
Risk Management Election Program and the Supplemental Coverage Option.
We cannot leave our most vulnerable children and families without
basic access to food.
If we do, I think we violate a core American value.
I urge my colleagues to vote to save SNAP by supporting the McGovern
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
{time} 1530
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gibbs
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 18, beginning on line 21, strike ``total acres planted
for the year'' and insert ``base acres''.
Page 21, strike lines 1 through 22 and insert the
following:
(16) Reference price.--The term ``reference price'', with
respect to a covered commodity for a crop year, means the
product obtained by multiplying--
(A) 55 percent; by
(B) the average of the national marketing year average
price for the five most recent crop years, excluding each of
the crop years with the highest and lowest prices.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the Gibbs-Kind
amendment to title I of the FARRM Bill that sets the target price for
all crops at 55 percent of the 5-year rolling Olympic average and
changes the acreage available for target price support to 85 percent of
the farmer's base acres.
At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. At this time, I yield 90 seconds to Representative Kind
from the great State of Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me
this time.
I thought his summary was very accurate on what our amendment would
do. What Mr. Gibbs didn't point out, though, is this would also save
$12 billion over 10 years by a more fiscally responsible approach, one
that we feel is market-based, and one that we think is economically
feasible, one that also maintains an important safety net for farmers
if commodity prices do drop.
But, listen, the supporters of the Price Loss Coverage program, as
currently drafted, will claim the program is necessary to ensure
farmers have a safety net for when the market collapses. But, instead,
the program in the FARRM Bill before us sets target prices so high that
some commodities are guaranteed an 8 percent profit. We don't guarantee
any other business in
[[Page H3856]]
the country that type of a profit margin other than crop insurance
companies that are guaranteed a 14 percent profit under this bill.
By setting the target prices for programs at this historically high
level, it will all but ensure a much higher likelihood of government
payouts in the future.
In fact, implementation of the Price Loss Coverage program will
already require government payouts for the five top commodity crops.
Rice alone would pay out $14 per hundred while the current price is at
$10.50 today. So it's outrageous that while we're cutting over $20
billion in the nutrition title of the FARRM Bill, we're adding on this
additional high target price with additional taxpayer subsidies in an
area where it's not economically needed or feasible.
And since farmers receive these payouts on their planted acres, we
are encouraging them to overplant and to plant marginal lands that
probably wouldn't be brought into production anyway because their
losses would be covered and the profit margin would be assured.
Also, given the fact that we're still trying to work our way out of
the WTO complaint from Brazil on the cotton subsidy program, this
program sets up another potential WTO trade case against us.
I encourage our colleagues to keep working with us to improve the
program.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to myself.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to talk a little bit. Back in the 1995 farm
bill, Congress made a decision to move the programs to be more market-
oriented, where farmers would plant towards the market and not towards
the program.
As past-State Farm Bureau president and also a farmer, when I talk to
my farmer colleagues, they want the check to come from the market and
not the government. And my fear is, my concern is that the House-marked
bill will distort the market prices by setting the target prices, as
Representative Kind said, too high.
Let's take corn, for example. We had a drought. We saw the prices
scoot up to very high levels. Well, we're seeing some rainfall, the
weather kind of moderates over and averages out over a several-year
period, and it's possible we could see the prices of corn, for example,
come down and drop below these very high-set target rates, and farmers
could still be profitable, still be making some money on a per-bushel
basis, depending on their yield--yield has to be a factor. And when you
have price loss coverage, yield is not factored in, where they could
actually still be making some money on a per-bushel basis per acre and
still get a government payout. That's market distortion.
It's interesting to note that the organizations that support my
amendment, the National Corn Growers, the Soybean Association, many
national organizations and State organizations that represent thousands
of farmers out there strongly support my amendment, which, as
Representative Kind said, cuts $12 billion from the committee-marked
bill.
You find that kind of odd. The reason is they don't want to go back
to the previous policies of 1995 where we have market distortions and
farmers are planting for the program and the market is not dictating
it, and they never get out of that rut.
Another concern I have is WTO concerns. When we change this to
planted acres, direct benefits paid to planted acres, that's ripe for a
WTO complaint and for a trade war. And this will increase, I believe,
overplanting and farmers reacting for the wrong reasons and not the
market reasons.
So, on that basis, Mr. Chairman, with the strong support of many of
the national commodity organizations that represent thousands of
farmers and strongly do not want this, we can save taxpayers $12
billion and keep a market-oriented bill and not risk exposure to
taxpayers if the markets collapse to more historical levels.
Mr. KIND. Will the gentleman yield an additional 30 seconds?
Mr. GIBBS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this
issue. As the former past Farm Bureau president in the State of Ohio
and someone who is intimately familiar with these commodity programs,
his lead has been crucial. He knows how the market works. And I think
this program is setting up a lot of market distortions, unnecessary
taxpayer subsidies that aren't economically justifiable. Our Amendment
is a way of providing a safety net in a fiscally responsible manner. I
hope we can continue working with the leadership of this committee to
make this right.
Mr. GIBBS. I think it is very important that we do have a safety net.
But the safety net can't be at a level where prices are set at or close
or even above the cost of production. That distorts markets. But we
need a safety net to protect our American farmers and our rural
communities and continue to ensure that we have the safest and most
affordable food supply in the world.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I my consume.
If Mr. Gibbs is willing, I'd like to request that he withdraw his
amendment with my commitment that we would continue to work on these
issues as we move forward to produce an equitable and market-oriented
farm bill.
I yield to the gentleman for any response he might have.
Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that commitment, I will
respectfully withdraw my amendment from consideration, and I look
forward to working with you and the rest of the committee, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. I appreciate the gentleman's time, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 55 Offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 55
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 123__. SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.
Section 402(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1342(l)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Silvicultural activities.--
``(A) NPDES permit requirements for silvicultural
activities.--The Administrator shall not require a permit or
otherwise promulgate regulations under this section or
directly or indirectly require any State to require a permit
under this section for a discharge of stormwater runoff
resulting from the conduct of the following silviculture
activities: nursery operations, site preparation,
reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning,
prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting
operations, surface drainage, and road use, construction, and
maintenance.
``(B) Permits for dredged or fill material.--Nothing in
this paragraph exempts a silvicultural activity resulting in
the discharge of dredged or fill material from any permitting
requirement under section 404.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I'm here today to join in the
effort to promote this farm bill and request that my amendment be added
to it.
I'm here to protect millions of jobs across the country, millions--
110,000 in my home State of Washington alone--by doing something we
don't hear much of in this Chamber, particularly on this side of the
aisle. I'm here to say that I agree with the EPA. With respect to
treating forest roads, the EPA has it right and has had it right now
for nearly 40 years.
This bipartisan amendment that I'm very proud to offer with my
colleague, Kurt Schrader, simply codifies the EPA's silviculture rule
that says mud and rock runoff from forest roads should not be
categorized the same as industrial parking lots or factories. It makes
no changes to the Clean Water Act, nor does it restrict the EPA from
enforcing current law.
In a recent Ninth Circuit Court decision, a judge--not the EPA--
decided this rule needed to be changed and directed the EPA to require
NPDES permits for all forest roads on public or private land. This
ruling would have
[[Page H3857]]
cost private, Federal, and State and tribal landowners billions of
dollars, and it would have helped kill thousands of jobs across the
country.
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overturned this
outrageous ruling and also believes the EPA treatment of forest roads
is the correct approach.
{time} 1540
However, extremist lawsuits continue to roll in, and all of them are
threatening the viability of forests by potentially costing private and
public landowners millions in unnecessary, unscientifically proven
expenses.
Mr. Chairman, unless Congress acts, our forests will remain under the
attack of baseless lawsuits that simply serve no purpose in protecting
our rivers, streams, and waterways but are highly effective in killing
real jobs. We're talking about jobs in wood product manufacturing:
pulp, paper, forest harvesting, forest management, and the list goes
on.
This provision enjoys a wide range of bipartisan support in both the
House and the Senate. I urge my colleagues to stand with private
landowners, job creators, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the
administration, and the Supreme Court in supporting this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although
I am in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHRADER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that's long overdue. I join in support
of my colleague and friend from Washington State to lend a little
rationality to the discussion about how we operate in our forests.
This legislation hopefully would not be necessary. As the gentlewoman
alluded to, we've had a Supreme Court decision that would seem to
indicate that the EPA rule for the last 37 years has been a good rule.
Indeed, agriculture and forestry aren't classically nonpoint source
polluters. They are not a factory; they are not a municipality's sewer
system. They are nonpoint source emitters, if you will. I think that's
the way to look at this. When you have a decision by the Supreme Court,
I think it's time to hopefully verify that decision.
The concern I have and the reason why this legislation is necessary
is that, while it agreed that the rule should stand, it did not really
rule on the merits of the issue. We're already facing additional
lawsuits from different organizations that have a misguided view of
what actually goes on in the forest system.
And I find it particularly egregious that when there is a great
concern about forest runoff, agricultural runoff into our streams and
our rivers, that when the industry steps up and does the right thing by
pushing culverts, making the roads safer and cleaner, dumping that
stuff onto the forest floor, not in the river, that they get sued and
asked to come up with additional permits that would cost jobs and not
help us get out of this Great Recession.
So I am a strong proponent of this amendment--I think it will get
overwhelming support in this great, august body--and look forward to
bringing it forward.
I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. I thank my colleagues from Oregon and Washington for
their work on this amendment, bringing it forward. Look, this is
extraordinarily important to men and women who work in the woods in the
Northwest and across the United States.
As you've heard, for nearly four decades the Environmental Protection
Agency said that driving down a forest road was not the same as pumping
raw sewage into a river. They're much different activities. This
amendment would prevent the Federal Government from subjecting forested
communities and businesses to further costly permits for everyday
activities like driving down a road.
Rural forested communities in the Northwest have been hurting for a
very long time. Those who live there, we know about all the high
unemployment rate, we know about the high poverty rate, we know about
the percentage of kids on free and reduced lunch because of burdensome
Federal regulations that have shut down activity on our Federal
forests. Now lawsuits threaten to do this on our private forests as
well. The last thing we need is more costly and lawsuit-prone
regulations that will further impact rural communities and the good
people who live there that simply want the opportunity to work in the
woods, raise their families, and grow in the communities.
Passing this bipartisan amendment will provide some certainty moving
forward for rural forested communities, forest managers, and the people
who work in the woods. So I urge my colleagues to stand for jobs, stand
for rural America, and vote for this bipartisan amendment.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentlelady and simply want to note for the
record that I support this amendment, this bipartisan amendment. We
should all vote for it.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. With that, I urge my colleagues to join in this
bipartisan, bicameral effort to protect jobs and protect our forest
health.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment no. 3 offered by ms. foxx
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Ms. FOXX. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 1107, add the following new
subsection:
(e) Cap on Total Obligations and Expenditures.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
total amount of price loss coverage payments and revenue loss
coverage payments made under this section during the period
of fiscal years 2014 through 2020 shall not exceed
$16,956,500. Producer agreements required by section 1108
shall specifically state that payments made under this
section shall be reduced as necessary to comply with this
subsection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one I've taken to calling
the ``Spending Safeguard'' amendment, because it will protect taxpayers
in the event CBO predictions relating to the Farm Risk Management
Election program are horribly wrong.
This particular program is basically an expansion of overly generous
crop insurance subsidies for producers, and it's predicted to cost
about $23 billion over 10 years. But it could potentially cost more--
much more. That's because the program's costs are linked to high target
price estimates that well exceed historical averages. If prices fall,
taxpayers will be forced to make up the difference.
As many of us are aware, the 2008 farm bill cost taxpayers 51 percent
more than its drafters predicted. None of us, from Members of Congress
to the budget wizards at CBO, can predict the future. That is why we
must put a safeguard in place to prevent unappropriated spending from
eating taxpayers alive.
My amendment will cap spending on this program at 110 percent of CBO
predicted levels for the first 5 years in which payments are
dispersed--fiscal years 2016 through 2020. If CBO predictions are
reasonably accurate, nothing will happen; but if the predictions are
horribly wrong, this amendment ensures taxpayers won't be forced to pay
for another costly Washington mistake.
This is a simple amendment, but one that I hope will set an important
precedent. If Congress creates new mandatory spending programs, it must
put a mechanism in place to make sure costs don't spiral out of
control.
[[Page H3858]]
As our national debt approaches $17 trillion, we simply can't afford
to create new, open-ended, mandatory spending programs and set them on
autopilot.
When I talk to constituents about the Federal budget, nearly all are
puzzled by the concept of mandatory spending. Virtually no one of any
political stripe can understand the idea of creating a law one year
that imposes an unlimited, unchecked, unaccountable lien on the
Treasury for all time.
Even with all the handwringing over the discretionary spending
reductions called for in sequestration, we all know that, in the end,
budgetary problems on the spending side of the ledger will never be
resolved until we confront mandatory spending.
My amendment quells all of the uncertainties created by mandatory
spending with one beautifully simple proposal that, for the first time
in the memory of everyone we've talked to, puts a finite number on an
otherwise infinite liability.
To be clear, this amendment applies only to one single provision--the
Farm Risk Management Election program. It does not apply to SNAP and
will not affect food stamp benefits or other mandatory spending
programs in any way.
My amendment will safeguard taxpayers if the Farm Risk Management
Election program ends up costing significantly more than advertised,
prevent automatic and unappropriated spending under this program from
skyrocketing, and set a striking new precedent for fiscal
responsibility.
This amendment should pass with broad, bipartisan support, Mr.
Chairman. Over the past few days, I've noticed that many of my
Democratic colleagues share my concern about the uncertain budgetary
impacts of this program. Republicans and Democrats alike should rally
around this idea, which simultaneously protects taxpayers and ensures
the fiscal viability of this program.
The time has come to put an end to reckless, unchecked, mandatory
spending programs in the farm bill. This amendment may make those
unaccustomed to the way things are done uncomfortable, but the simple
truth is that the way things are done just doesn't work anymore--in
fact, it never has.
Congresses of old had no problem creating obligations for future
generations to fulfill. Today we have an opportunity to change course,
to set things right, to take the first step toward reining in out-of-
control mandatory spending. I urge my colleagues to take this step with
me and support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and ask my colleagues
to join me in rejecting it.
I appreciate the intent of the gentlelady's amendment, which is
obviously to restrain Federal spending, but being fiscally responsible
has been my focus from the very beginning.
{time} 1550
That is why we brought forth a bill that cuts traditional farm
spending by $23 billion. That's 36 percent.
Over the last 17 years, farmers have received substantial fixed
payments with 100 percent certainty. We eliminated those payments and
replaced them with a risk management framework that provides support
only when farmers face significant losses. Under this amendment,
farmers would go from 100 percent guaranteed direct loans to a 100
percent guarantee that the safety net would fall short when they need
it the most.
I urge my colleagues to consider a few key points:
Number one, we built restraint into the new farm policies. The
reference prices are all below cost of production estimates. Farmers
are only paid 80 on 85 percent of their acres. In the case of the PLC,
they are only paid on 90 percent of their yield. Total payments on a
farm are kept at total historic program acres. Ensuring that no new
acres are added to the program, we have very binding payment
limitations and reduced AGI limits. And if that weren't enough, the
formulas that established assistance levels are constrained themselves.
Second, the programs are designed to only turn on when they're
needed. The assistance is provided directly in proportion to need. We
are no longer making payments for the sake of making payments. Even
though it is incredibly unlikely that spending levels were ever to
reach 110 percent of CBO's projected spending levels, it would be so
because there has been a catastrophic drop in the market.
And the third and final point on this amendment--and I say this
respectfully to my dear friend--it would be an absolute nightmare to
administer. Some would say administering it is the administration's
problem; but unlike a lot of legislation that flows through this town,
every provision of this bill has undergone extensive technical review
to ensure its ability to be implemented. Every crop is on its own
marketing year and every State has a slightly different growing season.
Administering an overall program cap on a risk management tool that is
designed to respond to unique risk management challenges is an
incredibly challenging problem. It will tie USDA in knots.
I argue that there's a great discussion to have when we debate the
technical merits of the Budget Act, but let's use the newly reformed
farm safety net as a testing ground for--let's just not do that. Let's
just not use it for this experiment.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am really disappointed in the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee's response to this amendment. This is a really good amendment
that will help us be able to predict in the future how much money is
going to be spent. It will hold the CBO accountable.
If the numbers presented to us are accurate, this will never hit. I
believe the chairman did not dispute my comments that the last farm
bill went over budget 51 percent. We are constantly hearing that the
CBO predicted something and comes in with a totally different number.
If by any chance the CBO is wrong here, then the chairman will do
good work in getting us to understand why more money needs to be
appropriated for these programs.
I applaud the chairman for what he has done, identifying problems and
appropriate solutions, but this is a good amendment. It deserves to be
passed, it has bipartisan support, and it will take us in the right
direction.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 2\1/
2\ minutes.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I also rise respectfully in opposition to
the gentlelady's amendment.
My district located in the Mississippi Delta region grows nearly half
all rice produced in the United States. This amendment jeopardizes the
safety net row crop producers in my district depend on to manage risk
and stay in business.
Given the fact that price volatility is the primary risk mid-South
farmers face, and the cost of production is extremely high, the Price
Loss Coverage program is the only viable option to provide producers
adequate protection. Leading experts and ag economists at Texas A&M
University show the average cost of production for rice is $14.92 per
hundredweight. The $14 per hundredweight reference price established in
the FARRM Bill is realistic and will not kick in unless the producer
experiences a loss.
What is more, CBO projections already take into account the
probability of price movements that can impact the overall cost
productions of the PLC policy, and U.S. farm policy has come in well
under budget projections for at least the last 7 years. This amendment
is unnecessary and will do nothing but create more uncertainty for
agriculture producers.
The House Agriculture Committee has made a good-faith bipartisan
effort
[[Page H3859]]
to craft a farm bill that reflects a farmer's risk across all regions
of the country. This amendment is a step backwards.
With all due respect, I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentlelady's
amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 1107(b), add the following new
paragraph:
(8) Report required.--Not later than three years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
complete a study reviewing the climate impacts of the
availability of price loss coverage, including (but not
limited to) the impact from increased crop production, land
use change, farm equipment use, and increased input of
agricultural chemicals.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would simply
ask us to learn more. It would ask us to know more than we know now
about an important subject affecting our society and, indeed, our whole
world.
In fact, my amendment would simply require a study to review climate
impacts of the Price Loss Coverage program. I can't understand why we
wouldn't want to know the effects of such a program. I think learning
more so that we can do better is a good idea.
Climate change is a defining issue of this century. It is negatively
impacting our economy, our health, and security. There is an
international consensus that climate change is real, is caused and
influenced by mankind, and is affecting our world in a negative way.
Decisions Congress makes on this day, Mr. Chairman, in this farm
bill, in fact, will have a direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions in
the United States; and, of course, this world doesn't know the borders
that these nations do, so it will affect the entire globe.
Agriculture does contribute to climate change. In fact, 8 percent of
all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Agriculture
also brings great gains to humanity as well.
We need to understand what greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture
mean so that we can formulate better policy and utilize better
technology. The emissions from agriculture result from fertilizer
application, livestock, land use, soil management, farm equipment, and
rice production.
The new Price Loss Coverage program provides farmers raising major
crops with subsidies if the crop prices drop below current historic
levels. Farmers are already plowing up marginal lands and native
grasslands in response to record crop prices and crop insurance
subsidies; 23 million acres of natural land were plowed up between 2008
and 2011. Almost 20 million of these were corn, soybeans, and wheat
alone.
The Price Loss Coverage program will further incentivize increased
crop production.
Converting land to cropland releases millions of tons of
CO<inf>2</inf> in the United States every year. Converting more land to
agriculture will increase greenhouse gas emissions. But, Mr. Chairman,
we don't know how much, we don't know the extent, we don't know the
effects. It is important that we do know so that we can incentivize
more green-friendly agriculture production methods so that we can know
the impact in our world, and we can know why it is important to take
action now in this farm bill today.
A study shouldn't harm anybody, and I urge support for this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1600
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from Oklahoma is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I have the greatest respect for
my good colleague from Minnesota, but at the present time and in the
present set of circumstances, I must, in good faith, oppose his
amendment. I believe he is very sincere in his efforts, but, again, I
must oppose his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of part II of subtitle D of title I, add the
following new section:
SEC. 1487. REPEAL OF PERMANENT PRICE SUPPORT AUTHORITY FOR
MILK.
(a) Repeal.--Section 201 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7
U.S.C. 1446) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``milk,''; and
(2) by striking subsections (c) and (d).
(b) Exclusion From Price Support for Other Nonbasic
Agricultural Commodities.--Section 301 of the Agricultural
Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1447) is amended by inserting ``(other
than milk)'' after ``agricultural commodity''.
Page 144, lines 19 and 20, strike ``during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through
December 31, 2018''.
Page 145, lines 8, 9, and 10, strike ``during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through
December 31, 2018''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply repeal
the outdated and expensive dairy price support law enacted as part of
the Agriculture Act of 1949.
This provision created a commodity support policy for dairy
production that, though suspended upon the enactment of each farm bill
that has been reauthorized, it still remains on the books as permanent
law. That this old law is still technically in effect is a problem for
two reasons:
First, the price support calculations essentially establish a
``floor'' for milk prices, which is set at twice the current market
price. This means that the Federal Government would be required to step
in and purchase surplus milk at double the current purchase price,
which would drive up costs for taxpayers but would also result in a
higher cost at the grocery store, potentially making a typical gallon
of milk cost $7. This will hurt the most vulnerable in our society--
poor children and seniors on a limited income.
This potential and likely unintended consequence is troubling, but
more troubling is that this old law threatens to rear its ugly head
every time the farm bill expires before it is reauthorized. In fact, we
faced this very issue at the beginning of this year, though it was
buried in the larger ``fiscal cliff'' deal that passed on January 1.
Mr. Chairman, in this time of congressional gridlock, we've seen
bailouts, failed stimulus bills, near-government shutdowns, and panic
about sequestration and tax hikes. The last thing we need is one more
``cliff'' for Americans to fall off of.
This law is outdated, it is unused and is ultimately a nuisance which
requires a patch every time Congress fails to renew the larger farm
bill, which, unfortunately, is a frequent occurrence.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H3860]]
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON. I thank the chairman.
When I was chairman and did the last farm bill, we maintained the
permanent law, and we did it for a reason, which is that it is very
hard to get these farm bills done, and sometimes you need some
motivation to get people to move. That's the main reason we left it
there.
I have a question of the author of the amendment if he would be
willing to engage me in a discussion.
I guess I was curious as to why you are only repealing the dairy
provision of the permanent law and not the entire permanent law. Is
there some reason for that?
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman from Oklahoma yield?
Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. The reason is that the milk price support is
actually a ``floor'' for the cost at which the government buys surplus
milk. What that will do is raise the cost that the government is going
to have to pay for this surplus milk, which is just going to cost the
taxpayers more money.
Mr. PETERSON. What it does is it sets the price of dairy at 85
percent of parity, and that would have been about 39 bucks. It also
sets the price of wheat and corn and soybeans at anywhere from--I don't
know. It's 80 to 95 percent of parity. Those prices are just as
problematic. You know what happened last December. The law expired on
September 30, but nothing actually happens until that current year's
crop is harvested. Wheat does not harvest until May, and corn doesn't
harvest until October or November, but milk is harvested every day.
That's why it became an issue.
So I am against getting rid of the permanent law, but I was just
curious as to why you picked on just dairy. I mean, I see your point
that you're going to raise costs to the government, but if you want to
really raise costs to the government, support the Goodlatte-Scott
amendment because that's really going to stick it to the government.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
I thank my colleagues for having a good faith discussion. I do
appreciate the point that the ranking member brings. If we're going to
address one part of the '49 Act, we probably should address all of it.
There have been ongoing discussions as long as I've been here about how
to do that.
Many provisions of Federal law have an underlying base law. We do
laws then that build off of that, and when they expire you revert to
permanent law. That's the case of the '49 law. Maybe the 2013 farm bill
should become the permanent law to give us at least a realistic, modern
thing to come from, but that's probably a discussion for a different
amendment.
I would say, quite simply, that I respect my colleague but that I,
too, cannot vote to undo things by piecemeal. I've got to have a
systematic way about it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. From the comments my good friend from Minnesota
and my good friend from Oklahoma stated, maybe we should repeal the
whole '49 law. I would be all in favor of working with both gentlemen
to try to find some way to do that. I'm sure both gentlemen would be
very eager to not have the incentive to go back to that law as a
piecemeal way of trying to deal with these problems.
My friend from Minnesota is exactly right. I used to farm. I've been
a dairy farmer. I had Holstein cows. I was a true farmer--I've raised
feeder steers; I've hay-farmed; I've truck-farmed; and I've row-
cropped. I know agriculture. I wasn't a gentleman farmer. I'd climb in
the back of the combine between stops and change the air drum. So I
know agriculture.
I know the biggest problem agriculture faces today is the regulation,
particularly from EPA. I'd like to see those regulations rolled back
because that would help our agriculture more than any other thing that
we could do, and I would be all in favor of doing that.
The reason I brought the milk part of the old law forward was exactly
the reason my good friend from Minnesota stated, in that you have to
milk cows not once a day but at least twice a day, sometimes three. The
milk support price that is guaranteed in this underlying law will raise
costs if we go back to that and it stays in place. If we don't have the
farm bill suspended or reauthorized, then what happens is the Federal
Government is going to pay much higher prices for milk, and that's
going to increase the cost in the grocery store for all Americans, and
it's going to hurt the poor people, particularly poor children and
senior citizens.
Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 20 seconds remaining.
{time} 1610
Mr. PETERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON. Just a point. I understand what you're saying, but you
need to look at the Goodlatte-Scott amendment. What it does is allow
them to buy insurance at $18 a hundredweight, and if the price goes to
$11 like it did in 2009, the taxpayers are on the hook. So you've got
the same problem going on with what Goodlatte and Scott are trying to
do in this bill.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Enyart
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. ENYART. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title I, add the following new
section:
SEC. 1502. NATIONAL DROUGHT COUNCIL AND NATIONAL DROUGHT
POLICY ACTION PLAN.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the National
Drought Council established by this section.
(2) Drought.--The term ``drought'' means a natural disaster
that is caused by a deficiency in precipitation--
(A) that may lead to a deficiency in surface and subsurface
water supplies (including rivers, streams, wetlands, ground
water, soil moisture, reservoir supplies, lake levels, and
snow pack); and
(B) that causes or may cause--
(i) substantial economic or social impacts; or
(ii) physical damage or injury to individuals, property, or
the environment.
(3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(4) Member.--The term ``member'', with respect to the
National Drought Council, means a member of the Council
specified or appointed under this section or, in the absence
of the member, the member's designee.
(5) Mitigation.--The term ``mitigation'' means a short- or
long-term action, program, or policy that is implemented in
advance of or during a drought to minimize any risks and
impacts of drought.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' "means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means the several States,
the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin
Islands.
(8) Trigger.--The term ``trigger'' means the thresholds or
criteria that must be satisfied before mitigation or
emergency assistance may be provided to an area--
(A) in which drought is emerging; or
(B) that is experiencing a drought.
(9) Watershed.--The term ``watershed'' means a region or
area with common hydrology, an area drained by a waterway
that
[[Page H3861]]
drains into a lake or reservoir, the total area above a given
point on a stream that contributes water to the flow at that
point, or the topographic dividing line from which surface
streams flow in two different directions. In no case shall a
watershed be larger than a river basin.
(10) Watershed group.--The term ``watershed group'' means a
group of individuals, formally recognized by the appropriate
State or States, who represent the broad scope of relevant
interests within a watershed and who work together in a
collaborative manner to jointly plan the management of the
natural resources contained within the watershed.
(b) Effect of Section.--This section does not affect--
(1) the authority of a State to allocate quantities of
water under the jurisdiction of the State; or
(2) any State water rights established as of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) National Drought Council.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Office of
the Secretary of Agriculture a council to be known as the
``National Drought Council''.
(2) Membership.--
(A) Composition.--The Council shall be composed of--
(i) the Secretary (or the designee of the Secretary);
(ii) the Secretary of Commerce (or the designee of the
Secretary of Commerce);
(iii) the Secretary of the Army (or the designee of the
Secretary of the Army);
(iv) the Secretary of the Interior (or the designee of the
Secretary of the Interior);
(v) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(or the designee of the Director);
(vi) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (or the designee of the Administrator);
(vii) 4 members appointed by the Secretary, in coordination
with the National Governors Association, each of whom shall
be the Governor of a State (or the designee of the Governor)
and who collectively shall represent the geographic diversity
of the Nation;
(viii) 1 member appointed by the Secretary, in coordination
with the National Association of Counties;
(ix) 1 member appointed by the Secretary, in coordination
with the United States Conference of Mayors;
(x) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, in
coordination with Indian tribes, to represent the interests
of tribal governments; and
(xi) 1 member appointed by the Secretary, in coordination
with the National Association of Conservation Districts, to
represent local soil and water conservation districts.
(B) Date of appointment.--The appointment of each member of
the Council shall be made not later than 120 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Term; vacancies.--
(A) Term.--A non-Federal member of the Council appointed
under paragraph (2) shall be appointed for a term of two
years.
(B) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Council--
(i) shall not affect the powers of the Council; and
(ii) shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment was made.
(C) Terms of members filling vacancies.--Any member
appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration
of the term for which the member's predecessor was appointed
shall be appointed only for the remainder of that term.
(4) Meetings.--
(A) In general.--The Council shall meet at the call of the
co-chairs.
(B) Frequency.--The Council shall meet at least
semiannually.
(5) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Council shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings or
conduct other business.
(6) Council leadership.--
(A) In general.--There shall be a Federal co-chair and non-
Federal co-chair of the Council.
(B) Appointment.--
(i) Federal co-chair.--The Secretary shall be Federal co-
chair.
(ii) Non-federal co-chair.--The non-Federal members of the
Council shall elect, on a biannual basis, a non-Federal co-
chair of the Council from among the members appointed under
paragraph (2).
(d) Duties of the Council.--
(1) In general.--The Council shall-- (A) not later than one
year after the date of the first meeting of the Council,
develop a comprehensive National Drought Policy Action Plan
that--
(i)(I) delineates and integrates responsibilities for
activities relating to drought (including drought
preparedness, mitigation, research, risk management,
training, and emergency relief) among Federal agencies; and
(II) ensures that those activities are coordinated with the
activities of the States, local governments, Indian tribes,
and neighboring countries;
(ii) is consistent with--
(I) this Act and other applicable Federal laws; and
(II) the laws and policies of the States for water
management;
(iii) is integrated with drought management programs of the
States, Indian tribes, local governments, watershed groups,
and private entities; and
(iv) avoids duplicating Federal, State, tribal, local,
watershed, and private drought preparedness and monitoring
programs in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
(B) evaluate Federal drought-related programs in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act and make recommendations
to Congress and the President on means of eliminating--
(i) discrepancies between the goals of the programs and
actual service delivery;
(ii) duplication among programs; and
(iii) any other circumstances that interfere with the
effective operation of the programs;
(C) make recommendations to the President, Congress, and
appropriate Federal Agencies on--
(i) the establishment of common interagency triggers for
authorizing Federal drought mitigation programs; and
(ii) improving the consistency and fairness of assistance
among Federal drought relief programs;
(D) encourage and facilitate the development of drought
preparedness plans under subtitle C, including establishing
the guidelines under this section;
(E) based on a review of drought preparedness plans,
develop and make available to the public drought planning
models to reduce water resource conflicts relating to water
conservation and droughts;
(F) develop and coordinate public awareness activities to
provide the public with access to understandable and
informative materials on drought, including--
(i) explanations of the causes of drought, the impacts of
drought, and the damages from drought;
(ii) descriptions of the value and benefits of land
stewardship to reduce the impacts of drought and to protect
the environment;
(iii) clear instructions for appropriate responses to
drought, including water conservation, water reuse, and
detection and elimination of water leaks;
(iv) information on State and local laws applicable to
drought; and
(v) opportunities for assistance to resource-dependent
businesses and industries in times of drought; and
(G) establish operating procedures for the Council.
(2) Consultation.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Council shall consult with groups affected by drought
emergencies.
(3) Reports to congress.--
(A) Annual report.--
(i) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the first meeting of the Council, and annually thereafter,
the Council shall submit to Congress a report on the
activities carried out under this section.
(ii) Inclusions.--
(I) In general.--The annual report shall include a summary
of drought preparedness plans.
(II) Initial report.--The initial report submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall include any recommendations of the
Council.
(B) Final report.--Not later than seven years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Council shall submit to
Congress a report that recommends--
(i) amendments to this section; and
(ii) whether the Council should continue.
(e) Powers of the Council.--
(1) Hearings.--The Council may hold hearings, meet and act
at any time and place, take any testimony and receive any
evidence that the Council considers advisable to carry out
this section.
(2) Information from federal agencies.--
(A) In general.--The Council may obtain directly from any
Federal agency any information that the Council considers
necessary to carry out this section.
(B) Provision of information.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), on
request of the Secretary or the non-Federal co-chair of the
Council, the head of a Federal agency may provide information
to the Council.
(ii) Limitation.--The head of a Federal agency shall not
provide any information to the Council that the Federal
agency head determines the disclosure of which may cause harm
to national security interests.
(3) Postal services.--The Council may use the United States
mail in the same manner and under the same conditions as
other agencies of the Federal Government.
(4) Gifts.--The Council may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(f) Council Personnel Matters.--
(1) Compensation of members.--
(A) Non-federal employees.--A member of the Council who is
not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall
serve without compensation.
(B) Federal employees.--A member of the Council who is an
officer or employee of the United States shall serve without
compensation in addition to the compensation received for
services of the member as an officer or employee of the
Federal Government.
(2) Travel expenses.--A member of the Council shall be
allowed travel expenses at rates authorized for an employee
of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5,
United States Code, while away from the home or regular place
of business of the member in the performance of the duties of
the Council.
(g) Termination of Council.--The Council shall terminate at
the end of the eighth fiscal year beginning on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
[[Page H3862]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Enyart) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ENYART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment to this bill to help
agriculture in southern Illinois, my State of Illinois and, indeed, in
the entire Nation the next time drought strikes.
After Hurricane Sandy, the drought of 2012 was the second most costly
natural disaster in the world. The drought cost upwards of $35 billion
in total losses. It devastated southern Illinois crops and crops
throughout the Midwest. The fact that there is no national response or
preparedness plan for drought increases these costs by at least 25
percent. Indeed, FEMA is not even authorized to address drought even
when areas are declared natural disasters due to drought.
In the 110th Congress, my colleague from Florida, Congressman Alcee
Hastings, offered legislation to establish a national drought council.
I applaud his foresight and his work, which was included in the House
version of the farm bill. Unfortunately, House and Senate conferees
failed to include it in the final bill. Had it been included, perhaps
the Federal response to last year's drought would have been streamlined
and devastating losses mitigated.
My amendment, which is based on Congressman Hastings' work, would
give the Secretary of Agriculture an important tool to help our farmers
more quickly. The council would be tasked to develop a comprehensive
national drought action plan that defines responsibilities for drought
preparedness, mitigation, research, risk management, training, and
emergency relief programs. The plan provides guidance to Federal
agencies to ensure their activities are coordinated with the activities
of States, local governments, Indian tribes, and neighboring countries.
Through an annual report to Congress, the council will make
recommendations to eliminate duplication and to establish common
interagency triggers to authorize Federal drought programs.
Based on a review of drought preparedness plans, the council will
develop and make available to the public drought planning models. What
this appointed council would not do is draw a paycheck, establish a new
office, or increase the Federal bureaucracy.
It's not a question of will a drought strike; it's a question of
when. When it does, we need to be better prepared.
I urge adoption of this amendment and ask the support of my
colleagues.
Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENYART. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman.
I simply want to note, as being an Oklahoman, I have an appreciation
for drought issues, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this
important topic to our attention. I think we should all vote for the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. ENYART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment no. 7 offered by mr. graves of georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 1603, add the following new
subsection:
(d) Effect of Corn Sales to Ethanol Production
Facilities.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
producer on a farm that sells corn, directly or through a
third party, to an ethanol production facility is ineligible
to receive any payment or benefit described in section
1001D(b)(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-
3a(b)(2)) for that corn.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I bring amendment No. 7 to the
consideration of the House here as we debate this very important issue.
When I think about the issue that's before us--I know there are a lot
of good Members on both sides of it, for and against, and there's going
to be a lot great debate about whether or not this bill should move
forward in any fashion or another.
There's one particular portion that I really wanted to discuss today,
and it deals with the incentives and the benefits that go to corn
producers for the production of corn that goes to ethanol. To me, I
don't believe that is something that should be provided to these
producers whatsoever, these incentives or benefits.
In fact, when the bill was originally crafted many years ago back in
1933, I have to ask: Did the original architects of the farm bill ever
imagine that what they were creating at that time would go to benefit
the producers of corn that would go to fuel and not food?
So my amendment is rather simple. It just eliminates the opportunity
for any producer to benefit from producing corn that would go to fuel.
Instead, it focuses back on what the original intent of the legislation
was, and that was to exclusively be for food production or feed
production.
So as we debate this bill, folks are going to be on all different
sides of all these amendments. I think it's really important to get
back to the original intent. If you're going to support the bill, get
back to the original intent of what was intended back in 1933 and the
years since then.
But let me just remind the House of why this is so important.
Estimates tell us that more than one-third of all our corn in the
United States is used for feed livestock; another 13 percent is
exported, mostly for feed livestock; but another 40 percent of all corn
produced in this Nation is for ethanol. And of all of that, nearly half
of all corn in our Nation that is produced, those producers receive
those same benefits that those that were intending to create corn for
food and feed would benefit from, as well.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is rather simple. I would urge the House's
consideration of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would note to my colleague that I appreciate his issue of concern.
I appreciate what I think he is trying to do. But in the nature of the
FARRM Bill and the nature of the debate we're at right now, this is not
really the environment, and I would ask him to consider withdrawing his
amendment in good faith for a discussion sometime in the near future.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the chairman. I thank you for your
good work on this. I know we've all had a lot of discussions, and I'll
take you for your word that we can continue this conversation, because
I think it's a very important topic.
With your intent that I know to be true, that we can continue this, I
would be willing to withdraw the amendment and continue the debate at a
further time.
Mr. LUCAS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my intention would be to
withdraw the amendment. But let me just close with this and say that,
as we debate the various policies within this bill, it is very
important to note that there are areas such as this in which I hear the
other side talk about the importance of food being provided for our
citizens all across the country. I don't disagree with them at all. I
think that's very important.
So, therefore, why would we, as a House, stand to incentivize those
who are producing nearly half of the corn that could be going to the
food supply of our great Nation, but incentivize half the corn, almost,
in our Nation rather for fuel instead of food?
[[Page H3863]]
I look forward to continuing this debate, Mr. Chairman, I yield back
the balance of my time and withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
{time} 1620
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 162, line 14, strike the closed quotation mark and the
final period.
Page 162, after line 14, insert the following:
``(3) Reservation.--Effective beginning in fiscal year
2015, the Secretary, to the maximum extent feasible, shall
manage the conservation reserve to ensure that, on an annual
basis, not less than 20.5 percent of land maintained in the
program shall be--
``(A) described in subparagraphs (B) through (E) of
subsection (b)(4); and
``(B) enrolled under--
``(i) the special conservation reserve enhancement program
authority under section 1234(f)(4); or
``(ii) the pilot program for the enrollment of wetland and
buffer acreage under section 1231B.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Conservation Reserve Program has
sparked major improvements in water quality, wildlife habitat and
wetlands. However, high crop and land prices are spurring landowners to
once again pull millions of vulnerable acres back under the plow as
their CRP leases expire.
In the last 10 years, we've seen a number of acres equal to the area
of the State of Indiana taken out of the Conservation Reserve Program
and put back into production. This means that the CRP's environmental
benefits are not well leveraged, and taxpayer dollars don't earn the
return they should because they've spent 5 years protecting land simply
to have it disappear at the end of the easement period.
This amendment makes a set of simple revenue-neutral changes to the
CRP to provide more lasting protection of water, wildlife, and soil,
and to make sure that we are fully leveraging Federal spending. It
requires, to the extent possible, 20 percent of the funds dedicated to
the Conservation Reserve Program to be used in the Continuous
Conservation Reserve Program, the CCRP, and the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program, CREP. These programs are a subset of the
Conservation Reserve Program and help leverage State matching funds to
produce even greater conservation benefits.
In particular, the CREP program gives States flexibility to target
high-priority conservation and environmentally sensitive areas, which
helps coordinate Federal and local priorities and spending and ensures
that any spending is targeted to produce the best results.
The Continuous Conservation Reserve Program is a program that is
consistently oversubscribed that helps farmers re-enroll in the program
continuously, rather than just once a year. Adding acreage to this
program gives farmers more flexibility. It also protects the long-term
conservation benefits of the CRP program so that taxpayers get what
they pay for. These small changes are revenue neutral and will help CRP
produce better outcomes for the environment and for taxpayers, leverage
State matching funds, and provide long-term stability for farmers.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 1947 will step down the acreage cap of the CRP program from 32
million acres to 24 million acres. Designating in law the required
amount of acres for subprograms of CRP will reduce the FSA's
flexibility in administering the program. I do understand that the set-
aside in the amendment is consistent with how FSA currently runs the
program. However, when crafting the conservation title, we tried to
leave as much flexibility as possible. I fear the set-aside could limit
future general sign-ups or tie FSA's hands in future targeted
initiatives.
I will work with the gentleman to ensure that CRP targets the most
environmentally sensitive lands, but I must urge my colleagues to
oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure Mr. Blumenauer that the
chairman and I share his concerns and philosophy. But in my judgment,
this is not an amendment that is necessary because there has never been
a situation that I'm aware of where the continuous sign-up has been
limited by anything going on. In fact, they can't get enough continuous
acres signed up to meet the goals that they've had. The same thing with
the CREP acres.
So the Department has administratively always made room for any
continuous and any CREP requests that are out there. There's never been
a limitation. There's never been a backlog. There's never been any
impediment to signing up these acres.
The issue we have now with CRP is these high land prices and high
commodity prices. You're right about that. And we are seeing acres come
out all over the country, and that concerns me. I've been the biggest
champion of CRP, and I reluctantly agreed to lower these acres to 24
million acres because that's what's going to happen anyway. These acres
are going to be reduced. But it's not going to be continuous, and it's
not going to be in CREP. It's going to be in the regular CRP program.
And if I could figure out how to stop that, I would. But you'd have to
literally triple or quadruple the amount of money that's paid for the
general sign-up in order to get those acres back into the program,
given my understanding of what's going on.
So, you know, I just don't see why we need to have this in there. We
have always accommodated this. If we're going to do anything in CRP,
what we should be doing is figuring out how we can raise the rental
rates to get the general CRP sign-up back up to where it needs to be.
I'm very concerned about losing this big tract CRP because this is what
has brought wildlife around the country back, and we're losing it.
Anyway, there is not an impediment to continuous or CREP, and there
won't be in the future. If there is anything left over that isn't up to
the 24 million acres, it's going to be out of the general sign-up. It
isn't going to be out of CREP or continuous. So I oppose the amendment.
I don't think there is any reason to do this because the Department has
been taking care of it.
Mr. LUCAS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon as 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to help
focus on more long-lasting protection for the water, wildlife, and
soil. I appreciate what the ranking member said in terms of issues for
additional funding for wildlife habitat, and I have another amendment
coming forward which I think helps address that.
In the meantime, having an opportunity here to--and I mentioned in
the amendment ``to the extent possible,'' the 20 percent is dedicated
for the Continuous Reserve Program and the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program. Being able to focus and leverage the local funds
seems to me to provide long-term stability and leveraging the State
matching. I see my colleague from Virginia is here, but he wants to
speak to the next amendment.
I respectfully request that Members join with me in an amendment that
is supported by the Environmental Working Group, the National
Sustainable Agricultural Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Trust,
Organic Trade Association, Slow Food, Food Democracy
[[Page H3864]]
Now, Organic Consumers Union, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
Allowing us to be able to move forward in this regard, I think, would
be a positive. I didn't hear any compelling reasons from my friends
other than they thought it would be taken care of. I think this
amendment will ensure that it will move forward and respectfully ask
that it be approved.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will
be postponed.
{time} 1630
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 197, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 198, line 10 and insert the following:
SEC. 2201. PURPOSES.
Section 1240 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1240. PURPOSES.
``The purpose of the environmental quality incentives
program established by this chapter is to assist producers in
implementing conservation systems, practices, and activities
on their operations in order to--
``(1) improve water quality, with special emphasis on
reducing nutrient pollution and protecting sources of
drinking water;
``(2) avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, the need
for resource and regulatory programs by assisting producers
in protecting soil, water, air, and related natural resources
and meeting environmental quality criteria established by
Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies;
``(3) conserve ground and surface water to sustain or
improve in-stream flows;
``(4) enhance soil quality;
``(5) control invasive species;
``(6) enhance critical aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
habitat for at-risk species;
``(7) reduce the amount and toxicity of pesticides and
other agricultural chemicals found on food and in water or
the air;
``(8) reduce the nontherapeutic use of medically important
antibiotics in food-producing animals in order to preserve
the effectiveness of antibiotics used in the treatment of
human and animal disease;
``(9) help producers adapt to a changing and unpredictable
climate and increase resiliency to climate change impacts,
including rising temperatures and extreme weather events,
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and
``(10) address additional priority resource concerns, as
determined by the Secretary.''.
Page 198, line 19, strike ``10 years'' and insert ``5
years''.
Page 198, after line 19, insert the following:
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Priority.--If the Secretary determines that the
environmental values of two or more applications for payments
are comparable, the Secretary shall assign a higher priority
to a program application which will achieve the environment
and conservation values using practices and systems the
assessed cost of which is lower.'';
(4) by amending subsection (d)(3) to read as follows:
``(3) Increased payments for certain practices.--The
Secretary shall provide supplemental payments and enhanced
technical assistance to producers implementing land
management and vegetative practices at a level that, as
determined by the Secretary, results in highly cost-effective
treatment of priority resource concerns, including--
``(A) residue and tillage management;
``(B) contour farming;
``(C) cover cropping;
``(D) integrated pest management;
``(E) nutrient management;
``(F) stream corridor improvement;
``(G) invasive plant species control;
``(H) contour buffer strips;
``(I) riparian herbaceous and forest buffers;
``(J) filterstrips;
``(K) stream habitat improvement and management;
``(L) grassed waterways;
``(M) wetland restoration and enhancement;
``(N) pollinator habitat; or
``(O) conservation crop rotation.'';
Page 199, after line 16, insert the following:
(4) by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following
new paragraph:
``(7) Limitation on payments for certain practices.--A
producer who owns or operates a large confined animal feeding
operation (as defined by the Secretary) shall not be eligible
for payments under this chapter to construct an animal waste
management facility or any associated waste transport or
transfer device.''.
Page 199, line 21, strike ``60 percent'' and insert ``50
percent''.
Page 200, line 2, strike ``5 percent'' and insert ``not
less than 10 percent''.
Page 200, line 17, strike ``and'' and insert the following:
(6) by amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
``(h) Water Conservation or Irrigation Efficiency
Practice.--
``(1) Availability of payments.--The Secretary may provide
payments under this subsection to a producer for a water
conservation or irrigation practice that promotes ground and
surface water conservation on the agricultural operation of
the producer by--
``(A) improvements to irrigation systems;
``(B) enhancement of irrigation efficiencies;
``(C) conversion of the agricultural operation to--
``(i) the production of less water-intensive agricultural
commodities; or
``(ii) dryland farming;
``(D) improvement of the storage and conservation of water
through measures such as water banking and groundwater
recharge;
``(E) enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat associated
with irrigation systems including pivot corners and areas
with irregular boundaries;
``(F) enhancement of in-stream flows in associated rivers
and streams; or
``(G) establishment of other measures, as determined by the
Secretary, that improve groundwater and surface water
conservation in agricultural operations.
``(2) Priority.--In providing payments to a producer for a
water conservation or irrigation practice, the Secretary
shall give priority to applications in which--
``(A) consistent with the law of the State in which the
eligible land of the producer is located, there is a
reduction in water use in the operation of the producer; and
``(B) the practice reduces the amount of water consumed in
a producer's operation or reduces the amount of water
diverted without increasing the water consumed.
``(3) Duty of producers.--The Secretary may not provide
payments to a producer for a water conservation or irrigation
practice under this chapter unless the producer agrees not to
use any associated water savings to bring new land, other
than incidental land needed for efficient operations, under
irrigated production, unless the producer is participating in
a watershed-wide project that will effectively conserve
water, as determined by the Secretary.'';
(7) in subsection (i)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsection'' and
inserting ``chapter'';
(B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) Eligibility requirements.--As a condition for
receiving payments under this chapter, a producer shall agree
to develop and implement conservation practices for certified
organic production that are consistent with the regulations
promulgated under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) and the purposes of this chapter.'';
(C) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraphs
(4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraphs:
``(3) Coordination with organic certification.--The
Secretary shall establish a transparent means by which
producers may initiate organic certification under the
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.)
while participating in a contract under this chapter.
``(4) Planning.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide planning
assistance to producers transitioning to certified organic
production consistent with the requirements of the Organic
Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) and the
purposes of this chapter.
``(B) Avoidance of duplication.--The Secretary shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, eliminate duplication of
planning activities for a producer participating in a
contract under this chapter and initiating or maintaining
organic certification consistent with the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.).''; and
Page 201, line 8, strike the closed quotation mark and the
final period.
Page 201, after line 8, insert the following:
``(k) Payments for Conservation Practices Related to
Antibiotic Use.--
``(1) Payments authorized.--The Secretary shall provide
payments under this chapter to livestock producers for three
years, to assist in a transition to modified animal
management and production systems, for practices leading to
the reduction in the need for antibiotics, including
modification of systems and spaces to--
``(A) improve sanitation;
``(B) improve ventilation; or
``(C) support the implementation of improved animal
management techniques at the operation.
``(2) Duty of producer.--The Secretary shall not make
payments under this chapter for practices related to
antibiotic use unless the producer agrees to provide
information to the Secretary documenting the resulting
[[Page H3865]]
reduction in antibiotic use in the operation of the producer.
``(l) Comprehensive Conservation Planning.--The Secretary
shall provide technical and financial assistance to producers
under the program to develop a comprehensive conservation
plan for the agricultural operation of the producer.''.
Page 201, strike lines 9 through 17 and insert the
following:
SEC. 2203. EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS.
(a) Evaluation Criteria.--Section 1240C(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3(a)) is amended by
striking ``, national, State, and local conservation
priorities'' and inserting ``priority resource concerns
identified under subsection (d)''.
(b) Prioritization of Applications.--Section 1240C(b) of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``achieving the
anticipated environmental benefits of the project'' and
inserting ``priority resource concerns identified under
subsection (d)'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``designated resource
concern or resource concerns'' and inserting ``priority
resource concerns identified under subsection (d), including,
in the case of applications from nutrient-impacted
watersheds, the degree to which nutrient loadings would be
reduced as a result of the proposed project''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``purpose of the
environmental quality incentives program specified in section
1240(1)'' and inserting ``purposes of the program''.
(c) Grouping of Applications.--Section 1240C(c) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3(c)) is amended by
striking ``for evaluation purposes or otherwise evaluate
applications relative to other applications for similar
farming operations'' and inserting ``proposing to address the
same priority resource concerns for evaluation purposes''.
(d) Priority Resource Concerns.--Section 1240C of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Priority Resource Concerns.--For the purposes of this
section, the Secretary shall identify priority resource
concerns in a particular watershed or other appropriate
region or area within a State.''.
Beginning on page 201, strike line 22 and all that follows
through page 202, line 8 and insert the following:
SEC. 2205. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM PLAN.
(a) Plan of Operations.--Section 1240E(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-5(a)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Plan of Operations.--To be eligible to receive
payments under the program, a producer shall submit to the
Secretary for approval a plan of operations that--
``(1) specifies the priority resource concerns to be
addressed;
``(2) specifies the type, number, and sequencing of
conservation systems, practices, or activities to be
implemented to address the priority resource concerns;
``(3) includes such terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers necessary to carry out the program, including a
description of the purposes to be met by the implementation
of the plan and a statement of how the plan will achieve or
take significant steps toward achieving the relevant resource
management system quality criteria;
``(4) in the case of a confined livestock feeding
operation, provides for development and implementation of a
comprehensive nutrient management plan, if applicable;
``(5) in the case of a producer located within a nutrient-
impacted watershed, identifies methods by which the producer
will limit nutrient loss; and
``(6) in the case of forest land, is consistent with the
provisions of a forest management plan that is approved by
the Secretary, which may include--
``(A) a forest stewardship plan described in section 5 of
the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2103a);
``(B) another practice plan approved by the State forester;
or
``(C) another plan determined appropriate by the
Secretary.''.
(b) Avoidance of Duplication.--Section 1240E(b)(1) of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-5(b)(1))) is
amended by striking ``plan of operations'' and inserting
``resource management system plan''.
SEC. 2206. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
Section 1240F(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-6(2)) is amended by striking ``information''
and inserting ``technical assistance, information,''.
SEC. 2207. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.
Section 1240G of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-7) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1240G. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.
``(a) Limitation on Total Payments.--Subject to subsection
(b), a person or legal entity may not receive, directly or
indirectly, cost-share or incentive payments under this
chapter, in the aggregate, for all contracts entered into
under this chapter by the person or entity (excluding funding
arrangements with federally recognized Native American Indian
Tribes or Alaska Native Corporations under section 1240B(h)),
regardless of the number of contracts entered into under this
chapter by the person or entity, that--
``(1) during any fiscal year exceed $30,000; and
``(2) during any five-year period exceed $150,000.
``(b) Waiver Authority.--In the case of contracts under
this chapter for projects of special environmental
significance, as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary
may waive the limitation otherwise applicable under
subsection (a)(1).
``(c) Prevention of Duplication.--The Secretary shall not
approve a contract or provide payments to any individual for
a practice that has already been paid for as part of a
previously approved and completed contract for any particular
parcel of land.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
I appreciate the Rules Committee having made this amendment in order.
It makes important revenue-neutral changes to the EQIP program to
protect the original intent of the program, to use tax dollars better
to help more farmers, and to produce better results for the taxpayers.
In difficult budget times, we must prioritize maximizing value and
saving money. This amendment makes several changes to the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program to restore the 1996 language. It implements
stricter payment limits to make sure we're not spending too much money
on any one project. And at a time when demand for conservation funding
is as much as four times greater than the supply, we can't afford to
let a few huge projects crowd out available funding.
This amendment also reinstates the original 1996 EQIP language which
eliminated spending for factory farms. That language was included in
1996 because Members were nervous that too much of the EQIP would end
up going to just a few family farm projects, and they were right.
The legislation also provides additional support for farmers who want
to transition to production techniques that use fewer pesticides or
antibiotics. As the United States doctors and scientists become
increasingly concerned about the use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in
meat production, we should be doing everything we can to make it easier
for farmers and ranchers to reduce their dependence on antibiotics.
Finally, it clarifies that EQIP is intended to be used as a short-
term program and protects the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program set-
aside, which has been in place since the program began.
The opposition comes from those who are using conservation dollars
for purposes that most Americans would not consider to be conservation
related. Recent data shows that one in four EQIP dollars in the last 10
years has been spent on large structural projects that produce limited
conservation benefits and are extremely expensive. I noted in the press
this last week one project, almost $2 million, yet the average is about
$13,500.
I appreciate the opportunity to start this discussion and think about
how best to spend limited conservation dollars for maximum conservation
benefits. I respectfully suggest that that's to be found with this
amendment, and I urge its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might
consume.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
The conservation title has gone through many reforms by combining and
eliminating duplicative programs. The result, I believe, is a fair,
balanced, and flexible conservation title that addresses the natural
resource concerns of farmers, ranchers, and landowners. However, the
gentleman's amendment seeks to undo this balance by stripping the EQIP
program of the authorities that make it unique.
The EQIP program is arguably the most successful conservation program
administered by the NRCS. Through cost share assistance, these programs
help farmers and ranchers meet and exceed national, State, and local
environmental regulations.
Known as the bricks and mortar of the program, farmers and ranchers
depend on EQIP for assistance to build waste storage facilities,
eliminate nutrient runoff, and purchase equipment like methane
digesters.
[[Page H3866]]
The gentleman's amendment would fundamentally change EQIP with
arbitrary limits that would reduce livestock producers' participation
and restrict the types of conservation programs that could be
implemented. With EPA and environmental groups targeting livestock
operations, we should not diminish the program's current authorities.
The amendment would make EQIP no different than any other working
lands program and eliminate an essential tool that farmers and ranchers
depend on to meet increasing environmental regulations.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 75 seconds to my friend from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because
it would improve the Environmental Quality Incentives Program by
targeting support for the smaller and midsize farms where the
investment will buy a bigger bang for the buck.
Just 1 percent of agribusinesses get more than 20 percent of EQIP
payments, and about 70 percent of that funding is used to build
structures to store manure and lay irrigation pipeline, purchase
sprinkler systems and other equipment.
This amendment doesn't do anything to prohibit or restrict large
farming operations. In fact, the limits in this amendment would have
impacted less than half a percent of all EQIP contracts between 1997
and 2010, where we have statistics.
Our limited Federal funding, I think, would be better targeted by
helping small and midsize farms engage in more sustainable practices,
such as transitioning to farming methods that use fewer antibiotics and
pesticides.
I think it makes sense to target where we can get the biggest bang
for the buck because more intensive production practices, if not
properly managed and mitigated, contaminate our drinking water, pollute
the air, and diminish the quality of the soil, placing future
production yields at risk.
And it seems to me in austere budget times we ought not cut or do
away with conservation incentives but, instead, make them more
efficient. And that's what the gentleman's amendment would do, so I
rise in support of it. I think it's a good amendment. It helps small
and medium-sized farms.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the
House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman.
I rise in opposition to the amendment, not that I disagree with the
intent here, and I think that if you look at the EQIP program, you will
see that it has primarily been utilized by smaller producers around the
country. But I just want to give you an example of the real world here
of how this works in my district.
We have the Sauk River in my district, which is a beautiful river
that has probably 100 dairy farms located alongside this river. These
dairy farms have been there for 75, 100 years. You know, these have
been in the family. A lot of these farms are 50 cows, 75 cows, probably
100 cows would be the largest one. So these are small family farms.
They've been in their families for generations.
The problem is that the barns and the pastures and the barnyards were
located next to the river, all along this river. That's just how they
did things 75 years ago. And so what happened is that river got
polluted from the manure running off, and the Sauk Lake, which is a
beautiful lake, became overfertilized and it grew up with weeds and so
forth. And you've seen that in the Chesapeake Bay and so forth.
Well, what we did is we went in there with EQIP money and moved these
barnyards and moved these cattle out away from the river. We didn't
build any huge structures or anything. We built some to try to dam up
things and so forth.
But the point is that, even with the limitations that we had on that
of the $300,000, we still had to--this was not a cheap thing to do on
these farms, and these weren't big farms. So it took us 2, 3, 4 years
to move each of these operations, and to move 100 of them, you know,
took us, I don't know, 20, 25 years. But we have basically accomplished
that, and we've cleaned up the river, cleaned up the lake.
And if you had this amendment, we'd never be able to get that done.
We wouldn't have--$30,000 a year would not get us anywhere near what we
needed to do to get that accomplished in that area. And that's just one
example.
So the NRCS people and the FSA people that are involved in this, you
know, they monitor these things. They're kind of prioritizing where
they go. And you can see, when you look at the statistics, they've been
focusing on the smaller projects. But there are times when you have to
deal with things that have been put out there, not because of anybody
doing anything with any ill intent, it's just what they did 100 years
ago, and we're trying to clean it up.
So I would caution the Members to be careful about putting any
limitations on these programs because a lot of times it can have a
consequence that wasn't intended. So I oppose this amendment and would
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1640
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 1/\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. I support this amendment. We've seen natural disasters
from droughts to heat waves to floods affecting farmers from coast to
coast because of the climate change issue. We spend billions of dollars
on crop insurance subsidies to cover the cost of these climate
disasters.
This amendment expands and improves the USDA Environmental Quality
Incentives Program to bring support to farmers to adjust to a changing
climate. It adds climate mitigation as an eligible EQIP program
expense. I think it makes sense, and I would urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate my friend's joining me. The crux of this
issue is, who's going to get the benefit? There were over 300,000
contracts, and 92 projects took 20 percent of the money. This amendment
would target it for those far greater number. Most of the large,
confined animal feedlot operations manage on their own--the rest of
them can. Focus it for people who need it the most, not have a bunch of
the money sucked up by large, industrial agricultural activities.
Provide more benefit for more farmers and ranchers. Approve this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 201, line 8, strike the closed quotation mark and the
final period.
Page 201, after line 8, insert the following:
``(k) Funding for Community Irrigation Associations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into an
alternative funding arrangement with an eligible irrigation
association if the Secretary determines that--
``(A) the purposes of the program will be met by such an
arrangement; and
``(B) statutory limitations regarding contracts with
individual producers will not be exceeded by any member of
the irrigation association.
``(2) Eligible irrigation associations.--In this
subsection, the term `eligible irrigation association' means
an irrigation association that is--
``(A) comprised of producers; and
``(B) a local government entity, but does not have the
authority to impose taxes or levies.''.
[[Page H3867]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
For many years, local farmers in New Mexico have been asking for an
amendment that would allow local acequia and community ditch
associations to access EQIP funds. An ``acequia'' is a centuries-old
irrigation structure that is still in use today in primarily Hispanic
communities across New Mexico, and it is governed by a small board made
up of private landowners.
The board of private landowners, also called the acequia and
community ditch association, is in charge of administering maintenance
of the irrigation infrastructure, which often requires work on sections
of infrastructure residing on private land. Because of current EQIP
rules, individual producers can apply for assistance under the program
but are not allowed to include the community ditch association to help
with the work, even though the community ditch association is charged
with maintaining the infrastructure for all water users.
Mr. Chairman, you can see the dilemma that we're facing in New
Mexico.
This translates into burdensome roadblocks to improve conservation
practices or manage scarce water resources.
Mr. Chairman, in New Mexico, we are seeing one of the worst droughts
in our history, and improving water use and conservation practices are
key to keeping our agricultural communities alive.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, charged with
administering the EQIP program, has indicated this language in my
amendment would create the administrative efficiency needed when
working with small producers in New Mexico who irrigate their crops via
acequia and community ditches.
This amendment does not open up the program to large irrigation
districts or government entities but simply affords local Hispanic
farmers in rural New Mexico equal eligibility to compete for funding.
Acequia community ditch associations, which are comprised solely of
private landowners, do not have the authority to impose taxes or
levees, and are in need of this clarifying language.
Mr. Chairman, these programs are put together State by State and
funded State by State, and it's my hope that through the work with the
committee staff--and, Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank the minority
staff and the majority staff because they really took the time with my
team to take a look at this, and I think everyone understands the need,
although there still may be some questions.
Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from
Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. The chair would just note to the gentleman that I think
he's got a very interesting concept here. Clearly, we need to talk more
about this as we go along. But if my ranking member would nod his head
over there, I certainly would be willing to accept this amendment.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I thank everyone for their help on this.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Gardner
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition to offer an amendment
at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 256, after line 17, insert the following:
SEC. 2507. EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.
Section 403 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16
U.S.C. 2203) is amended by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``In evaluating requests for assistance under
this section, the Secretary shall give priority consideration
to projects that address runoff retardation and soil-erosion
preventive measures needed to mitigate the risks and
remediate the effects of catastrophic wildfire on land that
is the source of drinking water for landowners and land
users.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for
the opportunity to be here and for his leadership on this amendment,
and also Congressman Jared Polis from Colorado. We worked together on
this Emergency Watershed Protection Program.
Over the past couple of years, we've seen incredible wildfires ravage
the West in New Mexico, in Colorado, in Wyoming, in Montana, and the
Northwest. Millions of acres have been lost. Just this past month
alone, over 500 homes have been lost in Colorado in the Black Forest
fire.
We know one thing occurs as a result of wildfires, and it's not just
the event that occurs during the fire, and it's not just the impact of
the burning itself of the fire to the homes, but it's what happens in
the days, months and years following a forest fire that leads to
millions of dollars worth of damage from a single incident.
In the case of the Hyde Park fire last year, in the case of the Waldo
Canyon fire last year and indeed in the case of the Black Forest fire
coming up in the coming weeks, we know that when there's moisture, when
there's rain and when there's snow, erosion will occur. I'm holding a
vial of sediment from a river. It looks like dirt. It's black. But it
actually came from a river after a forest fire in Colorado. Millions of
dollars of damage has been done to the ecosystem as a result of a fire
making runoff destroy transportation systems, clog culverts and impact
drinking water systems.
The Emergency Watershed Protection Program has been a critical
program that helps communities prepare for and mitigate damage from
natural disaster. As wildfires continue to hit the Western United
States, this program will continue to do great good.
Last year was an unusually devastating year for wildfires in the
United States. Across the country, 67,000 wildfires burned over 9
million acres. Significant wildfires occurred in almost every State of
the Nation.
Our amendment today is simple. It requires the Secretary of
Agriculture to give priority consideration for the use of the Emergency
Watershed Protection funding for projects that prevent and mitigate the
impacts of catastrophic wildfires. It does not prevent Emergency
Watershed Program funding from being used for other types of disasters,
but the EWP program has aided countless communities to protect public
safety in the wake of the West's most destructive wildfires.
Before a wildfire, the Emergency Watershed Protection Program helps
communities mitigate future wildfire damage by protecting critical
watersheds. After a wildfire, EWP helps communities stabilize burned
slopes to protect drinking water and infrastructure, prevent erosion
and minimize potential hazards that cause immediate threats to people
and property.
The amendment is supported by the entire Colorado House delegation,
and I thank Congressman Polis for his support and work on this
amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. I yield 4\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Thompson).
{time} 1650
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. While I'm not in opposition to the
proposed amendment, I do have an amendment that I had planned to offer.
However, the process is going so fast and I was not here in time, but
it speaks to the Wetlands Reserve Program at USDA,
[[Page H3868]]
commonly referred to as the WRP program.
To date, WRP has restored over 2.5 million acres with over 12,000
private landowners. WRP benefits private landowners by restoring land
that should have never been cleared for agriculture. The public
benefits from the reduced financial demand for disaster assistance and/
or crop insurance funds from lands that experience repeated losses;
significant long-term conservation benefits obtained from the
protection of wildlife habitat; the improvement of water quality; the
increase of flood storage; and the reduction of soil erosion.
The House farm bill we are considering today consolidates into a new
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. This new program will
consist of agricultural easements and wetlands easements.
The components of the amendment that I have offered today are simple.
First, it makes the ownership eligibility requirement for wetland
easements equal to the other conservation programs by returning to the
pre-2008 farm bill requirements of 1-year ownership instead of 7 years.
My amendment's last change excludes the wettest soils from the county
enrollment caps. Soils in these classes frequently flood and retain
moisture at levels that severely impair or prevent farming. By allowing
the lands that are the least economical to farm to be enrolled in a
wetland easement, we will save in potential publicly funded disaster
assistance and reduce the overall cost of crop insurance.
Mr. Chairman, all of these changes have been adopted in the Senate
farm bill. The WRP is reshaping how wetland conservation is carried out
on private lands and is doing so in a cost-effective manner.
Had I had the opportunity, I would have offered this amendment.
However, after consultation with the chair and ranking member, there is
agreement that I will withdraw the amendment, and we will ensure that
these important changes are considered in conference.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the chairman, and at this point I yield 2
minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis). Congressman Polis
and I have worked closely together over the past couple of years as
wildfires have affected our districts. His district currently has a
wildfire burning as we enter this debate right now.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) is
recognized for the remainder of the time, 2 minutes.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
There is a new fire near Bailey, Colorado. In addition, just in this
last week, the Black Forest fire has already destroyed 500 homes and
killed two Coloradans. Last year was an unusually devastating year for
wildfires, where there were 67,000 wildfires across the country.
Look, this Emergency Watershed Protection Program is absolutely
critical for communities that are impacted by fires. That's why our
entire delegation from Colorado--Democrats, Republicans--led by Mr.
Gardner and I are all cosponsors of this amendment.
I'm proud to offer this commonsense amendment which would simply
require that the Secretary of Agriculture give priority consideration
to emergency watershed project funding for projects that prevent and
mitigate the impacts of catastrophic wildfires. It simply establishes
that as a priority.
For those of us who come from communities that have been impacted, we
see firsthand the need for these funds to help protect drinking water,
to help prevent erosion, to minimize potential hazards that can cause
additional threats to people and property long after the fires have
been extinguished. Now, we know we can't stop wildfires, but we can
take measures to reduce their impacts on our communities both before
and after the wildfire.
To be clear, this amendment doesn't prevent emergency watershed
protection funding from being used for other types of disasters--and it
will. It just stipulates that in the wake of severe fire emergencies,
the Secretary of Agriculture will give priority to considering
emergency watershed projects that impact these areas.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Gardner-Polis-
Lamborn-Coffman-Perlmutter-DeGette-Tipton amendment--I don't think I've
ever said all of our names before. I say to the gentleman from
Colorado, our entire delegation is standing strong behind this
amendment. I hope that we adopt amendment 119, the Emergency Watershed
Protection amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate the endeavor of the delegation from Colorado. I
understand they're dealing with very challenging circumstances out
there. I'm not necessarily sure this is the final form this language
should be in, but I would suggest to my colleagues that we support them
and that we pass this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Fortenberry
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk as the
designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 260, line 11, strike the closed quotation mark and the
final period.
Page 260, after line 11, insert the following:
``(3) Priority.--
``(A) In general.--In the delivery of technical assistance
under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16
U.S.C. 590a et seq.), the Secretary shall give priority to
producers who request technical assistance from the Secretary
in order to comply for the first time with the requirements
of subtitle B and subtitle C of this title as a result of the
amendments made by section 2801 of the Federal Agriculture
Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.
``(B) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk
Management Act of 2013, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate a report regarding the extent to which the
conservation compliance requirements contained in the
amendments made by section 2801 of the Federal Agriculture
Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 apply to and impact
specialty crop growers, including national analysis and
surveys to determine the extent of specialty crop acreage on
highly erodible land and wetlands.''.
Page 274, after line 18, insert the following:
Subtitle H--Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation for Crop
Insurance
SEC. 2801. HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND AND WETLAND CONSERVATION FOR
CROP INSURANCE.
(a) Highly Erodible Land Program Ineligibility.--
(1) In general.--Section 1211(a)(1) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) any portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), on
the condition that if a person is determined to have
committed a violation under this subsection during a crop
year, ineligibility under this subparagraph shall--
``(i) only apply to reinsurance years subsequent to the
date of final determination of a violation, including all
administrative appeals; and
``(ii) not apply to the existing reinsurance year or any
reinsurance year prior to the date of final determination.''.
(2) Exemptions.--Section 1212(a)(2) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3812(a)(2)) is amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``(2) If,'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Eligibility based on compliance with conservation
plan.--
``(A) In general.--If,'';
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``In carrying'' and
inserting the following:
``(B) Minimization of documentation.--In carrying''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Crop insurance.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding section 1211(a)--
``(I) in the case of a person that is subject to section
1211 for the first time after May 1, 2013, due to the
amendment made by section 2801(a) of the Federal Agriculture
Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, any person who
produces an agricultural commodity on the land that is the
basis of the payments described in section 1211(a)(1)(E)
shall have 5 reinsurance years after the date on which such
payments become subject to section 1211 to develop and comply
with an approved
[[Page H3869]]
conservation plan so as to maintain eligibility for such
payments; and
``(II) in the case of a person that the Secretary
determines would have been in violation of section 1211(a) if
the person had continued participation in the programs
requiring compliance at any time after the date of enactment
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
8701 et seq.) and is currently in violation of section
1211(a), the person shall have 2 reinsurance years after the
date on which the payments described in section 1211(a)(1)(E)
become subject to section 1211 to develop and comply with an
approved conservation plan, as determined by the Secretary,
so as to maintain eligibility for such payments.
``(ii) Certification.--
``(I) In general.--Beginning with the first full
reinsurance year immediately following the date of enactment
of this subparagraph, all persons seeking eligibility for the
payment of a portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) shall
provide certification of compliance with section 1211(a), as
determined by the Secretary.
``(II) Timely evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate the
certification in a timely manner and--
``(aa) a person who has properly complied with
certification shall be held harmless with regard to
eligibility during the period of evaluation; and
``(bb) if the Secretary fails to evaluate the certification
in a timely manner and the person is subsequently found to be
in violation of section 1211(a), ineligibility shall not
apply to the person for that violation.
``(III) Equitable contribution.--
``(aa) In general.--If a person fails to provide
certification of compliance to the Secretary as required and
is subsequently found in violation of section 1211(a), the
Secretary shall determine the amount of an equitable
contribution to conservation in accordance with section
1241(e) by the person for the violation.
``(bb) Limitation.--The contribution shall not exceed the
total of the portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance for
all years the person is determined to have been in violation
subsequent to the date on which certification was first
required under this clause.''.
(b) Wetland Conservation Program Ineligibility.--Section
1221 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Crop insurance.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in this paragraph, a
person subject to a final determination, including all
administrative appeals, of a violation of subsection (c)
shall have 1 reinsurance year to initiate a conservation plan
to remedy the violation, as determined by the Secretary,
before becoming ineligible under that subsection in the
following reinsurance year to receive any payment of any
portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
``(B) Applicability.--In the case of a person that is
subject to this subsection or subsection (d) for the first
time due to the amendment made by section 2801(b) of the
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013,
the person shall have 2 reinsurance years after the date of
final determination, including all administrative appeals, to
take such steps as the Secretary determines appropriate to
remedy or mitigate the violation in accordance with
subsection (c).
``(C) Good faith.--If the Secretary determines that a
person subject to a final determination, including all
administrative appeals, of a violation of subsection (c)
acted in good faith and without intent to violate this
section as described in section 1222(h), the Secretary shall
give the person 1 reinsurance year to begin mitigation,
restoration, or such other steps as are determined necessary
by the Secretary.
``(D) Tenant relief.--
``(i) In general.--If a tenant is determined to be
ineligible for payments and other benefits under this
section, the Secretary may limit the ineligibility only to
the farm that is the basis for the ineligibility
determination if the tenant has established, to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that--
``(I) the tenant has made a good faith effort to meet the
requirements of this section, including enlisting the
assistance of the Secretary to obtain a reasonable
conservation plan for restoration or mitigation for the farm;
``(II) the landlord on the farm refuses to comply with the
plan on the farm; and
``(III) the Secretary determines that the lack of
compliance is not a part of a scheme or device to avoid the
compliance.
``(ii) Report.--The Secretary shall provide an annual
report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate concerning the ineligibility
determinations limited during the previous 12-month period
under this subparagraph.
``(E) Certification.--
``(i) In general.--Beginning with the first full
reinsurance year immediately following the date of enactment
of this paragraph, all persons seeking eligibility for the
payment of a portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) shall
provide certification of compliance with this section as
determined by the Secretary.
``(ii) Timely evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate the
certification in a timely manner and--
``(I) a person who has properly complied with certification
shall be held harmless with regard to eligibility during the
period of evaluation; and
``(II) if the Secretary fails to evaluate the certification
in a timely manner and the person is subsequently found to be
in violation of subsection (c), ineligibility shall not apply
to the person for that violation.
``(iii) Equitable contribution.--
``(I) In general.--If a person fails to provide
certification of compliance to the Secretary as required and
is subsequently found in violation of subsection (c), the
Secretary shall determine the amount of an equitable
contribution to conservation in accordance with section
1241(e) by the person for the violation.
``(II) Limitation.--The contribution shall not exceed the
total of the portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance for
all years the person is determined to have been in violation
subsequent to the date on which certification was first
required under this subparagraph.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as
subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Ineligibility for Crop Insurance Premium
Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--If a person is determined to have
committed a violation under subsection (a) or (d) during a
crop year, the person shall be ineligible to receive any
payment of any portion of the premium paid by the Federal
Crop Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance
under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
``(2) Applicability.--Ineligibility under this subsection
shall--
``(A) only apply to reinsurance years subsequent to the
date of final determination of a violation, including all
administrative appeals; and
``(B) not apply to--
``(i) the existing reinsurance year; or
``(ii) any reinsurance year prior to the date of final
determination.
``(3) Date of conversion.--Notwithstanding subsection (d),
ineligibility for crop insurance premium assistance shall
apply as follows:
``(A) In the case of wetland that the Secretary determines
was converted after the date of enactment of the Food,
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.)
but on or before May 1, 2013, and continues to be in
violation, the person shall have 2 reinsurance years after
the date on which this subsection applies, to begin the
mitigation process, as determined by the Secretary.
``(B) In the case of wetland that the Secretary determines
was converted after May 1, 2013--
``(i) subject to clause (ii), the person shall be
ineligible to receive crop insurance premium subsidies in
subsequent reinsurance years unless section 1222(b) applies;
and
``(ii) for any violation that the Secretary determines
impacts less than 5 acres of the entire farm, the person may
pay a contribution in accordance with section 1241(e) in an
amount equal to 150 percent of the cost of mitigation, as
determined by the Secretary, for wetland restoration in lieu
of ineligibility to receive crop insurance premium
assistance.
``(C) In the case of a wetland that the Secretary
determines was converted prior to the date of enactment of
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701
et seq.), ineligibility under this subsection shall not
apply.
``(D) In the case of an agricultural commodity for which an
individual policy or plan of insurance is available for the
first time to the person after the date of enactment of the
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013--
``(i) ineligibility shall apply only to conversions that
take place after the date on which the policy or plan of
insurance first becomes available to the person; and
``(ii) the person shall take such steps as the Secretary
determines appropriate to mitigate any prior conversion in a
timely manner but not to exceed 2 calendar years.
``(4) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--In enforcing eligibility under this
subsection, the Secretary shall use existing processes and
procedures for certifying compliance.
``(B) Responsibility.--The Secretary, acting through the
agencies of the Department of Agriculture, shall be solely
responsible for determining whether a producer is eligible to
receive crop insurance premium subsidies in accordance with
this subsection.
``(C) Limitation.--The Secretary shall ensure that no
agent, approved insurance provider, or employee or contractor
of an agency or approved insurance provider, bears
responsibility or liability for the eligibility of an insured
producer under this subsection, other than in cases of
misrepresentation, fraud, or a scheme or device to avoid
compliance.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
[[Page H3870]]
from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I've been pleased to work with
Congressman Thompson in providing this commonsense amendment to enhance
the conservation goals in our country.
Our farmers and ranchers are the first stewards of the land. This
amendment would simply continue the practice of conservation planning
on our most fragile lands to ensure that we meet important land and
stewardship goals. The concept is widely upheld as an important
conservation initiative by many in the agricultural and environmental
communities.
The amendment does call upon farmers and ranchers to develop unique
conservation plans when seeking to receive Federal crop insurance
subsidies on highly erodible lands. I believe this to be a reasonable
measure that is consistent with our current conservation policies.
It is also important to emphasize that this is not a new idea. In
fact, this approach has a long track record of proven results.
Conservation compliance was linked with crop insurance in the 1985 farm
bill and has been tied to direct payments since 1996.
According to a report by the USDA's Economic Research Service:
An estimated 295 million tons of erosion reduction per year
could be directly attributed to implementation of
conservation compliance policy.
In addition, conservation compliance has resulted in a significant
reduction in the annual loss of wetlands. I believe this is a strategy
that has worked.
Given some late-hour complications that have arisen, I'm going to ask
that the amendment be withdrawn; but I hope that we can look forward to
continuing dialogue with the chairman, particularly since this is in
the underlying Senate bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
{time} 1700
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Kaptur
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The ACTING CHAIR. Is the gentlewoman a designee of the gentleman from
Florida?
Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, I am the designee of the gentleman from Florida.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 263, line 3, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 263, after line 3, insert after paragraph (3) the
following new paragraph:
(4) in subsection (h)(2), by inserting ``, including, to
the extent practicable, practices that maximize benefits for
honey bees'' after ``pollinators''; and
At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 12___. PROTECTION OF HONEY BEES AND OTHER POLLINATORS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall carry out such
activities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to
protect and ensure the long-term viability of populations of
honey bees, wild bees, and other beneficial insects of
agricultural crops, horticultural plants, wild plants, and
other plants, including--
(1) providing technical expertise relating to proposed
agency actions that may threaten pollinator health or
jeopardize the long-term viability of populations of
pollinators;
(2) providing formal guidance on national policies relating
to--
(A) permitting managed honey bees to forage on National
Forest Service lands where compatible with other natural
resource management priorities; and
(B) planting and maintaining managed honey bee and native
pollinator forage on National Forest Service lands where
compatible with other natural resource management priorities;
(3) making use of the best available peer-reviewed science
regarding environmental and chemical stressors on pollinator
health; and
(4) regularly monitoring and reporting on the health and
population status of managed and native pollinators including
bees, birds, bats, and other species.
(b) Task Force on Bee Health and Commercial Beekeeping.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a task
force--
(A) to coordinate Federal efforts carried out on or after
the date of enactment of this Act to address the serious
worldwide decline in bee health, especially honey bees and
declining native bees; and
(B) to assess Federal efforts to mitigate pollinator losses
and threats to the United States commercial beekeeping
industry.
(2) Agency consultation.--The task force established under
this subsection shall seek ongoing consultation from any
Federal agency carrying out activities important to bee
health and commercial beekeeping, including officials from--
(A) the Department of Agriculture;
(B) the Department of the Interior;
(C) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(D) the Food and Drug Administration;
(E) the Department of Commerce; and
(F) U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
(3) Stakeholder consultation.--The task force established
under this subsection shall consult with beekeeper,
conservation, scientist, and agricultural stakeholders.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the task force established
under subsection (b) shall submit to Congress a report that--
(1) summarizes Federal activities carried out pursuant to
section 1672(h) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925(h)) or any other provision
of law (including regulations) to address bee decline;
(2) summarizes international efforts to address the decline
of managed honey bees and native pollinators; and
(3) provides recommendations to Congress regarding how to
better coordinate Federal agency efforts to address the
decline of managed honey bees and native pollinators.
(d) Pollinator Research Lab Feasibility Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service, may
conduct feasibility studies regarding--
(A) re-locating existing honey bee and native pollinator
research from Federal laboratories to a cooperator-run
facility in a location most geographically appropriate for
pollinator research; and
(B) modernizing existing honey bee research laboratories
identified by the Agricultural Research Service in the
capital investment strategy document dated 2012.
(2) Consultation.--In conducting the feasibility studies
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with--
(A) beekeeper, native bee, agricultural, research
institution, and bee conservation stakeholders regarding new
research laboratory needs under paragraph (1)(A); and
(B) commercial beekeepers regarding modernizing existing
honey bee laboratories under paragraph (1)(B).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I would like to offer my highest commendation to Congressman
Hastings for his work on this vital issue.
Let me begin with the words of Congressman Hastings: ``No bees, no
food.''
The amendment being offered today will help coordinate the Federal
response to the sudden, massive, and frightening decline in our
Nation's bee population. Specifically, the amendment would allow the
Secretary of Agriculture to work with the Secretary of Interior and
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure the
long-term viability of our bee population.
The amendment would allow the establishment of a task force on bee
health and commercial beekeeping to coordinate Federal efforts in
addressing the significant bee population decline.
Preliminary results from a survey by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture show that over nearly a third of managed honeybee colonies
in our country were lost during the 2012-2013 winter. That is an
increase of 42 percent in honeybee losses. On average, U.S. beekeepers
lost nearly half of their colonies during this past winter. This was an
increase nationally of over 78 percent from the previous winter.
Traditionally, the average loss had only been about 10 to 15 percent,
and there have been significant honeybee losses in 22 different States.
This amendment will help coordinate the Federal response to the
sudden massive decline of our Nation's bee population. Since 2006, we
have lost 10 million beehives, costing beekeepers more than $2 billion.
No one knows what is causing these dramatic losses, which was formally
referred to as ``colony collapse disorder.'' We don't know if it is a
natural phenomenon, we don't
[[Page H3871]]
know if it is the result of changes in the environment, we don't know
if it is due to interactions with genetically modified crops, we don't
know if it is due to pesticides.
I can tell you one thing it is due to, because I've seen it myself in
Ohio. It is due to mites that were shipped in to our nation from
foreign countries in imported material. The critters got into these
hives as they intermingled with our native hives. The mites came from
foreign countries--from China, and from South Africa by way of Brazil--
varroa mites among them--these mites are just crippling these colonies
that have pollinated our orchards and our fields for generations.
We need to take this seriously because the massive decline in these
populations threatens us all. Without sufficient bee pollination we
will not be able to meet the demands of U.S. agricultural crops that
require pollination to grow. It isn't by magic that all this happens.
Not every plant is a self-pollinator.
That means if we do not have proper bee pollination, we will not be
able to grow the food we need to feed our country. We are already
importing too much food, food that could be grown here at home. China,
but the way, is now shipping a product they call honey into our
country. But it is not honey. It is corn syrup diluted with water. We
need better honey labeling.
The decline in the bee population has been occurring over a period of
time. But listen to these losses. In 1947, when America only had about
146 million people, we had 6 million bee colonies. In 1970, that number
dropped to 4 million. And in 1990, the number fell to 3 million. Today,
there are only 2.5 million bee colonies in our country. We have a
population of 310 million, and it is projected by 2050 we will have a
population of 500 million people. These numbers are not moving in the
right direction.
Bee health is vitally important for our food system, as bee
pollination helps produce about a third of what we eat--one-third. This
adds $125 billion in global agricultural production value and 20 to $30
billion in United States agricultural production value.
Of the 100 crops that provide 90 percent of the world's food, over 70
percent are pollinated by bees. Are we listening? Of the 100 crops that
provide 90 percent of the world's food, over 70 are pollinated by bees.
That's 70%.
In North America, honeybees pollinate nearly 95 different kinds of
fruits, including many specialty crops like almonds, avocados,
cranberries, oranges, raspberries and apples, and so much more. The
current Federal response to this problem is entirely inadequate. People
are somnambulant. They think this is nonexistent because the bee is so
small it can fly right by you and you don't even see it. In fact, most
people don't know the difference between a honeybee and a bumblebee.
Well, let me tell you, there is a big difference.
It is so bad that one professor was quoted as saying:
``We are one poor weather event or high winter bee loss away from a
pollination disaster.''
Why have we let it get to this point where one bad storm could
essentially wipe out our bee population? It is clear what we are doing
is not working.
The amendment is supported by: American Honey Producers Association,
American Beekeeping Federation, Pollinator Partnership, American Farm
Bureau, Florida Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, Blue Diamond
Growers, Center for Food Safety, National Wildlife Federation.
In closing, I hope we can come together on a bipartisan basis to help
stem the decline in our Nation's bee populations.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentlelady's very sincere interest, and of course
our colleague Congressman Hastings' work and concern about pollinator
health. He has been a champion on these issues for quite some time.
While we are all aware of the need for Federal cooperation in
addressing the issues related to pollinators, I believe this amendment
is costly and duplicative.
I am likewise concerned with the broad nature of the authority
granted to the Secretary to implement new policies without the
necessary statutory structure to direct the Secretary's agenda.
I am aware that several constituent groups have raised concerns since
this language first surfaced last month as a proposed Boxer amendment
to the Senate farm bill, but as yet, few, if any, have had a chance to
clearly evaluate it, and none have had a chance to be heard in a
hearing process to evaluate their concerns.
I, therefore, must respectfully oppose the amendment and urge my
colleagues otherwise. I would like to work with the both the lady and
the distinguished gentleman to see if we can come up with a mutually
desirable outcome to address this. When I say ``I'm concerned about the
authority given to the Secretary,'' in the language it says:
The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and
the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall carry
out such activities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to
protect and ensure long-term viability of populations.
``Determine.'' I just have concerns about the nature of this
language. Therefore, I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, my amendment today is simple: No
bees, no food. The amendment improves federal coordination in
addressing the documented decline of managed and native pollinators, as
well as promotes the long-term viability of honey bees, wild bees, and
other beneficial insects in agriculture.
Beekeepers and their honey bees are vitally important partners in
American agriculture.
They provide essential pollination services to a diverse array of
important agricultural commodities. Bee pollinated crops represent an
estimated $20 billion in value annually.
Furthermore, one in three bites of food that we eat directly or
indirectly comes from pollinators.
Unfortunately, our honey bees, native bees and other pollinating
partners are showing signs of decline.
Colony collapse Disorder (CCD), multiple pests and diseases continue
to plague beekeepers and their honey bees, as well as affect
agriculture producers who depend on their pollination services.
This means that our food and job security, and healthy ecosystems are
also at risk.
A recent study released by the National Academy of Sciences on the
status of pollinators in North America, highlighted the lack of
research and coordination in the federal government when it comes to
pollinator health and protection.
In 2008, I offered an amendment to the Farm Bill aimed at protecting
pollinators through additional research at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
Those provisions went a long way in highlighting the seriousness of
pollinator health decline and Colony Collapse Disorder.
I am pleased to see those provisions preserved and extended in this
year's Farm Bill. While progress has been made, we still have a long
way to go. My amendment will help address these issues.
Bee health is affected by the activities of a number of federal
agencies who are dedicated to finding a solution.
But this is a complex problem and it requires a sophisticated and
multi-agency response.
For example, USDA activities alone include the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS), the National Institutes of Food and Agriculture (NIFA),
the Farm Services Agency (FSA), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), and the U.S. Forest Service.
Forage area for bees can be enhanced through federal programs on
conservation and public lands that are managed by the U.S. Departments
of Interior and Transportation.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for
striking the delicate balance between pollinator health and the ability
of our nation's growers to produce strong crop yields.
And, of course, agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), as well as the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Agency all have a role in ensuring a safe
food supply and level playing field capable of supporting our nation's
commercial beekeepers.
Specifically, my amendment: promotes cooperation between federal
agencies to support the long-term viability and health of pollinator
populations including to share guidance and technical expertise,
establishes a task force on
[[Page H3872]]
bee health and commercial beekeeping to coordinate federal efforts;
requires the production of a report on the United States' and
international efforts to address the decline; requests regular
monitoring and reporting on health and population status of pollinators
(including bees, birds, bats, and other species); encourages agencies
to utilize the best available peer-reviewed science on environmental
and chemical stressors to pollinators, including giving consideration
to international efforts addressing pollinator declines; as well as
encourages the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct feasibility studies
for the creation of a new bee lab at ARS, and the modernization of
current facilities.
Mr. Chair, I thank you for the time and urge the Committee to make my
amendment in order.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Royce
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 275, line 1, strike ``paragraph (1), by'' and insert
the following: ``paragraph (1)--''
Page 275, after line 3, insert the following new
subparagraph:
(B) by striking ``agricultural commodities'' and inserting
``assistance, including agricultural commodities,''; and
Page 275, after line 8, insert the following new section:
SEC. 30_. PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE.
Section 202 of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1722) is
amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES'' and inserting ``ASSISTANCE'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``agricultural
commodities'' and inserting ``assistance, including
agricultural commodities,'';
(3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``agricultural
commodities'' and inserting ``assistance, including
agricultural commodities,''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Limitation.--Of the funds authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this title, not more than 45
percent shall be used for assistance other than agricultural
commodities and associated costs under subsections (a) and
(b).''.
Page 277, after line 10, insert the following new section:
SEC. 30_. MINIMUM LEVEL OF LOCAL SALES.
Section 203(b) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1723(b))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''; and
(2) by striking ``equal to not less than'' and inserting
``up to''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
{time} 1710
Mr. ROYCE. I yield myself 3 minutes.
Before beginning, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel) be permitted to control 5 minutes of the debate time
allocated to me.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the very hard work of Chairman
Lucas, but there is one program in glaring need of reform. This
bipartisan amendment will make our well-intentioned, but grossly
outdated, international food aid programs more flexible, more
efficient, and far more effective.
Under the current system, which was designed 60 years ago, all of our
food aid must be purchased in the U.S., and at least 50 percent has to
be shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels. Yet, today, 60 years later, food
prices and U.S. agricultural exports have reached historic highs, and
this makes this program of negligible value to the U.S. farm economy.
Food aid purchases now account for less than half a percent of net farm
income. Businesses at the ports are booming, and there are only a
handful of U.S.-flagged ships.
When asked how the proposed reforms would impact American farmers,
the Secretary of Agriculture stated:
Far from ending a partnership between our Nation's
humanitarian and development mission and our world-class
agricultural and food system, we are recommitting to the role
that American agriculture plays in food security and tapping
into the ingenuity of American farmers and the powers of
science and innovation to avoid future shortages and global
hunger.
Mr. Chairman, these subsidies can no longer be justified. They only
add to the cost of the program, and they delay by months the time that
it takes for food aid to reach desperate disaster victims. The Royce-
Engel amendment would enact two commonsense reforms:
First, the amendment would allow up to 45 percent food aid to be
purchased closer to the crisis. This change will yield an estimated
$215 million in efficiency savings; it's going to reduce mandatory
spending by $150 million over the bill's life; and it's going to allow
us to reach 4 million more disaster victims.
Second, the amendment curtails a process called ``monetization,''
which the Government Accountability Office found is inefficient and
disrupts local markets. In other words, it wastes money; it slows
economic growth; and it harms those we are trying to help. In recent
years, it has wasted $215 million.
There are real-life consequences to clinging to an inflexible,
inefficient program that puts the interests of the few over those of
the taxpayers, not to mention over those of the millions in desperate
need of humanitarian aid globally. With this reform, by investing in
local markets, we help nations become more food secure; we develop more
U.S. trade partners; we break the cycle of aid dependency.
This amendment enjoys wide bipartisan support. Both administrations--
this one and the last--have sought these changes. The amendment is
supported by a long list of relief organizations. Mr. Chairman, the
question is not: Why should we reform food aid? It is: Why have we
waited so long?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time.
I respectfully disagree with my good colleagues, both of whom are
sincere in their efforts.
I believe this amendment is wrong-headed. If it had been enacted last
year, it would have placed $928 million in cash assistance into largely
unstable regions of the world and with no clear guidelines on how the
money should be spent or tracked. We saw a rampant waste of cash in
Iraq when we tried to use cash to further our means there. It's a whole
lot harder to steal a sack of rice with ``USA'' written on the side of
it than it is to steal a sack of currency. This program is meant to
help folks in need of food. There is no better producer and no cheaper
producer than the American farmer.
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues, and I would urge a ``no''
vote on the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Royce-Engel
amendment to H.R. 1947.
Let me say that I am pleased to stand with the chairman of our
Foreign Affairs Committee in a bipartisan amendment which is common
sense.
Since 1954, the Food for Peace program has fed more than a billion
people around the world and has saved countless lives. This program
embodies the compassion and generosity of the American people, and it's
something of which we can all be proud. However, the world has changed
in the 59 years since Food for Peace was enacted, and our food aid
should be reformed to reflect the new realities.
The biggest problem with our current food aid is that it takes too
long to deliver. Food grown in the U.S., which makes up the vast
majority of our assistance, takes an average of 130 days
[[Page H3873]]
to deliver. By purchasing food closer to the recipient countries, we
can cut the delivery time in half and, in the process, get food to
starving people before it's too late.
Food aid is also too expensive. Shipping and transportation costs
account for half of the food aid budget. By purchasing food locally or
providing vouchers, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars, which
can be used to feed more needy people. By passing our amendment, we can
reach 4 million more people without spending an extra dime.
Mr. Chairman, the easy thing to do is to do nothing on the issue of
food aid reform, but the right thing to do is to enact sensible reforms
that save taxpayer money and, most importantly, save lives.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman.
I would just like to respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment would dismantle one of the most effective
diplomatic tools available to the United States. Food for Peace
promotes the good will of the American people by providing American-
grown food supplies to the poorest and most vulnerable populations in
the world. This program has been in place for nearly 60 years and is
the cornerstone of the United States' diplomatic and humanitarian
efforts.
If there are any inefficiencies, as the sponsors of this amendment
suggest, then USDA and USAID must be held accountable for them because
they coordinate the program's implementation. I reject the idea that
direct cash assistance from the Local and Regional Purchase Program, or
LRP, is a better way to go because it will simply provide food vouchers
used to buy foreign-sourced food. This sounds less like reform and more
like a proposal to provide food stamps to the world.
Instead of giving USAID free rein to spend cash however they see fit,
Congress must recognize that Food for Peace allows our farmers to serve
as ambassadors. As you can see on the sign beside me, the first thing
starving people see when they receive a bag of rice--and it likely came
from Arkansas--is the stamp of the American flag. We are concerned
about what the contents of that bag are. That American flag means
something, and we don't want to diminish the brand and the quality of
the product contained in that bag.
I respectfully urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. ROYCE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues from California and New
York are sincere, and like, I think, all 435 of us, they possess a deep
sense of humanity and the necessity for America to reach out in our
best spirit to help those in need.
This is the reality: this is a picture that my wife took in Eritrea a
few years back. That's the American Food for Peace program. It is not
broken. The American Food for Peace program is really about
humanitarian, economic, and national security. It is extremely
important. My wife and I have spent many years and many days in the
famine camps around the world.
This is the statement of America. It's not a check and it's not cash,
and it's not a credit card or a debit card. It's the delivery of food.
The Food for Peace program really does work. It's not broken. It is not
broken at all. Prepositioning food overseas does work. When the great
flood occurred in Pakistan just a couple of years ago, it was this
program--the delivery of American food in sacks--that actually arrived
before there was any local food that was purchased.
{time} 1720
The Food for Peace program is not broken.
I agree about the need for flexibility and we actually have it. We
have the International Disaster Assistance program which is in place
and can be used, and it can be cash purchases.
You don't need to change the Food for Peace program to deal with it.
You preposition food. You send American products, American food
overseas. It is the very best way that we can help. And it turns out
that in the Pakistan disaster, this program, the Food for Peace
program, delivered food faster and better than the local programs
because the local programs had totally broken down. And that will
happen over and over.
We don't need to destroy something that's worked for 50 years.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
While I support efforts to make our foreign food aid programs as
efficient and effective as possible, I cannot support the amendment by
the gentlemen from California and New York, Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel.
However well-intentioned the sponsors might be, the effect of this
amendment would be to undermine the integrity of the U.S. merchant
marine and U.S. flag fleet, which serve our Nation in times of war and
peace.
The effect of this amendment would be to reduce the volume of U.S.
Government-impelled cargoes shipped overseas under the Food for Peace
program. No one disputes that fact. However, many of the militarily
useful vessels that provide this needed sealift capacity for our
military also participate in the food aid programs under cargo
preference.
For example, all 19 vessels owned by Maersk Line, Limited and
enrolled in the Maritime Security Program also carry foreign food aid.
And for that matter, the U.S. mariners that serve on these vessels come
from the same common pool that serves both needs. You cannot cut one
without also harming the other. And once these jobs are gone, they're
gone forever.
Plain and simple, this amendment will mean fewer voyages for U.S.
carriers and fewer jobs for our U.S. merchant seafarers at a time when
our military is reducing the sealift demand as it draws down from its
deployment in Afghanistan.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, as an American, I am proud that for six
decades our great Nation has been a leader in the global effort to
fight hunger and malnutrition. I have seen for myself what we have been
able to do, helping Haiti, Pakistan, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, Botswana, and
so many more nations, yet we can do better. We can reach millions more.
We can enable local and regional producers to do more, and we can
alleviate hunger while at the same time promoting agriculture
development that is so desperately needed in many low-income and high-
risk developing nations.
I've seen how much more we can do if we enable in-country producers
with local procurement and technical assistance. Millions more can be
reached more efficiently and effectively and we can better empower
nations and their people with the ability to self-sustain.
Food reform makes sense. If our goal is to help as many people as
possible with funds that are dedicated to fighting hunger, why not
reach millions more for what we are spending today? I want it to be the
case that we have reached many. When I go on future trips, I want to
know that there is progress for recipient nations on how many we have
reached. But I also want the capacity of those to have increased to
help themselves.
Support and vote for the Royce-Engel amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I deeply respect the authors of this
amendment and respect their effort to try to balance competing
concerns, but I respectfully believe that they've struck the wrong
balance.
One concern that I have here is that money is fungible and food is
not. The possibility of corruption occurring--not because of the good-
faith NGOs, but because of some of the forces at work in the countries
we're talking about--is a problem. At the same time,
[[Page H3874]]
I believe the effect of this amendment would be to undercut our
merchant marine activities, our agricultural exporters, and ultimately
undercut support within this country for a robust program of food aid
to the rest of the world.
The present structure of the program is inclusive; it builds support.
I respectfully think this amendment would detract from that support.
For that reason, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
I've always been a strong supporter of America's global food aid
programs, and I've made it a point to visit these programs in the field
in Africa and Latin America.
After seeing firsthand these emergency response and development
programs, one thing is clear to me: we need to do whatever works best
for each situation. One size does not fit all.
We should provide U.S. commodities and pre-position them in the
field, cash for local purchase, vouchers and fortified foods for
children, and we need grants for projects that address chronic hunger.
That's exactly what the Royce-Engel amendment does. It provides
flexibility. It expands U.S. options in responding to crises. It
reaches more people for the same amount of dollars, and it continues
the engagement of U.S. producers and shippers in alleviating global
hunger.
Our food aid programs are designed to end hunger. We can do better.
It's not all one way or the other. We should do what works. This
amendment provides the flexibility.
I urge my colleagues to support the Royce-Engel amendment on food aid
reform.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Royce-Engel
amendment.
For nearly six decades, the Food for Peace program has used U.S.
taxpayer funding to benefit those in need around the world, as well as
U.S. agriculture and the United States Merchant Marines.
This amendment would gut the program by allowing 45 percent of its
funding to be sent as cash payments to foreign nations. As a former
chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard, I can assure you this
would be devastating to the U.S. Merchant Marine and to the domestic
sealift capacity that moves 90 percent of the cargo supporting our
military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let me paint a picture. In 2012, just over 9,000 ships visited U.S.
ports. Approximately only 100 of those vessels sailed under the United
States flag. I emphasize that these 100 vessels include militarily
useful vessels that carry food aid. Policies such as the one embodied
in this amendment would drive more vessels from the U.S. flag fleet,
which exceeded 850 ships as recently as 1975.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. ENGEL. I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California,
the ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, Ms. Bass.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment modernizes and makes critical
reforms to the U.S. Food for Peace program.
While this amendment will feed millions more people, it importantly
ends policies that have depressed local markets and, in some instances,
hurt, rather than helped, those in need.
In Africa, where we see food emergencies in the Sahel and the Horn of
Africa, creating greater flexibility to purchase food commodities from
local and regional farmers will strengthen local markets and ensure
African nations are less reliant on U.S. foreign aid.
Too often, we Americans see Africa as a land of crisis. This
amendment shifts this outlook and will show that Africans, themselves,
can and will play a critical role in addressing hunger and
malnutrition. This amendment saves money and assists countries to be
self-sufficient.
Let's put an end to backward policies that are harmful to local
markets and allow the continent of Africa and many other nations--
Africa, with six of the fastest growing economies in the world--to help
solve local food emergencies.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining
Mr. LUCAS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Fincher).
Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This amendment favors our foreign competitors over American-grown
products, American-grown industries, and jobs filled by Americans.
Unlike foreign aid programs, the Food for Peace program is American-
made through and through, and it's tied to approximately 44,000
American jobs in the agriculture, transportation, and maritime
industries.
An American is employed at every step in this process of the Food for
Peace program. Americans grow the crops. The commodities are processed
and packaged in the United States. Those packages are carried by our
railroads and barges to American seaports and finally delivered to the
receiving nations by U.S.-flagged vessels.
{time} 1730
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and support
American farmers, American workers, and American taxpayers.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of this amendment. Look, the way the program works
now, it's the most expensive food in the world. This keeps the buying
of American food, shipping it on American flagships. It preserves all
of the American jobs. But it also frees up money to allow countries to
learn how to fish, how to be able to go out and buy food and also
develop the markets.
As a return Peace Corps volunteer, this is a really smart investment.
And for those fiscal conservatives here, this is a much better
amendment than keeping the status quo. I urge its support.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 1\3/4\ minutes to Mr.
Green of Texas.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my good friends, Congressmen Royce and Engel. This amendment
would cripple the Food for Peace Program, our Nation's premier foreign
aid program, and endanger tens of thousands of jobs in agriculture and
the maritime industry.
Since 1954, Food for Peace has enabled the United States to play a
leading role in responding to international food assistance needs and
ensuring global food security, reaching more than 3 billion people in
150 countries.
In 2012 alone, the Food for Peace Program shipped million of tons of
American food aid abroad aboard dozens of U.S.-flagged and crewed
ships.
Food for Peace also helps maintain our domestic merchant marine by
ensuring a steady flow of American cargo shipped by Americans on U.S.-
flagged ships. Unfortunately, many benefits from the Food for Peace
Program are being threatened by this amendment, which would redirect 45
percent of the program's budget to send direct cash payments overseas
with little accountability, scant transparency, and no benefit to U.S.
farmers and merchant marines.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has expressed concern about
accountability. With all due respect, allow me to dispel a myth. We are
not talking about sending bags of cash to foreign governments so they
can spend it on whatever they want. No matter the form, U.S. food
assistance is now and will continue to be subject to multiple levels of
scrutiny and monitoring and evaluation. The Food for Peace Program
maintains strong accountability for funds. Food aid will continue to be
branded with U.S. aid logos, prominently displayed on all program-
related materials regardless of whether the food is purchased in the
United States or in the affected region. That is the way this program
works.
And according to the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Department
supports the President's proposed reform,
[[Page H3875]]
supports this reform of the food aid program, and the Defense
Department has assessed that it will not affect U.S. maritime readiness
or national security obviously in any way since these are non-
militarily useful ships under foreign ownership anyway, for the most
part.
Mr. Chairman, this is about fixing a broken system. Our food aid
takes too long to arrive and costs too much to get there. A former top
aid official told our committee last week that in fast-onset famines
such as Somalia and wars involving mass population displacements, such
as Darfur: ``I watched people die waiting for food aid to arrive.'' He
wants a change so that the aid can be purchased right there, and during
that first month when they are waiting for the ship to arrive, to feed
those people before they starve to death. That's what's driving this
amendment.
In Syria, a shipment of U.S. food just arrived, yes it did, 2 years
after the onset of this--2 years afterwards. It would have been helpful
if we'd had a little ability in the program to handle this on the
ground. U.S. interests are being undermined here by archaic food aid
programs, and I urge adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Chabot
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 3102, relating to extension of funding for
the market access program.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the rationale behind this amendment is
simple: hardworking taxpayers should not have to subsidize the world's
most successful companies and trade groups for their business and
advertising overseas, yet that's exactly what the Market Access Program
does. Every year, the Federal Government takes millions from taxpayers
and hands it to multimillion-dollar corporations. These funds end up
financing lavish international travel and marketing expenses for
corporations that could most certainly afford to do it themselves. In
my view, this is corporate cronyism for the well-connected, and with a
$17 trillion debt, almost, it's time to end this misuse of tax dollars.
Just a few of the more egregious examples of waste include a
taxpayer-funded Japanese Tweet While You Eat campaign to promote U.S.
beef; an animated series in Spain promoting walnuts that chronicles the
adventures of a squirrel named Super Twiggy and his nemesis the
Colesterator; educational wine tastings in London, Denmark, Dublin, and
Mexico; American whiskey tastings in Hong Kong; an elaborate outdoor
dinner party in New Delhi, India, so that food critics could discuss
prunes.
The list goes on and on, and the trend is disturbing. Billion-dollar-
industries are padding their bottom line with American tax dollars.
They ought to do these things, but they ought to do them on their own
dime, not on the backs of the American taxpayers.
Take, for example, Blue Diamond Almonds, which despite their billion-
dollar year in 2012, still received $3.3 million from the Market Access
Program.
Or the U.S. Meat Export Federation which received $19 million from
MAP last year, even though the value of pork and beef exports was at
the highest level in history.
Or Sunkist Growers, Inc., which recorded its third consecutive
billion-dollar year, but still received $2.2 million from American
taxpayers.
So we have billion-dollar enterprises and million-dollar recipients
of aid from the American taxpayer.
The bottom line is Congress should not spend hard-earned tax dollars
this way. Republicans don't believe in it; Democrats don't believe in
it. So let's stop doing it. Don't get me wrong, these businesses ought
to be doing this. They ought to be advertising their own products, but
they shouldn't do it on the backs of the American taxpayers. For the
sake of the taxpayers, who are earning the money that we're spending
here, I urge passage of this amendment.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
rise in strong support of the amendment.
This is one of the most indefensible programs in the entire Federal
Government. As Mr. Chabot said, it pays to market U.S. agricultural
products in foreign countries, which invites the question of why should
American taxpayers pay the advertising costs of some of the biggest
corporations in the world?
Who are we talking about here--plucky little startup companies like
Archer Daniels Midland, Dole, Del Monte, Sunkist. Companies that are
big enough to export produce overseas are certainly big enough to
advertise that produce without picking the pockets of every small
shopkeeper and worker in America.
{time} 1740
This amendment, thankfully, ends this program. It would save
taxpayers about $2 billion over the next 10 years.
And as the gentleman said, these expenditures are completely out of
the realm of reason:
Two million dollars to the California Prune Board for an evening
dining experience for food critics in New Delhi to discuss prunes. Two
million dollars, that must have been quite an evening;
$18.9 million going to the Cotton Council so it could advertise on
India's reality TV show, ``Let's Design,'' now in its fifth season, by
the way. This advertising isn't even being done in America. It is being
done overseas, and it is being done to supplement the advertising
budgets of giant corporations.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican majority was supposed to end this kind
of nonsense, not perpetuate it. I support this amendment, and I believe
that it is a test of the determination and sincerity of the House
majority in meeting its mandate to stop wasting people's money.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I represent one of the most
diverse agricultural areas of the country. Farmers in the 12th District
of Georgia grow almost everything you can imagine, fruits and
vegetables, including one of the largest blueberry crops in the Nation
and the world-famous Vidalia onion, commodities like cotton and corn,
pecans and peanuts, chickens and cows.
Georgia is also home to one of the largest container ports in the
country. One of the real bright spots of the American economy is that,
thanks in large part to the Market Access Program, farmers have been
able to expand their exports to foreign markets and ship their crops
through the Port of Savannah to thriving markets overseas. These are
opportunities that these small businesses probably would not have if it
were not for the MAP connections they had.
The people I represent, farmers and nonfarmers alike, understand that
growing markets add tremendous value to what farmers grow. The Market
Access Program expands our access into larger world markets, and access
to these markets is what helps our farmers compete in the global
economy. I think that's worth preserving, so I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of the subcommittee chairmen.
[[Page H3876]]
Mr. CRAWFORD. I most respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chair, the MAP program has been a critical tool for producers in
my district to access foreign markets. The program forms a private-
public partnership that shares the cost of overseas marketing and
promotional activities.
The current agriculture export forecast for FY13 is estimated to be
nearly $140 billion, which smashes our export records. For a country
that operates under a net trade deficit, agriculture has been a bright
spot and generates a surplus.
Independent studies show that the MAP program is directly responsible
for $6.1 billion of these exports. This is a 35 to 1 return on
investment.
How many other Federal programs have this type of economic benefit?
Not many.
With our trade forecast expected to increase this year, this
reinforces the need for valuable programs such as the Market Access
Program. I urge my colleagues most respectfully to oppose the
amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa), a State with the most amazingly diverse
agriculture.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The Market Access Program provides matching grants. These are
matching grants for technical assistance and other activities that help
our family farmers expand their market access overseas.
Let's face it. We are in a global market, and our farmers are not
always facing a level playing field. Since the creation of this
extremely successful agricultural export program, it has increased
America's export by over 500 percent. That is a success story by any
measure.
The USDA's commissioned study conducted in 2010 found that, for every
dollar that MAP spent, it generates, as was noted just a moment ago,
$35 in additional exports. This creates an additional $6.1 billion in
economic activity annually.
Billions and billions of dollars have been achieved as increased
exports as a result of this program and thousands and thousands of
jobs. That includes safeguards to the taxpayers.
The statements by the proponents of this measure, I believe, are
overreaching because they ignore the fact that it is a matching grant.
And the particular statements they make ignore the fact that these were
personal expenditures by these organizations, not the money of the
Market Access Program.
So I would urge you to defeat this amendment. The processors have
matched over 100 percent of the funds that we have provided in this
program. It's been a success by any measure, and I would urge the
defeat of this amendment.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Titus
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 3102, and insert the following new section:
SEC. 3102. FUNDING FOR MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.
Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978
(7 U.S.C. 5641(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``and
$200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' and
inserting ``$200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2013, $185,000,000 for fiscal year 2014, $180,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2017, and $175,000,000
for fiscal year 2018''.
At the end of subtitle C of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4208. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES.
Section 4405 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 7517) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 4405. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES.
``(a) In General.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
``(A) a nonprofit organization (including an emergency
feeding organization);
``(B) an agricultural cooperative;
``(C) a producer network or association;
``(D) a community health organization;
``(E) a public benefit corporation;
``(F) an economic development corporation;
``(G) a farmers' market;
``(H) a community-supported agriculture program;
``(I) a buying club;
``(J) a retail food store participating in the supplemental
nutrition assistance program;
``(K) a State, local, or tribal agency; and
``(L) any other entity the Secretary designates.
``(2) Emergency feeding organization.--The term `emergency
feeding organization' has the meaning given the term in
section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7
U.S.C. 7501).
``(3) Supplemental nutrition assistance program.--The term
`supplemental nutrition assistance program' means the
supplemental nutrition assistance program established under
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
``(b) Hunger-free Communities Incentive Grants.--
``(1) Authorization.--
``(A) In general.--In each of the years specified in
subsection (c), the Secretary shall make grants to eligible
entities in accordance with paragraph (2).
``(B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out an activity under this subsection shall not
exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the activity.
``(C) Non-federal share.--
``(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of an
activity under this subsection may be provided--
``(I) in cash or in-kind contributions as determined by the
Secretary, including facilities, equipment, or services; and
``(II) by a State or local government or a private source.
``(ii) Limitation.--In the case of a for-profit entity, the
non-Federal share described in clause (i) shall not include
services of an employee, including salaries paid or expenses
covered by the employer.
``(2) Criteria.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, an
eligible entity is a governmental agency or nonprofit
organization that--
``(i) meets the application criteria set forth by the
Secretary; and
``(ii) proposes a project that, at a minimum--
``(I) has the support of the State agency;
``(II) would increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables
by low-income consumers participating in the supplemental
nutrition assistance program by providing incentives at the
point of purchase;
``(III) agrees to participate in the evaluation described
in paragraph (4);
``(IV) ensures that the same terms and conditions apply to
purchases made by individuals with benefits issued under this
Act and incentives provided for in this subsection as apply
to purchases made by individuals who are not members of
households receiving benefits, such as provided for in
section 278.2(b) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (or
a successor regulation); and
``(V) includes effective and efficient technologies for
benefit redemption systems that may be replicated in other
for States and communities.
``(B) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to projects that--
``(i) maximize the share of funds used for direct
incentives to participants;
``(ii) use direct-to-consumer sales marketing;
``(iii) demonstrate a track record of designing and
implementing successful nutrition incentive programs that
connect low-income consumers and agricultural producers;
``(iv) provide locally or regionally produced fruits and
vegetables;
``(v) are located in underserved communities; or
``(vi) address other criteria as established by the
Secretary.
``(3) Applicability.--
``(A) In general.--The value of any benefit provided to a
participant in any activity funded under this subsection
shall not be considered income or resources for any purpose
under any Federal, State, or local law.
``(B) Prohibition on collection of sales taxes.--Each State
shall ensure that no State or local tax is collected on a
purchase of food under this subsection.
``(C) No limitation on benefits.--A grant made available
under this subsection shall not be used to carry out any
project that limits the use of benefits under the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) or any other
Federal nutrition law.
``(D) Household allotment.--Assistance provided under this
subsection to households receiving benefits under the
supplemental nutrition assistance program shall not--
``(i) be considered part of the supplemental nutrition
assistance program benefits of the household; or
``(ii) be used in the collection or disposition of claims
under section 13 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2022).
``(4) Evaluation.--
[[Page H3877]]
``(A) Independent evaluation.--The Secretary shall provide
for an independent evaluation of projects selected under this
subsection that measures the impact of each project on--
``(i) improving the nutrition and health status of
participating households receiving incentives under this
subsection; and
``(ii) increasing fruit and vegetable purchases in
participating households.
``(B) Requirement.--The independent evaluation under
subparagraph (A) shall use rigorous methodologies capable of
producing scientifically valid information regarding the
effectiveness of a project.
``(C) Costs.--The Secretary may use funds not to exceed 10
percent of the funding provided to carry out this section to
pay costs associated with administering, monitoring, and
evaluating each project.
``(c) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.
``(2) Mandatory funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall use to carry out
subsection (b)--
``(A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2014;
``(B) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2015 through
2017; and
``(C) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Titus) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the leadership of the Rules and
Agriculture Committees for making this amendment in order.
Right here in the United States, the richest country in the world,
one in four children is at risk of going hungry. Last year, 50.1
million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 16.7
million children. In my home State of Nevada, one in six households
struggles with food security, and 170,000 schoolchildren in southern
Nevada go to school hungry, leaving them unprepared to learn.
So you can see, hunger is not some crisis that is just happening in
remote, faraway lands. It's happening right here, all across our own
country, and we must address it.
That's why I've offered this important amendment that would restore
funding to USDA's Hunger-Free Communities Grant program. This program
has received wide bipartisan support and is included, or was included,
without dissent in the Senate farm bill.
The amendment is a commonsense proposal to ensure that children and
their families have access to the nutritious food they need to survive
and to thrive. It continues a grant program that includes assistance
with food distribution, community outreach, and initiatives that
improve access to food.
The Hunger-Free Communities Grant program has helped facilitate
public-private partnerships across the country, from New York City to
Ajo, Arizona. The grants enable local communities to root out the
causes of hunger and build strategies to eliminate food insecurity.
With the proposed cuts of $20.5 billion to the SNAP benefits, which I
oppose, this amendment becomes even more important.
It's morally unacceptable to allow children to go hungry in the
wealthiest country in the world, so I would encourage my colleagues to
support this amendment to ensure that our communities have the
resources they need to tackle hunger at the local level and create
healthy, hunger-free communities.
Again, I thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for their
consideration of this amendment.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and claim the time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, we all have deep concerns about hunger in
America and hunger around the world, and every effort to abate that is
worthy; however, I must oppose this amendment.
One of our efforts at the committee, over the last several years, is
to look for duplicative processes, duplicative programs to eliminate.
Reducing this duplication in these agencies has been a major priority
for the committee over the last 2\1/2\ years, and we've held audits for
implementing agencies, field hearings across the countryside and
hearings here in Washington to receive stakeholder input on the
effectiveness and, more importantly, the inefficiencies of programs
within our jurisdiction.
{time} 1750
While I support providing access to healthy foods for low-income
communities, I believe that our base bill makes significant strides in
addressing these concerns, both the inefficiencies as well as the
effectiveness of the programs.
What is even more concerning than authorizing this duplicative
program is the offset that is used to pay for more government
redundancy. Exports are vital to the U.S. agricultural economy. Nearly
one-third of our agricultural sales come from exports. In the last 25
years, the Market Access Program has proven to be highly successful in
helping to boost U.S. agricultural exports, expanding jobs and
increasing rural income.
The amount of money sought is about $20 million a year over the 5-
year program for a total of $100 million. We must look at programs that
are effective on a big enough scale to have a really big impact; and
this is a program that, while perhaps impactful on a few very small
communities and small issues, it will not affect hunger widely across
this country.
I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. TITUS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of
the committee, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I, too, must reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment. The Hunger-
Free Community Program is in the Senate bill, and I think there's wide
support for this.
The problem is what's happening here with this amendment is we're
taking mandatory money from the Market Access Program, which is an
important program for a lot of different reasons that were discussed
just in the last amendment, and we're taking money from that program,
which is in title III, and moving it to this hunger-free community
program which is in title IV. And I just don't think that we want to be
taking mandatory money and moving it between titles.
So I think this is something we can consider when we get to
conference. It's in the Senate bill. I encourage people to oppose this
amendment at this time.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just urge that my colleagues support
this important amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
The amendment was rejected.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
113-117 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
Amendment No. 14 by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.
Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Royce of California.
Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McGovern
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
[[Page H3878]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 234, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 256]
AYES--188
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Hahn
Hanabusa
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOES--234
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Cleaver
Duckworth
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Larsen (WA)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Rogers (KY)
{time} 1818
Mrs. BLACK and Messrs. MEEHAN and DUFFY changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. RANGEL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 256 on June 19,
2013, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yes.''
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Foxx
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 267,
noes 156, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 257]
AYES--267
Amash
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barr
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardenas
Carter
Cartwright
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Cotton
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Delaney
DeLauro
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Esty
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holding
Horsford
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lee (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lowenthal
Lucas
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shuster
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Tierney
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
[[Page H3879]]
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--156
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Barber
Barletta
Barrow (GA)
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bonner
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Clyburn
Collins (NY)
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DelBene
Denham
Deutch
Duckworth
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gerlach
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Joyce
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Latham
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Owens
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Ruiz
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Slaughter
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Cleaver
Conyers
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Larsen (WA)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Rogers (KY)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1823
Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CICILLINE, KEATING, LATTA, and BACHUS changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112,
noes 309, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 258]
AYES--112
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Black
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Campbell
Cantor
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Cook
Cotton
Culberson
Daines
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Harris
Hensarling
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kingston
Kline
Lamborn
Latta
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mulvaney
Nunnelee
Palazzo
Paulsen
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Shuster
Smith (WA)
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Tiberi
Upton
Weber (TX)
Westmoreland
Woodall
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--309
Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--13
Cleaver
Conyers
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Larsen (WA)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Rogers (KY)
Slaughter
Vela
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1828
Mr. CARDENAS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. VELA. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 258 on the Brown (GA)
amendment H.R. 1947, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
[[Page H3880]]
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 242, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 259]
AYES--179
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Grayson
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Rooney
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--242
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Cleaver
Conyers
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Larsen (WA)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Rogers (KY)
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1832
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157,
noes 266, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 260]
AYES--157
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Heck (WA)
Himes
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--266
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
[[Page H3881]]
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holding
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Cleaver
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Larsen (WA)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Rogers (KY)
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1836
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Kaptur
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 273,
noes 149, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 261]
AYES--273
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stivers
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (FL)
NOES--149
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Campbell
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Crawford
Daines
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Hunter
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
Kingston
Labrador
Lamborn
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rokita
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Cleaver
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Larsen (WA)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Rogers (KY)
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1840
Mr. WOODALL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Royce
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Royce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
[[Page H3882]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 220, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 262]
AYES--203
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barr
Bass
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Cantor
Capps
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Dent
DeSantis
Deutch
Doggett
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Himes
Holding
Horsford
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Israel
Jeffries
Jordan
Kennedy
Kind
Kingston
Kuster
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Nugent
O'Rourke
Olson
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rangel
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Wenstrup
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--220
Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Barber
Barletta
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Capuano
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
DelBene
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hudson
Hunter
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
LaMalfa
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowenthal
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
Nunnelee
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Posey
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walz
Webster (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Cleaver
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Larsen (WA)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Rogers (KY)
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1845
Mr. COFFMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. OLSON, GUTIERREZ, and LARSON of Connecticut changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Chabot
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98,
noes 322, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 263]
AYES--98
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Barton
Bentivolio
Black
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cohen
Cook
Cooper
Cotton
Culberson
DeSantis
Doggett
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Fleischmann
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gohmert
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Hall
Harris
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Marchant
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
O'Rourke
Olson
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Radel
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Van Hollen
Wagner
Walberg
Wenstrup
Wilson (SC)
Yoder
Young (IN)
NOES--322
Aderholt
Alexander
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
[[Page H3883]]
Kuster
LaMalfa
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Bass
Cleaver
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Larsen (WA)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Pallone
Rogers (KY)
Rush
Slaughter
Waters
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1851
Messrs. WESTMORELAND, WOODALL, COLLINS of Georgia and GINGREY of
Georgia changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Brooks of Alabama
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 18 printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 3203, relating to promotion of agricultural
exports to emerging markets, strike subsection (b) and insert
the following new subsection:
(b) Termination of Program to Develop Agricultural Markets
in Emerging Markets.--Section 1542(d) of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-624; 7 U.S.C. 5622 note) is amended by striking paragraph
(1).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Brooks) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose
would eliminate the funding for the Emerging Markets Program.
For those of you who are not familiar, the Emerging Markets Program
assists United States private and public organizations with agriculture
marketing in low- to middle-income countries in Africa, the Caribbean,
Central and South America, Eurasia and the Middle East.
The Emerging Markets Program funding is $10 million per year in this
food stamp and farm bill. Over the 5-year life of this legislation,
funding is $50 million.
The Emerging Markets Program duplicates and overlaps the Federal
Government's much larger Marketing Agricultural Program. By way of
example, in 2010, at least 27 of the 82 projects funded by the Emerging
Markets Program went to entities that also received funding from the
Federal Government's Marketing Agricultural Program.
Emerging Markets Program expenditures are quite informative:
$30,000 was spent on ``Brazil Craft Beer School Seminars for the
Brewers Association.''
$468,000 in hard-earned taxpayers' money was spent studying food
consumption in China's second-tier cities, the new frontier for U.S.
agricultural export opportunities.
$212,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned money was spent concerning,
``Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Sector Development for the United
States Department of Agriculture/Foreign Services/Chengdu, China.''
$174,431 was spent on a ``Global Food Safety Forum China Exchange for
the GIC Group.''
$35,000 was spent on ``China Beer Distributors Education Program for
the Brewers Association.''
$142,356 was spent on a ``Central American Microbiological Standards
Program for USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.'' And the list goes on
and on and on.
Mr. Chairman, since, first, the Emerging Markets Program overlaps and
duplicates America's Marketing Agricultural Program, and since, second,
the private sector's ability to do this work without Federal Government
intervention or assistance, and since, third, America's out-of-control
deficit and debt situation slowly but surely increased America's risk
of a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy, and since, finally,
America's financial condition forces us to borrow every penny of the
$50 million being spent on the Emerging Markets Program, I urge this
body to be financially responsible by adopting my amendment to
eliminate funding for the Emerging Markets Program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
The Emerging Markets Program, EMP, provides funding for technical
assistance to aid public and private agricultural organizations in
their efforts to improve market opportunities in low- and middle-income
nations that offer viable markets for our U.S. commodities.
{time} 1900
This program truly focuses on promoting U.S. products to build repeat
customers in markets where incomes are growing to the point that they
can import high-quality products. Program resources may only be used to
broadly support export of U.S. commodities and products, and promoting
a company's own branded product is strictly prohibited.
The Emerging Markets Program requires the participating entities to
commit a portion of their own resources to seek export opportunities in
emerging markets, and a priority is given to the applications which
bring the greatest amount of cost-share funds to the project.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of studies about the amount of
dollars that this generates in U.S. agricultural exports. It's one of
those things that helps us move into markets that have the potential
and the growing potential to buy our products. I believe it is a good
use of resources, and it's subject, of course, to the oversight of the
appropriators.
I would ask my colleagues to reject the amendment rather
respectfully; and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma's
response--and he's a good friend of mine--is reflective, unfortunately,
of the financial irresponsibility that jeopardizes America's future
solvency. Let's keep in mind that we're in a triage situation. We've
had four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits. We are looking at
blowing through the $17 billion total accumulated debt mark. If we
cannot eliminate a program of this magnitude--only $10 million per
year--
[[Page H3884]]
a program that is duplicative of other Federal Government programs,
well, I would submit to this body that that suggests and reflects, in a
very strong way, the financial irresponsibility that has put America
into the position we are in where we are at risk long term of a
debilitating financial insolvency and bankruptcy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following
new section:
SEC. 32_. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall seek to ensure that
Department of Agriculture certificates of origin are accepted
by any country with respect to which the United States has
entered into a free trade agreement providing for
preferential duty treatment.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment that addresses a problem relating to the American citrus
industry and implementation of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Chairman, the Congress approved the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade
Agreement, and it was signed by the President in 2011. The agreement
has increased opportunities for U.S. businesses, farmers, and workers
through an important access to a vital foreign market.
Under this agreement, over 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer
and industrial products will become duty-free within 5 years of the
date of the agreement. For American agricultural products, the U.S.-
Korea agreement immediately phases out tariffs and quotas on a broad
range of products.
The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that annual U.S.
agricultural exports to South Korea will increase by a minimum of $1.9
billion upon full implementation. In particular, the free trade
agreement eliminated South Korea's 54 percent tariff on frozen
concentrated orange juice, and it phases out the tariffs on fresh
grapefruit and freshly squeezed orange juice over 5 years.
The negotiated removal of such tariffs will allow the American citrus
industry to grow and expand. It will create jobs in America, including
jobs related to citrus growers, maritime businesses and ports such as
my home port, the Port of Tampa. This is great news for my home State
of Florida and other States across the U.S. where they grow citrus.
It's vital to our economy and local communities.
But we have hit a little bit of a stumbling block with South Korea
during the implementation of the free trade agreement. South Korea is
resisting the USDA's country-of-origin certification for U.S. citrus.
My amendment, the Castor amendment, seeks to correct this problem by
directing the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure that the Department's
certificates of origin are accepted by any country with respect to
which the United States has entered into a free trade agreement
providing for preferential duty treatment.
Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office says there's no new cost
for this amendment. I would like to thank my colleagues from Florida,
Congressman Webster and Congressman Hastings on the Rules Committee,
for their support in getting this amendment made in order. I'd like to
thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for their fair
consideration.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Castor amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. I would just note to the gentlelady I think by the
expression on my ranking member's face we both agree this is a good-
faith effort to try to make something happen. Therefore we would accept
the language.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee and the ranking member and thank them for including the
Castor amendment in the farm bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). It is now in order to
consider amendment No. 20 printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Grimm
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. GRIMM. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 318, at the end of line 3, add the following:
``At least 1 such pilot project shall be carried out in an
urban area that is among the 10 largest urban areas in the
United States (based on population) if the supplemental
nutrition assistance program is separately administered in
such area and if the administration of such program in such
area complies with the other applicable requirements of such
program.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Grimm) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would reduce fraud in the SNAP program.
The farm bill currently requires the USDA to create pilot programs
around the Nation that leverage Federal-State partnerships to combat
SNAP retailer fraud.
My amendment requires the USDA to include at least one of the top 10
largest urban areas as one of the pilot program locations. To be clear,
the bill specifically states that any State or large urban area chosen
for a pilot program would not be able to divert resources away from
recipient anti-fraud efforts; thus, this program only supplements those
recipient fraud efforts.
This is a critically important amendment because we must ensure that
the pilot programs account for the unique structure of SNAP programs
within large urban areas. For instance, in one Midwest State, 75
percent of SNAP benefits were redeemed in just eight large supermarkets
or publicly owned convenience store chains.
But the urban environment is distinctly different. As an example, New
York City has over 10,000 SNAP retailers--of which 80 percent are
small, privately owned retailers. According to recent statistics, while
87 percent of SNAP transactions occur in large supermarkets, they
account for only 5.4 percent of retailer trafficking.
{time} 1910
Conversely, 9 percent of SNAP retailers are privately owned--small
convenience stores in local neighborhoods--but they account for 80
percent of SNAP fraud.
Therefore, to be successful in combating retailer fraud, we must
ensure that we're able to investigate fraudulent activities at these
small, privately owned stores. To do this, we must ensure that a large
urban area is included in at least one of these pilot programs, in one
location. If we fail to include a large urban area in the pilot
program, we will miss a large portion of retailers responsible for 80
percent of the retailer fraud.
This amendment will not take a pilot program away from any other
State or determine which large urban area must receive a program. It
only says that to
[[Page H3885]]
ensure we receive fully accurate information from the pilots, that we
must include at least one large urban area.
Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRIMM. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. I would note to my good friend and colleague that I think
he is involved here in a good government measure, and I would encourage
my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. GRIMM. I thank the chairman of the Ag committee, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek time in opposition? If not,
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Grimm).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hudson
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. HUDSON. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle A of title IV (page 346, after line
17), insert the following new section:
SEC. 4033. TESTING APPLICANTS FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES.
Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2015), as amended by section 4009. is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(s) Testing Applicants for Unlawful Use of Controlled
Substances.--
``(1) Nothing in this Act, or in any other Federal law,
shall be considered to prevent a State, at the full cost to
such State, from--
``(A) enacting legislation to provide for testing any
individual who is a member of a household applying for
supplemental nutrition assistance benefits, for the unlawful
use of controlled substances as a condition for receiving
such benefits; and
``(B) finding an individual ineligible to participate in
the supplemental nutrition assistance program on the basis of
the positive result of the testing conducted by the State
under such legislation.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, term `controlled
substance' has the meaning given such term in section 102 of
the Controlled Substances Act ((21 U.S.C. 802).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our
commonsense amendment to allow the States to conduct drug screening on
applicants for welfare. If adopted, this amendment would join a list of
good government reforms contained in the FARRM Bill that save taxpayer
money and ensure integrity and accountability within our nutrition
system.
From preventing lottery winners from receiving food stamps to closing
loopholes and preventing illegal immigrants from receiving benefits, I
commend the chairman and ranking member on the work done to reform the
food stamps program in the FARRM Bill.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment simply allows the States to conduct drug
testing to ensure addicts and criminals are not taking food out of the
mouths of hungry children. This debate is not about hungry children. We
all agree that we need to take care of the least among us, those who
need this type of assistance. We all agree that we don't want children
to go hungry. What this amendment is about is making sure that addicts
and criminals are not taking what is not theirs, taking food from the
mouths of these children, taking food from those who are in need.
So I ask my colleagues to just consider this as a simple measure, a
commonsense measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would rebut several of the
arguments the gentleman has made.
First of all, you know, common sense really ain't that common, and
this amendment is an example of that. First of all, it uses very
fallacious arguments that presume that most of the people who use food
stamps also use drugs. I would just remind the body that 46 percent of
the people who use food stamps are hungry children. And as the author
of this amendment has suggested--quite incorrectly--this is not about
hungry children, it is; because if that person in the household who is
the applicant is denied food stamps, hungry children will be affected.
This is unconstitutional. This has been through court. It violates
the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against illegal searches and
seizures. It costs a lot of public money just to humiliate people. They
found in Florida, for example, that people who don't use public
assistance programs are three times more likely to be drug users; and
nationwide, they have found that recipients don't use drugs at any
greater rate than the general population. This is a slippery slope in
violating one of the basic tenets of our Constitution.
Mandatory drug testing laws are not based on individualized
suspicion, and the Supreme Court has held that it doesn't pass the
constitutional measure. It will cost $75 for one of these drug tests,
and for what purpose? Just to criminalize and humiliate poor people.
So with that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUDSON. At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague from North Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my colleagues, Congressmen Hudson and
LaMalfa, in offering this amendment.
Under current law, States are not allowed to test SNAP recipients.
This amendment would give States the authority to do the testing only
if they want to, so it gives States States' rights.
Law-abiding citizens who are most in need are those who the program
is meant to serve. We're cutting waste to protect this program so we
make sure that the SNAP dollars are going to those who truly need it,
not to those who are able to spend funds on illegal purchases.
With a $17 trillion national debt, we must give States all the tools
they need in order to make sure SNAP funding goes to the people most in
need.
I thank my colleagues, Congressman Hudson and Congressman LaMalfa,
for working with me on this and encourage my colleagues to vote in
favor of this amendment.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 3 minutes
remaining.
Ms. MOORE. I just would like to remind the body and the sponsors of
this bill that SNAP already has an option to target and punish drug
offenders. States right now, without this amendment, can require
individuals who have been convicted of a drug felony to submit to a
drug test before they can receive SNAP benefits--totally in line with
our Constitution.
At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a great member on the Ag Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady, and I rise along with her to
oppose this amendment.
I just want to say, Really? This is what we're debating here right
now? I mean, I'm curious why the amendment doesn't include drug testing
for people who get benefits of crop insurance or who receive direct
payments, agricultural benefits from the Federal Government. Why aren't
we requiring that they be drug tested, too? Why don't we drug test all
the Members of Congress here, force everybody to go urinate in a cup to
see whether or not anybody is on drugs? Maybe that will explain why
some of these amendments are coming up or why some of the votes are
turning out the way they are.
Bottom line is this is about demeaning poor people, and we've been
doing this time and time again on this House floor. Enough is enough.
We don't need this amendment. This is a bad idea. Please vote it down.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HUDSON. At this point, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
[[Page H3886]]
Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join my colleagues,
Representatives Hudson and Yoho, to again offer a commonsense amendment
that will further assist in diminishing the abuse in the SNAP program.
This is a no-nonsense amendment. If you have enough money to buy
drugs, you do not need taxpayer money to buy food. This amendment
protects the taxpayer from directly subsidizing the purchase of drugs.
Without this amendment, drug users will continue to use their money to
buy drugs and your money to buy food.
This amendment gives States the ability to implement a drug screening
program in the way that works best for them, but it needs to be part of
the SNAP benefit qualification application. There are already 29 States
that have proposals to do this, and eight States have already passed
this type of legislation for this type of screening.
Letting drug users abuse the SNAP program diverts funds from those
who truly need it. That's what we're about here. Of course, this is
what taxpayers, when you talk to regular folks, this is the kind of
thing they complain about around the kitchen table, like, ``Why are my
tax dollars going towards this?'' If I had a dime for every time I've
heard this.
{time} 1920
People want this sort of thing to happen for those that are abusing
this program. Taxpayers deserve better; the folks that really need the
benefits of food stamps deserve better.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady.
I think that this is really the height of temerity here to make
reference to people who are on a food stamp program and make a
presumption that because they're on a food stamp program that they are
using drugs and that they should be tested.
My gosh, I would just say that what about those people who are
getting $4.7 million in direct payments from the Federal Government--as
the gentleman from California does--and an additional $1.2 million from
direct payments from the Federal Government? Maybe we ought to start
drug testing all of the people who get some sort of a benefit from the
Federal Government, and particularly those folks in this program, like
the folks who are on crop insurance.
We can't find out the names of the 26 individuals on crop insurance
that get at least $1 million--$1 million they get in a premium subsidy.
And do you know what, my friends? There is no cap on the amount of
money, there is no threshold on what they can receive, they have no
eligibility criteria. They just get the money, and they don't have to
even farm the land. Why don't we drug test those folks today and not
demean people who have fallen on hard times?
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time
remaining.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield myself the balance
of my time.
Again, I ask my colleagues to consider this as a commonsense measure
that does nothing to take food away from those who need it, but it
makes sure the integrity of this program is upheld. We don't make any
presumptions about folks on the program, but we think that States need
this tool so that they can make sure that folks who are on the program
are the folks that need to be on that program.
I thank the gentlelady, my colleague, from Connecticut for endorsing
this farm bill this year because we do eliminate direct payments. As
she alluded, I agree, that is a practice that we should end, and so I
appreciate her endorsement of that piece of it.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I will conclude by just saying I urge my
colleagues to support this commonsense measure that does nothing but
allow the States to have the tool to use drug testing should they see
fit when administering this program.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 15
seconds.
Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not commonsensical; this
is unconstitutional. The majority wants to excuse itself from taking
food away from 46 million people who are hungry, and it is a proxy for
criminalizing the food stamp program in order to get away with it.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Conaway
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4033. REDUCTION IN BENEFITS PAID WITH UNAUTHORIZED
APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 8(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2017(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) The'' and inserting the following:
``(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For any fiscal year for which funds are not
authorized under section 18(a)(1), the thrifty food plan
shall be reduced by 10 percent only for the purpose of
determining the value of allotments under paragraph (1) for
such fiscal year.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I offer this amendment because serious reforms to the SNAP program
are difficult because the program continues on autopilot even after the
FARRM Bill expires.
SNAP is defined as an appropriated entitlement, meaning that
appropriations can continue to fund the program regardless of action
taken by the Ag Committee.
This amendment is about the accountability of SNAP. While SNAP
funding is provided in the annual appropriations act, the level of
spending for appropriated entitlements is not controlled through the
annual appropriations process. Instead, the level of spending for
appropriated entitlements, like other entitlements, is based on the
benefits and the eligibility criteria established in law.
The amount provided in the appropriations act is based on the
projected level. In general, the maximum SNAP benefit is set at 100
percent of the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan. TFP is calculated each year by
USDA as the lowest cost food plan and varies by household size.
Benefits are further reduced by 30 percent of a qualifying family's
annual income on the expectation that families contribute to their own
food purchases.
This amendment will simply reduce by 10 percent the Thrifty Food Plan
calculation in any year that SNAP is not authorized, otherwise bringing
the Agriculture Committee back into the operations. In this way, all
parties would have an incentive to come to the table and negotiate SNAP
reforms while drafting the next FARRM Bill.
It is important to note that this amendment does not end SNAP; nor is
it expected this amendment will actually ever go into force. It simply
lowers the benefit if, and only if, Congress fails to reach an
agreement on how to reauthorize the SNAP program. Further, it does not
impact the baseline for this year's FARRM Bill and does not cost any
money to implement.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment and reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
[[Page H3887]]
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is unprecedented. This far-reaching amendment would quite
literally hold millions of our country's poorest children, working
families, seniors, and the disabled hostage to this Congress' ability
to compromise and pass a farm bill. That is almost laughable. This
Congress hasn't been able to come to an agreement or a compromise on
anything.
If the farm bill is not reauthorized by September 30, food stamps for
all families of four would be cut about $64 a month. Right now, more
than 47 million Americans, including more than 19 million children,
rely on food stamps to put food on the table. They don't rely on the
program because they want to; they rely on the food stamp program
because they have no other choice. They either do not make enough money
to afford food for their family because of the paltry minimum wage or
they are temporarily unemployed because of the historic economic
recession this country has experienced.
This is a misguided amendment. It would impose deep cuts for each and
every one of the households. The nonpartisan Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities estimated that passing this amendment could result in
a nearly 15 percent cut for households. That is $64 for a family of
four when they only receive an average of less than $430 a month.
Already, 90 percent of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week
of the month, around the same time that food banks see more and more
men, women, and children enrolled in the program turning to the food
bank because their benefits ran out.
All social safety net programs, including food stamps, have
historically been protected from automatic across-the-board cuts. This
was true when the law was enacted in 1985, 1987, 1990, 2010, and the
Budget Control Act of 2011. SNAP was also protected in Simpson-Bowles,
which recognizes the need not to reduce the deficit on the backs of the
poor and the most vulnerable in this country.
Christian leaders continue to call on this body to form a circle of
protection around programs that help the neediest Americans, including
those on food stamps. That circle of protection should surround this
amendment.
I urge my colleagues to heed that request and to oppose this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, can you tell me how much time remains.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
{time} 1930
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Let me get this straight. So, if Congress doesn't do its job, we
don't get punished--poor people get punished. I think we have it
backwards here. Why should we hold poor people hostage to the fact that
somehow this Congress can't get its act together? For our lack of
ability to get things done around here, we don't hold people
accountable who receive other subsidies who are, quite frankly, well
off.
This is yet another in a series of amendments to diminish the plight
of poor people, to demonize programs like SNAP; and I really think it's
unfortunate. I mean, we're going to punish poor people because we can't
reauthorize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. What a
terrible idea. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
will agree with us on this and reject this.
Ms. DeLAURO. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlelady from Connecticut has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. I think it's really rather incredible that we, once
again, in the prior amendment have singled out a group of people, many
of whom today are people who were working but who lost their jobs
through no fault of their own and who find themselves in a situation in
which they have to access the food stamp program in order to feed their
families.
On the other hand, those people whom I singled out earlier--the 26
individuals--will get at least $1 million in a premium subsidy for crop
insurance, and they have no income threshold at all. These folks, if we
can't get to a compromise, will continue to get what they're getting.
They're eating well. I would bet they have more than three squares a
day.
Let's think about who this amendment targets--76 percent of SNAP
households, including child, senior or disabled individuals. The
average household on SNAP has a gross monthly income of $744. The
average SNAP allocation is already less than $1.50 per meal, and 55
percent of SNAP dollars go to households with incomes below half of the
Federal poverty line. This targets the poorest. It asks them to pay a
price for congressional farm bill politics.
Let's talk about the Members of Congress. If they can't get it to a
compromise, let's make sure they don't get their salaries and that we
do something to those who are responsible for not getting the job done.
Don't take it out on the poorest people in this Nation. This is
unprecedented. It is immoral. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Many of the arguments that have just been made speak to
why we need to do this deal. We need that sense of urgency that is
portrayed on the other side in order to get this FARRM Bill done.
Now, this amendment won't take effect until the next FARRM Bill; but
right now, this FARRM Bill's only production agriculture and
conservation programs are trying to drag this program across the finish
line with 219 votes. The nutrition program and its supporters couldn't
give a rat's rear end whether or not it gets passed because its program
goes forward without any effect if we don't do anything. They're really
at an advantage to production agriculture.
This is not about the SNAP program, and this is not about the
benefits. This is simply saying, I don't necessarily think SNAP is
perfect, and the only way to get out of SNAP reform is to bring the
SNAP beneficiaries--who are in every single congressional district, as
opposed to farmers who are not in every single congressional district--
to the table, to have some skin in the game, to make sure that they are
communicating to their Members of Congress that they want them to get
something done.
Right now, they're just simply on the take side. They're not part of
the process, and they don't have to be because of the way we've done
these rules. Arguing against the rules of the House don't argue about
the idea that we must do our jobs. As Congressmen, we do our jobs. I've
got folks back home who motivate me to do it far more than anything
else that's up here. This amendment is simply saying that SNAP has a
role and that the SNAP beneficiaries have a role in communicating to
their Members of Congress to get this work done on a timely basis.
I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 printed in part B of
House Report 113-117.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Butterfield
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:
SEC. 4033. SNAP ENHANCEMENT.
(a) Amendment.--Section 3(k) of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(k)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and (9)'' the last place it appears and
inserting ``(9)'', and
[[Page H3888]]
(2) by inserting ``, and (10) items of personal hygiene for
household use'' before the period at the end.
(b) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st
month that begins not less than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to propose an amendment to the
nutrition title of this bill. I will mention at the outset that my
amendment has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as budget
neutral and not adding to direct spending.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It will expand the items
available for purchase under the SNAP program to include items of
personal hygiene.
Historically, the purpose of the SNAP program has been to provide
financial assistance to poor individuals to purchase food. Nearly 50
million people in this country currently rely on SNAP benefits to
provide food for themselves and their families. No one wants to depend
on SNAP for one's next meal, but we have a responsibility to our
neighbors to provide and care for them in their time of need; but for
the poor, need does not just stop at food.
While SNAP currently provides financial assistance to purchase
certain types of food, there is no mechanism to help needy people
purchase personal hygiene items like toothbrushes and toothpaste and
toilet paper and feminine items, among other items used for their
personal care, items that they cannot afford. My amendment expands
SNAP-eligible purchases to include personal hygiene items to be
determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Ensuring that poor families have access to personal hygiene products
is the right thing to do. Giving families the ability to purchase
personal hygiene products will save us money in the long run. Poor
personal hygiene can have far-reaching consequences on an individual's
health and result in more trips to the emergency room, and it increases
uncompensated care. Research indicates that a lack of proper dental
hygiene can increase the risk of heart attack and stroke, can
exacerbate diabetes and kidney disease and, for expectant mothers, can
increase the risk of delivering a pre-term, low-birth-weight baby.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are coming out of this recession and
when State governments across the country, like the one in my home
State of North Carolina, are refusing to expand Medicaid, now is the
time to give our most vulnerable citizens some flexibility to buy
products that will improve their long-term health. It is especially
critical as we stand here today to debate this $20.5 billion cut to the
SNAP program.
So, Chairman Lucas and all of those responsible for this bill, thank
you for the work that you have done.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is just that--a
nutrition assistance program--which is designed to provide nutrition
assistance to eligible low-income individuals and their families.
Personal hygiene items never have been eligible for purchase under a
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program transaction and should never
be eligible under SNAP. We should be devoting our scarce resources to
providing food to hungry Americans, not personal hygiene items.
I urge my colleagues to join me in the opposition of this amendment
and to vote ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
I think that the majority has really raised the point that,
historically, we have not allowed purchases beyond food for the food
stamp program, but it's not that poor people don't really need to be
able to do that.
{time} 1940
This amendment is very narrow, and I can recall from personal
experience some of the things that many families run out of in a family
that are directly related to their nutritional needs, like a baby
bottle. You've never seen a family frantically trying to find the last
baby bottle or nipple that the baby has bitten off and not be able to
deliver the formula to the child because they don't have a baby bottle
and it'll cost over $2 to be able to make that purchase.
Certainly, toilet paper is sort of inversely related to eating. The
need for feminine hygiene products or deodorant is something that adds
to the dignity of being alive. It's quite true that many Americans
during our Great Recession only had food stamps to depend on, not even
TANF benefits. So if you're looking for a job, you really do want to
have deodorant and toothpaste.
I think that this is budget neutral, and it is a small concession to
make given the draconian cuts we're making in the program already.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I reserve the balance of my time, as I'm prepared to
close if the gentleman has no further speakers.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask my colleagues if they
would look very closely at this amendment. It's not a radical
amendment. It simply empowers those recipients of SNAP to buy very
simple and basic items that are related to nutrition, such as toilet
paper and toothpaste and toothbrushes and the like.
I ask my colleagues to please allow an up-or-down vote on this and to
vote ``aye'' on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I respect the initiative here. I
appreciate that. I think that we're kind of wandering into uncharted
waters here because we're talking about a farm bill and nutrition
title, and this is not, I don't believe, in our purview to authorize
the use of nutrition funds to address personal hygiene items, and
that's why I have reservations about this.
I appreciate the effort put forth here and totally recognize the
value of personal hygiene. I'm a big believer in personal hygiene. I
just don't think that it's appropriate for us to address personal
hygiene items in the context of nutrition.
For that reason, I would respectfully request a ``no'' vote on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Marino
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle A, of title IV, insert the
following:
SEC. 4033. GAO PILOT PROGRAM TO COLLECT AND PUBLISH
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE BENEFIT
REDEMPTION DATA.
(a) Pilot Program.--After the enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General shall carry out a pilot program as
follows:
(1) The program shall collect the data that is currently
required to be reported under the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) and under the benefit redemption
requirements applicable to households under such Act.
(2) The program shall be carried out in 9 States, selected
by the Comptroller General in the discretion of the
Comptroller General, based on a good variety of demographics,
economics and geographics.
(3) The program shall conclude after the expiration of the
9-month period, and before
[[Page H3889]]
the expiration of the 1-year period, beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Results of Program.--Promptly after the conclusion of
the program, the Comptroller General shall--
(1) describe the extent to which data collected under
subsection (a) can be analyzed under current reporting
requirements to identify the aggregate number and aggregate
cost of each specific food item purchased with supplemental
nutrition assistance benefits;
(2) indicate which additional information should be
collected in order to obtain the aggregate number of and cost
of each specific food item purchased with supplemental
nutrition assistance benefits;
(3) make recommendations necessary to improve the current
benefit redemption data reporting requirements to enable the
Secretary to publish on the Internet in a searchable,
comparable database available to the public, the aggregate
number and aggregate cost of each specific food item
purchased with supplemental nutrition assistance benefits;
and
(4) publish the data collected under subsection(a) on the
Internet in a searchable, comparable database available to
the public.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
My amendment is simple. This amendment finally brings some
transparency and public accountability to the 80-plus billion dollar
food stamp program. It directs the Government Accountability Office to
establish a pilot program in nine States that will allow the GAO to
collect and make public information showing how our food stamp dollars
are being spent.
As a prosecutor, I presented all of the facts to the jury so that
they were able to make an accurate decision based on the evidence. It
is inconceivable to me that at a time when all Americans are demanding
accountability and transparency in government, we are allowing 80-plus
billion dollars a year to go out the door with virtually no idea on how
it is being spent. To put that into context, $80 billion a year is more
than double the amount of money the Department of Homeland Security
received in the appropriation bill we approved on June 6 and roughly
the same amount that was cut by sequester.
I have had several interesting arguments made to me against this
bill, driven primarily by Big Business, who are more interested in
protecting profits rather than taxpayers. Opponents have argued that
this would be costly for retailers to implement.
First, the information required to be reported and made public is
information that retailers are already required to keep under existing
law. I also find it ironic that opponents are arguing that because
there may be a compliance cost for a program that is voluntary for
retailers, we should just forego any meaningful oversight over how
these taxpayer dollars are being spent.
Some opponents claim that this is food surveillance. This amendment
is not food surveillance; it is oversight and accountability. At a time
of high debt and deficit, it is incumbent on Congress to scrutinize
fully every Federal dollar spent.
I have also heard opponents argue that SNAP is efficient because USDA
says that it only has a 3.8 percent error rate. This is a false, red
herring argument that is meant to distract from what this amendment
would do. The error rate referred to involves the percentage of
benefits that either went to ineligible households or went to eligible
households, but in excessive amounts. The error rate has nothing to do
with how the taxpayer dollars are spent.
Having that information is critical, especially as we debate things
like how much to scale back the SNAP program or whether it is
inappropriate to allow the purchase of certain items with SNAP dollars.
I have heard that there were no hearings about the SNAP program in
conjunction with this FARRM Bill. I agree that there should have been
hearings. Nevertheless, those hearings would be more productive if they
had all the information as to how programs are operating.
My amendment would give us and the American people the ability to
make informed policy decisions about the program. That is why my
amendment is supported by a range of groups from the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine to Americans for Limited Government.
Mr. Chairman, I want to again emphasize that this amendment is about
transparency. It is about oversight and accountability. We have to have
the facts at our disposal to determine what, if anything, to do. It is
about good government.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this commonsense
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most
terrible amendments that has ever been brought before this House of
Representatives. It goes against the very grain of what America is
about.
I don't care if you're rich. I don't care if you're poor. I don't
care if you're in the service. I don't care if you have to have SNAP.
You are an American. And Americans today if they're tired of one thing,
they're tired of the government prying into their lives under
surveillance that's happening right now on the 6 o'clock news, in our
major papers. The one thing is the mistrust of a government-
surveillance program. This has everything to do with surveillance.
That's exactly what it is. It's a food surveillance program from my
good friend, Mr. Tom Marino.
What this will do--you tell me if it isn't--it will require retail
food stores to monitor, to put in a surveillance system, to collect and
report back to the Secretary of Agriculture detailed information that
identifies what food items, what type, what size of purchase by those
who are on SNAP.
This isn't about SNAP. You've gone into the grocery stores. Everybody
goes into that grocery store as an American to purchase, to buy the
food, the basic things that he needs to survive. You can't put
surveillance on the SNAP person without putting surveillance on every
American that goes into that store. How asinine such an amendment this
is in this eagerness of this declaring of war on SNAP recipients.
{time} 1950
We are declaring a war on the soul of America itself. And I don't
care if you're liberal; I don't care if you're moderate or you are
conservative. Every American ought to be concerned about this. You're
not going to be able to put a surveillance program over what the SNAP
folks get without putting a surveillance program over all Americans.
Just think about how big our system is, and the statistics bear it out.
Right now, there are 460,000 different items on the market shelves.
There are 15,000 new ones going on every year. What's going to happen
there?
And for the consumers, there's going to be a cost. Yes, there's going
to be a cost. These retailers don't go and print money and make it. Do
you know who is going to pay for the cost of this surveillance program
that is unneeded? It's going to be the customers.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, and with all due respect to the
gentleman, let us ease this war against the poorest who are among us. I
remind everybody every day that the fastest growing group of recipients
who are receiving benefits from food stamps are our veterans, the very
ones who've gone and put their lives on the line, who come back maimed,
that have to depend on food stamps, who went and fought overseas so we
could be free from surveillance, and here's an amendment that wants to
put surveillance on them.
Let's look at this and see it for what it is. It is an awful
surveillance program. And I have respect for the gentleman, but this
amendment is totally misguided and does great damage to the heart and
the soul of this Nation, because you cannot discriminate going into
those grocery stores against the poor recipient of SNAP without
discriminating and taking away the freedoms of every single American.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. MARINO. You know, keeping track of this, it's already done by a
bar code, so there's no additional cost. And
[[Page H3890]]
there's no surveillance. There's no cameras. There's nothing checking
on anybody. We're not asking who is buying. We're asking what is being
purchased. With my colleagues, it's always a war. It's a war on women,
and now it's a war on people using food stamps.
We should be doing this anyhow. It's a law that should be done by the
stores. It is just not being enforced. Hardworking taxpayers deserve
accountability. They deserve to know how their $80 billion is being
spent and on what. I wonder what my friend across the aisle is
concerned about, perhaps what the results will show. But we don't know
at this point. The American people are entitled to know how their money
is being spent.
As I said, there's no cost associated with this. They're doing it by
bar code anyhow. Everything that goes through a store now is bar coded,
so it's just reporting the information. If anything is misguided, what
is misguided is $80 billion in 2012 and $82.5 billion projected in 2013
that's going to be spent and there is no accountability for it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Chabot
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4033. EXPUNGEMENT OF UNSUED SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS.
Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2020), as amended by section 4015, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(w) Expungement of Unused Beneftis.--The State agency
shall expunge from the EBT account of a household benefits
that are not used before the expiration of the 60-day period
beginning on the date such benefits are posted to such
account.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I introduced this amendment to reform the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, or SNAP program, and specifically the electronic
benefit transfer account program within the SNAP or within the food
stamp program.
The SNAP, or food stamp program, is in dire need of reform, and I
think most people realize that and many have spoken out about that
already. Under the current administration, the Obama administration,
the number of people on food stamps has increased by 16.5 million
persons. In 2011, the SNAP program handed out $84 billion in food
stamps in 1 year alone. The SNAP program is now the second most
expensive--after Medicaid--program, and it is the fastest growing of
all the Federal Government's 80 welfare programs. This cost is
unsustainable. Reforms can be made without impacting, in my belief,
those who truly need assistance; and there are some who truly need
assistance, and we ought to help them.
Under current law, unused benefits are rolled over each month and can
pile up for an entire year. The current law is terribly flawed and
encourages fraud and abuse. My amendment would increase the integrity
of the program by ending the rollover and recouping leftover benefits.
Instead of allowing benefits to remain unused in an account for an
entire year, my amendment would return unused SNAP or unused food stamp
money or benefits to the U.S. Treasury after 60 days, 2 months, which I
believe is a reasonable period of time.
Those actually using the benefits or those truly in need would not be
impacted. The intent of SNAP, or food stamps, is to assist those in
need on an as-needed basis. If a recipient hasn't utilized all their
benefits, those benefits could be used to help others who do need them
or used to reduce our almost $17 trillion national debt.
Clearly, this is a program in need of reform. My amendment addresses
the out-of-control growth we have witnessed with this program over the
past 4 years, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just like to say, on behalf of the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing
this good government amendment before us today. Current law states that
a State agency must return unused benefits to the Treasury after a 12-
month period of inactivity. The gentleman's amendment simply shortens
that time period that a SNAP recipient has to claim their benefits to
60 days.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense amendment.
Mr. CHABOT. I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to claim the time in
opposition? If not, the gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would also note that almost 80 percent of
the farm bill--we're spending about a trillion dollars overall--goes to
the food stamp program. So we're talking about a very significant part
of the overall farm bill.
The GAO notes in a report:
It's inconclusive regarding whether SNAP, or food stamps,
alleviates hunger and malnutrition in low-income households.
Think about that. It's inconclusive whether it actually reduces
hunger or malnutrition. And the people that it's supposed to be
helping, which is low-income households, if that's the case, why are we
spending all these dollars? This doesn't go to the entire food stamp
program, obviously; it just goes to a certain item, and that is
reducing from a year, allowing those dollars to pile up, to a
reasonable time, which is 2 months.
I would also note that the GAO report goes on to say that the amount
of SNAP money paid in error is substantial, totaling in the billions of
dollars.
{time} 2000
So it's clearly something that should be reformed.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mrs. Black
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4033. TERMINATION OF EXISTING AGREEMENT.
Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
memorandum of understanding entered into on July 22, 2004, by
the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States Department
of Agriculture and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Mexico and known as the ``Partnership for
Nutrition Assistance Initiative'' is null and void.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I rise today to speak in support of my amendment to officially end
the agreement between the USDA and the Mexican Government known as the
Partnership for Nutrition Assistance Initiative.
Now, this partnership began back in 2004, but it has greatly expanded
under the Obama administration. It's an aggressive outreach program
funded by
[[Page H3891]]
U.S. taxpayer dollars which promotes SNAP enrollment in targeted
communities by partnering with Mexican Government officials to hold
meetings, health fairs, and coordinate other outreach initiatives
designed to bring working-class families into public assistance and
dependence programs.
Not only is this an ill-conceived partnership with Mexico promoting a
life of dependency rather than upward mobility, there is no reason to
believe that the Obama administration isn't just using this partnership
as a way to get illegal immigrants enrolled in the SNAP program.
This current partnership is among the most egregious examples of
policies contributing to the 46 percent expansion in SNAP recipients
under the Obama administration, and it must stop now.
My amendment today is an opportunity for Congress to be good stewards
of our taxpayer dollars, our hardworking taxpayer dollars, and to get
the U.S. Government out of the business of promoting dependence.
I urge my colleagues today to vote in support of my amendment to
terminate this partnership with the Mexican Government. Let's stop this
blatant misuse of the taxpayer dollars so that SNAP is there for those
who have fallen on hard times and truly need temporary assistance, not
for exploitation by foreign governments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding.
And on behalf of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I would
like to thank her for bringing this amendment to void the partnership
with the Mexican Government that promotes participation in the SNAP
program.
We support this amendment, and urge our colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek time in opposition? If not,
the gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, this is so important that we are assured
that our hardworking taxpayer dollars are used for those that are the
most in need, as a safety net, and not to be given to foreign
governments. And so I ask support for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Ms. Kaptur
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 4402(a) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3007(a)), as added by
section 4201 of subtitle C of title IV--
(1) in paragraph (2) strike the close quotation and the
period at the end, and
(2) add at the end the following:
``(3) Requirement.--Not less than 50 percent of the funds
made available to carry out this section in any fiscal year
shall be used to provide assistance to seniors.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman, and yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I'm offering today would create a clear
set-aside for senior citizens in the Farmers Market Nutrition Program.
Senior hunger is a serious and growing problem, sadly, in our
country. Feeding America estimates nearly 5 million seniors--5 million;
1 in 12--in 2011 were food insecure, double the number in 2001. With
prices up and with what's happening across this country, we know that
that number is not the top, but probably the base, and it's probably
more.
So, senior hunger is a growing problem, and we know the costs of food
are up. In fact, 6 percent of households with an elderly person are
definitely food insecure, and we know that women over the age of 85
have a poverty rate of 13.8 percent. That means elderly women have the
second-highest poverty rate in the Nation.
This is a great country. No single senior citizen in our country
should ever have to worry about food.
I remember one senior center that I went to for a small little lunch,
and they put these tiny sandwiches on the plate, and they cut them in
half. And I remember a senior woman, very frail, very elderly, she took
half a sandwich and ate it, and then when she thought no one else was
looking, she wrapped up the other half of the sandwich and put it in
her purse.
Unless you really see it, you don't realize how painful it is for
millions of seniors across our country. Senior hunger has a health
impact because food insecurity among elders causes more headaches, more
dehydration, more disability, more decreases in resistance to
infection, more high blood pressure and extended hospital stays.
In fact, food-insecure elderly persons have been found to be over two
times more likely to report poor or fair health. Ultimately, the health
impact of hunger results in higher health care costs.
In an effort to help address this serious problem of senior hunger,
Congress created the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. It is a
very popular and very effective program. It is so small and meagerly
funded it doesn't even function in every congressional district in this
country.
But the program is a home run for seniors who need help, and it's a
home run for local producers. The program brings together needy
seniors, who purchase fresh and nutritious, locally-grown fruits,
vegetables, honey and herbs at their local farmers markets, roadside
stands and community-supported agriculture programs.
In effect, seniors help farmers and farmers help seniors. Farmers
expand their customer base, and seniors buy fresh vegetables, fresh
fruits, fresh honey, locally produced, which helps to combat many
allergies which are growing across this country and, obviously, herbs.
The program helps local food production because farmers sell their
agricultural products locally, at local places, with direct marketing.
There are similar programs for WIC participants but, unfortunately,
the discretionary funding for the program has been declining. It is my
hope that as we go to conference with the Senate we can look at the
changes in the underlying bill and increase mandatory funding for a
unified program.
From my perspective, a unified program holds the potential to serve
the more needy seniors, which will help combat senior hunger. Given the
damage sequestration is doing to Meals on Wheels and other senior
assistance programs, I hope we can work on a bipartisan basis to
support our seniors, the most vulnerable among us.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Who claims time in opposition?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have been given every indication that
this amendment is going to be acceptable to both sides, and I would
urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Schweikert
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In subtitle C of title IV, strike section 4207.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
{time} 2010
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I'm sure this is true for all of us in the body, both
on the
[[Page H3892]]
right and the left. As we grind through the amendments and look at
them, we, on occasion, come across an amendment that you can actually
see where it was well meaning. It may have had a good heart behind it,
but when you sort of dice it up, you start to actually understand both
something from a personal basis almost borders on the humorous side but
also structurally has some real problems.
I stand up today trying to remove some language, the Healthy Food
Financing Initiative. Look, we will have some Members who will say it's
only $125 million, but understand that $125 million may be used to buy
a grocery store to subsidize certain healthy food products in areas
where the program deems there is a shortage of such.
Where there is an amazing irony is, okay, we want healthy foods.
There are some areas that the products that may be available in those
areas we deem not to be particularly nutritious, but that may be
because in our commodity subsidy system, what's in our grocery stores?
The fact of the matter, processed foods, because we subsidize
commodities. Then I go in and say, But my solution is I'm going to
create another subsidy to take care of the problem on the other side.
At some point, you've got to be willing to take a step back and see the
irony of this.
But there are also other structural problems. We're basically taking
taxpayer money, and through a sort of a network, you may find a private
grocery store being financed by taxpayer money. You may be finding the
system where certain foods and certain retailers are being financed by
taxpayer money just because it's designated as an area where these
products don't exist.
So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. FUDGE. I rise in opposition to the Schweikert amendment to strike
the Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
Let me just say that not only is it well meaning, it works. And it's
about time this Congress does something that is proven to work.
This amendment removes from the farm bill bipartisan language that I
successfully championed during the House farm bill markup. The Healthy
Food Financing Initiative outlines a comprehensive Federal response to
addressing the limited and inequitable access to healthy foods in low-
income communities in both rural and urban America.
It does this through the creation of a national fund manager housed
within USDA that would improve access to healthy foods, create quality
jobs, and revitalize low-income communities by providing loans and
grants to eligible food retailers.
Nearly 30 million people live in low-income areas more than 1 mile
from a supermarket, which means they lack adequate access to fresh,
healthy, and affordable food. It comes as no surprise that these same
people are less likely to have a healthy diet than those with better
access. Barriers to healthy food have worsened the growing epidemic of
obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related health problems in these
communities.
The Healthy Food Financing Initiative would combat the lack of
healthy food retail through a public-private initiative that would
allow for the leveraging of millions of private capital at the national
level--something that my colleagues talk about all of the time.
HFFI provides one-time loans and grant financing to attract grocery
stores and other fresh fruit retail to renovate and expand existing
stores so they can provide the healthy foods that communities want and
need. This financing will help local businesses through loans and
tailored financing packages that are not readily available.
Healthy food retail increases and stabilizes home values in nearby
neighborhoods. It generates local tax revenues, provides workforce
training and development, and promotes additional spending in the local
economy generated by the store and the new jobs it creates. It actually
has a multiplier effect.
To know that this works, we just need to look at Pennsylvania. A
similar program that began there in 2004 resulted in 88 projects being
built or renovated in underserved urban and rural communities across
the State. Today, more than 5,000 jobs have been created--and I know we
all want to create jobs--have been created or retained, and 400,000
people now have increased access to healthy food. Thirty million
invested by the State has resulted in projects totalling more than $190
million.
The Pennsylvania program success rate has been better than the
grocery industry overall. Federal, State, and many city governments are
enacting legislation and policies to attract healthy food retail. There
is tremendous momentum around the country right now to bring grocery
stores to places that need them.
Also, a diverse group of nearly 100 stakeholders support this bill,
including PolicyLink, The Reinvestment Fund, The Food Trust, and the
National Grocers Association; and numerous agriculture, health, civil
rights, and industry groups support this bill.
The Senate supports HFFI--not his bill. The Senate has recognized the
case for HFFI and included this text in their bill.
Food access is a critical problem. The good news is that we know what
to do and we can do it. I ask that you stand with me in defending this
HFFI by opposing the Schweikert amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve to close.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has the right to close as
a member of the committee.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, to the gentlelady from Ohio, you hit a
couple points that I absolutely agree on.
We have a horrible obesity epidemic. We have a crisis of nutrition of
what people consume. If you really care about those things, then you
would actually look at the farm bill overall and what we do in this
country to distort what we consume. Walk down your grocery store aisles
and you will see what we've done by more government policy.
But the fact of the matter is you, in many ways, make your own
argument. If there is actually a program that you believe is working at
all in Pennsylvania, then you've demonstrated the States are capable of
doing this. But, once again, to take another $125 million of Federal
money to create another program that ultimately actually does things
like buys a grocery store, I mean actually competes with a private
business, I see something that's almost absurd in that if that's the
way that this amendment ultimately works.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentleman.
First, let me just say that certainly we can agree to disagree. But
let's be honest. We are not buying grocery stores. It is not accurate
to say to the American people that is what we are doing, Mr. Chairman.
So let me just make that clear.
Secondly, if we have something that works and we know that our people
are in need, then I think that we should make it something that all of
us can agree to do.
Now, every State is not in the same situation. Every State doesn't
have the same kind of vision that maybe the State of Pennsylvania had,
but there are a lot of things that the States can do that they don't do
and that all States don't do. So we want to make sure that every
American has the opportunity to have decent, healthy food.
So I think that this is, in fact, a good start. My bill was passed
bipartisan. I think it's good. I think that for someone to just come up
and take potshots at something that they don't even clearly understand
is unfair to the American people, because if it was understood, they
would know that we are not buying grocery stores.
Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. FUDGE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, Members, you know your
districts. Some of you do have food deserts, whether you be in rural or
urban areas.
This is important. We want people to spend those food stamp dollars
wisely.
[[Page H3893]]
This gives them an opportunity to do so. This is not a Democrat or
Republican issue. This is a commonsense, good health issue. We should
defeat the Schweikert amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. May I request my remaining time?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, it may be a little unprecedented, but I
wanted to actually give my friend, Dr. Burgess, even though he is on
the other side, 30 seconds of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It seems a little strange for me to be lecturing you about a desert,
but, Mr. Chairman, it is true. There are food deserts in both
Republican and Democratic districts all over this country, people
without access to fresh foods or healthy foods.
Look, I don't think it's right that people buy processed foods and
soft drinks with food stamps, but if they've got no other choice, what
are they going to do?
{time} 2020
This initiative allows people to have the option to purchase healthy
foods, get those micronutrients that they need to keep them healthy.
Let's keep them out of the doctor's office. Let's keep them out of the
hospital.
I thank the gentleman for the recognition. I urge defeat of the
Schweikert amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I will try to be fast at this.
To the gentlewoman from Ohio, actually, I want to be careful in my
language because I did say purchase grocery stores. It's basically
finance their acquisitions through loans and other mechanics. It would
be unfair to use the Solyndra type, but it is that mechanic of doing
those loan mechanics and those things. And functionally, the taxpayers
do have money out and risk in that fashion.
Look, for many of us here, we see an amendment like this, we see the
well-meaning nature of it, but the underlying cause of much of this is
the global policy we engage in--and we have for 60, 70 years.
We seem to be, if you look at all the amendments and really dig
through this farm bill, I believe you will see layer after layer after
layer where we're trying to fix sins that we created with our last
attempt to fix a mistake.
I appreciate we have a crisis in parts of our country--whether it be
access to healthy foods, whether it be obesity--but a $125 million
program that creates special grants, special purchases, special loans,
this isn't the way you get there to fix that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 31 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Tierney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. TIERNEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 375, line 5, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Section''.
Page 375, after line 6, insert the following:
(1) by inserting ``or commercial fishing'' after
``aquaculture'' the 1st place it appears;
(2) by striking ``or aquaculture'' each place it appears
and inserting ``aquaculture, or commercial fishing'';
Page 375, line 7, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(3)''.
Page 375, line 15, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 375, line 19, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Page 375, line 22, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(6)''.
Page 376, line 1, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(7)''.
Page 376, line 3, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(8)''.
Page 376, after line 10, insert the following:
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 329 of such Act (7
U.S.C. 1970) is amended by striking ``or aquaculture'' and
inserting ``aquaculture, or commercial fishing''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, right now, fishermen in Gloucester,
Massachusetts--which is in my district--and across the country are
facing dire circumstances. There have been devastating cuts to the
allowable catch of a number of crucial stocks; for instance, a 78
percent cut in Gulf of Maine cod, a 61 percent cut to Georges Bank cod.
Consequently, some of these fishermen already have been forced to sell
their boats and their permits, while others feel that they will soon be
out of business.
Many of my Massachusetts colleagues and I have been doing everything
we can to help these fishermen and their families. We've offered
amendments to last year's disaster relief appropriations bill for those
fishermen in Massachusetts and the several other States that were
officially declared fisheries disasters by the Department of Commerce,
but to no avail.
I filed legislation to redirect a portion of the tariffs that the
United States collects on imported fish to provide urgently needed
financial assistance for our fishermen, but that matter has yet to come
up.
A number of us are working to responsibly reform the underlying
Federal statute--the Magnuson-Stevens Act--that governs our Nation's
fisheries so the law is more flexible and fairer toward our fishermen,
but of course that is somewhere down the road.
I don't think we can stop there, and that's why I--along with Mr.
Markey, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Keating, Mr. Tim Bishop and Ms. Shea-Porter--am
offering this amendment today to ensure our fishermen have access to
the USDA's emergency disaster loan program.
We're essentially doing away with an inequity in the law that denies
fishermen the ability to apply through the normal procedures for a loan
under Federal emergency standards. A similar provision was included in
the Senate-approved farm bill, and our work to provide financial relief
to our fishermen and reform the law will certainly continue in the
weeks and months ahead. But in the meantime, this is a small and
important step that's intended to help those in our local community who
are struggling.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I must oppose, with respect, the gentleman's amendment.
The addition of commercial fishing operations, which have
traditionally not been recognized in FSA lending programs,
unnecessarily extend the limits of an already oversubscribed lender.
Commercial fishermen in need of disaster assistance are already able to
apply for loans from both Farm Credit and the Small Business
Administration.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, we are basically trying to settle an
inequity here where the loans that are available to the fishermen of
course are at 3 percent or 4 percent, not the 2.25 percent. That would
make a substantial difference to them if they were there. And we're not
giving them any preference over anybody else, they would just get the
equitable right to apply for and seek those loans.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. I just reiterate what I said earlier, Mr. Chairman.
These people are in dire straits. There has been
[[Page H3894]]
nothing that we've been able to do. Even though they've been declared
eligible for disaster relief, this Congress has yet to afford them any
of that relief.
The fleets are shrinking. They are going out of business. They have
all sorts of debt and problems with their gear and their property on
that. They need the access to this low-interest loan at 2.25 percent.
It gives them no more preference than anybody else on this, and it
makes available to them a much needed supply. It is passed, it's in the
Senate version. The Senate version score showed there was no increase
in the scoring on that.
I would hope that my colleagues would have some compassion for the
fishing industry as they do for others in this country that are in this
type of situation.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his input
on this.
I continue to oppose the amendment. I certainly sympathize with those
affected by disaster. But given the current fiscal environment, it just
defies common sense to implement new, duplicative lending programs.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Costa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 379, line 23, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Section''.
Page 380, after line 2, insert the following:
(b) Pilot Program for Techncal Assistance to Address
Nitrate Contamination of Rural Drinking Water.--Section
306(a)(2)(B) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2)(B)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(viii) Pilot program for techncal assistance to address
nitrate contamination of rural drinkingwater.--Using amounts
made available to carry out this subparagraph, the Secretary,
acting through the Rural Utilities Service, shall conduct a
pilot program under which the Secretary shall provide grants
and technical assistance for disadvantaged communities in
rural areas and in cities and towns with a population of less
than 10,000 individuals where drinking water is impaired by
nitrate contamination.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, it is oftentimes the poorest and some of the
most underrepresented communities in the country that have the greatest
impacts--for historical reasons, in part--on public health, communities
across the country we all represent.
I represent a number of those communities in California in the San
Joaquin Valley that are experiencing enormous challenges as it relates
to their water quality and contamination that has existed because of
decades-past experiences in many cases with nitrates, in which at the
time it was not well understood, but today it is, that in fact it has
tremendous impacts on our drinking water supply as it relates to our
aquifers.
The amendment that is proposed is intended to address this problem by
creating a pilot program for severely disadvantaged communities that
would provide funds in this FARRM Bill for the Rural Utility Service
that would address this nitrate contamination for rural drinking water
communities, those communities that we all represent that have 10,000
population or less.
The San Joaquin Valley that Congressman Valadao and I and others
represent has almost 4 million people. It's almost 10 percent of
California's population. Twenty percent of those folks live below the
poverty line. They reflect a broad cross-range of folks--immigrants
past, immigrants present--who have come here to live the American Dream
and work so hard, so many in our agriculture economy.
While nitrates occur naturally at low levels, crop fertilizers and
practices with both dairy and other animal husbandry practices create
nitrates that in fact impact the elevation of the contamination within
our drinking water sources within our aquifers.
{time} 2030
In fact, California's Central Valley is especially vulnerable to that
nitrate contamination since it accounts for more than half of the
agriculture production in California and aquifers are the primary
source of drinking water for 90 percent of the residents.
Unfortunately, in the past, have didn't have strong controls, and we
didn't really understand the science. Today, we do.
It is often difficult to identify a single party that is responsible
for the impacts; but what is most important is that we fix the problem,
that we clean the water supply for those residents.
Today, we have, I think, a better balance between public health and
the impact of agricultural practices.
This amendment, if adopted, would provide the opportunity to focus on
assisting disadvantaged communities with improving their drinking water
that has been contaminated by nitrates.
I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Valadao).
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa) and his amendment.
Ground water provides drinking water for more than one half of the
Nation's population and is the only source of drinking water for many
rural communities, like those in my Central Valley congressional
district. Many do not have access to a clean, safe supply of water and
are unable to access the funding or resources necessary to develop
sustainable water supplies and improve their water infrastructure.
In the Central Valley, nitrate contamination is all too common. While
contamination can occur for many reasons, oftentimes no one is directly
responsible. Clean-up costs are then borne by the affected community.
Through my position on the House Appropriations Committee, I worked
to ensure language was included in the House agricultural
appropriations bill to require the Department of Agriculture to provide
a report to the Appropriations Committee regarding their programs and
outreach efforts to disadvantaged communities who are impacted by water
supply issues.
Every family in America should have clean drinking water. Anything
less is unacceptable.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COSTA. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate that.
On behalf of Chairman Lucas, I certainly want to extend my
appreciation for the gentleman's work on this issue. If the gentleman
will be willing to withdraw his amendment, I have been assured by the
chairman that he is more than willing to work with you on this
important issue.
Mr. COSTA. Yes, Congressman Crawford, I will be more than willing to
yield to Chairman Lucas and to Ranking Member Peterson. We appreciate
your willingness to work with us together on this effort to ensure that
we can deliver resources that are important to our small communities
throughout the country that are impacted in this way. I will withdraw
the amendment and continue to work with you.
The ACTING CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H3895]]
Page 394, strike line 11 and all that follows through page
396, line 17.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise this evening to urge my colleagues to support my commonsense
amendment to H.R. 1947, the FARRM Act of 2013. My amendment is very
straightforward in that it would simply strike section 6105 from the
underlying bill. This is the section of the FARRM Bill that
reauthorizes the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program
at RUS, Rural Utilities Services, at USDA at a cost of $25 million each
fiscal year over the next 5, subject to appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, this program was first authorized by the 2002 farm bill
with the goal of deploying broadband to rural and unserved areas.
Despite this goal, the rural broadband loan program has been riddled--
riddled--with numerous problems.
In the 112th Congress, I was a member of the Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. During a hearing held in
the subcommittee in February of 2011, I first learned of problems
within this program. USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong testified on a
variety of issues at RUS that prevented it from being effective. She
testified that in the 2005 OIG audit of the program, of the 159 of the
240 communities associated with loans in 2004, 66 percent of the loans
already had preexisting broadband service in contravention of the
statutory intention of these funds.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the problems were only exacerbated in
the 2009 OIG audit. Of the 14 recommendations made by OIG in 2005, RUS
only took action on six of them. Between 2005 and 2009, RUS made loans
to broadband providers serving 148 communities within 30 miles of urban
areas with 200,000 or more residents. Furthermore, RUS approved 34 of
37 applications for providers with service lines already existing.
Mr. Chairman, although there were reforms made in the 2008 farm bill
that were finally enacted earlier this year, I am still very skeptical
of the need for this program when it has consistently demonstrated its
inability to achieve its objective.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to our chairman of the
Agriculture Committee and to our staff, I deeply appreciate all the
work on this farm bill. I am proud to have been associated with it.
I will say to the gentleman from Georgia, who just moments ago cited
data from about a decade ago and then a report from 2009, I acknowledge
the challenges with the program. However, as the gentleman mentioned, a
couple of developments that have occurred are, first of all,
implementation that has occurred just several months ago that addressed
the points that were made in an IG report, and also the fact that in
the underlying language--and I will thank the chairman--we incorporated
other measures that deal with transparency and clarification that were
talking about unserved areas.
So I would say to the gentleman, and I appreciate him very much, but
I want to tell you that this program is really important to districts
like mine. The FCC claims that there are up to 19 million Americans who
do not have access to high-speed broadband. The place that I represent
in upstate New York, we've got many communities that don't have access
to high-speed broadband. A program such as this has been helpful and
will be helpful going forward.
I want to remind everyone--it is worth pointing out--that this is a
loan program that is paid back with interest. This expanding broadband
helps us not only with job creation, but it helps us with health care
delivery, it helps us with education, and overall quality of life. I
know that even in your own State this has been a program that has done
some good, certainly needed reform, and has happened, reform has come
about.
What I would say to the gentleman is I appreciate his concern for the
taxpayer, I share that concern, and believe that we have made
significant progress with regard to transparency, efficacy in the
program, and want to see us continue this program because we need to
move forward and continue to--just as we did with electrification for
this country--to see all communities have access to high-speed
broadband.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to
yield myself such time as I may consume.
I remind my good friend from New York that Solyndra was a loan
program, too, that was supposed to be paid back with interest. I offer
this amendment because there is something better--there is something
better.
{time} 2040
I certainly understand and I appreciate the efforts taken by the
chairman of the Agriculture Committee for creating further transparency
with the RUS Rural Broadband Loan Program. However, despite these
improvements, I am still incredibly skeptical of this program.
Mr. Chairman, since its inception, Congress has appropriated nearly
$130 million in taxpayer dollars towards this program, and I feel that
RUS has consistently missed the mark. On the other hand--and this is
the alternative--in 2011, the FCC, the Federal Communications
Commission, under existing statutory authority, fundamentally changed
the nature of the Universal Service Fund and created the Connect
America Fund with essentially the same goal as the Rural Broadband Loan
Program. The Connect America Fund is a different entity, and the FCC
announced last month that $485 million of that fund, which is rooted
not in increased taxes but in user fees, will be dedicated to unserved
areas for broadband deployment.
Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the FCC is in a better position than
the USDA to implement telecommunications policy, and over the life of
the Rural Broadband Loan Program, USDA has only confirmed my cynicism.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GIBSON. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from
Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege every evening to travel back to
the northern neck of Virginia. It's just an hour and a half from D.C.,
and that area is not served by broadband. We all know how important it
is to have that service. Folks there are stuck with 1990s' technology--
dial-up. If you've ever had to deal with that, you know how frustrating
that is. We know for rural areas that economic development, job
creation and educational opportunities are all tied to broadband
access. Granted, there may be challenges with the Rural Utilities
Service program, but, nonetheless, those areas need that particular
service. I want to make sure that they get that.
That's why I oppose this amendment, and I understand the gentleman's
frustration with that. The RUS Broadband Loan Program does provide the
needed leverage to fund construction. It also provides the ability to
improve our systems in these areas and to acquire the facilities and
equipment that are needed to provide broadband to these communities.
Folks, this is absolutely critical. This amendment, unfortunately,
takes us away from that. I want to make sure that reforms are put in
place so the system works, not taking away that opportunity for our
rural areas.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Might I ask the gentleman to yield 15 seconds
to me for closing?
Mr. GIBSON. I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia's time has expired.
The gentleman from New York is the only one who has time at this
point.
[[Page H3896]]
Mr. GIBSON. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GIBSON. In order to demonstrate the bipartisan nature of this
amendment, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank my friend from New York.
I thought it so very unfair that the majority party would be fighting
this out without somebody from the minority party jumping in in
opposition to the proposal.
I am delighted that the FCC has provided $400-plus million for what
is a very essential service. I am also very happy that the Department
of Agriculture continues with the program in which they have a unique
ability to reach out to these rural communities. The Department of
Agriculture has the men, the women and the organizational structure to
provide direct access and direct service. Perhaps--just perhaps--the
Department of Agriculture program, together with the FCC program, might
actually get the job done. It's very, very important.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I ask the gentleman again if he would yield
15 seconds.
Mr. GIBSON. I will yield in just a second. I will be happy to do it.
Let me first yield 30 seconds to our acting chairman, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from New York.
I had the opportunity to discuss this with the gentleman from Georgia
prior to debate.
As I understand it, if you are still of the mind and would like to
consider withdrawing your amendment, I would gladly yield the balance
of my time to allow you to do that.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York controls the time.
Mr. GIBSON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and do that.
I believe that it is critically important to eliminate duplicative
programs. It was just mentioned from the other side of the aisle that,
with both programs, duplication is unnecessary with the changes in the
Connect America Fund. I believe that the Rural Broadband Loan Program
will only become more obsolete. Therefore, I believe that we must act
now to eliminate the authorization of this program, and I do urge all
of my colleagues to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. GIBSON. I appreciate the debate here, but I will just end where I
began.
I think that there have been significant improvements that have been
made over time. I appreciate both the chairman and the ranking member
for allowing us to improve this program.
This is a program that's going to particularly help small companies
so that we can build out broadband. It will be good for job creation
and good for rural America. It's going to be good for health care
delivery, and it's going to be good for education. I urge my colleagues
to defeat this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Palazzo
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. PALAZZO. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 444, after line 18, insert the following:
SEC. 73__. AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
PILOT PROGRAM FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND
INNOVATIVE VENTURE DEVELOPMENT TRAINING.
Subtitle A of title VI of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 is amended by
adding after section 604 (7 U.S.C. 7642) the following:
``SEC. 605. AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
PILOT PROGRAM FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND
INNOVATIVE VENTURE DEVELOPMENT TRAINING.
``(a) In General.--Funds made available under this section
shall be used to provide regional collaborations, technology
transfer and commercialization, and innovative venture
development training under the Agricultural Technology
Innovation Partnership program of the Office of Technology
Transfer in the Agricultural Research Service.
``(b) Funding.--Of the funds made available to the
Agricultural Research Service, the Secretary shall use to
carry out this section $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to discuss my amendment, which ensures adequate funding
for a valuable program already authorized within this farm bill.
My amendment would simply provide the funding of the Agricultural
Technology Innovation Partnership from the funds already available for
that purpose. As a member of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee, we often discuss the significant role technological
advancements play in maintaining U.S. competitiveness among global
industries and growing our economy. My amendment is simple. It adds
absolutely no extra cost to this bill or to the taxpayer. It authorizes
existing funds within the agricultural research program budget to
support the ATIP program, which has already been established by the
USDA.
For those of you unfamiliar with the program, the Agricultural
Technology Innovation Partnership, ATIP, is a partnership set up to
harness the research and development capabilities and innovations of
USDA's research programs for technology-based economic development.
Adequate funding for the program will enable the integration of
research from academic, government and industry institutes, and will
help develop relationships with outside businesses and private
investors. Establishing these relationships will allow the agriculture
industry to assist in guiding USDA to conduct research most beneficial
to the industry as well as providing the agriculture industry quick
access to new and innovative findings within USDA's research as it
becomes available.
The program allows the advancement of transferring groundbreaking
ideas and results from research labs into the commercial sector, which
will maintain the growth of the industry as well as our economy. It is
important for the U.S. to remain competitive in today's global
agriculture marketplace, and in order to do this, we must lead the way
in research and innovation. I believe this amendment is a step to
ensure that this tool is being fully utilized.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would statutorily authorize a pilot
program at $500,000. It's my understanding that USDA is already doing
this without statutory capability. I appreciate the gentleman's
interest in this matter, but there is really no reason to legislate on
an issue that the administration has the capability to do.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2050
I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON. I'm not sure I'll need 2 minutes.
This is basically an earmark, and basically all kinds of people want
to put in bills to allocate their money to ARS. We don't have enough
research money for wheat and whatever else.
We can't be doing this because it's going against everything else
that was agreed to. I thought you guys had decided we weren't going to
have any earmarks, we weren't going to do these kinds of things. So I
would hope that
[[Page H3897]]
we would not support this amendment, and I join the gentleman from
Arkansas in opposing it.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, in drafting this amendment, I saw nowhere
where it would actually be considered an earmark. I'm definitely
opposed to earmarks in this Congress, and it doesn't specify an entity
in a certain State or a certain location.
If you just want to tag something as an earmark just to kill an
amendment, explain why this amendment may be bad, but don't just sit
there and say this is an earmark just because everybody is going to run
from it. I see no reason why it would be considered such.
But if the gentleman from Arkansas will work with me in addressing
this to possibly pursue this in the final legislation, I would
definitely consider withdrawing my amendment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and I feel like
the chairman would certainly be of the mind to work with the gentleman
from Mississippi on this if he is inclined to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. PALAZZO. I am, Mr. Chairman.
So with that, I withdraw my amendment and yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Polis
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 475, after line 15, add the following new section:
SEC. 7605. LEGITIMACY OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Drug-Free Workplace Act of
1988 (41 U.S.C. 8101 et seq.), the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), or any
other Federal law, an institution of higher education (as
defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001)) may grow or cultivate industrial hemp if--
(1) the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated for purposes
of agricultural research or other academic research; and
(2) the growing or cultivating of industrial hemp is
allowed under the laws of the State in which such institution
of higher education is located and such research occurs.
(b) Industrial Hemp Defined.--In this section, the term
``industrial hemp'' means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and
any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-
9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3
percent on a dry weight basis.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In 1794, George Washington, our founding father, wrote to his
gardener that he should ``make the most of the hemp seed and sow it
everywhere.''
He wasn't alone. Thomas Jefferson grew hemp. Betsy Ross even made the
first American flag out of hemp fiber. In fact, here is a flag right
here that's made entirely from hemp.
Today, U.S. retailers sell over $300 million worth of hemp-related
goods. It's not just flags. Hemp is found in over 25,000 products from
lotions to soaps, to protein bars, to auto parts, to fuel. Yet somehow
it's caught up in a completely unrelated drug war that prevents
American farmers from growing this crop and forces us to import it from
other countries. Our institutions of higher education can't even grow
or cultivate hemp for research purposes.
Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment, which I'm offering with my
good friends Mr. Thomas Massie and Earl Blumenauer is simple. It would
allow colleges and universities to grow and cultivate hemp for research
purposes. Our amendment would only apply in States where hemp
cultivation is already legal, such as my home State of Colorado.
I recently had an exchange with the premiere agriculture research
university in my district, Colorado State University. This is an area
that they want to get into it, but they feel that they're prohibited;
and their attorneys are telling them that unless we can make this
change, they can't actually do research on what has great potential to
be an important crop for Colorado.
Mr. Chairman, let me be clear about something because there's been
some misleading information that's been put out there by the Drug
Enforcement Agency. Hemp is not marijuana. I'm very disappointed to
hear that the DEA is circulating misleading talking points that claim
that somehow hemp could be used as marijuana. At the concentration
levels specified in our amendment, it is physically impossible to use
hemp as a drug. Let me emphasize that. It is physically impossible to
use hemp as a drug.
Voters in my home State of Colorado and across the country have made
it clear that they believe industrial hemp is an agricultural
commodity, not a drug. Our colleges and universities are the best in
the world. This is a modest step to simply allow them to research the
potential benefits, downsides, strains to grow of this important
agricultural commodity. There's been technology in France that allows
tracers to be put in to ensure that it doesn't get contaminated with
anything that includes narcotics. There's lots of research that can be
done, and this amendment is a very simple and pragmatic step to do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I seek time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's interest
in the issue, but it's clear that the Agriculture Committee is not the
committee of jurisdiction to be addressing the provisions of the Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.
While some may consider the growth of hemp to be an agricultural
endeavor, I think that there are many who feel quite differently. I
would therefore oppose this amendment and urge the gentleman to seek a
hearing on the issue within the appropriate committee.
I point out also that one of the concerns that we have long had is
that even though the gentleman says hemp is not marijuana, I don't know
if one can tell the difference when it's planted row by row out in the
field. I know that's been a problem within my State when the residue of
the leftover hemp from World War II became companions with the
marijuana that was raised for a different purpose.
Mr. PETERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON. On that last point, the University of North Dakota, one
of their ag guys up there came up with a way to splice a fluorescent
gene into hemp, and North Dakota is a State where it's legal. So now
the hemp that grows is fluorescent. So you can clearly tell the
difference between the hemp and the marijuana. So we have solved that
problem through research.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time in amazement, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. This is, of course, germane. It was ruled in order by the
Rules Committee. There's no issue with the committee of jurisdiction.
I yield 1 minute to the cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about some of the legal
products that you can buy in the United States that are made with hemp.
You can buy paper, clothes, rope, food, hundreds of products. Even
car panels are made out of hemp. But the great tragedy is that we
cannot grow hemp in Kentucky. We can't grow industrial hemp anywhere in
the United States, and so we have to import it. Where do we import it
from? It comes from China. It comes from Canada. It comes from Europe.
There are many uses for hemp. There are 30 countries on this globe
that can grow hemp. In fact, I believe every industrialized country in
the world grows hemp. Farmers in Kentucky grew hemp during World War
II. Hemp was grown in large quantities in my State of Kentucky. Canvas
and rope made from hemp helped with the war effort.
So this is not about drugs. This is not about a drugs bill. This is
about jobs. And for Kentucky farmers, we need the opportunity. We need
the opportunity
[[Page H3898]]
to compete globally in a global market, and we shouldn't be denied this
outlet for another productive crop in Kentucky.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to remark to the gentleman from Colorado that it wasn't
a surprise to me to see that Colorado is the State that has legalized
marijuana and so we also see the advocacy for this coming from the safe
place. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but I'll give you two things to
respond to.
The other one is the reference to George Washington and Thomas
Jefferson and Betsy Ross. That's quite curious. And I don't think we
advocate all the things that they might have participated in. Two out
of three of those would have fit within a category of an ownership that
I don't really care to bring up today, even though today is Juneteenth.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. In addition, Colorado did legalize recreational use of
marijuana. It also separately has legalized industrial hemp. There are
more States that have legalized industrial hemp than have done anything
with regard to recreational use of marijuana or even medicinal use of
marijuana. All very different issues, and States are taking them up as
we speak.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I recognize that the
gentleman's amendment only applies to States that have already
legalized it, and that's true.
Nonetheless, I urge opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, under
the basis that we haven't had a full hearing on this; we don't have a
knowledge base behind it; we each have our own understanding of it.
Mine is a debate that I have seen that's gone on for years, which is,
when you plant hemp alongside marijuana, you can't tell the difference.
So it opens up the door for the recreational agriculture of the
marijuana drug, and for that reason alone I oppose it. So I'd urge the
gentleman to seek a hearing in the appropriate committee, and I urge
the defeat of this amendment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2100
Mr. POLIS. How much time remains on both sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Iowa has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Barr).
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, we should explore the opportunity to produce
industrial hemp here in the United States. This amendment would allow
us to take a first step carefully and deliberately. It will allow
research institutions in our States, including my home State of
Kentucky, to grow industrial hemp for the purpose of agricultural
research, helping provide the information we need to consider future
expansion of production.
Our States deserve this opportunity to demonstrate the usefulness and
viability of this crop for our farmers. Kentucky was once the Nation's
leading producer of industrial hemp. I encourage and support the
passage of this amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the leadership of my friend from
Colorado and my friend from Kentucky in moving this forward. Nineteen
States have passed pro-industrial hemp legislation; nine States
removing barriers to its production altogether. As has been pointed
out, these products are perfectly legal in the United States, some $300
million a year, but it just has to be grown someplace else.
It's outrageous that American farmers can't produce it, but what this
amendment does is to simply permit the research opportunities for
colleges and universities to grow and cultivate hemp for academic and
agricultural research purposes.
If this amendment passes and we're able to do this research in
agricultural colleges and universities, then we're not going to have
stupid talking points coming from DEA, and we won't have misleading
statements that are made. People will understand why other countries
have been able to figure this out, and the United States will be able.
Nobody, regardless of your position on this, should be opposed to
allowing our research colleges and universities to be able to do a deep
dive to be able to find out what's possible.
Mr. POLIS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the arguments that come forward from the
Members here. They do come from States that have voted and expressed
their support for, let's say, for the husbandry of hemp. It has a long
history and it has been a useful product, but we have outlawed it for
clear reasons; and that is, as I said, you can plant it alongside the
recreational use marijuana and you can't tell the difference. If we are
going to legalize the farming and the experimental agriculture with
industrial hemp on our college campuses, that really wouldn't be the
first place I would choose.
Mr. PETERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON. I'd say to the gentleman, and we may have differing
views on this, but again, the University of North Dakota has spliced a
gene into hemp; and I will work with the gentleman to say, if we ever
do anything with this, that we'll require that that be done. And if
it's grown in the United States, it has to have the gene spliced into
it so it is fluorescent so you'll clearly be able to tell the
difference between hemp and marijuana. I don't really know anything
about marijuana, but I've been told that if you put hemp in with
marijuana, it ruins it. I don't know if that's true or not. But anyway,
I think there's a way to solve this.
You know, 35 percent of our cars are made out of hemp. This is a big
market. We should be doing this. So let's work together, and I would
like to bring you this information from North Dakota. We can solve that
problem and maybe move forward.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I might want to do a night
field trip up there and see that fluorescent hemp field.
Mr. PETERSON. We'll take you up there in January when it's 40 below.
Mr. KING of Iowa. This is a new piece of information for me, glow-in-
the-dark hemp. I know that they have spliced a gene from a jellyfish
into a monkey and it glows also in the dark, so I'm confident that the
gentleman's science is accurate. But whether we can keep those who
raise recreational marijuana from splicing an identical gene into
their's, we've got to deal with the GMO recreational marijuana problem
that would be created by this, too.
In any case, I oppose the gentleman's amendment and I urge its
defeat.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 8102, relating to the Forest Legacy Program,
insert before the existing text ``(a) Authorization of
Appropriations.--'' and add at the end the following:
(b) Authorizing States to Allow Qualified Organizations to
Acquire, Hold, and Manage Conservation Easements.--Subsection
(l) of section 7 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103c) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) State authorization.--
``(A) In general.--At the request of a State acting through
the State Lead Agency,
[[Page H3899]]
the Secretary shall authorize the State to allow qualified
organizations, as defined in section 170(h)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and organized for one or more
of the purposes described in section 170(h)(4)(A) of that
Code, to acquire, hold, and manage conservation easements,
using funds granted to the State under this subsection, for
purposes of the Forest Legacy Program in the State.
``(B) Eligibility.--To be eligible to acquire and manage
conservation easements under this paragraph, a qualified
organization described in subparagraph (A) must demonstrate
to the Secretary the abilities necessary to acquire, monitor,
and enforce interests in forestland consistent with the
Forest Legacy Program and the assessment of need for the
State.
``(C) Reversion.--If the Secretary, or a State acting
through the State Lead Agency, makes any of the
determinations described in subparagraph (D) with respect to
a conservation easement acquired by a qualified organization
under the authority of subparagraph (A)--
``(i) all right, title, and interest of the qualified
organization in and to the conservation easement shall
terminate; and
``(ii) all right, title, and interest in and to the
conservation easement shall revert to the State or other
qualified designee as approved by the State.
``(D) Determinations.--The determinations required for
operation of the reversionary interest retained in
subparagraph (C) are that--
``(i) the qualified organization is unable to carry out its
responsibilities under the Forest Legacy Program in the State
with respect to the conservation easement;
``(ii) the conservation easement has been modified in a way
that is inconsistent with the purposes of the Forest Legacy
Program or the assessment of need for the State; or
``(iii) the conservation easement has been conveyed to
another person (other than a qualified organization approved
by the State and the Secretary).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
To the disappointment, I suppose, of everybody that is here, this
isn't nearly as much fun as the last amendment. This is a rather simple
amendment. It deals with a 1990 law, the Forest Legacy Act. It simply
allows the Forest Legacy Act to be much more efficient and effective.
It would allow those States that would like to participate in the
Forest Legacy Act to also allow within that State a qualified trust, a
land trust, to hold the easement.
The benefit of this is that it reduces the burden on the State
government. The State government doesn't have to manage that easement.
It would be managed by a qualified land trust, and it also allows for
greater leverage of the money that would be available from the forest
legacy projects from both the State and the Federal Government. It's a
win all the way around. This program has been very, very successful in
protecting forest lands all around the Nation, and this amendment
simply would provide another opportunity to do even more to protect our
forests.
Now, these forests are not going to be held as national parks or
wilderness. These are operating forests. These are forests that would
be operating with good, modern forest practices, providing wood and
fiber into the community and the jobs that go with it.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate and
share the gentleman's desire to preserve forests in danger of
conversion--that's very important to me. I chair the Agriculture
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, but I don't believe
that this is the best way to do it. I respectfully oppose the
amendment.
The Forest Legacy Program has been successful, to date, due to its
unique structure, partnering with States to preserve forested land
threatened by development. Since its creation in the 1990 farm bill,
the Forest Legacy Program has more than been successful in fulfilling
that purpose. The program has protected more than 2.2 million acres in
43 States and has leveraged $739 million of non-Federal funding over
the last 20 years.
By opening the program to nongovernmental programs, we're doing
nothing to promote the program's purpose. Demand is quite high for the
program. For the last 3 years, USDA has only been able to fund roughly
a quarter of the funding requests under this program. Additionally,
this change only has the effect of making the program more similar to
other conservation programs.
In the 2008 farm bill, we created the Community Forest Program with
the purpose of allowing groups such as land trusts and Indian tribes
the authority to manage forest easements. This was done in part to
allow nongovernment groups to participate in protecting local forests.
While I'm certain the gentleman from California has the best of
intentions, I don't agree we have a problem with this program that
justifies opening it for alteration; and, therefore, I will oppose the
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. May I inquire as to how much time I have available?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the State
of New York (Mr. Gibson).
Mr. GIBSON. I thank my friend for yielding, and I am honored to join
with him in support of this amendment. And I would say to my good
friend from Pennsylvania, absolutely, and I believe I speak for my
friend Mr. Garamendi as well, we think the program is working very
well. We think it can work even better.
{time} 2110
We've got land trusts in my area of upstate New York that are highly
confident. In fact, you know, I'll tell you that they played a major
role in preparing me for this farm bill. I'm thinking of Teri Platchek
out in Washington County, and Peter Paden from Columbia County at the
Columbia Land Conservancy, and Ned Sullivan and Andy Bickening with the
Scenic Hudson, Becky Thornton, Duchess Land Conservancy.
These are folks that are passionate about finding that nexus between
agriculture and tourism where conservation plays a key role; and, you
know, their insight to me helped me influence this farm bill. They're
ready to step up and be more involved. That's going to help.
As my friend from California said, it's going to help us use our
money in even a more efficient manner and to reach out more in this
program.
So I urge support of this amendment. This only allows States the
authority. You know, it really empowers States to make this decision. I
think it's a good choice, and let's do it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I just note that my good
friend from New York--and I appreciate his passion on this--but the
organizations you named already have opportunities under the Community
Forest Program.
And we have two rather unique programs, one that already, well, as of
the last farm bill that was done in 2008, provides the opportunity for
nongovernmental groups to be able to participate.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Pennsylvania, I
thought, was making a wonderful argument in support of this
legislation, in that you talked about the success of the Forest Legacy
Program, and it really has been eminently successful.
And you also talked about the demands on the program, and that's
true. Many, many States want to implement this program.
But you didn't mention the fact that many States don't have the
resources to manage additional properties, to manage additional trusts
that they've taken. This would allow those States to make a decision.
It's a State decision, it's not a Federal decision, it's not a decision
by a private nonprofit qualified trust. This is a decision by the State
to welcome into their program a private, nonprofit, qualified trust
that does this kind of work that could then manage the trust without
the State having to spend the money.
The State maintains oversight and, should something happen that the
trust is unable to continue, it would
[[Page H3900]]
then revert to the State. But this is a way of really expanding what,
apparently, the three of us want to have happen.
You mentioned another program that does exist. Wonderful. Those
programs could work in unison with the Federal Government
participating, the State government participating, and the private.
But the problem here is that, under the Forest Legacy Program, the
private, nonprofit qualified trust can't participate in that program.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let me restate again, I
recognize there's two different programs. There is one program that was
created in 2008 that nongovernmental programs can participate in.
There's not capacity within the Forest Legacy Program, Mr. Chairman,
to add nongovernmental programs in. It is specifically designed for
partnering with States to preserve forest lands that are threatened by
development.
And just as a reminder, over the last 3 years, USDA's only been able
to fund roughly a quarter of those funding requests at this point, and
by extending this would not serve a purpose.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I wish we had time to sit down and talk about this.
It's really a shame that we're here on the floor at this moment.
Really, I think, both of us are in support of protecting our forests,
of enhancing their ability to continue to produce jobs, the food, the
fiber and the wood that we need in our economy and in our society.
We're not very far apart. If there's something here that needs to be
worked out between these two programs, I'm sure we could do it. But
this really gives us an opportunity to really do what I think all of us
want, and that is to preserve our forests, keep them in operating
production, and allow the nonprofits to participate together with the
States.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Polis
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike sections 8301 through 8303 (page 481, line 20,
through page 485, line 23) and insert the following:
SEC. 8301. INSECT AND DISEASE INFESTATION.
Title VI of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16
U.S.C. 6591 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 602. DESIGNATION OF TREATMENT AREAS.
``(a) Definition of Declining Forest Health.--In this
section, the term `declining forest health' means a forest
that is experiencing--
``(1) substantially increased tree mortality due to insect
or disease infestation; or
``(2) dieback due to infestation or defoliation by insects
or disease.
``(b) Designation of Treatment Areas.--
``(1) Initial areas.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of
2013, the Secretary shall, if requested by the Governor of
the State, designate as part of an insect and disease
treatment program 1 or more subwatersheds (sixth-level
hydrologic units, according to the System of Hydrologic Unit
Codes of the United States Geological Survey) in at least 1
national forest in each State that is experiencing an insect
or disease epidemic.
``(2) Additional areas.--After the end of the 60-day period
described in paragraph (1), the Secretary may designate
additional subwatersheds under this section as needed to
address insect or disease threats.
``(c) Requirements.--To be designated a subwatershed under
subsection (b), the subwatershed shall be--
``(1) experiencing declining forest health, based on annual
forest health surveys conducted by the Secretary;
``(2) at risk of experiencing substantially increased tree
mortality over the next 15 years due to insect or disease
infestation, based on the most recent National Insect and
Disease Risk Map published by the Forest Service; or
``(3) in an area in which the risk of hazard trees poses an
imminent risk to public infrastructure, health, or safety.
``(d) Treatment of Areas.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out priority
projects on Federal land in the subwatersheds designated
under subsection (b) to reduce the risk or extent of, or
increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation in
the subwatersheds.
``(2) Authority.--Any project under paragraph (1) for which
a public notice to initiate scoping is issued on or before
September 30, 2018, may be carried out in accordance with
subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 102, and sections
104, 105, and 106.
``(3) Effect.--Projects carried out under this subsection
shall be considered authorized hazardous fuel reduction
projects for purposes of the authorities described in
paragraph (2).
``(4) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2018, the
Secretary shall issue a report on actions taken to carry out
this subsection, including--
``(A) an evaluation of the progress towards project goals;
and
``(B) recommendations for modifications to the projects and
management treatments.
``(e) Tree Retention.--The Secretary shall carry out
projects under subsection (d) in a manner that maximizes the
retention of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for
the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote stands
that are resilient to insects and disease.''.
Page 485, line 24, strike ``8304'' and insert ``8302''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, in my district in Colorado, and in other States
across the West and Northwest, our trees, in my district, primarily
lodgepole pines, have been plagued by pine beetle. Dendroctonus
ponderosae has infected our trees. They're killed by a related fungus.
We have entire mountainsides for miles and miles where trees are dead
and are now beginning to rot. It's really transformed, sadly, the
landscape of Colorado.
The reason for the rise of the beetle is that we haven't had cold
enough winters over the last several years to kill off the larva in the
winter. It requires a certain number of days below a certain
temperature.
So, again, this is not about preventing the spread of pine beetles.
We have some ability to do that in small areas on private land. They
can wrap trees, but we don't have a cost-effective way to do that
across large areas.
What we do need to do, though, is once the trees have been killed,
they represent a tremendous risk for forest fires, particularly when
they're near power lines and other sensitive areas.
So what my amendment does is it adds language that makes it easier to
access Federal land. In the West, much of our land, as the Chair knows,
is owned by the Federal Government, and there's been varying
difficulties in getting on to the Federal land, being able to make sure
that they do mitigation where necessary, take down pine beetle infested
trees near power lines, near watersheds, near populated areas, a very
important but more active part of forest management.
Frankly, we'd love to find economically viable uses for the pine
beetle kill. I have a desk in my office that's made from pine beetle
kill. We also use it for biomass and other purposes. But many of it is
back-country areas, and they're on Federal land.
And so this amendment is simply an amendment that allows a lease on
lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, an
expedited way that we can engage in some of the necessary clearing and
forest maintenance to prevent the pine beetle kill from causing
ancillary damage.
There is similar language in the Senate bill. I'm hopeful that we can
work with Kristi Noem from South Dakota and others to achieve this
important goal, increasing access to Federal lands for purposes of
mitigating pine beetle damage.
We plan to continue to work on this issue, one of the top priorities
from my district.
At this time I withdraw my amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[[Page H3901]]
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 40 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Marino
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 9006 and insert the following new section:
SEC. 9006. REPEAL OF BIODIESEL FUEL EDUCATION PROGRAM.
Section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106) is repealed.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide for the elimination of the
Biodiesel Fuel Education Program subsidy. This is one of a series of
duplicative programs.
{time} 2120
This program gives money to not-for-profit organizations that inform
fleet operators and the public on the so-called benefits of using
biodiesel fuels rather than fossil fuels.
Mr. Chairman, this program is yet another example of corporate
welfare--taxpayer dollars not being used wisely. The American taxpayer
should not be forced to foot the bill for a proposed program in an
industry that would be nonexistent if it were not for government
subsidies.
The Biodiesel Fuel Education Program incorrectly informs the public
that biodiesel fuel is ``better'' than fossil fuels, oil, or natural
gas. I am supportive of an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but
Congress need not be in the business of picking winners and losers.
These industries should stand on their own merit, and the consumer
should decide what is the best product. We should not be wasting hard-
earned taxpayer dollars on groups that have a bias against fossil
fuels. We should use this money to develop our current natural
resources and create jobs.
My district is in the heart of the Marcellus shale, and I have seen
the jobs and opportunities created by domestic energy. The unemployment
rate is below the national average. I cannot support any program that
favors any one type of energy over another.
I am not debating the merits of biofuels, and I am not against or
opposed to biofuels; but there are over 20 other energy programs in the
FARRM Bill alone. By continuing to funnel money to these programs to
not-for-profit organizations going toward salaries, we are preventing
other new energy technologies from breaking ground.
We are $17 trillion in debt and borrowing more and more money every
day. Let the taxpayers determine what they prefer, what source of
energy to use, not the government using hardworking taxpayer dollars.
This program is nothing but a colossal government subsidy that is not
profitable at all.
Again, I am not against the biofuel itself. I am against using
taxpayer moneys going to not-for-profit organizations to promote this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from South Dakota is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. NOEM. Essentially what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is it
eliminates an extremely effective program. Biodiesel is a clean-burning
product that's produced by a mix of feedstocks, including soybean oil,
wasted grease, and recycled animal fats. The byproducts of biodiesel is
protein meal that is often made from soy and is used as livestock feed.
It's a protein-rich livestock feed, as well.
The more animal fat as biodiesel feedstock demand increases,
livestock value increases, and this program is a grant education that's
used to educate engine manufacturers, fleet operators, and the public
on the benefits of biodiesel. The program plays a vital role in making
sure it helps expand marketplace acceptance and the use of biodiesel as
a low-carbon, renewable diesel replacement fuel.
Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it doesn't save any money;
what it does is it eliminates a program that is out there telling the
story of what an all-of-the-above energy supply means that prioritizes
American energy. We absolutely need to make sure that we are
prioritizing the types of energy that we can produce in this country
right here from renewable sources as well as petroleum products.
I'm a farmer and a rancher. I utilize petroleum products every single
day in our operation. But I also recognize the value in being able to
have a program that promotes the use of renewable sources that we can
regenerate and prioritize over other sources that come from other
countries.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield 1 minute to Mr. King from
Iowa if he would like to speak, as well.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from South Dakota for
yielding to me, and I wanted to come to the floor in opposition, also,
of this amendment.
I've seen what this research does, and I've watched as we've gone
from no industry to an industry now that's utilizing the products that
the gentlelady from South Dakota has said, from animal fats, for soy
oil, and it has cheapened up our energy supply and has cleaned up our
air, and it's made us a better country because of it. This research
that gets done--we should remember that there isn't always a return on
that research investment. That's why we do research. That's why we do
research in our universities, for example. And so with that research we
can find those things that make us more efficient.
I remember when the research labs said it was impossible to get the
energy out of the feed grains that we now turn into energy. We've
exceeded that because of research. And to utilize these animal fats has
dramatically been changed a lot because of the research that takes
place here with this fund.
So I think this is a piece that we need to preserve so that we can
preserve the efficiency that's there and we can preserve the education.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the things that we don't talk
about enough is the fact that this research brings us benefits and cost
savings in many other industries that we see reflected every day such
as lower costs in energy areas, also lower costs in livestock feeds.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to Mr.
Peterson from Minnesota if he would like to speak in opposition to the
amendment, as well.
Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentlelady.
I, too, oppose this amendment. People need to realize that the diesel
engine was invented by a German fellow named Diesel, and it ran on
peanut oil. It didn't run on diesel fuel. And the internal combustion
engine ran on ethanol. It didn't run on gasoline. They had to
reengineer those motors to get them to run on gasoline and diesel fuel.
It takes a different type of engine to run those kinds of fuels.
One of the things you do with this type of a program is you help
those manufacturers develop engines that can utilize the fuel. The same
thing with a car engine. Down in Brazil, they're burning 30 percent
ethanol with cars that are made by General Motors that are engineered
to run on that fuel, and they get better mileage with that 30 percent
ethanol than they get with gasoline because they engineered the engines
right.
That's what we're trying to do with this program is help the industry
be able to utilize these fuels which are renewable and are made by
Americans and are creating jobs. So this is a good program, and I
oppose the amendment.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. I reserve the balance of my time, and if my colleague is
ready, to close then.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from South Dakota, a member of the
committee, has the right to close.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 2 minutes.
[[Page H3902]]
Mr. MARINO. Once again, I'm not against the use of biofuels. I'm
against the use of taxpayer dollars going to not-for-profit
organizations to promote the use of biofuels. There is not one vehicle
that runs 100 percent on biofuel that I know of at this point. And it
does save money. If this program is eliminated of hundreds of thousands
of dollars and millions of dollars per year, then that money should go
back into the taxpayers' pockets, or at least pay the debt down.
We should use taxpayer dollars to create jobs like building the
Keystone XL pipeline and like developing natural gas exploration that
we have an abundant supply of. So let's stop borrowing money to promote
a product where we pick the winners and losers. As I said earlier,
that's up to the consumer. They can choose what best product to use.
But I just oppose the fact that hardworking, middle class taxpayer
dollars are going for propaganda and advertising.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's
concerns and all that he has brought to this House today.
I will just reiterate that this is an extremely effective program.
What it does is it lets the consumers know that they do have a choice.
It lets them know about the benefits of the fuel, lets them know that
it actually can have an impact on their efficiency levels that they are
able to enjoy with their engines, that it gives them another market
that they can go to to lower their energy costs. It lowers our
livestock feed costs.
What this program essentially does is it goes out there and it tells
the consumer that there are options that are renewable right here in
the United States that we can grow, that we can produce, and that we
can put out there in the marketplace that will actually be something
that is sustainable without the volatility of relying on the Middle
East for our energy needs.
I will reiterate that this program does not have a cost score as it
relates to the underlying bill. Even though that was mentioned in some
of the comments, there will be no money saved in the underlying bill if
this amendment is adopted, and that is why I oppose it because of the
effectiveness of the program and ask that we would oppose this
amendment when it comes to a vote.
Mr. PETERSON. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. NOEM. Absolutely.
Mr. PETERSON. I just wanted to say that Willie Nelson's bus runs on
B-100.
Mrs. NOEM. There we go.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
{time} 2130
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42 printed in part B of
House Report 113-117.
Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. McClintock
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 509, strike line 15 and all that follows through page
512, line 22.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a very simple
question: Why are we spending millions of dollars advertising and
promoting farmers markets?
The Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program spends $40
million on such trivialities as redecorating farmers' market stalls and
roadside stands to attract yuppie customers. In Colorado, funds from
this program paid for a chef competition and bike tour. More than
$120,000 in two grants under this program were spent for beer seminars
in China.
This program duplicates four other Federal programs that also promote
various aspects of farmers markets, and God knows how many State and
local programs that also do the same thing. My amendment simply
eliminates this program.
I would challenge the supporters of the program to answer three
questions.
First: Why should a taxpayer in Latimer, Iowa, for example, pay for a
farmer in Lancaster, California to advertise his produce?
Second: Why should a shopkeeper in Lancaster, who has to pay for his
own advertising, also pay for the local farmers advertising as well?
And third, and most importantly: How can any Member look his or her
constituents in the eye and tell them that a beer seminar in China is
worth spending more of their earnings than they make in a year?
We keep hearing how draconian is the sequester. We keep hearing how
it's cutting deeply into vital public services. I dare say at least a
dozen speeches on this floor this week were dedicated to the painful
cutbacks caused by the sequester. We tell schoolchildren they can't
tour the White House because we don't have the money due to the
sequester. We tell our constituents that they'll have to wait in
insufferable lines just to see us in the House office buildings because
we don't have the money due to the sequester. And yet we seem to have
plenty of money to fund travesties like those that are crammed into
this farm bill. Doesn't that bother anybody here?
I believe that rooting out wasteful programs like this one is the
principle reason that voters entrusted Republicans with majority
control of the House--the House that's supposed to hold the purse
strings of this government. I ask my colleagues if we're being true to
our campaign promises that we made to our constituents by continuing to
fund such obscene wastes of their money as this one.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment and want to speak in favor of the Farmers Market Promotion
Program.
I have a very different perspective. While I appreciate my
colleague's opposition or concerns raised about the sequester, I do not
think those same concerns apply to what is a very good program.
You know, when I moved to Maine about 40 years ago and started a
small farm, growing and selling healthy food, locally grown food, was a
little bit out of the mainstream. We had gone in a different direction.
But I can tell you today, wherever I go, whether I'm talking to a group
of bankers or a group of school teachers or a group of school kids or
their parents, people nod in very strong support when I say we need to
have more locally grown, sustainable food.
People want to know where their food comes from. They want to see
farmers in their communities. They want to help those farmers make ends
meet. This amendment would take us backwards. It would further undo our
weakened infrastructure of local food support.
The Farmers Market Promotion Program--which is reformed in this bill
to be the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program--helps
communities support local food systems through direct marketing. There
are not price guarantees, there isn't income support. This helps
farmers understand the best practices for marketing their food. It
helps them understand how to get the best price from the market for
their product in this growing opportunity that truly supports rural
communities.
It's not an either/or proposition. You don't have to have just
locally grown food or nationally grown food. You can support re-growing
our local food infrastructure, helping rural communities, and also
support conventional agriculture. You can buy California lettuce
[[Page H3903]]
and also buy in-season tomatoes from the farmers who live down the road
and support your community.
The truth is I come from a State like Maine, and Maine is like many
other States around the country; we have very, very few farmers who
will be able to take advantage of the biggest programs in this bill,
the biggest programs that are worth billions of dollars--the Revenue
Loss Program, the Price Loss Program, the Stacked Income Protection
Plan. They don't apply to farmers in my State. They get very little
support to help these growing opportunities in rural communities.
That's okay with them. They're not asking for a price guarantee;
they're asking for some parity, for USDA programs to once and finally
apply to them. They're not asking to be at a tremendous disadvantage
because they are diversified and sustainable farmers, people who live
and work in rural communities, whose kids go to our schools, who serve
on local boards, who are part of the rural fiber of our country. That's
all this program is asking for, a little bit of parity, a little bit of
assistance in this billion-dollar program for big corporate farms.
I cannot imagine how anyone could come to the floor and say, I don't
want to help the fiber and fabric of rural States like mine, programs
like Cultivating Community, which helped promote six local farm stands
in low-income areas. This program helps people to support farm stands
that accept SNAP benefits, that do a tremendous amount of things to get
more people eating healthy, local food and promoting them. As I said,
it's a critical part of our local infrastructure. I can't imagine why
anyone would go against that.
I'll pause there and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment as well.
While we all share the desire to get rid of the fraud, waste and
abuse, I think we've reached a delicate balance in the committee with
the language that we've done here.
This is a competitive grant process. It will improve direct producer-
to-consumer market opportunities. I think it's very valuable for our
small farmers and our small communities.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I would just like to say one more time that
this is a vital program.
Let me again reinforce the good words of my colleague and thank him
for speaking on the other side of the aisle in support of this program.
This helps communities through direct marketing. This helps roadside
stands, farmers markets, CSA, agritourism, other direct producer-to-
consumer marketing opportunities.
It's a competitive grant. It's not a boondoggle. It's not direct
payments to a farmer. And once again, I just want to say, I come from
the State of Maine, which like many States is full of rural
communities, rural communities who are seeing this renewed interest in
buying food locally--a great way to expand this economy, to provide
jobs, to get more money into our rural economies, to make sure people
are eating healthier food, getting to know their farmers in their
communities, making better, healthier decisions.
I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I begin by asking the supporters to
answer three simple questions:
Why should a taxpayer in one community pay to advertise produce for a
farmer in another community? I heard no answer.
{time} 2140
I asked why should a shopkeeper in one community who has to pay for
his own advertising also pay for the local farmer's advertising as
well. I heard no answer.
And third, I asked how can any of us look our constituents in the eye
and tell them that $120,000, more than most of our constituents make in
a year, is a worthwhile expenditure to hold a beer seminar in China.
Once again, I heard no answer.
I forgive my Democratic colleagues the error of their ways. They
never promised to be careful with the people's money. The Republicans
made that promise. And because of that promise, the Republicans were
entrusted with the majority of this House. Allowing programs like this
to continue on our watch dishonors those promises, and I appeal to my
Republican colleagues not to repeat the conduct that turned the
Nation's stomach the last time we held the majority.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Gibson
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 10010.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gibson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a bipartisan amendment addressing some underlying language in
the bill pertaining to olive oil advanced by my good friends from
California and Georgia who are here today to defend and to advance
their olive growers. They are very proud of them.
I just want to say how proud I am of their olive growers, as well,
and also to address fraud. I want to also express my commitment to
combating fraud as well.
Regrettably, this underlying language misses the mark. In fact, it is
going to significantly drive up costs. It is going to cost hundreds, in
fact thousands, of jobs across America, including hundreds of jobs in
my home State.
I think it is important to focus in on what this underlying language
does. We should face the facts that at least at the moment 98 percent
of the olive oil that we consume in America is imported from overseas.
In fact, we've got hundreds of jobs in New York State that deal with
that. But 98 percent of the olive oil is imported. The underlying
language will require 100 percent of that 98 percent to be chemical-
and taste-tested at the port. Now you have about 5 to 8 percent that's
spot checked. We're talking about going to 100 percent. I don't even
think the United States Government has the capacity to do that. I
certainly would fear if it ended up with the capacity to do that.
Look, the way that we should deal with fraud is strike this language.
We should look to the FDA for standards. We did this in New York. We
have standards in New York. The olive oil distributors are certainly
complying with it. They were part of making it come about. But what
we've done in this underlying bill, I want to make sure it is very
clear that this is going to drive up costs for all of our consumers,
millions of dollars according to the CBO, and we are going to end up
crushing jobs.
With that, I want to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, after three debates in support of my
colleague from New York, I find myself on the opposite side of this
issue.
We are in the process of developing a very viable American olive oil
industry, one that has great potential. At
[[Page H3904]]
the same time, that industry faces a question from the consumers about
the quality of the oil that is available, both domestically produced,
as well as internationally produced.
There have been numerous studies done that indicate that there is a
lot of misrepresentation as to the quality and the nature of olive oil.
This bill, the FARRM Bill, simply establishes the opportunity for the
creation of a marketing order that would eventually provide a farmer-
oriented regulation of the quality and the type of olive oil that's
going to be on the market. That would apply both to imported, as well
as domestically produced, olive oil.
The cost of this need not be as high as my colleague from New York
suggests. It is probable, and most feasible, that the olive oil that's
imported would be checked as to its quality and consistency at the
point of export, certainly not at the retail and probably not at the
point of import.
This can be done. This is done in many, many products that are
produced in America, as well as imported--quality controls, consumer
awareness.
This is a very important bill for the domestic nascent olive oil
industry.
Mr. GIBSON. At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to demonstrate my strong
support for this amendment, led by my colleague from New York, Mr.
Gibson, to strike the olive oil price increase.
This amendment is needed to stop the unnecessary increase in olive
oil pricing. The unfair marketing order being considered would place
heavy restrictions and burdens on the importation of olive oil.
The United States is the largest importer of oil, importing
approximately 97 percent of the olive oil Americans consume. The
marketing order would result in tens of millions of dollars of costs
for inspections a year, in turn raising the price of olive oil and
making it incredibly expensive.
The inspection would occur only when it is produced, not once the
product enters the United States. This tax on American consumers will
hinder trade and undermine our international trade relations. It is
clearly a non-tariff trade barrier, which will further complicate U.S.
trade and export relations with our Transatlantic partners.
Just this week, the President has launched the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership negotiations. This provision is against the
spirit of the talks and trade with our largest trading partner. Current
European Union free trade talks would be compromised, resulting in the
loss of greater U.S. exports.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike the olive
oil price increase.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of
this amendment. This current farm bill, the olive oil provision, will
simply require that both domestic and imported olive oil will be
subject to the same labeling requirements. Let me restate that: the
same labeling requirements for domestic and imported olive oil.
Americans deserve to know that the product that is advertised on the
label is the product that they are buying when they are pulling it off
the shelf.
As the gentleman from New York stated, it is spot-checked right now.
Less than 5 percent of the 98 percent of the oil sold in this country
is actually checked as to whether or not it is labeled accurately.
U.S. growers and ethical importers have a strong interest in
developing this program of cost-effective solutions since you are
saving high-quality standards for the consumer.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hanna).
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York for yielding
and for his work on this amendment.
I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment to strike the new
trade barrier on imported olive oil included in this farm bill.
This would place a new effective tax rate on olive oil imports, which
hurts small businesses like restaurants, retailers, and especially
consumers. It will seriously threaten good jobs in many communities,
including my own.
Roughly 98 percent of the olive oil consumed in the United States is
imported. Only 2 percent--2 percent--is produced here. This new barrier
would benefit a very small segment of the olive oil producers in very
few States at the expense of all 50 States.
CBO pegged the new olive oil regulation as a private sector mandate--
an earmark effectively--potentially costing businesses and consumers
tens of millions of dollars.
{time} 2150
Now is not the time to implement trade barriers with our allies as we
begin new trade negotiations with the European Union. This amendment
protects small businesses, consumers, and robust trade. I urge the
support of this amendment.
Mr. SCHRADER. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for
2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LaMALFA I must rise in opposition to this amendment from my
colleague from New York.
In my family, olive oil was something that was very heavily used, my
being of Italian descent. We purchased it locally in northern
California by vendors just right nearby, and we always got top quality
oil. I think we need to have that same opportunity for everybody across
the country, not just the opportunity to buy the oil, but to know that
the advertising--the labeling of it--is correct. Unfortunately, much
imported oil does not have to meet the same standards for labeling,
either using European standards or ours, especially by the time it's
shipped here.
So what we're looking for is not knocking out jobs or knocking out
imported oil or any of that; it's just simply the truth in labeling
that people would expect. When a label says ``extra virgin,'' then what
should be in that container should be extra virgin. Unfortunately, much
of it, by the time it gets here, is rancid. Maybe the label should say
``extra rancid.'' What we're after here is not to cause problems for
our friends who would like to market it; it's more just the truth in
advertising that's necessary. There shouldn't be anything to worry
about if you're an importer if your oil is meeting that standard.
Reasonable standards can be worked out for what the testing is, so
let's move forward with blocking this amendment for today and, instead,
allowing for a good labeling standard to be put in place for American
olive oil users whether the olive oil is domestic or imported. So I ask
for people to deny this amendment today.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining,
and the gentleman from Oregon has 1 minute remaining and has the right
to close.
Mr. GIBSON. I yield my last minute to my good friend from New York
(Mr. Grimm).
Mr. GRIMM. I thank my colleague from New York.
I respect my colleagues from California and from Georgia, but let's
just stop the nonsense and call it what it is.
I have a district that consumes more Greek oil and Italian oil than
you can ever imagine. It's not rancid, and they don't have any
problems. The producers here are the ones with the problems. The people
buying it, the distributors, all the different restaurants--their costs
would go up exponentially. They know good oil, and they haven't had a
problem. Of course, there is always going to be a problem in every
industry, but this is nothing more than a multimillion-dollar earmark,
so let's call it what it is; but I respect the fact that they're
sticking up for their States.
Olives, just like oranges, are tested, but we don't test orange
juice. Grapes are tested, but we don't test the wine. We do test
olives, but we shouldn't be testing olive oil. It would be the only
manufactured good tested as a commodity. That would be a mistake. Even
the CBO says it would be tens of millions of dollars in costs. We can't
afford
[[Page H3905]]
that for our jobs throughout the country. We can't afford that for our
industry. This is a specialty earmark. I respect the intent, but it is
bad policy, and I would ask everyone to oppose it.
Mr. SCHRADER. I yield the last 1 minute to the other gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. This is a marketing order. The underlying law
establishes a marketing order. A marketing order allows the producers
to come together and decide how they're going to market their products
and do it in a way that sets up standards for their products. This is
common across virtually every aspect of American agriculture. This is
nothing new. When you have a marketing order that involves imported as
well as domestically produced, those imports are also affected by the
qualifications and the standards set on that marketing order. This is
not new.
In fact, virtually everything you'll find in the produce, including
many of the products that were described a moment ago, are controlled
by a marketing order. We're not exactly sure, until the marketing
order, what kind of regulations and quality standards will be put in
place; but once they're in place, then whether it's an imported or a
domestically produced oil, they'll have to abide by the same
regulations.
With regard to the cost, this is not new either. This happens in
virtually most of the kinds of commodities and products that are
imported and produced domestically. We're not talking about something
radical.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mrs. Walorski
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 541, strike line 21 and all that follows through page
542, line 8.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment--to
prevent the Christmas tree tax from taking effect. This amendment
prevents President Obama's proposed Christmas tree tax from being
implemented.
The administration already tried to enforce this tax right before the
Christmas season in 2011. In response to a resounding outcry from the
American people, the tax was put on hold.
When I'm at home in Indiana, I hear from Hoosier families firsthand
about their daily struggles due to the sluggish economy--moms and dads
and single parents who are struggling to make ends meet to pay their
monthly bills and to pay their mortgages and still have enough left in
their budgets to put food on the tables and fill up the gas tanks.
Americans are seeking commonsense solutions from Washington to jump-
start the economy, to provide more jobs, and to ensure that our
children and grandchildren have the same opportunities that we enjoy in
this great Nation. Now, as we focus on passing a comprehensive 5-year
farm bill, some of my colleagues are looking to revive this unnecessary
tax.
There is no justification to impose another tax on the American
people. There is certainly no justification to impose a tax on a
commodity that symbolizes an historic Christmas tradition to many
American families. The administration has denied that this is a
``tax,'' but I think most Americans would agree that, when the Federal
Government forces us to pay something, it's a tax--a tax imposed on
every American family the next time one goes to pick out a Christmas
tree.
Christmas tree growers opposed to this tax cannot opt out. This tax
will be charged to the grower, passed on to the consumer, adding to the
cost printed at the bottom of your receipt, and increasing the amount
of your hard-earned dollars owed to the Federal Government. Supporters
of this tax will call it ``nominal'' and will argue that it's only 15
to 20 cents, but with around 33 million fresh cut Christmas trees sold
in the U.S. each year, this little tax adds up to millions of dollars
in tax revenues.
Our families save up for months to provide gifts for their families,
to donate to charities, or to purchase a flight home to spend the
holidays with their loved ones. This is not the time to raise taxes on
our hardworking families, especially during the Christmas season. The
President and Congress should, instead, focus on reducing government
spending and finding commonsense solutions to lower taxes to provide
relief for Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to make sure
that our Christmas trees remain a symbol of Christmas and of the
holiday spirit, not a symbol of more Big Government taxation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHRADER. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record
straight.
With all due respect, the good and gentlelady from Indiana is
completely and totally misinformed as to what this Christmas tree
checkoff bill does.
If we were to strip this out of the FARRM Bill, millions of Americans
would lose jobs. This is about protecting American agriculture. I did
not see the gentlelady or any of her friends on the other side of the
aisle get up and talk about the beef checkoff program or the dairy
checkoff program or the cotton checkoff program, all of which help to
promote American industry and American jobs and American research.
{time} 2200
With all due respect, the idea that this is a tax is absolutely
ludicrous. This is a fee that the industry has come to us for, just
like the cattlemen did, just like the cotton growers did, and just like
the dairymen did, to help promote their industry.
Perhaps the gentlelady is unaware of the fact that the Christmas tree
industry is under siege in this country. What's more American than
Christmas? You know what's happening? The Chinese are exporting to our
country, and we are importing fake Chinese trees. It's devastating the
American industry right now. We can be in favor of Chinese jobs, or we
can be in favor of American agriculture jobs and silviculture jobs.
This is pretty straightforward, folks. This is something that's not
new. It's been done for years and years. With all due respect again,
the gentlelady's talking points talk about this Christmas season--well,
I don't think it's Christmas season. We are now into June. It's time to
get updated and understand where this country is coming from.
American agriculture has worked hard trying to stay competitive. What
are the States that are going to be affected if we don't do this? What
are the States that are going to be affected? We've got North Carolina.
We've got Tennessee. We've got Michigan. We've got Washington. We've
got Oregon. I could go on. Pennsylvania. All 50 States produce
Christmas trees.
This industry needs to survive. This is an American industry
producing Christmas trees. I'm shocked actually, that there's anyone
that is willing to take this off the agenda.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Indiana has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. WALORSKI. With all due respect to the gentleman and his point on
all these ``checkoffs,'' this is a tax that the American people
themselves resoundingly in 2011 have said, absolutely not. In fact, the
American people put so much pressure on President
[[Page H3906]]
Obama, he actually backed off and rescinded this and moved it into a
different time slot, which is what we're looking at today.
The people in my district are hardworking Americans. They're double-
income households, single moms with kids under the age of 18 that are
trying to raise up households, they're trying to pay for their bills,
they're trying to pay their mortgage and they're trying to put gas in
their car. And I think that we have a government and a Washington that
is out of control when it comes to taxation. We don't need another tax
coming out of Washington. We need help for American families.
With that, I would again urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SCHRADER. I would again like to continue to set the record
straight.
The American people did not vote in any, way, shape or form on this
promotion research program for American Christmas trees. If they had, I
think they would vote in favor of American agricultural jobs in rural
America.
I don't know if the gentlelady knows this, but the unemployment rate
in rural America is easily still in the double digits. This is an
industry that needs severe help and our time. If the American
government can't come to their aid by letting them assess themselves a
fee that is overwhelmingly supported by the industry to keep it alive,
to keep it producing American jobs, I don't know what our government is
all about at the end of the day.
This should be a straightforward ``no'' vote on this amendment.
As a matter of fact, this was so noncontroversial in the Agriculture
Committee on which I serve, that it passed unanimous en bloc. This was
not a controversial issue. So I guess I'd like to think we've moved
forward out of the election season. It's now time to get real. It's now
time to put some jobs on the table for Americans, particularly in rural
America.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, again I would just like to add, as I
close, that this is a time--and I agree with the gentleman in one
sense. This is a time for us to be talking here about things like jobs
and a struggling, sluggish economy. Because of that, the hardworking
people in my district, the last thing they expect to see, the last
thing they want to see--and Americans did resoundingly cry out in 2011
to not send another tax their way.
This is a tax. When the Federal Government says to Americans you must
pay ``X,'' that's a tax. In my district, it's hardworking Hoosiers that
have resoundingly said, No more taxes from this government. They are
taxed enough, and they don't want to be taxed at the Christmas season.
I again urge my colleagues to stand in support of this amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. I guess what I would like to close with here is that I
can't say it often enough and more accurate enough, that this is
nothing about taxation. This is about the promotion of an industry that
we would like to support in America: Christmas. What's more American
than Christmas? I can't believe the opposition is seeking to attack
Christmas and Christmas tree producers.
It's tough out there. The recession isn't over. The recession isn't
over in rural America right now. Over 70 percent of the folks in the
Christmas tree industry easily favor this bill. I'd love to see my
approval rating come even up to 15 percent or 20 percent. These guys
are at 70 percent wanting to get something done.
I think we owe it to them to back them. The producers across this
country need our help. We did it for beef. We did it for dairy. We've
done it for cotton. We've done it for a number of other industries. I
don't see why Christmas trees should be discriminated against and we
should be encouraging Chinese jobs and Chinese fake trees in our
Christmas tree pageants. I think that's terrible.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Indiana
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Courtney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title X, insert the following new section:
SEC. 10018. FARMED SHELLFISH AS SPECIALTY CROPS.
Section 3(1) of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of
2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law 108-465) is amended by
inserting ``farmed shellfish'' after ``fruits,''.
In the table of contents in section 1(b), insert after the
item relating to section 10017 the following new item:
Sec. 10018. Farmed shellfish as specialty crops.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment, which I've
introduced with my friend, Mr. Wittman from Virginia, is a budget
neutral amendment. It does not change any authorized level of spending.
It very simply adds shellfish farming to the Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act programs, the block grants and the crop research
initiative, which is again, I think, a reasonable addition given the
history of the block grants and the research initiative program prior
to 2004.
Again, I want to just emphasize at the outset what we're talking
about here is shellfish farming. We are not talking about fishing.
Shellfish farming is a cultivated process from seed which in many
instances starts offshore and proceeds to harvest in beds just adjacent
to a coast. It actually goes back into antiquity in terms of the
process and the farming technique that surrounds shellfish farming.
Again, prior to 2004, the specialty crop programs were administered
through the USDA to States, and States had discretion to determine
specialty crop programs which they wanted to fund. In some instances,
shellfish farming was included along with fruit and nuts and other
forms of specialty crops.
In 2004, Congress changed the program and gave specific definitions
which take away that discretion to States in terms of the block grants
program. And the block grants in many instances provide marketing
assistance.
Shellfish farming--oysters, clams, mussels--is a growing industry. In
fact, for people who have become exposed to it, it is considered a very
high quality industry in terms of U.S. shellfish that actually provides
opportunities for export growth around the world. And what this
amendment will do is to give that growing area of aquaculture an
opportunity to expand and grow. It affects the Pacific coast, gulf
coast and the eastern coast.
Again, this is a cost neutral amendment to extend very important
marketing assistance and research assistance to a part of American
agriculture, which clearly aquaculture is. Again, this is cultivated
growing of food, unlike fishing. And I think for the hardworking men
and women who get up every single day, just like dairy farmers or
people who pick apples or other forms of specialty crops who pay taxes,
they should be allowed to have access to this program, a competitive
grant program, which they would have to demonstrate their eligibility
for.
With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2210
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H3907]]
While I appreciate the interest of the gentlemen in advancing
shellfish fishermen in their districts, I think the premise of their
amendment is wrong. While other definitions of specialty crops may have
included shellfish, the definition under the Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act was designed specifically for fruit, vegetable, and
horticulture producers. The programs under this act were new, so
nothing that shellfish were previously eligible for had been taken away
by them. Being animals, shellfish have simply not been included in the
program specifically designed for plant products.
Now, while some minor aspects of a limited number of programs
developed under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act may be generic
enough that the addition of animal species would not be overly
problematic, this definition has been used multiple times since 2004 in
a variety of plant protection laws; and as has been pointed out to the
amendment sponsors, the simple modification of the definition they are
seeking would create potentially massive confusion in a variety of
critical programs.
Therefore, as fond as I am of both authors, and as appreciative as I
am of the product that they are attempting to endeavor, I must
respectfully request that we oppose the amendment.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Again, first of all, I just want to salute the great
work the chairman of the committee has done. It has been magnificent to
see regular order in this Congress.
Secondly, I would just point out that the 2004 specialty crop law was
amended in the last farm bill in 2008 to add horticulture. So again,
what was done in 2004 is hardly a sacred text. We have the ability to,
again with good reason and evidence, to amend this law. And again, I
think given the history of it pre-2004, this is not an unreasonable
change.
To help make that point, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), for such time as he may consume.
Mr. WITTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Just as he said, this is an effort just to modernize the list of
eligible products under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act. It is
just about making sure that those folks in rural coastal areas have the
same opportunities as those farmers on land. In those coastal areas,
shellfish, molluscan shellfish, are extraordinarily important as a part
of the economy.
Modern practices take the watermen from wild harvest now to farming
shellfish products, just like on-land farmers do. What this does is it
makes sure that those coastal economies have the same access to
resources under this program as those farmers on land do. It really is
just the situation of making sure that we have parity there.
This doesn't add a new checkoff program. It doesn't add new taxes. It
purely puts in place access to those dollars competitively, just like
those farmers that farm other crops on land.
Again, this is extraordinarily important to coastal communities in
those areas where those watermen are now converting to being farmers on
the water. So it really is, again, about making sure that we are fair
in treating those farmers on the water the same as we do the farmers on
the land.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There is a difference, I think, in the way that the act was created
between animals and plants. I think this is an issue certainly that we
need to address and look at, but in the context that it is put here, I
don't think that this is an appropriate amendment. I would simply ask
my colleagues in a very respectful fashion to decline this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Kind
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In title XI, insert after the title heading the following:
Subtitle A--In General
At the end of title XI, add the following new subtitle:
Subtitle B--Assisting Family Farmers Through Insurance Reform Measures
SEC. 11041. ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME AND PER PERSON LIMITATIONS
ON SHARE OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS PAID BY
CORPORATION.
Section 508(e)(1) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(e)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``For the purpose'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) Payment authority.--For the purpose''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(B) Adjusted gross income limitation.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this title, the Corporation shall not
pay a part of the premium for additional coverage for any
person or legal entity that has an average adjusted gross
income (as defined in section 1001D of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a)) in excess of $250,000.
``(C) Per person limitation.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, the total amount of premium paid by
the Corporation on behalf of a person or legal entity,
directly or indirectly, with respect to all policies issued
to the person or legal entity under this title for a crop
year shall be limited to a maximum of $50,000. To the maximum
extent practicable, the Corporation shall carry out this
subparagraph in accordance with sections 1001 through 1001F
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308 et seq.).''.
SEC. 11042. CAP ON OVERALL RATE OF RETURN FOR CROP INSURANCE
PROVIDERS.
Section 508(k)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended--
(1) by designating paragraph (3) as subparagraph (A) (and
adjusting the margin two ems to the right);
(2) by inserting before subparagraph (A) (as so designated)
the following:
``(3) Risk.--''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Cap on overall rate of return.--The target rate of
return for all the companies combined for the 2013 and
subsequent reinsurance years shall be 12 percent of retained
premium.''.
SEC. 11043. CAP ON REIMBURSEMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND
OPERATING EXPENSES OF CROP INSURANCE PROVIDERS.
Section 508(k)(4) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(G) Additional cap on reimbursements.--Notwithstanding
subparagraphs (A) through (F), total reimbursements for
administrative and operating costs for the 2013 insurance
year for all types of policies and plans of insurance shall
not exceed $900,000,000. For each subsequent insurance year,
the dollar amount in effect pursuant to the preceding
sentence shall be increased by the same inflation factor as
established for the administrative and operating costs cap in
the 2011 Standard Reinsurance Agreement.''.
SEC. 11044. BUDGET LIMITATIONS ON RENEGOTIATION OF STANDARD
REINSURANCE AGREEMENT.
Section 508(k)(8) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1938
(7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(8)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(F) Reduction in corporation obligations.--The Board
shall ensure that any Standard Reinsurance Agreement
negotiated under subparagraph (A)(ii), when compared to the
immediately preceding Standard Reinsurance Agreement, shall
reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, the obligations of
the Corporation under subsections (e)(2) or (k)(4) or section
523.''.
SEC. 11045. CROP INSURANCE PREMIUM SUBSIDIES DISCLOSURE IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
Section 502(c)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1502(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as
subparagraphs (C) and (D) respectively; and
(2) by inserting before subparagraph (C) (as so
redesignated) the following:
``(A) Disclosure in the public interest.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, except as
provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall on an
annual basis make available to the public--
``(i)(I) the name of each individual or entity who obtained
a federally subsidized crop insurance, livestock, or forage
policy or plan of insurance during the previous fiscal year;
``(II) the amount of premium subsidy received by the
individual or entity from the Corporation; and
``(III) the amount of any Federal portion of indemnities
paid in the event of a loss during
[[Page H3908]]
that fiscal year for each policy associated with that
individual or entity; and
``(ii) for each private insurance provider, by name--
``(I) the underwriting gains earned through participation
in the federally subsidized crop insurance program; and
``(II) the amount paid under this subtitle for--
``(aa) administrative and operating expenses;
``(bb) any Federal portion of indemnities and reinsurance;
and
``(cc) any other purpose.
``(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not disclose
information pertaining to individuals and entities covered by
a catastrophic risk protection plan offered under section
508(b).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment with my friend and
colleague, Representative Petri from Wisconsin, that would call for
further reforms in tightening of the crop insurance program. By the
steps we take with this reform amendment, we would save the American
taxpayer over $11 billion over the next 10 years. It was based on
bipartisan legislation that Representative Petri and I offered earlier
this year that was supported by Representatives McGovern,
Sensenbrenner, DeLauro, Radel, Blumenauer, Conyers, Cooper, DeFazio,
Connolly, and Waxman, and supported by a variety of outside groups.
What we're trying to do is maintain an element of risk in farming,
again, in a fiscally responsible manner, by tightening up crop
insurance programs that we feel have become too excessive with the
shifting of title I commodity money and direct payments into the crop
insurance category. We'd save over $11 billion over the next 10 years
by doing the following:
We'd call for a limit of Federal crop insurance subsidies to $50,000
per farmer per year. Currently, there are no limits, no cap on the
amount of taxpayer subsidies going to farm entities. Last year alone,
over 26 entities received over $1 million in taxpayer premium subsidies
alone. We think that's wrong, and we're trying to correct it with this
amendment.
We'd also extend the adjusted gross income limit of $250,000 per farm
entity to apply to crop insurance programs. The concept there is
simple. If you're a farm entity with a gross profit of over a quarter
of a million dollars, you really ought not be receiving taxpayer
subsidies. This is after you back out the operating expenses of doing
business. We're talking a quarter of a million dollars worth of profit.
It would promote crop insurance company efficiency by ending the 100
percent government subsidy of the administrative and operating costs
that the private insurance companies currently enjoy today. Last year
we spent over $1.3 billion on these insurance companies just for their
A&O expenses alone. We're asking them to live with the total spending
of $900 million, which is consistent with what the Obama administration
is offering in its budget.
This would also guarantee that the crop insurance companies do not
pass along the riskiest policies back to the American taxpayer, which
is currently the practice.
It would lower the profit guaranteed to these private insurance
companies from 14 percent to 12 percent. We don't offer that type of
guarantee for any other business anywhere else in the country, and yet
now they're guaranteed a 14 percent profit. We're saying can you at
least live with a 12 percent profit for the sake of some savings within
this program.
And it would also promote transparency to help the taxpayer know
where the money is going and who's benefiting from it. It opens the
sunshine up so we have greater disclosure of these programs and,
therefore, greater scrutiny.
So we think this is commonsense reform. We think this is something
that maintains the risk management tool of crop insurance. We're not
proposing eliminating it, but we're just trying to propose making it
more market sensitive and maintaining that element of risk.
Finally, one of the reasons we feel that this is so important is
because of current commodity prices. There is great pressure on farmers
now to plant everywhere, in the most fallow, highly sensitive, highly
erodible land because they know if they experience any loss, their loss
is covered. Therefore, the risk is taken out of it. That is leading to
bad stewardship practices throughout our country. With this reform,
we're trying to introduce that element of some second guessing, some
risk in the most fallow, unproductive land that's right now being
brought back into production.
So I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee
chairman of primary jurisdiction, Mr. Conaway of Texas.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this attack on a very important piece
of the safety net that production agriculture relies upon. There are
two possible outcomes for this amendment, and both are bad.
The first is that we're going to put the government back in the
business of delivering crop insurance. We tried that. It didn't work.
Government employees don't act nearly as responsibly as the private
sector does. That comes with a cost, but the farmers like it. They get
response from these folks that is appropriate.
Secondly, we would go back to the possibility of days when we spent
billions of dollars on unbudgeted, ad hoc disaster relief.
{time} 2220
And that's the least efficient way that we ought to go about this.
And that's what this amendment does. It is bad for taxpayers. In spite
of my colleagues' comments, this amendment won't save money. It will
end up costing us untold billions in this ad hoc disaster spending
that's the norm in that regard.
I know that the Environmental Working Group and other radical
environment groups want to run our farmers and ranchers out of
business. I get that. This amendment would certainly help them
accomplish their goal.
So if your aim today is to stick the American taxpayer with billions
of dollars to pay for ad hoc disaster bills, this is your kind of
amendment. If you want to give the extreme environmentalist group, the
crowd that gave us Meatless Mondays, a win in their effort to ruin
American farming and ranching families, this will get right at it.
So I have farmers and ranchers struggling with 3 years of successive
and severe drought. This is a slap in the face to those farmers and
ranchers in west Texas and across this country. This amendment is not
good, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Unless my good
friend wants to include the National Taxpayer Union, Taxpayers for
Common Sense, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax
Reform, Committee for Responsible Taxation, American Commitment for the
Center for Individual Liberty, ``R'' Street Competitive Enterprise
Institute in that category of radical environmental groups, they've all
come out in support, endorsing this legislation.
But we're not taking the private insurance companies out. We're just
asking them to carry some risk and to reduce their guaranteed profit
margin from 14 to 12.
With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend and colleague
from Wisconsin, Representative Petri.
Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding.
As the House considers the FARRM Act of 2013, I believe it's
important that we offer the proper support for farmers, while ensuring
that these support programs are responsible for the American taxpayer.
As you may know, the Federal Crop Insurance Program is the most
expensive government program supporting farm income and is the only
farm income support program that is not subject to some form of payment
limitation or means testing.
[[Page H3909]]
This amendment, which incorporates the language in the AFFIRM Act
that Representative Kind and I introduced last month, works to reform
the crop insurance program. Capping crop insurance subsidies at $50,000
per person per year does not prohibit farmers from purchasing crop
insurance, nor does it eliminate all taxpayer support for the program.
In fact, most farmers would not be affected by this cap at all.
According to the GAO, in 2011, only 4 percent of farmers would have
been impacted by this $50,000 cap on subsidy for insurance.
For 2001 to 2012, the total cost of premium subsidies jumped
fourfold, from $1.8 billion to $7.5 billion. The Congressional Budget
Office projects even higher costs in the future, averaging $9.1 billion
annually. The subsidy cap, combined with the $250,000 means testing
requirement, will assist in preventing fraud, waste and abuse in the
Federal Crop Insurance Program.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. KIND. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. PETRI. This amendment also reforms administrative and operating
reimbursements that the government pays to private insurance companies
by capping those payments at $900 million, which is a fairly moderate
cap and below what's currently being spent. It also lowers the
reimbursement to insurance companies to the President's target of 12
percent return from 14 percent return.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman.
Farm policy is intended to provide support when needed, based on
production. U.S. farms have been forced to become larger to increase
efficiency and remain competitive in the global marketplace.
Arbitrarily limiting policies ultimately limits the ability of farms to
grow and gain efficiencies, thereby penalizing U.S. farmers and putting
them at a distinct disadvantage to our global competitors.
Adjusted gross income is different than farm profit. There are a
number of expenses that must be covered. In addition to personal
expenses, farmers must service debt, given the cost of today's
machinery and land can easily reach into the millions.
AGI rules penalize spouses who oftentimes take off-farm jobs to help
make ends meet when farmers are struggling with their farm income. An
unreasonable AGI means test creates uncertainty for growers and their
lenders by creating a ping-pong effect of being eligible one year and
ineligible the next, making it difficult or impossible for lenders to
measure, with any certainty, the future cash flow of thousands of farm
and ranch families in order to make both short and long-term lending
decisions.
In short, an unreasonable AGI means test would make U.S. farm policy
unpredictable, inequitable and punitive for thousands of American farm
and ranch families.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 4 minutes.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to
the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a champion for family
farmers and for the nutrition program in the farm bill.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in support of this amendment, strong support of
this amendment, because it aims to reform a broken crop insurance
program. This is a program where taxpayers foot an average of 60
percent of the premiums for beneficiaries, plus there's the
reimbursement of the administrative and operating costs, 100 percent of
those efforts.
These are for private companies that sell the plans, including
multinational corporations, some of whom trace back to companies who
are in tax havens. And essentially, what it does, it works to improve
crop insurance, it limits taxpayer subsidized profits of companies that
sell crop insurance.
It does not harm the ability of the companies to sell these policies
in any way. It would ensure that taxpayers do not continue to subsidize
these administrative and operating expenses.
It's a bipartisan amendment. It enjoys broad support from a number of
groups across the political spectrum, as has been laid out. It caps the
amount of crop insurance premium support individual producers receive.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. KIND. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. DeLAURO. GAO said that the cap would affect just under 4 percent.
Crop insurance is the only farm support program subsidized by taxpayers
and not subject to a payment limitation. This would bring this in line
with other farm programs, and it would shine a little long overdue
sunlight on the crop insurance program.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
Mr. BARROW of Georgia. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The
people I represent value American agriculture and understand that food
doesn't grow on grocery store shelves. It takes the hard work and high
risk of farmers to get that food to market. I believe all of those
farmers are worth supporting.
This amendment will undermine the safety net for many of those
farmers, large and small. Many people don't realize it, but farm
operations are made up of as many different kinds of farms as people.
Different farms have different sizes, different ownership structures,
different crop mixes and different equipment, and that diversity makes
our domestic farming portfolio strong.
It's often the big guys who act as the hub of a farm community and
offer the smaller farmers in the area access to expensive equipment
that they could never afford on their own. These are all family farms
in the best sense of the word, and they depend on each other for their
livelihood.
This amendment effectively ends the safety net for the large family
farmer, without whom many of our small family farms couldn't produce.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. KIND. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2\3/4\ minutes.
The gentleman from Oklahoma has 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KIND. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your yielding also to
me.
I rise in opposition to the Kind amendment, and do I so because I
don't want to see agriculture distorted.
We've watched as equipment's gotten larger, farms have gotten larger.
And when you start locking this thing down and tying it to an AGI, what
you really have is a means test for the first time. It pits neighbors
against neighbors.
Here's what I remember. Back in the eighties, when we had a farm
crisis and we had a real disaster, I saw on the front page of the
paper, $26 billion in farm subsidy disaster money to deal with drought
and the climate that we had and the bad economic climate.
We haven't had those calls. 2011 we had a big flood. No calls for
disaster money. 2012 we had a big drought. No calls for disaster money.
Crop insurance is working. Eighty-six percent of the crop is insured
today. I recall it being 13 percent back then when I saw the $26
billion bill hit the headlines in the Des Moines Register.
So I urge opposition to the Kind amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the House Agriculture
Committee.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding.
You know, what this amendment's going to do is undermine the crop
insurance system and take a whole bunch of people out of the crop
insurance system that we need to make it actuarially sound.
Now, it was just said here that there's no other program that doesn't
have a payment limit. Well, let me tell you something. Mr. Kind is
cosponsor of the Goodlatte-Scott dairy provision, which has no payment
limits.
{time} 2230
The 6,000 cow dairies in Mr. Kind's district are going to get
$600,000 of benefit from our subsidies in the dairy program, and
there's no payment limitation. So, come on. If you really believe
[[Page H3910]]
in payment limits, why isn't it on the Goodlatte-Scott scheme?
So this amendment undermines everything that we've been trying to do
in the Agriculture Committee. We had the biggest disaster last year,
drought, that we've ever had. We had no significant call for an ad hoc
disaster for the first time that I can remember since I've been here,
and the reason is because crop insurance worked.
Agriculture is working. In my district, we have 3 percent
unemployment because agriculture is working. The one part of the
economy that's actually working, and all these people that want to
create jobs and want to create government programs so we can create
jobs, they want to take the one thing that's working in the country and
screw it up. And I'm not going to be part of it.
So vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 2\3/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LUCAS. I yield to myself, Mr. Chairman, 2 minutes.
The ranking member makes very valid points. When you look at the way
Federal crop insurance works, it shifts the risk from the Treasury to
the private companies to the reinsurers to the farmers and ranchers. If
you look at how these premiums and payments have gone over the last
decade--not just the really tough weather last year--you'll find that,
in reality, 70 percent of the policies over the last 10 years have not
returned one single penny--70 percent.
And if you look at how the program has worked in the 7 years prior to
the onset of the drought of 2011, basically the Federal Government
actually made money on Federal crop insurance. Now, I can't help the
anomaly that the superdrought was in the Midwest. But I can tell you
that's a pretty good track record.
The ranking member is entirely right: it works. Let's not mess up
something that works. With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in
response.
To my good friend in Minnesota, my average dairy herd size in western
Wisconsin is 125 cows. I don't have the mega-dairy operations and that.
So we'll have plenty of time to debate the federally run supply
management program that he's been advocating for in the FARRM Bill,
which I think will be a disaster and won't work.
But to my friend from Iowa, we're not talking about eliminating the
crop insurance program. This risk-management tool will be in place. It
won't touch 96 percent of the producers out there.
The last time I checked, we're running some record budget deficits,
and there are areas in this farm program, especially in crop insurance,
that we can go to for sensible, commonsense savings that's economically
justifiable while maintaining risk within the program today.
It's a little ironic that we have such defenders of this crop
insurance program when last year alone, the typical insurance company
received $1.46 in taxpayer subsidies to every dollar that went into the
pocket of our farmers. And five of the 10 biggest insurance companies
offering these programs are foreign-owned entities. As the gentlelady
from Connecticut just pointed out, many of them are using tax havens on
the taxpayer dime. And how they can get up here and justify this
program with a straight face is really beyond me.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you to my colleague, Chairman
Lucas. Thank you to Ranking Member Peterson.
We agree: crop insurance is not broken. I stand here today to remind
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that recently Secretary of
Agriculture Tom Vilsack sat in our Agriculture Committee hearing and
said that crop insurance is not broken. Crop insurance is one of the
most successful programs we have in the Midwest as you heard in this
debate. We see that we're not doing off-budget disaster assistance. We
see that farmers are willing to give up direct payments to have better
risk-management tools like crop insurance.
Let's also get to the point, too, that bankers, our creditors, will
not give loans to our farmers and keep our family farms in business
without a strong risk-management program like the effective crop
insurance program that we have.
I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We need to
ensure that this risk-management tool, crop insurance, stays as viable
and as effective as it is; and I stand here today and agree with
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and agree that crop insurance is
not broken. Please oppose this amendment.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to
my good friend, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you, Mr. Kind, for giving up some of your
valuable time. I will try to be quick. First, I want to thank the chair
and the ranking member. They've worked hard on the FARRM bill, and I
appreciate many of the good pieces that are in this bill.
But there are a lot of unconscionable cuts that hit deeply into the
working poor in this country, particularly the SNAP benefits cuts,
which is a means-tested program.
I want to rise in support of this amendment because unlike the cuts
on the SNAP benefits for low-income families, this amendment just asks
the richest agricultural business in America to pay a little more and
receive a little less, just this one portion of the amendment, the
$250,000 cap for farmers who clear more than $250,000 a year. We have a
lot of farmers in our State and a growing number of farmers in our
State, but there are very few that clear more money than that.
This mostly affects corporate farms. Ninety-six percent of the
farmers will never be affected by this amendment, but for a very few,
this is a huge benefit.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank my
colleague for his time.
Mr. KIND. I believe the chairman has the right to close.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has the right to close
and does still have time.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying that, listen, I
understand there's a lot of hard work that goes into the committee in
producing a farm bill. I get that. But there are areas of cost savings
that we can justify to the American taxpayer without jeopardizing the
risk-management tools.
Crop insurance is ripe for that type of reform. And, again, what
we're offering and what we're setting out is very commonsense,
economically justifiable, and would save the American taxpayer over $11
billion over the next 10 years.
If the average taxpayer knew just how this crop insurance program is
set up today, they'd be aghast in horror. It's not right. We're trying
to correct that right now while maintaining the safety net in a viable
crop insurance program that can work.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. LUCAS. I yield myself whatever time I may have yet.
I would just simply say to my colleagues, the system works. As my
colleague also noted, it is critically important that farmers be able
to secure their financing. And while ultimately like most provisions in
the FARRM Bill that raise the food and fiber, the consumers at the end
of the chain benefit from the highest quality, most affordable price of
food and fiber in the history of the world.
Please protect this important resource to production agriculture.
Please continue it to enable farmers to farm. Vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H3911]]
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Carney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 11012.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Carney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a bipartisan,
straightforward amendment that I introduced with my colleague,
Congressman Radel of Florida, that will help maximize the efficiency of
taxpayer dollars used in the Federal crop insurance program.
Periodically, the USDA, through the Risk Management Agency,
renegotiates its agreement with private crop insurers for the delivery
and administration of Federal crop insurance. These negotiations, known
as Standard Reinsurance Agreements, do not affect the premium subsidies
paid to farmers and instead focus on the percent of gains or losses
assumed by taxpayers and the level of crop insurance administrative and
operating costs paid by the Federal Government.
{time} 2240
The most recent negotiation was finalized in 2010 and yielded $6
billion in savings. Of these savings, $4 billion was used to reduce the
Federal deficit, and the remaining $2 billion was put back into farm
programs to supplement conservation efforts and improve certain
products provided through the Federal crop insurance program.
Our amendment simply maintains current law by striking a provision in
the bill requiring that any savings from future Standard Reinsurance
Agreements be put back into the Federal crop insurance program. This
amendment continues to respect the importance of a robust farm safety
net while maintaining USDA's tools to improve Federal crop insurance,
reduce the deficit, and strengthen conservation programs within the
farm bill.
Our amendment is supported by taxpayer advocates as well as the
environmental community who share the same goal of ensuring that the
Federal crop insurance program works for farmers and for taxpayers.
I want to thank my colleague from Florida for working with me on this
amendment, and I urge its support. Thank you for your consideration.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).
Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because
I believe that American taxpayers should be considered when their money
is basically being divvied up here in Washington. That's what we're
deciding. This amendment--which I thank the gentleman from Delaware for
offering with me--simply allows for savings to occur in a renegotiation
of crop insurance agreements.
I love the fact that we're working on both sides of the aisle. This
is as bipartisan as you can get, Mr. Chair. Oftentimes on our side, as
fiscal conservatives, we are accused of ``cut, cut, cut.'' But what
this is really about is save, save, save. The Members of this House
should be encouraging this administration to save, save, save when we
can.
This amendment allows for the USDA to attempt to find savings when
negotiating. So let's not tie the hands of our negotiators, as this
current bill does. Let's allow them to pursue savings on behalf of the
hardworking American taxpayer working day in and day out right now.
All around the country people are struggling to get by. So instead of
requiring the maximum amount of taxpayer dollars to be spent on this
government program, all we're asking is let's just try and save some
money with this, and that's what this amendment does.
So a vote for this amendment is a vote to keep the taxpayer--the
hardworking American taxpayer--in mind, what is fair for them, when we
set up this crop insurance policy. It's plain. It's simple.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Delaware has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close by thanking the
gentleman from Florida for his assistance on this amendment and just to
ask my colleagues to think about what we've been trying to do since I
came to this House in 2011, which is to get a budget balanced and to
find savings wherever we can.
This is an opportunity to use savings from the renegotiations of
these agreements for deficit reduction and other things that the USDA
might deem appropriate. So I want to thank my colleague for that, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, first off, a couple of points.
One, the 40-some-odd hearings we had in the last couple of years, at
every single one of them, whether it blocked crop insurance or not, the
producers said: Don't screw up crop insurance. Crop insurance is the
one risk management tool that we know works, it's the one our bankers
understand the best, and don't screw that up.
A little history lesson. The 2008 farm bill cut $6 billion out of the
crop insurance program and out of the hides of the folks that these
folks have been talking about. A re-rating process that USDA went
through and RMA went through cut an additional $3 billion. And then the
Standard Reinsurance Agreement renegotiation--that Congress had nothing
to do with--trimmed another $8 billion. So $17 billion has been reduced
out of the crop insurance program since the last time we reauthorized
this.
Nothing in the base bill stops the USDA from finding savings in the
crop insurance program, nothing. They are still able to do that. What
we would like to happen with those savings though is we would like for
Congress to control those. We don't want the pet projects of the
administration, the pet projects of the USDA to get funded.
Now, my colleagues threw the words ``deficit reduction'' around in
good faith, but that's not what happens with this money. USDA and this
administration finds other places to spend the money. We don't think
that's the right idea.
So I understand the intent of this, but there's nothing in the base
bill that restricts USDA from finding those savings if they can find
them. We just want Congress to control how that money gets spent and
not the pet projects that the administration does.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on this. I believe it was done in good faith,
but it won't accomplish what they want. It simply further empowers this
executive branch and the administration to do what they will with these
savings.
So the savings are still going to be there, still you're going to be
able to find them. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Radel
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H3912]]
Page 590, beginning on line 18, strike section 12101 and
insert the following new section:
SEC. 12101. REPEAL OF THE NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT
CENTER.
Effective October 1, 2013, section 375 of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008j) is repealed.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Radel) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, I've only been here a few months. In my
short time I've witnessed firsthand just how we spend your money here
in Washington--your money, the hardworking, tax-paying American.
Even I was shocked though to learn about something that is hidden
very, very deep in this year's farm bill. It's actually filed under
miscellaneous. It is for sheep shearing. Sheep shearing. Sheep
shearing. We have already spent $50 million--$50 million--on sheep
shearing, an industry that basically goes back to the Old Testament.
Moses was sheep shearing. So my amendment right here--one page, one
sentence--will stop another $50 million from being wasted.
But let's take a look at what $50 million of your money has purchased
you as a hardworking, tax-paying American. This program funded a trip
to Australia for the Tri-Lambs. It's kind of a play off of ``Revenge of
the Nerds,'' if anyone saw that movie in the eighties.
Look, as much as I love that flick, the purpose of this trip was to
get people to eat lamb. And Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but I think that we
can find a better way to use our money here in the United States.
In another grant, two beginner sheep shearers were given--here we
go--free combs, brushes, razors and scissors with our $50 million. What
we're talking about here are startup costs. Think about that. If you
are a business owner and you had $50 million, what you could do with
that kind of money. It was startup money. And here again in Washington,
where the people of the United States of America are so sick and tired
of us picking and choosing who will succeed or who will lose, that's
debatable right now when we look at this.
It's not fair. You're struggling to make ends meet. We have Democrats
right now and Republicans who are debating our social safety net in
this country right now about how hungry children are, and we're talking
about $50 million to shave sheep. It would be laughable if it was not
so sad. This could be your money that you could be saving up for your
rent, for your mortgage, for your next vacation.
This is as bipartisan as you can get. We are looking for places to
save and show how we here in Congress can be more efficient with your
money, accountable and transparent with your money--you, who are
working 40, 50, 60 hours a week.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I started to go down one path, but the
disdain with which my good colleague from Florida insulted the folks in
this industry is unacceptable.
I rise in opposition. I wish he would get his facts correct. The
total appropriation, actual money spent since '96 is $1 million. He has
confused authorizations with appropriations. So if he will go and check
his records, the $50 million he blasted out over and over and over was
just simply incorrect. That is not the money that was spent.
Sheep shearing is an important issue with respect to growing the wool
industry in this country. It is about jobs. Sheep shearing is hard
work, and we're trying to figure out ways to make that happen.
This board is housed at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Agriculture Marketing Service. It's a board appointed by the Secretary
of Agriculture. It's composed of seven members--four active sheep
growers, two finance and management members, and then two folks out of
the USDA to make a total of nine.
{time} 2250
The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center provides small grant
projects to assist in the improvement of the sheep industry and the
expansion of markets.
Throughout the farm bill, we have attempted over and over and over
again to promote production agriculture and the jobs associated with
it. While sheep shearing may not be particularly exotic and folks from
Florida may think it is beneath them, the folks from west Texas take a
whole different view of that.
The author of the amendment has disparaged these grants saying that
they are for razors and combs for beginning shearers. That's how you do
it, Mr. Chairman. The truth is that a shortage of properly trained wool
harvesting professionals, this shortage is critical and one of the
difficulties for producers who wish to participate in the production of
wool.
A major barrier for beginning sheep shearing professionals is an
initial cost of purchasing the equipment. These small grants assist to
create these jobs in an industry that needs our help.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, we are defending sheep shearing: ``$50
million in appropriations, $1 million under government accounting.''
When we look at the industry ``best practices''--again, those quotes
dripping with practically sarcasm--they could have been written by
Moses with how old this industry is. The proposal funds ``an
informational video describing recommended goat handling practices.''
When we look at the positions in this, the nine, seven are from the
industry itself, two are from the Federal Government. They're using
this money on social media. Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do,
we're talking this is free--social media, the Internet. This doesn't
cost money to ``create a buzz'' among consumers. This is their quotes
about lamb.
I love lamb. Sure, I'll have dinner with lamb any night, but I don't
think that the Federal Government needs to fund a PR campaign for one
industry.
Again, this is why the American people are so frustrated with both
Democrats and Republicans picking and choosing industries. Congress has
wasted $50 million, yes, in appropriations since 1996 on this program.
It is time that this House elected to save taxpayer dollars at a time
where we have record deficits and runaway spending. Put our votes where
the Americans, the hardworking, taxpaying American's money is.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is $1 million since 1996, not
$50 million. He's exaggerating again.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the committee,
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment. I would reiterate what
my good friend Mr. Conaway said, that we did not spend $50 million; we
spent $1 million.
I was part of putting this in the 2008 farm bill. The reason is that
we almost killed off the sheep and goat industry in this country. With
what we did back in the nineties and so forth, there was hardly anybody
left in the industry. We basically gave it away to New Zealand and
Australia.
What we're trying to do, and what we tried to do in the 2008 bill for
this little bit amount of money that we put in there was give this
industry a chance to get back on its feet and start producing lamb
products and goat products in this country instead of importing them
from some other place. That's what this is all about.
You can make fun of it all you want, but at the end of the day, this
is about American jobs and about keeping the production here in the
United States.
Let's be clear about what this is. It is $1 million. I think it is
money that's well spent. We can go into all of the reasons for the
demise of the sheep industry. A lot of it had to do with what we did at
the Federal level and the government level to screw this industry up,
especially in Montana, Wyoming, and places like that, but we don't have
[[Page H3913]]
time to go into all of that. This is a modest effort to help that
industry get back on its feet and make sure that those jobs are in the
U.S.
Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, only in Washington, D.C., can someone call
$1 million a modest amount. There's one thing that I live by that I
hope I can serve the American people with, and it is that the
individual raindrop does not blame itself for the flood.
Mr. Chairman, we are in a time of record deficits, a debt that hangs
over to the point that it is a national security problem for our
country. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment and slow
the torrent of wasteful spending.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. I would reiterate my opposition. This is a good
investment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Walberg
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 12312.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, if it weren't for the lateness of the
hour, I would be tempted to ask if any of my colleagues have had
constituents call or write their offices to ask whether Congress has
lost its marbles. I won't do that.
But I would point out the fact that the underlying bill we are
considering tonight contains a provision to create a checkoff program,
like many others, but this is a checkoff program for natural stone on
behalf of the marble and granite industry.
To those of my friends who are supporters of the checkoff program--
and again, there are many checkoff programs--I would simply ask for you
to take a close look at my amendment.
Proponents of this checkoff have argued that stone is a natural
product, and yes, it is. But is it just like the other products covered
in the checkoff program in the agriculture arena?
To anyone unfamiliar, here's a sampling of the some of the other
checkoff programs currently run by the USDA: dairy, eggs, beef,
blueberries, pork, sorghum, watermelons, et cetera.
The common denominator between the some 20 checkoff programs run by
the USDA is that they are all agricultural commodities. They all grow.
They all can be raised. The statutory authority for this program
defines precisely what an acceptable agricultural commodity is, and
rock, no matter how natural it is, is not one of them.
Mr. Chairman, farmers in my district do not grow rocks. In fact, they
don't like it when frost heaves and pushes new rocks up in their
fields, as in my farm field.
{time} 2300
My amendment is more than fair, Mr. Chairman, and is necessary for
maintaining the integrity of the farm bill and not for expanding--for
which our chairman earlier this evening expressed concern--more farm
bill programs in assorted prior amendments. There are no laws
preventing this industry from imposing a voluntary tax on their
membership. If they are really insistent on having a government-run
checkoff, they could have pursued a program under a more appropriate
agency like the Department of Commerce or the Department of the
Interior.
I would hope my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, would agree that rocks have
no place in a farm bill, and would join me in removing this provision
from the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. The underlying language of the farm bill
simply provides this industry the same opportunity that many other
industries have been provided through the checkoff.
I share a similar concern with the gentleman who has the amendment.
Commerce or the Interior might have been an appropriate place to put
this, other than they simply don't have the infrastructure to handle
such a program. The infrastructure is already there at the USDA. There
are other examples of products outside of agriculture that have been
handled there.
It simply gives the U.S. stone industry the opportunity to come
together with a voluntary payment to support a marketing program to
help their industry. Again, it is voluntary. A ``tax,'' by definition,
is an involuntary payment to support the government. This is a
voluntary payment to support an industry.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. I would suggest that it's not voluntary for all of those
in an industry, and I am certain that not all of them in the industry
are asking for this checkoff.
Again, I understand there may not be the best infrastructure like the
agriculture at the USDA programs for a checkoff like this. But again, I
would ask the sponsor of this proposal: When have we grown rocks? Do we
seed rocks?
When we look at the agriculture commodity as a term described and
defined, it says that the agriculture commodity means agricultural,
horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products, livestock and the
products of livestock, the products of poultry and bee raising, the
products of forestry. I could go on, but it nowhere says ``rocks.'' To
expand the program in a farm bill issue and in dealing with something
we can't grow, I think, establishes the wrong precedent.
I ask for support for the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to address their
remarks to the Chair rather than to other Members.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I've got great respect for the author of
the amendment, and he knows that, but I do stand in opposition to the
amendment.
The checkoff programs on a generic basis are very successful. The
industry itself votes on them and comes together to decide how they're
used in the promotion of the products.
I respectfully disagree with my good colleague, but I have to oppose
this amendment. We handled this in committee, and it passed in
committee. We gave it a good scrubbing there. So I would ask my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute remaining,
and the gentleman from Georgia has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the respect, and I understand
that. I appreciate the fact that the USDA has a good record of dealing
with checkoffs. I'm not necessarily opposed to all checkoffs, but they
ought to fit. Growing rocks--marble, granite--just does not fit in an
agricultural program. I think that's apparent. So I ask my colleagues
to support this amendment in order to keep the integrity of the farm
bill in growing agriculture.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to
put it in the Departments of Commerce or the Interior, but the
infrastructure is already there to put it in the USDA.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus).
[[Page H3914]]
Mr. BACHUS. I thank the chairman.
The chairman and I have had several small businesses in Alabama--
marble businesses, granite businesses, stone businesses--that have
contacted me and have told me that this discretionary permission to
request a research order or a promotion is very important to them.
They've been struggling over the past several years since our what
was almost a depression, and they're small businesses. I'm talking
about businesses of 10 people, 30 people, 100 people. This is
predominantly a small business venture, and we all have them in our
communities.
I would urge a ``no'' vote, although I do respect the gentleman from
Michigan and many of his endeavors.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, propane and oil heat function as checkoff
programs under the Department of Commerce and under the Department of
Energy. The statutory authority for the USDA checkoff also does not
include rock. So I respectfully request that my colleagues in this body
support this amendment, which keeps free those things that don't grow
and are not part of agriculture out of a farm bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the industry has simply
asked for chance to participate in a no-cost-to-the-taxpayer, voluntary
program in which they can use that to help promote their product. I as
a conservative think that this is good for some of our small business
owners, and I respectfully ask that we oppose the amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
amendments en bloc no. 1 offered by mr. lucas
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
271, I offer the following amendments en bloc which I have placed at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 53, 59, 60, 62
through 97, and 103, printed in House Report No. 113-117, offered by
Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma:
Amendment No. 53 Offered by Ms. Sinema of Arizona
Page 629, after line 4, insert the following:
SEC. 12317. PRODUCE REPRESENTED AS GROWN IN THE UNITED STATES
WHEN IT IS NOT IN FACT GROWN IN THE UNITED
STATES.
(a) Technical Assistance to CBP.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall make available to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection technical assistance related to the identification
of produce represented as grown in the United States when it
is not in fact grown in the United States.
(b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate a report on produce represented as grown in the United
States when it is not in fact grown in the United States.
Amendment No. 59 Offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire
Page 200, line 2, strike ``5 percent'' and insert ``7.5
percent''.
Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi
Page 238, after line 13, insert the following:
``(D) The healthy forests reserve program established under
section 501 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(16 U.S.C. 6571).
Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico
At the end of subtitle G of title II, insert the following
new section:
SEC. 2609. LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN CONSERVATION REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry a report containing the
results of a review and analysis of each of the programs
administered by the Secretary that pertain to the
conservation of the lesser prairie-chicken, including the
conservation reserve program, the environmental quality
incentives program, the wildlife habitat incentive program,
and the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative.
(b) Contents.--The Secretary shall include in the report
required by this section, at a minimum--
(1) with respect to each program described in subsection
(a) as it relates to the conservation of the lesser prairie-
chicken, findings regarding--
(A) the cost of the program to the Federal Government,
impacted State governments, and the private sector;
(B) the conservation effectiveness of the program; and
(C) the cost-effectiveness of the program; and
(2) a ranking of the programs described in subsection (a)
based on their relative cost-effectiveness.
Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Cramer of North Dakota
Page 265, after line 22, insert the following:
SEC. 2609. WETLANDS MITIGATION.
Section 1222 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3822) is amended--
(1) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(D), by striking ``unless more acreage
is needed to provide equivalent functions and values that
will be lost as a result of the wetland conversion to be
mitigated''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(E)--
(i) by inserting ``not'' before ``greater than''; and
(ii) by striking ``if more acreage is needed to provide
equivalent functions and values that will be lost as a result
of the wetland conversion that is mitigated''; and
(2) by striking subsection (g).
Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts
Page 290, after line 9, insert the following new
subsection:
(c) U.S. Atlantic Spiny Dogfish Study.--Not later than 90
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall conduct an economic study on the existing
market in the United States for U.S. Atlantic Spiny Dogfish.
Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Reed of New York
Strike section 4015 and insert the following:
SEC. 4015. DATA EXCHANGE STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED
INTEROPERABILITY.
(a) Data Exchange Standardization.--Section 11 of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(v) Data Exchange Standards for Improved
Interoperability.--
``(1) Designation.--The Secretary shall, in consultation
with an interagency work group established by the Office of
Management and Budget, and considering State government
perspectives, designate data exchange standards to govern,
under this part--
``(A) necessary categories of information that State
agencies operating such programs are required under
applicable law to electronically exchange with another State
agency; and
``(B) Federal reporting and data exchange required under
applicable law.
``(2) Requirements.--The data exchange standards required
by paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable--
``(A) incorporate a widely accepted, non-proprietary,
searchable, computer-readable format, such as the eXtensible
Markup Language;
``(B) contain interoperable standards developed and
maintained by intergovernmental partnerships, such as the
National Information Exchange Model;
``(C) incorporate interoperable standards developed and
maintained by Federal entities with authority over
contracting and financial assistance;
``(D) be consistent with and implement applicable
accounting principles;
``(E) be implemented in a manner that is cost-effective and
improves program efficiency and effectiveness; and
``(F) be capable of being continually upgraded as
necessary.
``(3) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to require a change to existing data
exchange standards for Federal reporting found to be
effective and efficient.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The Secretary shall issue a proposed
rule within 24 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act. The rule shall identify federally-required data
exchanges, include specification and timing of exchanges to
be standardized, and address the factors used in determining
whether and when to standardize data exchanges. It should
also specify state implementation options and describe future
milestones.
Amendment No. 66 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4033. SERVICE OF TRADITIONAL FOODS IN PUBLIC FACILITIES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Food service program.--The term ``food service
program'' includes--
(A) food service at a residential child care facility with
a license from an appropriate State agency;
[[Page H3915]]
(B) a child nutrition program (as defined in section 25(b)
of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1769f (b));
(C) food service at a hospital or clinic or long term care
facility; and
(D) a senior meal program.
(2) Indian; indian tribe; indian tribal organization.--The
terms ``Indian''; ``Indian tribe''; and ``Indian Tribal
Organization'' have the meanings given those terms in section
4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(3) Traditional food.--
(A) In general.--The term ``traditional food'' means food
that has traditionally been prepared and consumed by an
Indian tribe.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``traditional food'' includes--
(i) wild game meat;
(ii) fish;
(iii) seafood;
(iv) marine mammals;
(iv) plants; and
(v) berries.
(b) Program.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary shall allow the donation to and serving of
traditional food through a food service program at a public
facility, nonprofit facility, including facilities operated
by an Indian tribe or tribal organization that primarily
serves Indians if the operator of the food service program--
(1) ensures that the food is received whole, gutted,
gilled, as quarters, or as a roast, without further
processing;
(2) makes a reasonable determination that--
(A) the animal was not diseased;
(B) the food was butchered, dressed, transported, and
stored to prevent contamination, undesirable microbial
growth, or deterioration; and
(C) the food will not cause a significant health hazard or
potential for human illness;
(3) carries out any further preparation or processing of
the food at a different time or in a different space from the
preparation or processing of other food for the applicable
program to prevent cross-contamination;
(4) cleans and sanitizes food-contact surfaces of equipment
and utensils after processing the traditional food; and
(5) labels donated traditional food with the name of the
food and stores the traditional food separately from other
food for the applicable program, including through storage in
a separate freezer or refrigerator or in a separate
compartment or shelf in the freezer or refrigerator.
(c) Liability.--Liability for damages from donated
traditional food and products to the participating food
service program shall not be subject to civil or criminal
liability arising from the nature, age, packaging, or
condition of donated food.
Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mrs. Negrete McLeod of California
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4033. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR INDIAN TRIBES.
Section 4 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2013) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Feasibility Study for Indian Tribes.--
``(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of a tribal demonstration project
for tribes to administer all Federal food assistance
programs, services, functions, and activities (or portions
thereof) of the agency.
``(2) Considerations.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall consider--
``(A) the probable effects on specific programs and program
beneficiaries of such a demonstration project;
``(B) statutory, regulatory, or other impediments to
implementation of such a demonstration project;
``(C) strategies for implementing such a demonstration
project;
``(D) probable costs or savings associated with such a
demonstration project;
``(E) methods to assure quality and accountability in such
a demonstration project; and
``(F) such other issues that may be determined by the
Secretary or developed through consultation with pursuant to
paragraph (4).
``(3) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the effective
date of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit a report
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of
the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives. The report shall contain--
``(A) the results of the study under this subsection;
``(B) a list of programs, services, functions, and
activities (or portions thereof) within each agency with
respect to which it would be feasible to include in a tribal
demonstration project;
``(C) a list of programs, services, functions, and
activities (or portions thereof) included in the list
provided pursuant to subparagraph (B) that could be included
in a tribal demonstration project without amending a statute,
or waiving regulations that the Secretary may not waiver; and
``(D) a list of legislative actions required in order to
include those programs, services, function, and activities
(or portions thereof) included in the list provided pursuant
to subparagraph (B) but not included in the list provided
pursuant to subparagraph (C), in a tribal demonstration
project.
``(4) Consultation with indian tribes.--The Secretary shall
consult with Indian tribes to determine a protocol for
consultation under paragraph (1) prior to consultation under
such paragraph with the other entities described in such
paragraph. The protocol shall require, at a minimum, that--
``(A) the government-to-government relationship with Indian
tribes forms the basis for the consultation process;
``(B) the Indian tribes and the Secretary jointly conduct
the consultations required by this subsection; and
``(C) the consultation process allows for separate and
direct recommendations from the Indian tribes and other
entities described in paragraph (1).
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this subsection. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.''.
Amendment No. 68 Offered by Ms. Duckworth of Illinois
Page 366, after line 20, insert the following:
SEC. 4208. STUDY ON FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY FEEDING
ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations for such purpose, the Secretary shall conduct
a study of the impact on emergency feeding organizations of
cuts made to the supplemental nutrition assistance program
pursuant to this Act and the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-296).
(b) Matters to Be Assessed.--In carrying out the study
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall assess the
following:
(1) In the month preceding the implementation of the cuts
described in subsection (a)--
(A) a baseline of the number of clients served by emergency
feeding organizations;
(B) a baseline of the frequency that clients visit an
emergency feeding organization during the month; and
(C) a baseline of the amount of food distributed by
emergency feeding organizations during the month.
(2) Two months and four months following the implementation
of such cuts (or at such other times the Secretary determines
appropriate to best measure the impact of such cuts)--
(A) the change in the number of clients seeking food
assistance from emergency feeding organizations;
(B) the change in the frequency that clients seek food
assistance from emergency feeding organizations;
(C) the adequacy of supply of donated food to emergency
feeding organizations to meet demand for food assistance; and
(D) the total number of clients served and number of
clients turned away or reductions in the amount of food
distributed to clients by emergency feeding organizations
because of the lack of resources to meet the need for food
assistance.
(c) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2014, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing--
(1) the impact of cuts described in subsection (a) on
demand at emergency feeding organizations; and
(2) the ability of emergency feeding organizations to meet
changes in need resulting from such cuts.
(d) Emergency Feeding Organization Defined.--In this
section, the term ``emergency feeding organization'' has the
meaning given the term in section 201A of the Emergency Food
Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501).
Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Crowley of New York
At the end of subtitle C of title IV, add the following new
section:
SEC. 4208. PURCHASE OF HALAL AND KOSHER FOOD FOR EMERGENCY
FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 202 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7
U.S.C. 7502) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Kosher and Halal Food.--As soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
finalize and implement a plan--
``(1) to increase the purchase of Kosher and Halal food
from food manufacturers with a Kosher or Halal certification
to carry out the program established under this Act if the
Kosher and Halal food purchased is cost neutral as compared
to food that is not from food manufacturers with a Kosher or
Halal certification; and
``(2) to modify the labeling of the commodities list used
to carry out the program in a manner that enables Kosher and
Halal food bank operators to identify which commodities to
obtain from local food banks.''.
Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan
At the end of subtitle C of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4208. REVIEW OF SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTS IN FEDERAL
NUTRITION PROGRAMS.
The Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of sole-source
contracts in Federal nutrition programs, and the effect such
contracts have on program participation, program goals,
nonprogram consumers, retailers, and free market dynamics.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall report the findings of this review
to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate.
Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. Gardner of Colordao
Page 393, after line 22, insert the following:
[[Page H3916]]
SEC. ___. RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.
Section 18(c) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7
U.S.C. 918(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Rural Electrification
Administration'' each place it appears and inserting ``Rural
Utilities Service''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by insertiong ``cooperative''
before ``agreements''; and
(B) by inserting after the 1st sentence the folllowing: ``A
contract funded by a borrower that is to be paid for out of
the general funds of the borrower is not a public contract
within the meaning of title 41, United States Code''.
Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Ruiz of California
Page 401, after line 4, insert the following:
SEC. ____. TELEMEDICINE AND DISTANCE LEARNING SERVICES IN
RURAL AREAS.
Section 2333(d) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa-2(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (12); and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (14) and
inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
``(13) whether the applicant for assistance is located in a
designated health professional shortage area (within the
meaning of section 332 of the Public Health Service Act)''.
Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Michaud of Maine
Page 401, after line 4, insert the following:
SEC. ____. REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.
Section 15751 of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``Not more than'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not
more than''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Limited funding.--In a case in which less than
$10,000,000 is made available to a Commission for a fiscal
year under this section, paragraph (1) shall not apply.''.
Amendment No. 74 Offered by Mr. Turner of Ohio
At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 430, after line
18), add the following:
SEC. 7129. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EXPANSION OF THE LAND
GRANT PROGRAM TO INCLUDE ENHANCED FUNDING AND
ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) institutions of higher education designated under the
Act of August 30, 1890 (commonly known, and referred to in
this section, as the ``Second Morrill Act''; 7 U.S.C. 321 et
seq.) have played an integral role in the education and
advancement of agriculture and mechanic arts for over a
century;
(2) in addition to those institutions, a number of colleges
and universities have fulfilled similar and parallel missions
in successfully training and graduating generations of
students who have gone on to be leaders in their field;
(3) the colleges and universities, both with and without
designation under the Second Morrill Act, fulfill a vital
role to the future of industry, opportunities for increased
job creation, and the strength of American agriculture;
(4) Congress must ensure that the United States' higher
education framework and policies meet the needs of young
Americans, and that students from across the country are able
to choose from a variety of institutions and programs that
will equip them with the skills and training necessary to
achieve their individual goals; and
(5) as Congress and the agricultural community generally
consider policies and approaches to improve research,
extension, and education in the agricultural sciences,
expansion of the land grant program under the Second Morrill
Act to include enhanced funding and additional institutions
should be considered.
Amendment No. 75 Offered by Ms. Gabbard of Hawaii
Page 433, line 17, strike `` `subsections (e) and (f)' ''
and insert `` `subsections (e), (f), and (g)' ''.
Page 433, line 20, strike `` `subsections (e) and (f)' ''
and insert `` `subsections (e), (f), and (g)' ''.
Page 433, line 23, strike ``subsections (e), (f), and (g)''
and insert ``subsections (e), (f), and (h)''.
Page 434, line 10, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 434, after line 10, insert the following new
paragraph:
(6) by inserting after subsection (f) (as redesignated by
paragraph (4)) the following new subsection:
``(g) Coffee Plant Health Initiative.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
coffee plant health initiative to address the critical needs
of the coffee industry by--
``(A) developing and disseminating science-based tools and
treatments to combat the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus
hampei); and
``(B) establishing an area-wide integrated pest management
program in areas affected by or areas at risk of being
affected by the coffee berry borer.
``(2) Eligible entities.--The Secretary may carry out the
coffee plant health initiative through--
``(A) Federal agencies, including the Agricultural Research
Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture;
``(B) National Laboratories;
``(C) institutions of higher education;
``(D) research institutions or organizations;
``(E) private organizations or corporations;
``(F) State agricultural experiment stations;
``(G) individuals; or
``(H) groups consisting of 2 or more entities or
individuals described in subparagraphs (A) through (G).
``(3) Project grants and cooperative agreements.--In
carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall--
``(A) enter into cooperative agreements with eligible
entities, as appropriate; and
``(B) award grants on a competitive basis.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''; and
Page 434, line 11, strike ``(6) in subsection (g)'' and
insert ``(7) in subsection (h)''.
Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Faleomavaega of American samoa
Page 460, line 1, insert ``AMERICAN SAMOAM FEDERATED STATES
OF MICRONESIA, AND'' before ``NORTHERN MARIANA''.
Page 460, line 7, insert ``american samoa, the Federated
States of Micronesia,'' before ``and the Commonwealth''.
Amendment No. 77 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
Strike section 7514 and insert the following new section:
SEC. 7514. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION GRANTS FOR THE STUDY OF
ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT BACTERIA.
Section 7521(c) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 3202(c)) is amended by striking ``2012''
and inserting ``2018''.
Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Gosar of Arizona
Page 481, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and
the second period.
Page 481, after line 17, insert the following:
``(7) Fire liability provisions.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Chief and
the Director shall issue for use in all contracts and
agreements under this section fire liability provisions that
are in substantially the same form as the fire liability
provisions contained in--
``(A) integrated resource timber contracts, as described in
the Forest Service contract numbered 2400-13, part H, section
H.4; and
``(B) timber sale contracts conducted pursuant to section
14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C.
472a).''.
Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Cotton of Arkansas
Page 486, lines 15 and 19, insert ``, management,'' after
``restoration''.
Page 486, line 22, strike ``trees'' and insert ``forests''.
Page 486, line 24, strike ``and'' and insert the
following:vegetative treatments; or
Page 487, line 1, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.
Page 487, lines 8, 13, and 24 insert ``, management,''
after ``restoration''.
Page 488, line 4, insert ``, management,'' after
``restoration''.
Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Tipton of Colorado
At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 8408. FOREST SERVICE LARGE AIRTANKER AND AERIAL ASSET
FIREFIGHTING RECAPITALIZATION PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary, acting through the Chief of
the Forest Service, may establish a large airtanker and
aerial asset lease program in accordance with this section.
(b) Aircraft Requirements.--In carrying out the program
described in subsection (a), the Secretary may enter into a
multiyear lease contract for up to five aircraft that meet
the criteria--
(1) described in the Forest Service document entitled
``Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy'' and dated February
10, 2012, for large airtankers; and
(2) determined by the Secretary, for other aerial assets.
(c) Lease Terms.--The term of any individual lease
agreement into which the Secretary enters under this section
shall be--
(1) up to five years, inclusive of any options to renew or
extend the initial lease term; and
(2) in accordance with section 3903 of title 41, United
States Code.
(d) Prohibition.--No lease entered into under this section
shall provide for the purchase of the aircraft by, or the
transfer of ownership to, the Forest Service.
Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Griffith of Virginia
At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:
SEC. 8408. LAND CONVEYANCE, JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST IN WISE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
(a) Conveyance Required.--Upon payment by the Association
of the consideration under subsection (b) and the costs under
subsection (d), the Secretary shall, subject to
[[Page H3917]]
valid existing rights, convey to the Association all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel
of National Forest System land in the Jefferson National
Forest in Wise County, Virginia, consisting of approximately
0.70 acres and containing the Mullins and Sturgill Cemetery
and an easement to provide access to the parcel, as generally
depicted on the map.
(b) Consideration.--
(1) Fair market value.--As consideration for the land
conveyed under subsection (a), the Association shall pay to
the Secretary cash in an amount equal to the market value of
the land, as determined by an appraisal approved by the
Secretary and conducted in conformity with the Uniform
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and section
206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1716).
(2) Deposit.--The consideration received by the Secretary
under paragraph (1) shall be deposited into the general fund
of the Treasury of the United States for the purposes of
deficit reduction.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the land to be conveyed under subsection (a)
shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary.
(d) Costs.--The Association shall pay to the Secretary at
closing the reasonable costs of the survey, the appraisal,
and any administrative and environmental analyses required by
law.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Association.--The term ``Association'' means the
Mullins and Sturgill Cemetery Association of Pound, Virginia.
(2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map titled ``Mullins
and Sturgill Cemetery'' dated March 1, 2013.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(f) Additional Terms and Conditions.-- The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
amendment no. 82 offered by mr. meadows of north carolina
At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:
SEC. 8408. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR FOREST PROJECTS IN
RESPOSE TO EMERGENCIES.
In the case of National Forest System land damaged by a
natural disaster regarding which the President declares a
disaster or emergency pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.), any forest project carried out to clean up or
restore the damaged National Forest System land during the
two-year period beginning on the date of the declaration
shall be categorically excluded from the requirements
relating to environmental assessments or environmental impact
statements under section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
amendment no. 83 offered by mr. loebsack of iowa
Page 502, strike lines 20 through 24.
Page 503, line 1, redesignate paragraph (2) as subsection
(a) and conform the margins accordingly.
Page 503, line 5, redesignate subparagraph (A) as paragraph
(1) and conform the margins accordingly.
Page 503, beginning on line 5, strike ``paragraph (2) as
paragraph (3)'' and insert ``paragraphs (2) and (3) as
paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively''.
Page 503, line 7, redesignate subparagraph (B) as paragraph
(2) and conform the margins accordingly.
amendment no. 84 offered by mr. grimm of new york
At the end of title IX, add the following new section:
SEC. __. ENERGY EFFICIENCY REPORT FOR USDA FACILITIES.
(a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a report on energy use and energy
efficiency projects at Department of Agriculture facilities.
(b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An analysis of energy use by Department of Agriculture
facilities.
(2) A list of energy audits that have been conducted at
such facilities.
(3) A list of energy efficiency projects that have been
conducted at such facilities.
(4) A list of energy savings projects that could be
achieved with enacting a consistent, timely, and proper
mechanical insulation maintenance program and upgrading
mechanical insulation at such facilities.
amendment no. 85 offered by mr. cardenas of california
Page 527, strike lines 20 through 23 and insert the
following:
SEC. 10006. FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION INITIATIVES.
Section 10105 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 7655) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``,
including farm workers'' after ``industry'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) practices that prevent bacterial contamination of
food, how to identify sources of food contamination, and
other means of decreasing food contamination.''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2018''.
amendment no. 86 offered by mr. austin scott of georgia
After section 10007, insert the following new section (and
redesignate succeeding sections and conform the table of
contents accordingly):
SEC. 10008. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONSULTATION REGARDING
ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN LABOR LAW PROVISIONS.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with the
Secretary of Labor regarding the restraining of shipments of
agricultural commodities, or the confiscation of such
commodities, by the Department of Labor for actual or
suspected labor law violations in order to consider--
(1) the perishable nature of such commodities;
(2) the impact of such restraining or confiscation on the
economic viability of farming operations; and
(3) the competitiveness of specialty crops through grants
awarded to States under section 101 of the Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note).
amendment no. 87 offered by ms. kaptur of ohio
Page 545, after line 9, insert the following:
SEC. 10018. ANNUAL REPORT ON INVASIVE SPECIES.
(a) Initial Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on invasive species.
(2) Matters included.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A list of each invasive species that is in the United
States as of the date of the report.
(B) For each invasive species listed under subparagraph
(A)--
(i) the country that the species originated;
(ii) the means in which the species entered the United
States;
(iii) the year in which the species entered the United
States;
(iv) the rate by which the entry of the species is
increasing or decreasing;
(v) cost estimates, covering both the date of the report
and future periods, of the cost of such species to the public
and private sectors;
(vi) if cost estimates cannot be conducted under clause
(iv), a detailed explanation of why;
(vii) environmental impact estimates, covering both the
date of the report and future periods, of the environmental
impact of the species;
(viii) if environmental impact estimates cannot be
conducted under clause (iv), a detailed explanation of why;
(ix) recommendations as to what steps are needed to combat
the species;
(x) a description of the ongoing research occurring to
combat the species; and
(xi) a description of any legal recourse available to
people affected by the species.
(C) Any other matter the Secretary determines appropriate.
(3) Period covered.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
cover the period beginning in 1980 and ending on the date on
which the report is submitted.
(b) Annual Updated Reports.--Not later than October 1 of
each fiscal year beginning after the date on which the report
under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) is submitted, the
Secretary shall submit annually to Congress an updated
report, including an update to each of the matters described
in paragraph (2) of such subsection.
(c) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall make each
report under this section available to the public.
amendment no. 88 offered by ms. foxx of north carolina
In section 11001, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Section 502(c)'' and add at the end the following new
subsection:
(b) Disclosure of Crop Insurance Premium Subsidies Made on
Behalf of Members of Congress and Certain Other Individuals
and Entities.--Section 502(c)(2) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E) respectively; and
(2) by inserting before subparagraph (C) (as so
redesignated) the following:
``(A) Disclosure in the public interest.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, except as
provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall on an
annual basis make available to the public--
``(i)(I) the name of each individual or entity specified in
subparagraph (C) who obtained a federally subsidized crop
insurance, livestock, or forage policy or plan of insurance
during the previous fiscal year;
``(II) the amount of premium subsidy received by that
individual or entity from the Corporation; and
``(III) the amount of any Federal portion of indemnities
paid in the event of a loss during that fiscal year for each
policy associated with that individual or entity; and
``(ii) for each private insurance provider, by name--
[[Page H3918]]
``(I) the underwriting gains earned through participation
in the federally subsidized crop insurance program; and
``(II) the amount paid under this subtitle for--
``(aa) administrative and operating expenses;
``(bb) any Federal portion of indemnities and reinsurance;
and
``(cc) any other purpose.
``(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not disclose
information pertaining to individuals and entities covered by
a catastrophic risk protection plan offered under section
508(b).
``(C) Covered individuals and entities.--Subparagraph (A)
applies with respect to the following:
``(i) Members of Congress and their immediate families.
``(ii) Cabinet Secretaries and their immediate families.
``(iii) Entities of which any individual described in
clause (i) or (ii), or combination of such individuals, is a
majority shareholder.''.
amendment no. 89 offered by mr. schock of illinois
Page 578, line 20, insert ``pennycress,'' after
``alfalfa,''.
amendment no. 90 offered by mr. barr of kentucky
Page 590, after line 15, insert the following:
SEC. 11025. ADVANCE PUBLIC NOTICE OF CROP INSURANCE POLICY
AND PLAN CHANGES.
Section 505(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1505(e)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(6) and (7); respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph (5):
``(5) Advance notice of modification before
implementation.--
``(A) In general.--Any modification to be made in the terms
or conditions of any policy or plan of insurance offered
under this subtitle shall not take effect for a crop year
unless the Secretary publishes the modification in the
Federal Register and on the website of the Corporation and
provides for a subsequent period of public comment--
``(i) with respect to fall-planted crops, not later than 60
days before June 30 during the preceding crop year; and
``(ii) with respect to spring-planted crops, not later than
60 days before November 30 during the preceding crop year.
``(B) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the application of
subparagraph (A) in an emergency situation declared by the
Secretary upon notice to Congress of the nature of the
emergency and the need for immediate implementation of the
policy or plan modification referred to in such
subparagraph.''.
Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Takano of California
At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following
new section:
SEC. __. ECONOMIC FRAUD IN WILD AND FARM-RAISED SEAFOOD.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture,
acting through the Office of the Chief Economist, shall
submit to Congress a report on the economic implications for
consumers, fishermen, and aquaculturists of fraud and
mislabeling in wild and farmed seafood.
(b) Contents.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include, with respect to fraud and mislabeling in wild
and farm-raised seafood, an analysis of the impact on
consumers and producers in the Unites States of--
(1) sales of imported seafood that is misrepresented as
domestic product;
(2) country of origin labeling that allows seafood
harvested outside the United States to be labeled as a
product of the United States;
(3) the lack of seafood product traceability through the
supply chain; and
(4) the inadequate use of DNA testing and other technology
to address seafood safety and fraud, including traceability.
amendment no. 92 offered by ms. fudge of ohio
Page 601, after line 18, insert the following new section:
SEC. 12204. RECEIPT FOR SERVICE OR DENIAL OF SERVICE FROM
CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGENCIES.
Section 2501A(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279-1(e)) is amended by
striking ``and, at the time of the request, also requests a
receipt''.
amendment no. 93 offered by Ms. Velazquez of New York
Page 629, after line 4, insert the following:
SEC. ____. URBAN AGRICULTURE COORDINATION.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate opportunities
for urban agriculture, by--
(1) compiling a list of all programs administered by the
Secretary or by the head of any other department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States to which urban farmers
can apply for assistance or participation;
(2) examining and implementing opportunities to adjust the
regulations governing the programs to enable urban farmers to
participate in more of the programs;
(3) developing a process for streamlining the process by
which urban farmers may apply for assistance from, or for
participation in, the programs, including through the use of
a single, harmonized application for multiple programs; and
(4) such other methods as the Secretary deems appropriate.
Amendment No. 94 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
Page 629, after line 4, insert the following:
SEC. 12317. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INCREASED BUSINESS
OPPORTUNITIES FOR BLACK FARMERS, WOMEN,
MINORITIES, AND SMALL BUSINESSES.
It is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government
should increase the number of contracts the Federal
Government awards to Black farmers, businesses owned and
controlled by women, businesses owned and controlled by
minorities, and small business concerns.
Amendment No. 95 offered by mr. ross of florida
Page 629, after line 4, insert the following:
SEC. 12317. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING AGRICULTURE SECURITY
PROGRAMS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) agricultural nutrients and other agricultural chemicals
are essential to ensuring the most efficient production of
food, fuel, and fiber;
(2) these products must be properly stored, handled,
transported, and used to ensure that they are not misused or
cause harm either accidentally or intentionally;
(3) the Department of Agriculture is the Federal agency
with the staffing and technical expertise to understand the
important role these products play in agriculture;
(4) other Federal departments and agencies have been given
lead responsibility to develop and implement security
programs affecting the availability, storage, transportation,
and use of a variety of chemicals and products used in
agriculture;
(5) it is critical that the Department of Agriculture
participate fully in the development of any such security
programs to ensure that they do not unnecessarily restrict
the availability of the most efficient and beneficial
products needed to sustain American agriculture;
(6) the Secretary of Agriculture should review staffing at
the Department to ensure that the agency has senior employees
within the Department at the Senior Executive Service level
or higher, who have responsibility for coordinating with
other Federal, State, and international agencies in the
development of regulations, guidance, and procedures for the
secure handling of agricultural chemicals; and
(7) that such employees shall--
(A) work with manufacturers, retailers, and the general
farm community to review existing and proposed Federal,
State, and international agricultural chemical security
regulations;
(B) coordinate with manufacturers, retailers, transporters,
and farmers to evaluate how existing and proposed security
regulations, including systems to track the sale,
transportation, delivery, and use of agricultural products,
can be designed to minimize any adverse impact on
agricultural productivity;
(C) evaluate how existing and proposed security regulations
will affect the ability of agricultural producers to have
timely access to nutrients, chemicals, and other products
that are affordable and best suited to the producers'
operations;
(D) develop recommendations on best practices, policies,
and regulatory mechanisms relating to existing and proposed
security programs to ensure that there is minimal adverse
impact on agricultural productivity; and
(E) engage with Federal agencies with responsibility for
establishing security programs to ensure that they have the
information needed to develop procedures for effective
security administration and enforcement that minimize any
adverse impact on domestic or international agricultural
productivity.
Amendment No. 96 offered by Mr. Conaway of Texas
At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 12317. REPORT ON WATER SHARING.
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State
shall submit to Congress a report on--
(1) efforts by Mexico to meet its treaty deliveries of
water to the Rio Grande in accordance with the Treaty between
the United States and Mexico Respecting Utilization of waters
of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande
(done at Washington, February 3, 1944); and
(2) the benefits to the United States of the Interim
International Cooperative Measures in the Colorado River
Basin through 2017 and Extension of Minute 318 Cooperative
Measures to Address the Continued Effects of the April 2010
Earthquake in the Mexicali Valley, Baja, California (done at
Coronado, California, November 20, 2012; commonly referred to
as ``Minute No. 319'').
Amendment No. 97 offered by Mr. Flores of Texas
At the end of title XII, add the following new section:
SEC. __. REPORT ON NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Executive Order 13547, issued on July 19, 2010,
established the national policy for the Stewardship of the
Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes and requires--
(A) Federal implementation of ``ecosystem-based
management'' to achieve a
[[Page H3919]]
``fundamental shift'' in how the United States manages ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes resources; and
(B) the establishment of nine new governmental ``Regional
Planning Bodies'' and ``Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans'' in
every region of the United States.
(2) Executive Order 13547 created a 54-member National
Ocean Council led by the White House Council on Environmental
Quality and Office of Science and Technology Policy that
includes 54 principal and deputy-level representatives from
Federal entities, including the Department of Agriculture.
(3) Executive Order 13547 requires National Ocean Council
members, including the Department of Agriculture, to take
action to implement the Policy and participate in coastal and
marine spatial planning to the maximum extent possible.
(4) The Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force that were adopted by Executive Order 13547
state that ``effective'' implementation of the National Ocean
Policy will ``require clear and easily understood
requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that include
enforcement as a critical component''.
(5) Despite repeated Congressional requests, the National
Ocean Council, which is charged with overseeing
implementation of the policy, has still not provided a
complete accounting of Federal activities under the policy
and resources expended and allocated in furtherance of
implementation of the policy.
(6) The continued economic and budgetary challenges of the
United States underscore the necessity for sound,
transparent, and practical Federal policies.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the
Department of Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a
report detailing--
(1) all activities engaged in and resources expended in
furtherance of Executive Order 13547 since July 19, 2010; and
(2) any budget requests for fiscal year 2014 for support of
implementation of Executive Order 13547.
amendment no. 103 offered by mr. reed of new york
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4033. ELIGIBILITY DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN
CONVICTED FELONS.
(a) Amendment.--Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015), as amended by section 4009, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Disqualification for Certain Convicted Felons.--
``(1) In general.--An individual shall not be eligible for
benefits under this Act if the individual is convicted of--
``(A) aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title
18, United States Code;
``(B) murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States
Code;
``(C) an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United
States Code;
``(D) a Federal or State offense involving sexual assault,
as defined in 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of
1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)); or
``(E) an offense under State law determined by the Attorney
General to be substantially similar to an offense described
in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
``(2) Effects on assistance and benefits for others.--The
amount of benefits otherwise required to be provided to an
eligible household under this Act shall be determined by
considering the individual to whom paragraph (1) applies not
to be a member of such household, except that the income and
resources of the individual shall be considered to be income
and resources of the household.
``(3) Enforcement.--Each State shall require each
individual applying for benefits under this Act, during the
application process, to state, in writing, whether the
individual, or any member of the household of the individual,
has been convicted of a crime described in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5(a) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(a)), as amended by
section 4009, is amended in the 2d sentence by striking ``and
(r)'' and inserting ``, (r), and (s)''.
(c) Inapplicability to Convictions Occurring on or Before
Enactment.--The amendments made by this section shall not
apply to a conviction if the conviction is for conduct
occurring on or before the date of the enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment, one to
ensure certainty and advance notice of any changes to crop insurance
eligibility for our family farmers.
On December 18, 2012, the RMA made a decision to alter the 2013
provisions of insurance for flue-cured and burley tobacco to impose a
more stringent rotation schedule on tobacco farmers. Starting this
year, farms have to rotate land every 2 years to qualify for crop
insurance coverage. Farmers had already made their preparations for
spring planting at the time of this untimely announcement, and there
was no public involvement or formal rule-making process. Many farmers
had already purchased fertilizer, signed leases and made other business
decisions under the impression that the land they were making
preparations for would be covered under the previous requirements.
{time} 2310
Had these farmers been made aware in advance of these changes that
rendered many ineligible for crop insurance coverage, they would have
had sufficient time to make alternative plans. This amendment would
prevent this problem for any commodity moving forward.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It would not
overturn any existing crop insurance requirements, but it would simply
give our family farmers, including those in Kentucky, particularly
Burley tobacco growers, the time they need to adjust to future changes
in crop insurance requirements. It would require that any changes to
current crop insurance policies be published and open for public
comment at least 60 days before June 30, and at least 60 days before
November 30 of the preceding year. These dates are the self-imposed
deadlines the risk management agency sets each year to announce any
changes to existing policies for the ensuing crop season.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for including this amendment in
the en bloc section.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support an amendment that will require the
Secretary of State to submit a report on water sharing with Mexico as
defined by the 1944 Water Treaty. This amendment has bipartisan
support, and I would like to thank my good colleague Mr. Vela from
Texas for supporting this important legislation.
This amendment addresses Mexico's failure to uphold its water
obligations to the United States by seeking to increase accountability
in water management by requiring the State Department to provide
regular reports to Congress outlining the management of the Rio Grande
system. The Rio Grande plays an important role in meeting the water
needs of businesses and families all across west and south Texas.
This is a result of the 1944 water treaty between the United States
and Mexico which outlines the obligations of both parties in the lower
Rio Grande. Both the U.S. and Mexico are obligated to jointly manage
and derive benefit from the water resources located across the
binational border.
Mexico is required to provide 350,000 acre-feet of water on average
each year over a 5-year term. Currently, Mexico has failed to meet this
obligation as they owe nearly half a million acre-feet to the United
States.
It's not a secret that Texas has suffered a terrible drought and
there is really no relief in sight. Mexico needs to begin fulfilling
its obligations. Our farming and ranching communities depend on it.
Again, I appreciate the chairman for including it in the en bloc
amendment and obviously support passage of the en bloc amendment.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the chairman to know that I support his
efforts to keep this process moving, but I'm hearing concerns
apparently on our side about the reach of amendments Nos. 79 and 82 and
some potential labor concerns. I'm not exactly sure what it is.
Apparently, the Natural Resources Committee has got some forestry
issues.
So I inquire if the gentleman is willing to work with us in this
regard. I'm not sure exactly what the concerns are.
[[Page H3920]]
Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. I would say to the ranking member that of course I will
work with and cooperate with the ranking member in the minority. We
have accomplished so much together in that spirit, and I would be happy
to continue to on those particular issues of concern.
Mr. PETERSON. I'm not even sure what the concern is, but we'll work
it out.
We've notified Members that this is going on, but nobody has shown
up, so I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. In closing, I just offer the observation that this en bloc
amendment will move us substantially towards completion. I believe
we'll continue to work longer this evening. But most assuredly I think
now--and the ranking member would probably agree--that it's possible to
meet our departure deadline tomorrow, thank goodness.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Slaughter/Polis
amendment to H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk
Management Act of 2013, which reauthorizes the study of antibiotic
resistant bacteria through 2018.
Since 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has funded important
research on antibiotic resistant bacteria in agriculture and the
development of strategies to mitigate them. For example, the Department
has funded research into the development of vaccines and probiotics
that reduce the need for antibiotics in agriculture, research tracking
the transmission of dangerous and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in
agriculture, and the development of strategies for mitigating
antibiotic resistance in food-animal production systems.
This type of research is more important today than it has ever been
before. Eighty percent of all antibiotics sold in the United States are
used in agriculture. We are throwing away the greatest scientific
advancement of the 20th century on healthy animals--and in the process
creating a massive public health emergency. Science has clearly
demonstrated that this type of overuse contributes to the rise of
antibiotic resistant infections, which kill 70,000 Americans each year.
We must fund research to identify ways antibiotic use on farms can be
eliminated to ensure that our Nation's food supply is safe. The type of
research authorized under this grants does just that.
When we go to the grocery store to pick up dinner, we should be able
to buy our food without the worry that eating it will expose our family
to potentially deadly bacteria that will no longer respond to our
medical treatments. Unless we act now to develop better surveillance
and strategies to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture, we will
unwittingly be permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant
bacteria and do irreparable damage to our ability to fight disease and
protect the health of our fellow Americans.
It is time for Congress to stand with scientists and do something to
stop the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Protecting the
public's health is one of the greatest responsibilities of this body. I
urge my colleagues to stand with me to support the Slaughter/Polis
amendment reauthorizing research into antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard. This amendment establishes
a coffee plant health initiative to be led by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, with the goal of addressing the pressing needs of the
coffee industry in the United States.
The U.S. coffee industry is principally based in my district, Puerto
Rico, and in the State of Hawaii, given that both jurisdictions offer
natural conditions ideally suited for cultivation of the coffee crop.
The industry in both Puerto Rico and Hawaii is increasingly threatened
by a nonnative insect commonly known as the coffee berry borer or the
Broca del Cafe in Spanish. This agricultural pest arrived in Puerto
Rico in 2007 and in Hawaii in 2010. The insect has emerged as the
primary threat facing the coffee industry, adversely impacting both the
yield and the market value of coffee crops.
The insect damages coffee plants by boring and depositing eggs into
the berries. The larvae then hatch inside the berries and feed on the
coffee beans, destroying them by creating holes. The Agricultural
Research Service estimates that the coffee berry borer has caused over
$500 million in losses worldwide. In Puerto Rico, production of coffee
has recently fallen to an historic low, and the coffee berry borer is
partially responsible. Annual coffee production in Puerto Rico is now
valued at $21 million, less than half of what it was just five years
ago and about a third of what it was at its peak in the mid-1990s. Most
hard hit are the rural and mountainous municipalities where coffee has
traditionally been a cash crop--Adjuntas, Lares, Utuado, Maricao,
Jayuya, Yauco, Orocovis, Ciales, Las Marias, and San Sebastian.
Why should we care about this situation? Because without a coffee
berry borer-free and controlled environment in which to plant coffee
trees, our agricultural economies in Puerto Rico and Hawaii are in
jeopardy. This means higher unemployment, reduced exports and increased
reliance on imports. Simply put, we must protect the U.S. interests in
this worldwide commodity. So research on the coffee berry borer should
be made a high priority at the USDA.
This amendment is relevant not only to residents of Puerto Rico and
Hawaii, but also to millions of coffee consumers around the country,
who should be able to enjoy American-made coffee, such as Puerto Rico's
58 gourmet brands or the world famous coffee from the Big Island in
Hawaii. Economically speaking, the United States benefits if we can
increase the worldwide market share and quality of coffee that is
produced in Puerto Rico and in Hawaii.
The latest statistics available reveal that my constituents consume
about 30 million pounds of coffee each year. Local production in Puerto
Rico, though, is roughly 10 million pounds, leaving 20 million to be
imported--typically from countries in the Caribbean and Central
America.
Since the berry borer emerged as a threat in Puerto Rico and Hawaii,
the local governments in these two jurisdictions have worked diligently
with farmers and the extension agents of our land grant universities to
control the spread of the insect and to mitigate its impact. However,
more must be done. Now that the insect is affecting more than just one
jurisdiction, a Federal response is especially appropriate.
The amendment requires USDA to develop and provide science-based
tools and treatments to combat the coffee berry borer and to establish
area-wide integrated pest management programs in Puerto Rico, Hawaii,
and anywhere else in the U.S. that the coffee berry borer may affect.
USDA would be authorized to collaborate with the land-grant
universities of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, as well as with the state
governments and outside organizations, to carry out scientific research
and to develop and implement the integrated pest management programs.
For years, USDA has sponsored applied research targeted toward the
Nation's most challenging agricultural pests and diseases. Targeted
research has spanned the range of commodities and crops. The needs in
tropical and subtropical agriculture are many, and the needs facing our
coffee industry are pressing. Cutting edge research continues to be
conducted at the U.S. Tropical Agriculture Research Station in
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, and at the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural
Research Center in Hilo, Hawaii, by a cadre of dedicated scientists,
technicians, and agronomists.
This amendment is designed to buttress their mission and to give them
the authority in law they need to expand their work to help local
producers. The amendment also improves the capacity of the land-grant
universities to address the problems presented by the coffee berry
borer.
Finally, I would note that the research conducted at the ARS research
stations and by the land-grant universities in Puerto Rico and Hawaii
has national application. The techniques and technology developed there
have proven their utility for increasing food production and
controlling agricultural pests in the U.S. mainland. The research that
stands to be enhanced through this amendment has a high probability of
application benefiting agricultural production beyond coffee and beyond
Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
For these reasons, I urge adoption of the amendment and I thank my
colleague, Ms. Gabbard, for her leadership in bringing it forward for
consideration.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Benishek.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. BENISHEK. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 12317. SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE FDA FOOD
SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') may not
enforce
[[Page H3921]]
any regulations promulgated under the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act (Public Law 111-353) until the Secretary
publishes in the Federal Register the following:
(1) An analysis of the scientific information used in the
final rule to implement the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
with a particular focus on--
(A) agricultural businesses of a variety of sizes;
(B) regional differences of agriculture production,
processing, marketing, and value added production;
(C) agricultural businesses that are diverse livestock and
produce producers; and
(D) what, if any, negative impact on the agricultural
businesses would be created, or exacerbated, by
implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
(2) An analysis of the economic impact of the proposed
final rule to implement the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
with a particular focus on--
(A) agricultural businesses of a variety of sizes; and
(B) small and mid-sized value added food processors.
(3) A plan to systematically evaluate the regulations by
surveying farmers and processors and developing an ongoing
process to evaluate and address business concerns.
(b) Annual Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of
the House of Representatives a report on the impact of
implementation of the regulations promulgated under the FDA
Food Safety Modernization Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Benishek) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BENISHEK. I would like to thank the chairman for the opportunity
to speak on this amendment and to bring this issue to the floor.
As many of my constituents and colleagues know, I'm a doctor, not a
farmer. So what they taught me in medical school is, when you don't
understand something or you need a second opinion, you ask the experts.
Since becoming a Member of Congress in January 2011, I began talking
to farmers in my district when I needed to learn more about
agricultural issues. In fact, I realized how much farming and
agribusiness contributed not only to my district, but to Michigan's
economy. I asked to join the Agriculture Committee so I could better
represent them in Congress.
Earlier this spring, I began to hear about a regulation that some of
the farmers in my district were really concerned about. Now, if you
don't have farmers in your district, let me tell you something; they
will make sure that you know there's an issue.
Gradually, they began to talk to me more and more about a rule that
had been proposed by the FDA that would make farming fruits and
vegetables, better known as specialty crops, much more difficult in the
near future. This rule, better known as Standards for the Growing,
Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption, was
imposed by the FDA as a result of the 2011 Food Safety Modernization
Act.
Before I go any further, I want to make one thing crystal clear. I
support access to clean, safe, and healthy food, but this proposed
rulemaking will have widespread consequences for American family
farmers. For example, farmers will have to comply with a new set of
rules as determined by the FDA when cleaning and storing their
equipment--meaning tractors, harvesters, knives, et cetera--so that
domesticated animals may be prevented from contaminating them. In
addition, the same rules suggest that farmers inspect each individual
piece of fruit or vegetable for bird excreta and refuse to harvest it
if they find any evidence.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you've ever seen a cherry harvester or
picked an apple, but if you had to hand inspect each individual piece
of fruit for bird feces and throw it out before sending it to a packer,
well, let's just say that most of our growers would go to a pick-it-
yourself system or simply stop growing.
Let's move on to some other aspects of this rule.
The FDA suggests continuous soil and water monitoring. While that
might not sound like a bad idea, we've already heard that some growers
will have to completely redesign their irrigation systems to meet the
new set of standards.
I spent the last few years visiting with farmers in my district. I
know that they want to provide clean, safe foods for the American
public. All specialty crop growers I have met eat the foods that they
grow. So my point is that if the FDA estimates that this rule will cost
at a minimum $460 million to the industry, why not make sure we're
doing this right?
My amendment simply asks that the Secretary of HHS delay
implementation of any final regulations resulting from the Food Safety
Modernization Act until a scientific and economic analysis of the rule
can be completed. This analysis will focus on both the science behind
and the economic impact of these regulations. In particular, the study
will look at the regional differences in agriculture production to see
how producers will be impacted by these rules. If we take the time to
study the proposed rules, I think the FDA will be able to see that some
changes may be in order.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think it's very interesting that the Food Safety Modernization Act
was passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has
jurisdiction, as well as the FDA; and, quite frankly, it does not have
any jurisdiction under this piece of legislation, and I'm disappointed
that it made it through the Rules Committee.
However, in January 2011, the President signed a transformative food
safety law that Congress had passed in a bipartisan manner to improve
the health of our constituents.
{time} 2320
The legislation was supported by a broad coalition of consumer,
public health, and industry groups, groups including the Grocery
Manufacturers Association and the National Restaurant Association.
When we crafted the final food safety bill, we struck a compromise, a
compromise on the scope of the bill so that the vast majority of truly
small farms and processors are excluded, including those that sell most
of their food directly to the public through farmers markets and farm
stands; in addition to which regional considerations were also taken
into consideration.
The integrity of that compromise has been maintained in the proposals
released by the FDA to date. I can speak to this compromise and the
agreement we reached at the time because, in fact, I helped to craft
and negotiate the final language.
The law also requires that the FDA take regional differences into
account when crafting its proposed rules. Let us be clear: that
legislation was needed. Foodborne illness remains a threat to the
public health. According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year
48 million Americans become sick from the very food they eat; 128,000
are hospitalized; and 3,000 die. These figures are far too high and
simply unacceptable, so we acted. We passed the first major improvement
to the FDA's food safety laws in more than 70 years.
Under the guise of seeking a report, this amendment seeks to further
slow down the implementation of the law, a law with the potential to
improve the very health of our constituents by reducing their risk of
becoming sick from food. Yet nowhere in the text of this amendment or
in the intent of these reports do I see a mention of the public health
or consumer safety.
All of the FDA's proposals to implement this critical law already go
through the official rulemaking process, meaning that the agency must
consider the costs and the benefit of the rules, and that every one of
us and our constituents can weigh in and submit comments on the rules
already. The amendment before us now simply intends to slow down the
process of implementing the law.
Rather than working to obstruct and delay implementation, we should
be working to encourage strong implementation. Let's look at what has
happened since the bill was signed into law. In that short period of
time, there
[[Page H3922]]
have been almost 20 multi-State outbreaks positively linked to food
products regulated by the FDA. One of those was an outbreak of listeria
associated with cantaloupe, a product that had not previously been
identified as associated with that dangerous pathogen. The same
outbreak killed 33 Americans, the largest number of Americans lost to a
single outbreak in a quarter of a century.
Right now there is a multi-State outbreak of hepatitis A that may
have been caused by a contaminated product regulated by the FDA. More
than 115 people in eight States have become ill, and more than 50 of
them have required hospitalization.
It continues to be supported by the majority of Americans. A recent
poll showed that more than 75 percent of Americans surveyed supported
the food safety law, which is why so many respected organizations that
work to improve the public health, including the Consumer Federation of
America, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Pew Charitable
Trusts, and Consumer Unions, oppose this amendment. I urge my
colleagues to heed their advice and oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BENISHEK. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Benishek, I appreciate you yielding to me.
The gentleman's amendment, by requiring FDA to conduct scientific and
economic analysis prior to enforcing these regulations, is a step in
the right direction. Simply put, it is a step in the right direction. I
commend him and support his amendment.
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments,
and I am certainly willing to work with you in the future on this
issue, but we are just concerned that we are not going to make food any
safer, and it is not going to help the jobs and the cost of our food
because some of the rules are very difficult to comply with at the
local level. There is difficulty in keeping wildlife away from apple
orchards, for example. It is very difficult and more costly than I
think the gentlelady suspects. I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on
this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I would just say to my colleague that all of those
arguments were debated and discussed during the time of the Food Safety
Modernization Act. As I said, I worked very, very hard, along with
members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, in which jurisdiction
this actually resides. It does not reside in the jurisdiction of the
farm bill.
The fact of the matter is that we've had industry support of the
legislation. I have a white paper, a summary by the United Fresh
Producers Association issued in January 2011, which talks about all of
the flexibility that exists for small farmers.
The issue here is about public health and public safety. I
recommended that we oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BENISHEK. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Bachus
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title XII, add the following new section:
SEC. 12317. IMPROVED DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONSIDERATION
OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF REGULATIONS ON SMALL
BUSINESS.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall complete procedures
consistent with the requirements of subsection (b) of section
609 of title 5, United States Code, whenever the Department
of Agriculture promulgates any rule which will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I bring a very simple but a very important
amendment for consideration.
Several agencies of government have small business review panels.
They are advisory in nature; and as our agencies go through the
rulemaking process, they get input on how their regulations will affect
small businesses. This amendment really takes advantage of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which was signed into law by President
Clinton in 1996, which allows the agencies to form these panels.
Mr. Barrow of Georgia, myself, Mr. Graves of Missouri, and Mr.
Matheson, actually in the next week or two, will be introducing
language to really improve these small business panels. The SBA
Advocacy Office recently said that small businesses pay about 45
percent more in annual cost in complying with regulations. They spoke
very favorably of these panels.
I have a letter I will include from the NFIB urging strong support
for this amendment.
National Federation
of Independent Business,
Washington, DC, June 17, 2013.
Hon. Spencer Bachus,
House of Representatives,
Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Bachus: The National Federation of
Independent Business is pleased to support your amendment to
the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of
2013 (H.R. 1947). This amendment would expand critical small
business regulatory impact analyses and outreach requirements
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Farming remains an integral part of the American economy
and is at its core one of the most basic entrepreneurial
endeavors. The federal government needs to be sure to use
care when regulating the farming industry to ensure its
viability.
Our farming members continually tell us about the
difficulty and expense of complying with ever-increasing
federal regulation. In fact, in our most recent Small
Business Problems and Priorities, unreasonable government
regulations ranked third out of 75 issues important to small
businesses in the agriculture industry.
This amendment would help address this problem by requiring
the USDA to conduct important small business impact analyses
and outreach to small farmers. Specifically, the amendment
would require USDA to convene Small Business Advocacy Review
panels for rules that the department determines would have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.'' These panels are critical tools that allow
small businesses to provide feedback to the agency before
rules are proposed, therefore allowing the opportunity for
more compliance flexibility.
NFIB supports this commonsense amendment because it will
help alleviate compliance burden on small farmers while at
the same time ensuring USDA can meet its regulatory aims. We
urge the House of Representatives to approve the amendment to
help America's agricultural community.
Sincerely,
Susan Eckerly,
Senior Vice President,
Public Policy.
Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding just to note that the
ranking member and I have discussed your amendment, and we are
supportive.
Mr. BACHUS. I do want to say, as the chairman knows, the Judiciary
Committee, as well as the Small Business Committee, has been looking at
the effect of regulations on small businesses, and we've heard several
horror stories. I welcome and applaud the Agriculture Committee and its
leadership for being in support of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2330
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Wittman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 54
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title XII, add the following new subtitle:
Subtitle D--Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery
SECTION 12401. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay
Accountability and Recovery Act of 2013''.
[[Page H3923]]
SEC. 12402. CHESAPEAKE BAY CROSSCUT BUDGET.
(a) Crosscut Budget.--The Director, in consultation with
the Chesapeake Executive Council, the chief executive of each
Chesapeake Bay State, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission,
shall submit to Congress a financial report containing--
(1) an interagency crosscut budget that displays--
(A) the proposed funding for any Federal restoration
activity to be carried out in the succeeding fiscal year,
including any planned interagency or intra-agency transfer,
for each of the Federal agencies that carry out restoration
activities;
(B) to the extent that information is available, the
estimated funding for any State restoration activity to be
carried out in the succeeding fiscal year;
(C) all expenditures for Federal restoration activities
from the preceding 2 fiscal years, the current fiscal year,
and the succeeding fiscal year; and
(D) all expenditures, to the extent that information is
available, for State restoration activities during the
equivalent time period described in subparagraph (C);
(2) a detailed accounting of all funds received and
obligated by all Federal agencies for restoration activities
during the current and preceding fiscal years, including the
identification of funds which were transferred to a
Chesapeake Bay State for restoration activities;
(3) to the extent that information is available, a detailed
accounting from each State of all funds received and
obligated from a Federal agency for restoration activities
during the current and preceding fiscal years; and
(4) a description of each of the proposed Federal and State
restoration activities to be carried out in the succeeding
fiscal year (corresponding to those activities listed in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)), including the--
(A) project description;
(B) current status of the project;
(C) Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority,
programs, or responsible agencies;
(D) authorization level for appropriations;
(E) project timeline, including benchmarks;
(F) references to project documents;
(G) descriptions of risks and uncertainties of project
implementation;
(H) adaptive management actions or framework;
(I) coordinating entities;
(J) funding history;
(K) cost sharing; and
(L) alignment with existing Chesapeake Bay Agreement and
Chesapeake Executive Council goals and priorities.
(b) Minimum Funding Levels.--The Director shall only
describe restoration activities in the report required under
subsection (a) that--
(1) for Federal restoration activities, have funding
amounts greater than or equal to $100,000; and
(2) for State restoration activities, have funding amounts
greater than or equal to $50,000.
(c) Deadline.--The Director shall submit to Congress the
report required by subsection (a) not later than 30 days
after the submission by the President of the President's
annual budget to Congress.
(d) Report.--Copies of the financial report required by
subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations, Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations,
Environment and Public Works, and Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply beginning
with the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of
this Act for which the President submits a budget to
Congress.
SEC. 12403. RESTORATION THROUGH ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation
with other Federal and State agencies, and with the
participation of stakeholders, shall develop a plan to
provide technical and financial assistance to Chesapeake Bay
States to employ adaptive management in carrying out
restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
(b) Plan Development.--The plan referred to in subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) specific and measurable objectives to improve water
quality, habitat, and fisheries identified by Chesapeake Bay
States;
(2) a process for stakeholder participation;
(3) monitoring, modeling, experimentation, and other
research and evaluation technical assistance requested by
Chesapeake Bay States;
(4) identification of State restoration activities planned
by Chesapeake Bay States to attain the State's objectives
under paragraph (1);
(5) identification of Federal restoration activities that
could help a Chesapeake Bay State to attain the State's
objectives under paragraph (1);
(6) recommendations for a process for modification of State
and Federal restoration activities that have not attained or
will not attain the specific and measurable objectives set
forth under paragraph (1); and
(7) recommendations for a process for integrating and
prioritizing State and Federal restoration activities and
programs to which adaptive management can be applied.
(c) Implementation.--In addition to carrying out Federal
restoration activities under existing authorities and
funding, the Administrator shall implement the plan developed
under subsection (a) by providing technical and financial
assistance to Chesapeake Bay States using resources available
for such purposes that are identified by the Director under
section 12402.
(d) Updates.--The Administrator shall update the plan
developed under subsection (a) every 2 years.
(e) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of a
fiscal year, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress an
annual report on the implementation of the plan required
under this section for such fiscal year.
(2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall contain information about the application of adaptive
management to restoration activities and programs, including
level changes implemented through the process of adaptive
management.
(3) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to the first
fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(f) Inclusion of Plan in Annual Action Plan and Annual
Progress Report.--The Administrator shall ensure that the
Annual Action Plan and Annual Progress Report required by
section 205 of Executive Order 13508 includes the adaptive
management plan outlined in subsection (a).
SEC. 12404. INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--There shall be an Independent Evaluator
for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
who shall review and report on restoration activities and the
use of adaptive management in restoration activities,
including on such related topics as are suggested by the
Chesapeake Executive Council.
(b) Appointment.--
(1) In general.--The Independent Evaluator shall be
appointed by the Administrator from among nominees submitted
by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
(2) Nominations.--The Chesapeake Executive Council may
submit to the Administrator 4 nominees for appointment to any
vacancy in the office of the Independent Evaluator.
(c) Reports.--The Independent Evaluator shall submit a
report to the Congress every 2 years in the findings and
recommendations of reviews under this section.
(d) Chesapeake Executive Council.--In this section, the
term ``Chesapeake Executive Council'' has the meaning given
that term by section 307 of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public
Law 102-567; 15 U.S.C. 1511d).
SEC. 12405. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle, the following definitions apply:
(1) Adaptive management.--The term ``adaptive management''
means a type of natural resource management in which project
and program decisions are made as part of an ongoing science-
based process. Adaptive management involves testing,
monitoring, and evaluating applied strategies and
incorporating new knowledge into programs and restoration
activities that are based on scientific findings and the
needs of society. Results are used to modify management
policy, strategies, practices, programs, and restoration
activities.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(3) Chesapeake bay state.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay
State'' or ``State'' means the States of Maryland, West
Virginia, Delaware, and New York, the Commonwealths of
Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
(4) Chesapeake bay watershed.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay
watershed'' means the Chesapeake Bay and the geographic area,
as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, consisting of
36 tributary basins, within the Chesapeake Bay States,
through which precipitation drains into the Chesapeake Bay.
(5) Chief executive.--The term ``chief executive'' means,
in the case of a State or Commonwealth, the Governor of each
such State or Commonwealth and, in the case of the District
of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
(6) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
(7) State restoration activities.--The term ``State
restoration activities'' means any State programs or projects
carried out under State authority that directly or indirectly
protect, conserve, or restore living resources, habitat,
water resources, or water quality in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, including programs or projects that promote
responsible land use, stewardship, and community engagement
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Restoration activities may
be categorized as follows:
(A) Physical restoration.
(B) Planning.
(C) Feasibility studies.
(D) Scientific research.
(E) Monitoring.
(F) Education.
(G) Infrastructure development.
(8) Federal restoration activities.--The term ``Federal
restoration activities'' means
[[Page H3924]]
any Federal programs or projects carried out under existing
Federal authority that directly or indirectly protect,
conserve, or restore living resources, habitat, water
resources, or water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
including programs or projects that provide financial and
technical assistance to promote responsible land use,
stewardship, and community engagement in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Restoration activities may be categorized as
follows:
(A) Physical restoration.
(B) Planning.
(C) Feasibility studies.
(D) Scientific research.
(E) Monitoring.
(F) Education.
(G) Infrastructure development.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as the largest estuary in the United States, the
Chesapeake Bay watershed is home to more than 16 million people. The
watershed encompasses six States and the District of Columbia; well
over 1,000 local governments; 150 major tributaries; 100,000 streams
and rivers; and more than 11,600 miles of shoreline, plus thousands of
plant and animal species.
In addition to generating billions of dollars in economic activity
and recreational revenue, the bay provides tens of thousands of jobs in
the commercial seafood and recreational fishing industries alone and is
the site of multiple major ports and military bases.
The bay draws millions of tourists each year. Clean and healthy
waters encourage boating, fishing, and swimming, activities that are of
great intrinsic value to the surrounding States and to our Nation.
The bay watershed is also home to many farmers and agricultural
lands. Virginia forestry and agriculture alone account for $79 billion
in economic output and employs over 500,000 workers.
Farmers have a vested interest in a clean Chesapeake Bay. Their
commitment to the land and waters is reflected by multi-generational
stewardship of farms across the watershed.
My amendment includes similar legislation that passed in a bipartisan
way in the House of Representatives in the 111th Congress by a vote of
418-1.
Better accounting and more flexible management are essential to
restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Crosscut budgeting and adaptive
management provide performance-based measures to ensure Federal dollars
currently being spent on bay restoration activities produce results.
Both techniques will ensure that we're coordinating how restoration
dollars are spent and making sure that everyone understands how
individual projects fit into the bigger picture. That way, we're not
duplicating efforts, spending money we don't need to or, worse, working
at cross purposes. Crosscut budgeting, adaptive management, and an
independent evaluator should be key components for the complex
restoration activities for the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WITTMAN. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Clearly the gentleman
is working diligently to do good things; and, therefore, I would be
supportive of his amendment.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Crawford
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 12317. APPLICABILITY OF SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND
COUNTERMEASURE RULE.
(a) In General.--The Administrator, in implementing the
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule with
respect to any farm, shall--
(1) require certification of compliance with such rule by--
(A) a professional engineer for a farm with--
(i) an individual tank with an aboveground storage capacity
greater than 10,000 gallons;
(ii) an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than
or equal to 42,000 gallons; or
(iii) a history that includes a spill, as determined by the
Administrator; or
(B) the owner or operator of the farm (via self-
certification) for a farm with--
(i) an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than
10,000 gallons but less than 42,000 gallons; and
(ii) no history of spills, as determined by the
Administrator; and
(2) exempt from all requirements of such rule any farm--
(A) with an aggregate aboveground storage capacity of less
than or equal to 10,000 gallons; and
(B) no history of spills, as determined by the
Administrator.
(b) Calculation of Aggregate Aboveground Storage
Capacity.--For the purposes of subsection (a), the aggregate
aboveground storage capacity of a farm excludes--
(1) all containers on separate parcels that have a capacity
that is less than 1,320 gallons; and
(2) all storage containers holding animal feed ingredients
approved for use in livestock feed by the Food and Drug
Administration.
(c) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Farm.--The term ``farm'' has the meaning given such
term in section 112.2 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(3) Gallon.--The term ``gallon'' refers to a United States
liquid gallon.
(4) History of spills.--The term ``history of spills'' has
the meaning used to describe the term ``reportable discharge
history'' in section 112.7(k)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (or successor regulations).
(5) Spill prevention, control, and countermeasure rule.--
The term ``Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
rule'' means the regulation promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency under part 112 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, first I want to thank the 71 Members from both parties who
joined in cosponsoring the bill that is identical to this amendment,
H.R. 311, the FUELS Act. That bill also passed the House unanimously
last year.
The EPA-mandated spill prevention and containment countermeasure
rules require that oil storage facilities with a capacity of over 1,320
gallons make costly infrastructure modification to reduce the
possibility of oil spills.
This bill simply changes those standards, makes them considerably
more workable. We have 71 cosponsors that agree with me.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. CRAWFORD. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of
the Agriculture Committee for such time as he may consume.
Mr. LUCAS. I thank the subcommittee chairman and, once again,
outstanding working being done.
I would encourage all of our fellow Members of this great body to
vote for your wonderful amendment.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman.
With that, I'd urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Crawford
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 123__. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCER INFORMATION DISCLOSURE.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
[[Page H3925]]
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Agency.--The term ``Agency'' means the Environmental
Protection Agency.
(3) Agricultural operation.--The term ``agricultural
operation'' includes any operation where an agricultural
commodity crop is raised, including livestock operations.
(4) Livestock operation.--The term ``livestock operation''
includes any operation involved in the raising or finishing
of livestock or poultry.
(b) Disclosure of Information.--
(1) Prohibition.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Administrator, any officer or employee of the Agency, or any
contractor of the Agency, shall not make public the
information of any owner, operator, or employee of an
agricultural operation provided to the Agency by a farmer,
rancher, or livestock producer or a State agency that has
been obtained in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or any other law,
including--
(A) names;
(B) telephone numbers;
(C) email addresses;
(D) physical addresses;
(E) Global Positioning System coordinates; or
(F) other identifying location information.
(2) Effect.--Nothing in paragraph (1) affects--
(A) the disclosure of information described in paragraph
(1) if--
(i) the information has been transformed into a statistical
or aggregate form at the county level or higher without any
information that identifies the agricultural operation or
agricultural producer; or
(ii) the producer consents to the disclosure; or
(B) the authority of any State agency to collect
information on livestock operations.
(3) Condition of permit or other programs.--The approval of
any permit, practice, or program administered by the
Administrator shall not be conditioned on the consent of the
agricultural producer or livestock producer under paragraph
(2)(A)(ii).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank my colleague from Nebraska for joining me in
sponsoring this amendment.
Earlier this year, as most of us already know, the EPA violated the
privacy rights of producers across the country by releasing the
personal information of livestock and poultry producers to various
environmental activist groups. This information included names,
addresses, phone numbers, GPS coordinates of over 80,000 producers over
30 States, including my home State of Arkansas. It was obtained by the
EPA through State environmental quality agencies and released to the
environmental groups through FOIA requests.
We all know this story, and I'll be brief, and I will yield such time
as my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) will consume.
Mr. TERRY. Well, I thank you, my friend from Arkansas.
It's too bad that the E in EPA now means ``espionage'' because the
EPA rents airplanes and videotapes from the air farmers and ranchers
and feedlots in their daily activities without any reason to think that
they're violating any rule or regulation.
So not only are they spying, but what is most concerning to those
that have been videotaped by the EPA is that the EPA released the
documents. We don't know how the environmental and animal rights groups
found out that they were doing this because the farmers didn't know it
was going on.
But through a FOIA request, the EPA turned over all of the documents
about the farmers, ranchers and food lot owners, with their personal
identifiable information, their names and their addresses. And this has
to stop.
The people that have been victims of this videotaping and giving this
information are really concerned; and so I thank the gentleman for his
good amendment here, and allowing me to join, because this protects
their privacy rights in the future.
It doesn't stop them from spying yet. That will be done in a
different bill. But this at least protects their privacy, and I really
appreciate it.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, and I appreciate
his leadership on this as well.
The Crawford-Terry amendment would prevent the EPA from making public
the private information of producers, including their names, telephone
numbers, addresses, email and physical, GPS coordinates or other
identifying location information.
This measure will protect the individual privacy rights of ag
producers and allow farm families to live without the threats of
harassment and targeting.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COSTA. Not to oppose the measure, but actually to speak on behalf
of the amendment. The issues that have been raised here by this
amendment, I think, are valid. There are concerns that have been raised
by cattlemen and cattlewomen across the country. I think that,
obviously, we all feel that there ought to be a level playing field
when it comes to the protection of the Freedom of Information Act.
But on the other hand, cattlemen and cattlewomen every day are
working really hard to try to do their best to produce the safest and
the highest quality beef that Americans do every day and is the best in
the world.
{time} 2340
So we think this amendment is a step in the right direction and would
like to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from California for his support.
I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee
for such time as he may consume.
Mr. LUCAS. This is clearly a very important issue and the gentleman
has made great headway on it. Thank you for those efforts. Of course
I'm very supportive of what you're endeavoring to do.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman. With that, I would urge a ``yes''
vote and yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 58 Offered by Ms. Foxx
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following
new section:
SEC. 12___. SUNSETTING OF PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), each fiscal
year the Secretary of Agriculture may not carry out any
program--
(1) for which an authorization of appropriations is
established or extended under this Act; and
(2) that is funded by discretionary appropriations (as
defined in section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c))).
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect with
respect to a program referred to in such subsection on the
date on which the authorization of appropriations under this
Act for such program expires.
(c) Existing Obligations.--Subsection (a) does not affect
the ability of the Secretary to carry out responsibilities
with regard to loans, grants, or other obligations made or in
existence before an applicable effective date under
subsection (b).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, President Ronald Reagan once said:
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So
government's programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal
life we'll ever see on this Earth.
Mr. Chairman, it's hard to argue with the Gipper.
This amendment to H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk
Management, FARRM, Act of 2013, will bring accountability to our work
here in the House of Representatives. What it does is it sunsets
discretionary programs in this bill upon the expiration of the 5-year
authorization period.
Now, some people might think that is the normal thing to happen in
the Federal Government: you authorize a program; once the authorization
goes
[[Page H3926]]
away, the program either gets reauthorized or it goes away. But that
isn't what happens, Mr. Chairman.
The purpose of this program is to force Congress to justify the
continued existence of these programs through regular reauthorization
efforts. Mr. Chairman, it forces us to do our jobs.
If these programs and subsidies are left unchallenged, they will
continue to consume taxpayer dollars forever without being approved
explicitly by the Members of Congress. As our national debt approaches
$17 trillion, we can't afford to put all these programs on autopilot.
This commonsense amendment would require Congress to explicitly
revive expired programs at the end of the authorization period and
prevent the covert continuance of sometimes wasteful, ineffective, and
duplicative programs. Ultimately, this amendment will prompt Congress--
and the public--to reexamine thoughtfully these programs when the farm
bill's authorization expires.
Finally, this amendment will send a strong message to stakeholders,
lobbyists, and special interests that many of these Federal programs
have an expiration date.
Let me hasten to add, this commonsense amendment would not eliminate
or undermine the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, and
would not apply to the FARRM Bill's mandatory spending provisions.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment before us.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, before I state my opposition, I'd like to
first thank Chairman Frank Lucas for the hard work that he and his
committee staff have done today and throughout this year and last year
in trying to put together not one, but two farm bills for the
consideration of the House and for America's heartland, and thank
Ranking Member Collin Peterson and his staff for the hard work that
they have done as well.
These are never easy, but as both the chairman and the ranking member
like to remind us, and I think it's an important underlying point, the
farm bill that we reauthorize every 4 years is among the most
bipartisan efforts that we ever do. And both the chair and the ranking
member and their staff are to be commended.
As it relates to this measure before us, this amendment, we believe
that it uses a meat cleaver approach to the legislation. Like
sequester, it doesn't discriminate among programs. It's blind between
those programs which deserve longer authorization periods and those
that could use trimming, and clearly we understand the author's intent.
The whole purpose of the farm bill, though, is to review programs
under our jurisdiction to determine whether or not they should
continue, whether they should be changed, or whether they should be
eliminated. And, once again, to commend the chair and the ranking
member, we have done a very good job on that oversight on determining
what areas ought to be trimmed, what programs ought to be consolidated,
and which should be eliminated. Our bill already does that. Actually,
as the chair has indicated and the ranking member, it terminates
hundreds of programs and consolidates, and the committee did the work
in a thoughtful and careful manner.
So we can't support the amendment that undoes the careful work that
the committee has pursued. I urge my colleagues to reject this
haphazard approach--or shotgun approach, we might say back home--and
vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, let me add my thanks to the chairman also for
his good work. I know that he has worked very, very hard on getting a
bill here to us to vote on, and I commend him and the staff for doing
that. I was negligent in not saying that in the beginning of my
remarks. So I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks and
for reminding me that I should have done that.
I want to say that this amendment does not limit in any way the
ability of Congress to reauthorize an expired program. Congress is
Congress and can pass any laws it wants, in accordance with the
Constitution, of course. But this amendment would require Congress to
explicitly revive expired programs at the end of the authorization
period.
What we are trying to prevent is the covert continuance of programs
that have not been authorized. We should hold ourselves to a high
standard here, Mr. Chairman. We shouldn't be funding programs that
aren't authorized. It's just saying we should abide by the laws we
pass, and that's what this does. We need to ensure that Congress and
the public will thoughtfully reexamine these programs and revive them
where they need to be.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee.
Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First, let me state the persuasive powers of the gentlelady are to be
much respected and appreciated, occasionally even feared. While perhaps
not every syllable of her amendments in their present form do I
necessarily agree with, I am supportive. I believe she is on the right
vein, and we will work together to accomplish the ultimate goal.
That said, though, I must also express my appreciation to all my
colleagues, to the professional staff of both the majority and the
professional staff of the minority.
{time} 2350
When we started this process earlier, I noted to all of you that I
felt like if we would work this in regular order, if we would have
discussion and amendment and great debate, we could achieve consensus.
Now, we have approximately five more amendments to go tomorrow. We
will conclude this experience on time--hurray--and I believe in a
fashion that is appropriate for this august body, which means I think
we'll pass the bill, but we shall see tomorrow.
That said, thank you all. This is the way the process is supposed to
work.
Mr. COSTA. I think we've conducted the people's work today and this
evening.
I yield back the balance of my time and thank the chair and, again,
all those involved in this process. Hopefully, tomorrow we can conclude
our work.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Foxx) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1947) to
provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other
programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Floor
Latest Action
House amendment offered
June 19, 2013
View full timeline
Floor
House amendment offered
June 19, 2013
Not Used
House amendment offered/reported by: Amendment (A046) offered by Mr. Benishek.(consideration: CR H3920-3922; text: CR H3920-3921)
June 19, 2013 • 11:16 PM
Not Used
House amendment offered/reported by: Amendment (A046) offered by Mr. Benishek.(consideration: CR H3920-3922; text: CR H3920-3921)
June 19, 2013 • 11:16 PM
Floor
House amendment agreed to: On agreeing to the Benishek amendment (A046) Agreed to by voice vote.
June 19, 2013 • 11:26 PM
Not Used
Amendment agreed to Committee of the Whole
June 19, 2013 • 11:26 PM
Floor
Amendment (A046) offered by Mr. Benishek. (consideration: CR H3920-3922; text: CR H3920-3921)
June 19, 2013 • 11:16 PM
Floor
On agreeing to the Benishek amendment (A046) Agreed to by voice vote.
June 19, 2013 • 11:26 PM