[Senate Report 112-203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
2d Session SENATE 112-203
_______________________________________________________________________
AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD AND JOBS ACT OF 2012
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
on
S. 3240
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
August 28, 2012.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 2, 2012
SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Ranking
TOM HARKIN, Iowa Member
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
MAX BAUCUS, Montana THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
BEN NELSON, Nebraska MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
112th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 112-203
======================================================================
AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD AND JOBS ACT OF 2012
_______
August 28, 2012.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 2, 2012
_______
Ms. Stabenow, from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 3240]
The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry (the
Committee), reported an original bill (S. 3240) to reauthorize
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2017, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of this legislation is to reform, extend,
modify, streamline and strengthen the nation's policies and
programs pertaining to food, fiber, agriculture, conservation,
rural development, agricultural trade and food aid, rural
energy initiatives, forestry on private lands and research,
education, and extension encompassing these subjects. Congress
most recently addressed these programs comprehensively in the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-627).
The reported bill reduces the deficit by reductions in
mandatory spending through policy-based revisions that improve
the function and effectiveness of the programs created or
extended by this legislation. These revisions include reforming
assistance to farmers and ranchers through coverage for the
actual risks that farmers and ranchers face; strengthening the
efforts by farmers and landowners to conserve and enhance the
quality of natural resources related to agriculture production,
including privately owned forest land; and promoting
agricultural trade and market opportunities and providing food
aid and development assistance to developing countries.
The bill also works to improve the integrity of food
assistance to low-income families and the diets and health of
all Americans. It streamlines the authorities for the provision
of credit to farmers and ranchers and improves efforts to help
young and beginning farmers and ranchers. The bill also fosters
economic growth and a high quality of life in rural communities
while streamlining the authorizations and improving program
effectiveness.
A significant purpose of the reported bill is improving
support for the research, education and extension efforts
involving food, agriculture and related fields. The reported
bill also invests in the research, development and use of
agriculturally-based renewable energy, chemicals and other
biobased products, and it continues and enhances investments
that assist and promote specialty crops and organics. Finally,
the reported bill aims to enhance and improve federal crop
insurance for all crops.
The reported bill authorizes programs for the 2013 through
2017 crop and fiscal years.
BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
TITLE I--COMMODITY PROGRAMS
For nearly 80 years, the United States has provided support
to agricultural producers through a variety of programs and
initiatives. Historically, the vast majority of that support
has come in the form of protection from low prices, supply or
production controls and general subsidy or income transfer
payments. In recent years, Congress has emphasized policies
that address farm risks. In 2000, Congress passed the
Agriculture Risk Protection Act that enhanced risk management
for farmers through the public-private partnership with crop
insurance providers. In 2008, the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act (the 2008 Farm Bill) included two revenue-based
assistance programs: one as an alternative to counter-cyclical
payments and another targeted at assistance for natural
disasters. The bill reported by the Committee builds upon those
earlier efforts and takes a significant step forward in
reforming commodity policy by moving away from income and price
supports and towards risk management with assistance only in
the case of loss.
Recently, the agricultural sector has experienced
unprecedented strength and economic growth, while at the same
time the national economy has struggled to recover from an
economic downturn. The Economic Research Service at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has forecast record net farm
income in 2011 and 2012, exceeding $90 billion each year.
Additionally, USDA estimates that the five years of highest
earnings for farmers over the last three decades have occurred
since 2004. Record high commodity and livestock prices, caused
by strong demand both domestically and overseas, have driven
farm incomes. However, historic prices are also pushing up
input costs and land values to record levels and increasing the
level of risk a farmer must manage.
The reported bill accomplishes significant and fundamental
reform of the commodity programs, delivering substantial
reductions in mandatory spending while still helping farmers
and ranchers in times of need. Direct payments, counter-
cyclical payments and the Average Crop Revenue Election
payments are eliminated beginning with the 2013 crop year. In
their place, a new risk-based, market-oriented program is
authorized for the 2013 through 2017 crop years. The
Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program updates and modernizes
commodity assistance, reforming federal agricultural policy in
significant ways.
Current programs make payments utilizing what are known as
base acres, in combination with payment rates and target prices
established by Congress. The base acres used for current
programs are determined using historic planting records of
covered commodities on farms. Often these records date to the
1980s and come with historical yields from the same era.
Congress provided for a voluntary ``base update'' in the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill)
but it was not widely utilized. In 1996, Congress provided
farmers the flexibility to plant any covered commodity on their
farms but payments were disconnected from actual plantings; a
policy known as ``de-coupling'' of payments.
In response to market conditions, producers have updated
their farming practices and changed what they plant on their
farms significantly since the 1980s. For example, market forces
have recently led many farmers in all regions of the country to
plant soybeans on their farms. However, most base acres do not
take into account these new, market-based planting decisions.
As such, farmers today in different regions of the country can
grow the exact same covered commodity, such as soybeans, but
receive substantially different payments from Title I programs.
Average direct payments for rice base are nearly ten times
higher than direct payments for soybean base, so a farmer
growing soybeans on rice base will receive almost ten times the
Federal support as a farmer growing the same soybeans on
soybean base. Counter-cyclical payments also utilize base
acres. Using the same example, if prices for rice fall below
the target price, a counter-cyclical payment is made to farmers
with rice base. The farmer growing soybeans on rice base would
thus receive a counter-cyclical payment for rice and the larger
rice direct payment, while the farmer growing soybeans on
soybean base does not receive a rice counter-cyclical payment.
The reported bill eliminates base acres and instead makes
payments on a producer's planted acres. Payments are determined
by actual county or individual farm yields and actual market
prices. The guarantee upon which a payment is triggered
utilizes a benchmark calculation of actual yields and market
prices on a rolling five-year basis, dropping out the highest
and lowest years of each (known as the ``Olympic average''). As
such, ARC treats every covered commodity and every farmer
growing a covered commodity in the same fashion.
ARC is designed to provide assistance with the actual risks
a farmer faces. It is not intended to enhance or protect any
one covered commodity's share of the Congressional Budget
Office's forecast of future spending (the CBO baseline). The
Committee acknowledges that the risks a farmer must manage to
produce crops are immense and come from both weather impacting
crop yields, and from the market delivering a price too low to
cover the costs of producing a crop. The Committee acknowledges
that crop insurance provides very effective coverage for yield
risk for many crops and farmers. The improvements contained in
Title XI are designed to make it more effective for more
farmers and more crops. However, crop insurance, covers only a
portion of the loss and includes a ``deductible'' above which
the farmer is self-insured. The deductible can be larger than a
farmer's operating margin. ARC provides limited assistance
within the deductible range for revenue losses not otherwise
covered by crop insurance.
Because crop insurance does not cover multi-year price
risk, the Committee acknowledges that significant risk exposure
for farmers comes from a collapse in prices that is sustained
or multiple years in which prices decline. Low or declining
prices are especially problematic because farm input costs--
such as the cost of seed, fuel and fertilizer--tend to increase
with commodity prices but not decrease as quickly as commodity
prices. Farmers typically contract in advance for these inputs
further exposing them to downside price risk. Previously,
Congress turned to counter-cyclical policies that used
statutorily-established target prices to provide payments when
prices fall below the target price. Because the statutory
target prices do not keep pace with the market, this policy is
ineffective. Simply raising target prices can also cause
distortions when farmers plant for program payments in times of
low market prices and can pay a farmer in high-revenue years
when yields make up for price declines. This is especially true
when target prices are tied to planted acres.
The Committee created ARC to provide effective, market-
oriented assistance for price declines without insulating
farmers from long-term trends in the market. By using a rolling
five-year Olympic average of historical prices, the program
provides assistance when the market decreases significantly
year-over-year; allowing farmers and input prices the ability
to respond. If the market decline is short-term, program
assistance can help with the volatility. If the decline is
longer-term, such as more than four or five years, ARC adjusts
with the market and the guarantee decreases to avoid
distortions. The Committee understands that price declines over
a longer timeframe do not constitute shocks to the system that
threaten farm operations; rather they are trends requiring
appropriate responses by farmers. Accordingly, ARC provides
assistance in the initial years of collapsed or declining
prices allowing input prices to follow commodity prices lower
and provide farmers time to adjust their operations. The five-
year Olympic average price used in ARC is a market-oriented
solution to the multi-year price risks a farmer must manage.
The reported bill also continues marketing assistance loans
and loan deficiency payments through the 2017 crop year with
only two changes. Due to the loss before the World Trade
Organization in a dispute initiated by Brazil against U.S.
cotton supports, the loan rate for cotton is revised so that it
can float between $0.52 per pound and $0.47 per pound based on
a rolling two year average of prices. In addition, the
conservation compliance provisions currently applicable to
Title I programs and continued in this legislation are also
applied in their entirety to the marketing loan program.
The current sugar program is also continued without change
through the 2017 crop year.
Subtitle D of Title I provides assistance to dairy
producers by establishing new programs that utilize risk
management concepts while contributing to deficit reduction.
The programs will provide market signals to help prevent over-
supply and to help insure against profit margin reduction. The
dairy industry experienced serious hardship in 2009 when prices
received for milk marketings decreased significantly, resulting
in an estimated 20 percent loss in dairy farm equity. The total
loss of equity from 2007 through 2009 is estimated at $20
billion. Existing dairy support programs, including the Milk
Income Loss Contract (MILC) program and the Dairy Product Price
Support Program (DPPSP), proved insufficient for ensuring the
viability of the domestic dairy industry. In response, dairy
producers representing operations of all sizes undertook a
nationwide effort to create a proposal that would help insure
against reduced operating margins and stabilize dairy markets
in times of overproduction. The reported legislation formalizes
concepts of the producers' proposal.
The reported legislation repeals MILC, DPPSP, and the Dairy
Export Incentive Program (DEIP) and replaces them with a new,
voluntary safety net, comprised of the Dairy Production Margin
Protection Program (DPMPP) and the Dairy Market Stabilization
Program (DMSP). The Committee's revisions to the original
proposals contained in the reported bill are intended to ensure
that the programs are growth and export oriented, as well as
more equitable to farms across the country. The new safety net
can be customized for each dairy farm, putting affordable risk
management in the hands of dairy producers. To participate,
producers will opt-in to the DMPP, elect a level of protection
that fits each operation's risk management needs, and share in
program costs, allowing producers of all sizes to manage risk
on more of their milk production at higher protection levels.
Previous safety net programs did not require producer
investment and had limited effectiveness for many dairy farms
due to various limitations on the assistance provided.
The first component of the new safety net, the DPMPP,
provides support based on the fluctuating margin between prices
received for milk marketings and feed input costs. The DPMPP
guarantees basic, catastrophic margin protection on an
established production base for all participating dairy
operations when margin dips below $4.00 for defined consecutive
two-month periods. Producers pay an administrative fee for the
program. The fee structure is marginally progressive, requiring
higher fees from larger operations that may benefit more in
times of low margins. The fee is intended only to supplement
the costs of administering the programs and support other
measures that will improve dairy markets. In addition to the
basic guarantee, the DPMPP also provides producers with an
annual opportunity to manage market volatility by buying up
additional, supplemental margin protection over the $4.00 basic
guarantee, in $0.50 increments, up to $8.00 margin protection
on no less than 25 percent and no more than 90 percent of milk
marketed. The production base for supplemental margin
protection may be updated annually to allow dairy operations
and the domestic dairy industry the opportunity to grow over
time.
Small and medium size operations tend to have higher
relative overhead costs than larger operations due to
efficiencies of scale. The Committee recognizes the
differences, and provided additional premium subsidies for
smaller farms. The reported bill provides a discounted premium
on the first four million pounds of milk marketed by each
participating producer. To make the program more equitable, all
participating dairy operations will qualify for the discounted
premium regardless of operation size.
The second component of the new safety net, the DMSP, is
designed to correct imbalances in dairy supply and demand when
margins are low. The stabilization program provides a market
signal based on margin that indicates when producers are
oversupplying the market. Generally, when prices for milk
marketings fall operations often work to produce more milk in
order to increase revenue. This behavior can rapidly lead to an
oversupply of milk, further depressing prices. The DMSP
requires producers participating in the margin protection
program to temporarily slow production when supply is outpacing
demand. When the DMSP is in effect, participating operations
will be paid on a percentage of a rolling base, requiring an
operation to reduce milk marketings or face a reduced payment.
By reducing a participating operation's milk payment by a
percentage during times of oversupply, DMSP removes the
incentive for farms to overproduce during times of low margins.
Money withheld by the DMSP will be used for USDA dairy product
purchases and other activities that rebuild demand. DMSP also
includes a program suspension trigger based on world prices to
help ensure the stabilization program does not result in an
increase of cheaper imports into the U.S. market , and to help
maintain U.S. dairy product competitiveness in export markets.
Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) reform was not included
in the reported legislation. The Committee believes the
Department's well-established process for considering FMMO
reform is adequate for addressing potential reform. The
Committee reauthorized the authority for the FMMO Review
Commission.
The reported legislation includes provisions that require
dairy processors to report on more product characteristics to
aid in price discovery, including price, quantity, and moisture
content of dairy products sold. Additionally, the legislation
requires cold storage reporting on quantity and characteristics
of dairy products stored by processors or other cold storage
facilities.
The reported legislation also requires a study of the new
programs' impacts on the dairy industry prior to consideration
of the next Farm Bill. The Committee wants to ensure that the
DMSP is working as intended, strengthens the dairy industry as
a whole, and is not harming the U.S. dairy industry's ability
to thrive in an expanding global marketplace.
Subtitle E of Title I represents another significant change
in farm commodity policy. In 2008, the Farm Bill established a
suite of programs to assist farmers and ranchers with losses
due to natural disasters. Those programs included Supplemental
Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE), Livestock Indemnity
Payments (LIP), the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP),
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised
Fish (ELAP), and the Tree Assistance Program (TAP). All funding
and program authorities expired at the end of fiscal year 2011
and do not cover losses suffered by farmers and ranchers in
fiscal year 2012. This legislation reauthorizes LIP, LFP, ELAP
and TAP with some modifications for fiscal years 2012 through
2017. The legislation moves the programs into Title I and funds
them out of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation. The
assistance provided by LIP, LFP, ELAP and TAP is now
incorporated into Title I, thereby providing permanent funding
baseline for these important disaster assistance programs and
placing them on the same reauthorization schedule as the rest
of this title. The SURE program is not re-authorized.
Finally, the reported bill contains substantial reforms for
commodity programs in terms of limiting payments to farmers,
tightening the eligibility requirements based on the producer's
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and prohibiting individuals who are
not actually farming from being able to qualify themselves or
an entity for payments under Title I. ARC payments are limited
to $50,000 per individual, which can be doubled with a spouse
as in current law. In addition, the current practice of
providing a separate payment limit for peanuts is applied to
payments under ARC. The legislation also revises the AGI
limitation, removing the farm/nonfarm distinction in
calculating income and setting the eligibility requirement at
$750,000.
Current law requires that to receive a payment a person or
entity must be ``actively engaged in farming.'' This
requirement allows multiple people to qualify as actively
engaged in the farming operation on the basis of providing
``active personal management.'' The reported bill removes the
``active personal management'' component, requiring the
provision of labor to qualify as actively engaged. A farm
entity may include one person who can qualify as actively
engaged as a manager of the farm, but limits it to a single
individual and precludes that individual from qualifying
multiple entities or qualifying the farm operation for more
than the statutory payment limit.
The current farm bill authorizations expire with the
current crop and fiscal years. If they are allowed to expire,
farm policy reverts to the 1949 Agricultural Adjustment Act and
the outdated policies contained therein. The impact on farmers
cannot be estimated but it is expected to be extremely
expensive for the federal taxpayer. Moreover, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture would struggle to abruptly adjust
administration of current programs and implement policies
created over 60 years ago. Accordingly, the reforms and policy
changes in this legislation are necessary in their own right,
but are also needed to avoid complications resulting from a
return to long-outdated permanent law.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
Agriculture is measured in generations. The most successful
farms and ranches are those that can be passed along to
children and grandchildren. Agriculture prospers with good,
quality soil and clean water in sufficient quantities. As such,
the reported bill continues current investments to help farmers
and ranchers conserve vital natural resources.
The Committee acknowledges estimates that by 2050 our world
population will reach 9 billion people; requiring a 70 percent
to 80 percent increase in agricultural production. As incomes
rise around the world, diets improve and the demand for higher
quality food increases. Much of this demand will be met by
America's farmers and ranchers, who will also need to sustain
vital natural resources such as soil and water. While advancing
technology for seeds, inputs, and farming practices will enable
farmers and ranchers worldwide to meet increasing demand, sound
agricultural conservation practices are necessary to preserve
agricultural productivity for future generations.
The Committee recognized that savings could be achieved in
this title responsibly through a review of current programs.
Emphasis was placed on improvements that enhance program
effectiveness and achieve reductions in future outlays. The
reported bill continues important conservation investments,
while streamlining and improving programs to make them more
effective and reducing overall spending in this title. The most
significant changes in the reported bill involve the
Conservation Reserve Program, conservation easements and
regional partnerships for conservation. The legislation
achieves savings in the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program in part through consolidation of the Wildlife Habit
Incentive Program. Savings also are achieved through
improvements to the Conservation Stewardship Program, along
with a slight reduction in the annual acreage enrollment
limitation.
For 25 years, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has
helped preserve soil, water and wildlife resources by placing
highly erodible and environmentally sensitive farmland in
conserving uses through voluntary contracts with farmers,
ranchers and landowners. The 2008 Farm Bill limited CRP
enrollment to 32 million acres. Recently, however, high prices
and strong demand for land on which to grow commodities have
dampened enrollments, reducing the program to just under 30
million acres. Over the next two years alone, contracts on more
than 10 million acres currently in the program will expire,
many of which are likely to transition to productive
agricultural uses. As such, the Committee concluded that
lowering the enrollment cap better reflected current program
demand, and that significant savings also could be achieved.
Understanding the challenges involved in lowering the
enrollment cap, the Committee established a multi-year ``step
down'' of the acreage cap over the five-year life of this
legislation. This achieves savings while providing for annual
signups that allow the most sensitive and erodible lands to
remain in the program, while those lands suitable for
production return to agricultural uses. The reported bill
provides greater certainty for lands enrolled in CRP to be used
for grazing and harvesting, consistent with the conservation
purposes of the program. It includes new opportunities for
owners and operators to prepare lands for agricultural uses in
the last year of the contract.
Conservation easements help to protect specific types of
environmentally sensitive lands, such as wetlands and important
grazing lands. Easements are also valuable tools for preserving
farm and ranch land that is under development pressure. Such
easements retain those lands in agricultural uses to produce
the crops vital to our national security and economy, as well
as the growing food needs of an expanding world population.
Current law has three easement programs: the Grasslands Reserve
Program (GRP); the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the
Farmland Protection Program (FPP). The authorities for two of
these programs expire in fiscal year 2012, as does their
baseline for reauthorization, which would put at risk the
opportunity to protect and preserve these lands.
The Committee consolidated the three conservation easement
authorities into a single, simplified program, the Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program. The overall program contains two
parts: Agricultural Land Easements and Wetland Easements.
Agricultural Land Easements are used to protect lands from
development and keep them devoted to agricultural uses,
including protecting grazing lands or traditional grasslands
and keeping them in grazing and related uses. Wetland Easements
are used to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, which are
important for water quality, quantity and wildlife habitat
objectives in many areas. The single program is better focused
on long-term land protection with a sufficient investment to be
effective in achieving the program's goals.
Other significant changes in the reported bill involve
consolidating four existing programs into a single, innovative
approach to support locally led conservation projects that
address soil, water, or wildlife habitat issues in a specific
area or region. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program
combines core functions of the Agricultural Water Enhancement
Program, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, the Cooperative
Conservation Partnership Initiative and the Great Lakes Basin
Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. In both the 2002
and 2008 farm bills efforts were made to allow eligible
organizations to partner with the Secretary and agricultural
producers to build solutions-oriented approaches to local
natural resource conservation issues. These past efforts have
formed a foundation for the Committee's work in the reported
bill. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program takes the
next step by consolidating the best features of those efforts
under one set of core authorities. This will streamline and
simplify the partnership approach for producers, eligible
partners and USDA. The Committee believes that partnerships are
a cornerstone for conservation and will only continue to grow
in importance in the future. The Regional Conservation
Partnership Program is a competitive, merit-based program that
encourages producers to come together in a collaborative way.
Producers and the organizations that they know and trust will
sit around the same table with USDA and come up with a joint
strategy for how to tackle their most pressing conservation
issues. Importantly, limited federal resources will be
magnified and multiplied by private resources; all of which are
focused on natural resource conserving efforts at the farm and
ranch level with a regional focus.
TITLE III--TRADE
The Committee has jurisdiction over two types of program
authorities in this title: (1) programs that promote exports of
U.S. agricultural products; and (2) programs that provide food
aid to other nations. Both types of programs are important to
the agricultural economy and to our nation's geopolitical
interests, including providing humanitarian relief to nations
facing significant food emergencies such as famine.
Agricultural exports remain a bright spot for U.S. trade as
it is one of the only sectors where the U.S. runs a trade
surplus, exporting more than we import. U.S. farm exports
reached record levels in 2010 and 2011 at over $115 billion and
over $136 billion respectively. In comparison, the U.S.
exported $53.7 billion worth of agricultural products in 2001--
an increase of over 150 percent. Title III of this legislation
reauthorizes important programs to continue expanding
agricultural exports and trade through promotion activities
that open new markets and develop new customers, as well as
working to combat trade barriers for U.S. products.
In general, the reported bill extends current
authorizations and funding levels for the export promotion
programs in this title. These programs include the Market
Access Program, the Foreign Market Development Program, the
Emergency Markets and Facility Guarantee Loan Program,
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops and the Global Crop
Diversity Trust. Minor changes are made to the Export Credit
Guarantee Program (GSM-102) to help meet our obligations
pursuant to the dispute settlement brought by Brazil before the
World Trade Organization.
The Committee also recognizes the importance of America's
leadership in times of food emergencies. Between 850 million
and 1 billion people in 77 countries are currently estimated to
be food insecure. In 2011, the Food for Peace program
authorized in this title benefitted over 46 million people.
Annually, Food for Peace donates over 2.5 million metric tons
of commodities around the world. Additionally, the McGovern-
Dole program authorized by this title helps feed about 3
million children each year, while the Food for Progress program
benefits about 7 million people annually. The food aid programs
in this title benefit over 60 countries. The Committee
recognizes the importance of this assistance and has
reauthorized the relevant programs while at the same time
reforming key policies to reduce waste in the system and
provide flexibility to respond to changing food aid needs.
In general, the reported bill extends current
authorizations for international food aid through fiscal year
2017. The reported bill also increases funding available to
support strategic prepositioning, which brings food aid
commodities to at-risk regions before food emergencies strike.
The bill also expands on the success of a pilot program from
the 2008 Farm Bill for local and regional food aid procurement,
which allows organizations to purchase food through local and
regional markets. By linking local and regional purchasing with
the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program in the application process, this bill also
encourages project graduation for schools participating in
McGovern-Dole. The bill puts into action the recommendations of
a study authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill to research the
quality of U.S. food aid. The Administrator is given increased
flexibility to improve the nutritional profile of food aid for
target populations, such as children under five and mothers.
Since passage of the last farm bill, the famine in the Horn of
Africa has brought new organizations and governments to the
region, all intent on helping reduce hunger and improve food
security. This pilot helps coordinate the efforts on the ground
by looking at interactions and providing for groups doing
resiliency work--efforts that will help ensure that famine does
not occur again.
TITLE IV--NUTRITION
The legislation reauthorizes the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as ``Food Stamps.''
SNAP provided food and nutrition assistance for an average of
44.7 million low-income Americans per month with average
benefits of $4.46 per individual per day. The Committee
acknowledges that SNAP has proven vital for families who have
lost their jobs or significant income during the Nation's
recent economic downturn. According to the Census Bureau's
Supplemental Poverty Measure, SNAP lifted about 4 million
people out of poverty in 2010, including over 2 million
children.
SNAP assistance goes to truly poor families and the most
vulnerable members of our society. Roughly 93 percent of SNAP
benefits go to households with incomes below the poverty line
and nearly 75 percent of SNAP participants are in families with
children. About 16 percent of all households receiving SNAP
include an elderly member of the family and nearly 20 percent
include someone who is disabled. In 2012, SNAP is expected to
serve 4 million seniors, 4 million adults with a serious
disability, and 23 million children--including 10 million
children who live in severe poverty because their families'
cash income is below half of the poverty line.
SNAP is a counter-cyclical program which expands when the
economy is weak and contracts as the economy improves. The
Congressional Budget Office projects that SNAP will shrink to
nearly pre-recession levels as the economy recovers. For most
families, SNAP is a temporary lifeline when a troubled economy
hits home limiting their ability to put food on the table.
Approximately half of new SNAP recipients receive assistance
for 10 months or less. As the economy recovers and the economic
situation in a household improves, the need for assistance
recedes and many families exit the program. Moreover, Moody's
Analytics estimates that every $1 increase in SNAP benefits
generates $1.72 in economic activity.
The Committee acknowledges any program of SNAP's size and
scope will need periodic review for improvements to ensure
program integrity. The Committee recognizes SNAP error rates
were at an all-time low of 3.81 percent in fiscal year 2010,
and that less than 1 cent of every dollar is lost through fraud
and abuse. The Committee also recognizes commercial retailer
trafficking was about 1 percent. The reported bill includes
provisions to enhance program integrity, including the
prevention of SNAP participation for individuals with
significant lottery or gambling winnings, limits on eligibility
for traditional college students, and the provision of
additional resources to help the Department of Agriculture
prevent the trafficking of SNAP benefits.
The Committee strengthened program integrity and achieved
budgetary savings by addressing concerns regarding the
connections between the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) and the Standard Utility Allowance (SUA) used
in the SNAP food benefit calculation. To streamline State
administration of the SNAP program, each State develops and
uses a simplified SUA, a fixed dollar amount representing the
average household energy costs in the State. States use the SUA
to calculate the utilities expense deduction for households in
their State. SNAP households that qualify for the SUA will
typically receive a higher average amount of monthly SNAP food
benefits based on average utilities being paid. Typically, to
qualify for the SUA, SNAP households must provide actual
utility bills. An exception is LIHEAP. Because LIHEAP rarely
covers the full amount of utilities a household pays, receipt
of LIHEAP is considered to be a reasonable proxy for actual
utility expenses. SNAP allows households that receive LIHEAP to
claim the SUA. Some States have chosen to provide an annual
nominal amount (e.g. $1) in LIHEAP benefits to households all
SNAP households to boost monthly SNAP food benefits. According
to the Congressional Budget Office, 17 State agencies are
issuing nominal LIHEAP benefits to qualify households for
additional monthly SNAP benefits.
In general, the Committee supports continuing the practice
of utilizing income and deductions as a means to determine
appropriate benefit levels based on the amount of income that
is available for a household to make necessary food purchases.
``Shelter costs'' are one of the key components in this
determination. The intent of the excess shelter deduction is to
appropriately increase benefits for those households with
significant housing and utility expenses. LIHEAP is targeted to
low-income households who cannot afford to pay their energy
bills. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated
that this connection also reduces SNAP administrative costs.
The Committee is concerned with the use of nominal LIHEAP
payments to increase SNAP benefits. The Committee contends that
State issuance of nominal LIHEAP payments to qualify all SNAP
households to claim the SUA is not consistent with the intent
of the SNAP utility expense deduction. As such, the reported
bill requires SNAP households to receive at least $10 in annual
LIHEAP benefits to qualify for the Standard Utility Allowance.
The Committee intends for this change to sufficiently deter the
practice of using nominal LIHEAP benefits while not disrupting
the relationship between SNAP and LIHEAP and minimizing the
impact on SNAP recipients.
In addition to provisions related to program integrity in
SNAP, the reported bill builds upon programs to reduce hunger
and improve access to healthy fruits and vegetables for
seniors, schoolchildren, and both urban and rural residents in
low-income communities. The Committee recognizes the need for
additional resources to help the most vulnerable, and the
reported bill provides additional resources for USDA through
the Emergency Food Assistance Program to provide assistance to
our Nation's food banks. The bill also modifies the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program to better focus limited resources on
seniors who represent nearly 97 percent of program
participants. In addition, the bill continues the distribution
of fresh fruits and vegetables by the Department of Defense to
schools and service institutions, and authorizes USDA to
utilize modern technology for SNAP food benefit redemption at
farmers markets and grocery stores.
TITLE V--CREDIT
The Committee is dedicated to preserving the ability of
rural America to access financial credit at reasonable rates in
order to ensure continued economic health and growth.
Agricultural lending is used to purchase and operate farms,
start and expand agricultural businesses, and to purchase
agricultural equipment. Important sources of agricultural
credit include commercial lending, USDA, the Farm Credit
System, and Farmer Mac. The Committee will continue to work
with these stakeholders to increase access to affordable credit
in rural America.
The USDA operates a suite of lending programs for farmers
and ranchers through the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) Farm Loan
Programs. The programs provide assistance for beginning farmers
and ranchers, and for farmers and ranchers with limited
resources. Farming today requires substantial capital to begin
and continue operating, a significant challenge to young and
beginning farmers who have a difficult time obtaining capital
and face other barriers to entry. The Committee recognizes the
success of FSA's lending portfolio. In fiscal year 2010, FSA
made more than $5 billion in loans to over 36,000 farmers. In
fiscal year 2011, FSA made more than $4.8 million in loans to
over 32,000 farmers. Both years represent some of the highest
lending levels for the Agency and demonstrate the continued
strong demand for FSA loans. 14,800 of the loans were made to
young, new and beginning farmers. In fiscal year 2011, the
direct loan delinquency rate was 5.7 percent and the direct
loan loss rate is 0.9 percent. For the guaranteed programs, the
delinquency rate is 1.43 percent and the loss rate is 0.50
percent.
The reported bill reauthorizes current programs through
fiscal year 2017. Of note, the reported bill includes
substantial legislative language for both Titles V and VI
(Rural Development). The underlying statute for both titles is
Public Law 87-128, the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act of 1961 (ConAct). Subsequent farm bills and other
legislation added programs, requirements, and other provisions
to the ConAct, and several ConAct provisions have become
inoperable and contradictory. Over the course of 51 years of
amendments, the ConAct has become confusing, convoluted and
disorganized. The Committee undertook an effort to streamline
and reorganize the ConAct to improve the clarity and
administration of authorized programs, which is reflected in
the legislative text of both Titles V and VI of the reported
bill. Specifically for credit programs, general authorities for
Title V continue in one consolidated subtitle. In carrying out
the programs and activities authorized in Title V, the
Committee expects USDA to continue operating the programs and
activities in accordance with the regulations and procedures in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act to the extent that
they are consistent with the requirements applicable to such
programs and activities provided in this Act. The Committee
stresses that it is important that the streamlining of the
ConAct not disrupt lending to rural America.
The Committee provides continued support to new and
beginning farmers and ranchers by adjusting down payment loan
limits, expanding eligibility for new legal entities created
for succession planning, adjusting term limits for direct
operating loans, and eliminating term limits for guaranteed
operating loans. The Committee also provided additional support
for military veterans interested in pursuing careers as farmers
and ranchers.
The reported bill also adjusts programs to provide lending
assistance to farmers and ranchers that struggle with obtaining
access to credit, including the historically disadvantaged.
First, the reported bill allows the Secretary of Agriculture to
establish intermediate relending for the highly fractionated
land program for Indian tribes and tribal corporations. Second,
the reported bill updates the term limits for the receipt of
both direct and guaranteed loans. In 1996, the Federal
Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act added provisions to the
ConAct to impose term limits on direct and guaranteed operating
loans administered by FSA. The term limits were suspended by
Congress in 2002, 2006, and most recently by the 2008 Farm Bill
which extended the suspension through December 31, 2010.
The reported bill eliminates the 15-year lifetime term
limits for guaranteed operating loans, and modifies the 7-year
lifetime term limits for direct operating loans. For guaranteed
operating loans, the term limits were eliminated, as the
program is self-sufficient without cost to the American
taxpayer and assists commercial lenders in offering needed
credit. For direct operating loans, for every three consecutive
years a borrower does not take out a loan from FSA, a borrower
gains one additional year of eligibility. The change to direct
operating loans addresses the potential of future down cycles
for farmers and ranchers, and encourages graduation to
commercial credit.
TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
As in Title V, this title of the reported bill contains
significant legislative language to streamline and reorganize
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1961, Public
Law 87-128, (ConAct) so as to improve the administration of
authorized programs and to simplify the process for those
seeking assistance. The legislative text in Title VI is also
the result of that effort. The general authorities for rural
development are continued but have been organized into specific
subtitles. In carrying out the programs and activities
authorized in the rural development title, the Committee again
expects that the Secretary will continue to operate such
programs and activities in accordance with the regulations and
procedures in effect on the date of enactment of this Act to
the extent that they are consistent with the requirements
applicable to such programs and activities provided in this
Act.
The Committee has reauthorized the core rural development
programs that rural constituents rely on to improve
infrastructure and support community and economic development.
The Committee believes these programs provide resources that
are essential to the future of our rural communities. Rural
areas struggle with higher costs for infrastructure needs
because of low population density and the unfortunate out-
migration that has become all-too common in many rural
communities. Traditional infrastructure investments in
electricity, telephones, water and sewers are continued, and
the more recent infrastructure investments in broadband service
are augmented by the addition of authority for USDA to provide
grant funding for the expansion of broadband service.
The Committee has heard about the challenges rural
communities have in accessing resources because they have
difficulty completing application forms or determining their
eligibility for such programs. It is the Committee's intent
that these programs provide federal resources that improves the
quality of life for those living in rural America in an
efficient manner with simplified applications and a reduction
in unnecessary or redundant paperwork and processes.
Additionally, the Committee encourages rural entities to
utilize rural development programs in a manner that supports
projects and initiatives that develop long-term community and
economic growth strategies. Traditionally, rural development
programs have been used to meet an immediate need. The
Committee understands that it is essential that versatile
programs such as the Community Facilities Loan, Loan Guarantee
and Grant Program are available to rural residents to address
pressing needs and concerns, and the Committee wants to ensure
that the programs authorized in this title continue to provide
that type of assistance. However, to the extent possible, the
Committee encourages rural communities to consider how they
might use rural development resources to address multi-
jurisdictional needs, by leveraging Federal, State, local or
private funding, or otherwise capitalize upon the unique
strengths of the rural area to support successful community and
economic development. The Committee believes that projects that
reflect even one of these characteristics can help to maximize
the resources available at all levels of government and
ultimately help rural communities reach their full potential.
For these reasons, the Committee has provided the Secretary
with the discretion to prioritize applications for funding that
reflect an applicant's efforts to maximize resources and
support strategic community and economic development.
Another concern brought to this Committee by both USDA and
rural constituents, is the confusion resulting from the
multiple definitions of ``rural'' used by USDA to determine
program eligibility. The many versions are the result of
changes brought about by successive Farm Bills. The Committee
acknowledges that the previous definitions were developed for
sound reasons and with good intent. However, the Committee is
concerned that 96 different cities and towns had received
waivers through legislation passed by the Congress subsequent
to passage of previous Farm Bills that granted them eligibility
for Rural Development programs despite the fact that their
populations had grown beyond the population limits established
in Farm Bill legislation. USDA will begin using data from the
2010 Census data in the Fall of 2012, and the Committee expects
that a number of currently eligible communities will lose that
eligibility.
Therefore, to address these concerns, the Committee has
provided a single definition of ``rural'' that is intended to
clarify eligibility. The new definition grants eligibility to
cities and towns of less than 50,000 in population and not
contiguous or adjacent to urbanized areas. The Committee
recognizes that some cities and towns of less than 50,000 in
population that are located within an urbanized area may in
fact be ``rural in character.'' To ensure that these cities and
towns that were previously eligible for the Community
Facilities, Water and Waste Disposal, and Broadband programs
maintain that eligibility, the Committee has provided for a
process by which USDA must determine these areas to not be
``rural in character'' and thus ineligible for these programs.
The Committee has directed USDA to consider the following
factors when making such determinations: population density,
economic conditions, and commuting patterns. The Committee's
intent in authorizing a ``rural in character'' determination
process is to provide USDA with the ability to make practical
eligibility determinations, therefore in making such
determinations, the Under Secretary may also give consideration
to the unique structure of local government and the history of
the area in question. Finally, the Committee has prohibited the
Under Secretary from making a determination that a city or town
is not ``rural in character'' for three years to ensure that
ongoing projects are completed and not impacted by the changes
contained in this Act in order to protect previous federal
investments.
TITLE VII--RESEARCH
Agricultural research, extension, and education programs
serve the food and agriculture sector, consumers of American
agricultural products, and rural communities throughout the
United States. Research programs and funding utilize two basic
agencies at USDA: the Agriculture Research Service (ARS), which
focuses on ``intramural'' research and basic research; and the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) created by
the 2008 Farm Bill to restructure, combine and improve
``extramural'' research functions at USDA to make better use of
limited funds.
The reported bill builds upon the efforts from 2008,
allowing unfunded and unused program authorities to expire with
fiscal year 2012 and combining, consolidating and streamlining
authorities to make a more concentrated and effective use of
limited funding. The remaining authorities are extended through
fiscal year 2017 with few changes.
The Committee provided additional funding for both the
Specialty Crop Research Initiative and the Organic Research and
Education Initiative beyond the levels in the 2008 Farm Bill.
One of the primary activities necessary to encourage continued
market growth, improved food safety and risk management for
both of these industries is adequate dedicated research
support. The Committee recognizes that research is one of the
primary means by which the Farm Bill provides these farmers
assistance, so the reported bill increases funding beyond the
levels in the 2008 Farm Bill, consistent with increased market
needs.
The Committee also expects USDA to provide more detailed
information regarding expected research expenditures when
submitting its annual budget request to Congress in an effort
to improve transparency and safeguard against unnecessary
duplication.
The reported bill provides for the creation of the
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR). Modeled
after the National Institute for Health Foundation and other
successful government-sponsored research foundations, FFAR is
intended to leverage Federal dollars and private research money
to reverse the recent downward trend in agriculture and food
research funding. The increased productivity and boost in crop
yields experienced by American farmers can be attributed to
research investments made 30 to 50 years ago. Federal
investment in public agricultural research has been trending
downward at a time when the demands of a growing and hungry
world require that American agriculture research again take a
leading role in pushing forward food production. USDA, the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation
and agricultural research stakeholders play an integral role in
establishing the Foundation. The Committee does not intend for
the Foundation to be duplicative of current funding or research
efforts, but rather foster public-private partnerships among
the agricultural research community, including federal
agencies, academia, non-profit organizations, corporations and
individual donors to identify and prioritize the most pressing
needs facing agriculture. It is the Committee's view that the
Foundation will complement the work of USDA basic and applied
research activities and further advance USDA's research
mission. Furthermore, the Committee does not intend for the
Foundation's funding to in any way offset or allow for a
reduction in the appropriated dollars that go to agricultural
research.
TITLE VIII--FORESTRY
There are an estimated 354,000,000 acres of non-industrial
forestland in the United States under private ownership. The
Committee acknowledges the important role these forests play in
providing clean air and water, wildlife habitat, and
recreational opportunities. This title provides private forest
landowners with important tools to conserve their forest acres.
The reported bill asserts the Committee's oversight role by
placing authorization levels on programs and putting their
reauthorization cycle in line with the Farm Bill. These changes
are not intended to be a statement on the quality or purpose of
these programs.
The Committee recognizes the impact of insect infestation
and disease on our nation's forests. In some places,
infestations are reaching epidemic proportions and becoming a
central threat to forest health. With this in mind, the
reported bill seeks to give forest managers greater opportunity
to identify and manage risk in the forest.
Stewardship End Result Contracting is a tool that has been
authorized in the past by the Appropriations Committees. By
addressing this activity through the Farm Bill, the Committee
intends to situate the authorization of this tool within an
authorizing committee. Over the last decade, Stewardship
Contracting has been a proven method for carrying out needed
forest restoration activities, particularly in areas without a
strong timber industry presence.
TITLE IX--ENERGY
Since the 2002 Farm Bill, this Committee has invested in
helping rural communities and American farmers to advance
renewable energy alternatives. The Committee recognizes the
numerous benefits from the expansion of renewable energy,
biofuel and biobased products manufacturing and the innovative
and pioneering investments made by the programs in this title.
The Committee reauthorizes almost all of the programs from the
2008 Farm Bill and provides mandatory funding for the
investments made by this title. Continuing a ten-year
investment in this area, the energy title supports the creation
of new market opportunities for farmers. It also helps
producers and rural businesses save money on their energy bills
and helps boost the production of farm-grown renewable
alternatives to fossil fuels.
In the current economic climate, the new bio-economy is one
opportunity for rural communities to strategically develop new
markets and create jobs. Biobased manufacturing is an example
of how a developing industry can benefit and reinvigorate a
rural economy. Most biobased manufacturers will locate near the
feedstock, in small towns surrounded by farmland. The economic
benefit is twofold: first, the farmers growing the feedstock
will have new markets for their crops. And, second, this not
only drives the farm economy but it also boosts the local and
regional economy by creating new jobs and wealth that stays in
those communities. According to a recent USDA study, the bio-
based plastic and chemical products industry could create over
100,000 American jobs. By nature, most of these jobs will be
located in rural America.
The investments made through this title support innovation
by assisting entrepreneurs and businesses with investments in
projects ranging from commercial-scale digester projects that
turn food and agriculture waste into energy to on-farm energy
audits, educational efforts and similar undertakings to reduce
energy consumption and boost alternative energy production. The
Rural Energy for America Program, known as REAP, helps
producers reduce their energy costs through renewable or
efficiency measures. REAP has helped farmers, livestock
producers and small businesses reduce their energy costs
through various activities. These small investments not only
improve the farmer's profit margins but also help create and
retain jobs in local communities. According to recent testimony
from USDA, the REAP program has created or saved over 14,000
jobs in rural America.
Innovations that produce advanced biofuels, bioenergy and
other biobased materials are important to our economy and
national security but they are often dependent on feedstocks
not currently produced on our farms. While farmers can realize
substantial economic opportunities in new feedstock markets,
the risks of producing them create significant barriers and
stifle the growth of these new markets. The Committee has
focused on policies to help farmers overcome these barriers,
while connecting them to bio-economy innovators so as to create
new market opportunities, products and jobs.
The investments that help propel biorefineries are also
important job creation investments that help build wealth in
rural communities. Biobased manufacturing and refining are
rooted in our small towns, employing rural residents and
developing new markets for biomass feedstocks from local farms
and ranches. Often times, financing these facilities can be
beyond the capacity of the local communities and banks. The
policies in this title are designed to help bridge the capital
gap and support innovation in communities and entrepreneurs.
For example, loan guarantees and grants can seed opportunities
that will grow new businesses for the community, new markets
for farmers, and new jobs for rural residents.
Finally, this title makes investments that seek to save
energy and boost the bottom line for America's farmers and
ranchers. Like most small businesses, farmers and ranchers
worry about the energy costs associated with running their
operations. The relatively small federal investments in on-farm
energy production and energy efficiency made by this title can
provide real help to farmers that will save money and improve
their bottom lines. Energy policy investments spur local job
creation and retention, help farmers and rural businesses, and
boost local and regional economies.
TITLE X--HORTICULTURE
The 2008 Farm Bill contained the first title for specialty
and organic crops, recognizing the importance of fruits and
vegetables, nuts, floriculture and nursery products for the
first time in any Farm Bill. The Committee recognizes that
according to the most recent Agricultural Census these crops
account for 12.7 percent of harvested acreage and 46.9 percent
of total crop value in the United States; demonstrating the
significant and growing role of specialty crops in the U.S.
farm economy. Specialty crop producers are both expanding
American export markets and helping to develop strong, local
food systems. Fruits and vegetables also represent a key
component of a complete diet which many Americans continue to
lack. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans suggests
Americans should consume between 9 and 13 servings of fruits,
vegetables and nuts. For a balanced diet, the Guidelines
suggest that half the plate be filled with fruits and
vegetables at each meal.
The reported bill builds upon the provisions from the 2008
Farm Bill for specialty crop producers, organic agriculture and
local food systems. First, the bill expands the Specialty Crop
block grants, which go to States to support research and
promotion of fruits and vegetables, and adjusts the grant
allocation formula to better account for both high value crops
as well as the number of acres devoted to specialty crop
production in a state. While the Committee continues to support
the administration of block grants through a Federal and State
partnership, the Committee acknowledges that this structure
poses a challenge in coordinating projects between multiple
states. To facilitate projects of common interest, the
Committee has authorized multistate projects related to pests
and disease, food safety, and commodity-specific areas. Second,
the Committee recognizes the pest and disease risks and common
challenges for specialty crop producers, as well as the need to
streamline authorities to improve the effectiveness for
producers and ensure that the functions of both of these
programs are maintained. As such, the reported bill
consolidates the National Clean Plant Network and the Pest and
Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program, while
continuing the focus on early detection and surveillance of
invasive pests, interventions to prevent crop damage, and the
supply of clean, pathogen-free plant material for producers.
Third, the reported bill builds on support for local and
regional food systems. The Economic Research Service found that
over 40 percent of vegetable, fruit and nut farms in the United
States sell their products in local and regional markets,
employing on average 13 fulltime workers per $1 million in
revenue earned. The Committee bill supports continued growth in
local and regional food systems, increasing funding for
Farmer's Markets and expanding authorities so resources can
help develop local infrastructure. The program provides
competitive grants to improve and expand farmer's markets,
roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, and
other direct producer-to-consumer market opportunities as well
as assisting producers in ``scaling up'' through aggregation
and other marketing techniques that facilitate farm-to-
institution and other market opportunities.
Finally, the Committee recognizes that organic production
and the demand for organic products continues to grow. A 2010
survey of organic growers shows that organic sales reached
$28.6 billion in 2010, surging 7.7 percent above sales in 2009.
The reported bill expands support for the National Organic
Programs and key organic programs such as the Organic Research
and Education Certification Cost-Share Program that helps
farmers achieve certification for organic farming. The bill
also continues to support organic data collection, a component
to improving risk management for organic producers. It also
provides additional authority for enforcement of organic
standards, addressing shortcomings in the National Organic
Program identified in a 2010 report by USDA's Office of the
Inspector General.
TITLE XI--CROP INSURANCE
The Committee recognizes the Federal Crop Insurance program
as the cornerstone of the farm safety net. This is a message
that was heard consistently by the Committee throughout the
farm bill hearing process, and this title embodies the
expressed priority of producers to protect, preserve and
improve the Federal Crop Insurance program. Producers face a
multitude of risks over which they have no control, including
weather and market fluctuations within the crop year. One storm
can wipe out an entire crop in a matter of minutes and put the
future of a farming operation in jeopardy. Crop insurance helps
producers manage exactly this type of risk, which allows
producers to obtain credit and provides a way for them to
recover quickly from disaster to put seed in the ground another
year. The provisions in this title also follow the general
principle that the purpose of farm programs should be to help
producers manage the risk they face every day, and the
provisions focus on expanding the program's reach to assist
farmers and crops that currently are not covered by the program
or are inadequately covered.
The Federal Crop Insurance program is the most crucial
component of the farm safety net for U.S. farmers. In 2007,
farmers insured more than 271 million acres through either
catastrophic coverage or buy-up coverage. That year the
estimated liability was $67 billion and represented a 97
percent increase in liability covered since 2000. For the 2011
crop year, the crop insurance program covered over 265 million
acres and over $114 billion in liability. The significant
disasters in 2011 also resulted in $10.8 billion in indemnity
payments. These staggering numbers demonstrate the fundamental
importance of and need for crop insurance. These substantial
increases in the liability covered are attributable both to
enhanced participation in the program and to a significant
increase in the prices of most commodities insured under the
program.
As discussed previously, the reported bill includes a new
crop insurance program for producers of upland cotton. In 2002,
Brazil initiated a dispute settlement case before the World
Trade Organization against U.S. support for cotton production.
In 2004, a WTO panel found that payments to cotton producers
pursuant to the marketing loan and counter-cyclical program
were in violation of the U.S. WTO commitments. The panel
reached the same conclusion with regard to the export credit
guarantees under the GSM-102 program. The United States
responded by making some changes to domestic cotton support and
GSM-102, but Brazil argued the response was inadequate and a
WTO compliance panel ruled for Brazil in 2007. That ruling was
upheld on appeal in 2008. The dispute went before a WTO
arbitration panel to determine the level of retaliation in
August of 2009, and Brazil announced that it would impose
retaliation of $829.3 million in U.S. goods, including $268.3
million in cross-retaliation, in April 2010 based on the
arbitration panel's findings.
In April 2010, the U.S and Brazil reached a temporary
settlement agreement to avoid retaliation, and in June they
signed the ``Framework for a Mutually Agreed Solution to the
Cotton Dispute in the WTO (WT/DS267)'' (the Framework
Agreement). Under the Framework Agreement, Brazil suspended
retaliation against the U.S. pending U.S. compliance and in
return for $147.3 million in annual payments from the U.S. (out
of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation) to a newly
created Brazilian Cotton Institute for the provision of
technical assistance and capacity-building for the Brazil
cotton industry. The U.S. and Brazil also agreed to quarterly
discussions on changes to U.S. cotton supports leading up to
``successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill'' with a view to
reaching a mutually agreed solution to the dispute.
The Committee recognizes that it is necessary for the U.S.
and Brazil to resolve the dispute and the important role that
changes in the reported bill for upland cotton play in moving
to a resolution. The Committee also recognizes the significant
risks that cotton farmers face and the continuing need for a
safety net for those producers. As such, the reported bill
removes upland cotton from the list of ``covered commodities''
in Title I, thus making upland cotton ineligible for the
Agriculture Risk Coverage program. The reported bill creates
the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) for producers of
upland cotton to permit upland cotton farmers to purchase an
area-wide revenue plan of coverage above or in lieu of their
individual coverage. STAX is modeled off of existing Group Risk
Income Protection plans of insurance, using county data and
triggering at a loss of 10 percent or greater, down to 30
percent where it is presumed the producer will buy up
individual coverage.
The Committee contends that STAX should help resolve the
WTO dispute with Brazil because it represents a significant
shift in domestic assistance to cotton farmers. STAX is an
insurance plan, not a direct subsidy program. As such, it has
four important mitigating factors as compared to subsidy
programs that justify resolution. First, farmers have to pay
some of the cost for the coverage out of their own pockets and
the cost of the program will be rated on an actuarially sound
basis, meaning farmers will pay for the actual value of the
coverage. Second, assistance to cotton farmers under STAX will
only occur when there has been a loss at the county level and
is not tied directly to losses on the individual farm. Third,
STAX contains a 10 percent deductible, leaving the farmer
responsible for the first 10 percent of any loss. Finally, STAX
as written by the Committee does not contain a reference or
floor price so that the revenue coverage provided by STAX to
the farmer will reset every spring when RMA calculates the
spring price and that price will be determined by the markets,
rather than a set price established by Congress. This makes
STAX market-oriented and avoids any potential insulation from
signals of the market and will avoid distorting domestic or
international markets.
The Committee asserts that the significant reform in
domestic cotton support as a result of STAX, in combination
with the adjustments in the cotton loan rate and the
adjustments to the GSM-102 program subsidy, should serve as a
sufficient basis for the U.S. and Brazil to reach a mutually-
agreeable solution to the WTO dispute without need for further
payments to Brazil and without any need for retaliatory
measures by Brazil. The Committee encourages USDA and the U.S.
Trade Representative to work with Brazil on this resolution.
As discussed previously, the reported bill is a significant
change in federal agriculture policy with a focus on risk
management and assistance only when farmers have suffered a
loss. Recognizing the need for more tools for farmers as they
seek to best manage their risk, the Committee has also created
a new insurance option for producers called the Supplemental
Coverage Option (SCO). The reported bill amends section 508(c)
of the Federal Crop Insurance Act to permit farmers to
supplement their individual coverage with coverage based on an
area yield and loss basis. The SCO coverage extends above the
individual coverage in the deductible range but requires a 10
percent deductible. Indemnity payments are triggered only if
losses in the area exceed 10 percent of expected levels. In the
case of those producers participating in ARC, the deductible is
21 percent of the expected value of the crop under the
underlying insurance policy. SCO provides for a premium subsidy
of 70 percent of the premium associated with the coverage. In
SCO, the reported bill provides farmers a valuable new tool to
help them manage their risks in conjunction with underlying
individual coverage and the ARC program. Producers who cannot
afford high levels of individual buy-up coverage now have an
affordable area-wide option to supplement completely or in
conjunction with ARC.
The remainder of Title XI in the reported bill contains
important improvements to existing crop insurance coverage to
make insurance more effective for farmers, as well as some
technical changes to the administration of crop insurance to
improve the program's operation. Specifically, the reported
bill makes the enterprise unit pilot a permanent part of the
program due to its popularity with farmers. The bill allows the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to split enterprise units
between irrigated and non-irrigated acres so that the insurance
coverage better matches the significant differences between
those two practices. The reported bill also improves the
transitional yield and provides new authority for the FCIC
Board to conduct and prioritize research and development of new
plans of insurance. The Committee recognizes the vital
importance of helping young and beginning farmers get started
and succeed in farming. As such, the Committee has made
revisions to the Federal Crop Insurance Act to help young and
beginning farmers better manage their risk through additional
premium assistance, better transitional yields and improved
accounting for prior experience through the use of previous
production history.
The final set of changes in this title involve the
Committee's efforts to help expand crop insurance to crops that
are not currently covered or that are underserved, especially
for livestock, peanuts, catfish and specialty crops. These
changes are intended to improve the process for developing new
crop insurance products for underserved crops and regions by
allowing the FCIC to increase the advance payment for research
and development of new policies by 50 percent. The bill also
allows the Risk Management Agency to conduct research and
development activities to maintain or improve existing policies
or to develop new policies. The bill also supports the
development of whole-farm insurance and index-based weather
insurance.
TITLE XII--MISCELLANEOUS
The Miscellaneous Title addresses challenges faced by, and
improves communication and outreach with, small and
disadvantaged producers, and veterans. It provides for improved
safety and training of the agricultural workforce, removes
overlap between certain programs, and allows for more efficient
sharing of information. In addition, the Committee recognizes
the importance of animal health, marketing, and sustainability
and the Miscellaneous Title contains critical provisions to
preserve domestic livestock production.
Finally, the Miscellaneous Title makes improvements to the
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) that are in
line with the overall goals of the reported legislation to
improve tools for farmers to manage their risks and to
eliminate duplication and overlap among programs. For producers
of crops that are not covered by crop insurance, the Committee
recognized the need for effective risk management tools and
concerns that current support under NAP was inadequate and
limited producer participation. As such, the reported
legislation includes a revision to NAP that provides an option
to producers to purchase a higher level of NAP coverage for
their crops, known as a ``buy-up'' option. The reported
legislation also eliminates overlap between NAP and the
disaster provisions in Title I.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
TITLE I--COMMODITY PROGRAMS
Repeals
The reported bill eliminates direct payments, counter-
cyclical payments and the Average Crop Revenue Election
payments.
Agriculture Risk Coverage
The bill establishes the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)
program as a new risk management tool for producers of covered
commodities that provides market-oriented, multi-year price
assistance, as well as yield assistance.
ARC payments are made on eligible acres, not base acres.
Eligible acres are defined as the farmer's actual planted acres
not to exceed the acreage planted to covered commodities and
upland cotton during the 2009 to 2012 crop years (with
adjustments for acres coming out of the Conservation Reserve
Program and for resource-conserving crop rotations such as
summer fallow). ARC provides a producer with a one-time,
irrevocable election whether to receive individual farm or
county level coverage. The ARC guarantee is set at 89 percent
of the benchmark revenue, which is calculated as the product of
the 5-year Olympic average prices and the 5-year Olympic
average yields (county or individual farm) for each commodity.
Payments are made on the shortfall between the guarantee and
the actual revenue, but cannot exceed 10 percent of the
benchmark revenue. For farmers electing coverage at the county
level, payments are made on 80 percent of their eligible acres
(45 percent of those acres prevented from being planted) and
for those farmers electing coverage at the individual level,
payments are made on 65 percent of the eligible acres (45
percent of those acres prevented from being planted).
Upland Cotton
Upland cotton is no longer a covered commodity and
producers of upland cotton are not eligible for the ARC
program. Due to the loss before a WTO panel in a dispute
brought by Brazil, the Committee, at the request of cotton
producers, has removed upland cotton from the definition of
covered commodities and has created a separate insurance policy
for cotton producers in Title XI. Removal of upland cotton from
the list of covered commodities, changes in the marketing loan
rate for upland cotton and changes to the Export Credit
Guarantee Program (GSM-102) contained in the reported bill are
intended to help reach a resolution to the WTO dispute.
Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments are
continued in the reported bill through the 2017 crop year with
only two changes from the program as designed by the 2008 Farm
Bill. First, due to the above-mentioned WTO dispute with
Brazil, the upland cotton loan rate has been revised to adjust
based upon the preceding two year average price for upland
cotton, but not to exceed $0.52 per pound nor drop below $0.47
per pound. The current marketing loan rate for upland cotton in
the 2008 Farm Bill is $0.52 per pound. Second, the reported
legislation revises the conservation compliance provisions from
the 2008 Farm Bill to align with the conservation compliance
provisions for ARC. As such, farmers utilizing marketing
assistance loans must certify that they are in compliance with
the same provisions as they are required to for ARC payments.
Sugar
The sugar program as designed in the 2008 Farm Bill is
continued through crop year 2017 without change.
Dairy
The legislation seeks to reform and improve dairy policy by
replacing existing programs (Milk Income Loss Contract, the
Dairy Product Price Support Program, and the Dairy Export
Incentive Program) with the Dairy Production Margin Protection
and Dairy Market Stabilization Programs. The first is a
voluntary program that helps provide assistance when dairy
operation margins are below $4.00 as calculated using the all-
milk price and a national average feed cost. Operations can
also purchase additional margin protection above $4.00 but not
to exceed $8.00 in $0.50 increments. The second program is
required for an operation participating in the margin
protection program and it is designed to promote growth while
also encouraging producers to temporarily scale back marketings
in times when the market is oversupplied and margins are low.
Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance
The 2008 Farm Bill established a suite of programs to
assist farmers and ranchers with losses due to natural
disasters which included Supplemental Revenue Assistance
Payments (SURE), Livestock Indemnity Payments (LIP), the
Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), Emergency Assistance
for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish (ELAP), and the
Tree Assistance Program (TAP). All programs expired at the end
of fiscal year 2011 and thus do not currently cover losses
suffered in fiscal year 2012. This legislation reauthorizes
LIP, LFP, ELAP and TAP with some modifications for fiscal years
2012 through 2017, moves the programs into Title I and funds
them out of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation. As
such, the assistance provided by LIP, LFP, ELAP and TAP are now
incorporated into the Title I baseline and will require
reauthorization on the same schedule as the rest of Title I.
SURE is not re-authorized.
Payment Limitation Reforms
The legislation undertakes three significant reforms.
First, payments made pursuant to the ARC program are limited to
$50,000 per individual (but can be doubled with a spouse,
similar to current law). This compares to a current combined
limit of $105,000 for direct payments and the counter-cyclical
program. In addition, a second payment limitation for peanuts
is maintained. Second, the adjusted gross income eligibility
requirement is revised by eliminating the differentiation
between farm and nonfarm AGI and using a single three-year
rolling average of a producer's AGI for eligibility. The AGI
requirement is set at $750,000. Finally, the requirement that
an individual be ``actively engaged in farming'' to be eligible
to receive payments has been reformed by eliminating the
``active personal management'' provisions that allowed multiple
individuals to claim eligibility by only providing management
to the operation. The legislation strikes the phrase ``active
personal management'' and creates a specific class of actively
engaged that permits a single individual to be actively engaged
as the manager for a farm. Only one person in a farm operation
can be eligible for providing management and not labor to the
farm and that person cannot qualify other farm operations as
actively engaged or permit the farm operation to exceed the
$50,000 payment limitation.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
Conservation Reserve Program
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) helps preserve soil,
water and wildlife resources by placing highly erodible and
environmentally sensitive land in conserving uses through
voluntary contracts with farmers, ranchers and landowners. The
2008 Farm Bill limited enrollment in CRP to 32 million acres.
Current enrollment in the program is just under 30 million
acres with contracts on more than 10 million acres set to
expire in the next two fiscal years. The reported bill provides
for a ``step down'' of the acreage cap over the five-year life
of this legislation as follows:
Fiscal year 2013, no more than 30 million acres
Fiscal year 2014, no more than 27.5 million acres
Fiscal year 2015, no more than 26.5 million acres
Fiscal year 2016, no more than 25.5 million acres
Fiscal year 2017, no more than 25 million acres.
The reported bill also allows for the enrollment of up to
1.5 million acres of grasslands by merging provisions of the
previous Grasslands Reserve Program into CRP. Additionally,
this legislation provides greater flexibility for certain lands
enrolled in CRP to be used for grazing and harvesting.
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
The reported legislation combines three conservation
easement authorities into a single program, the Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program. The overall program contains two
parts: Agricultural Land Easements and Wetland Easements.
Agricultural Land Easements are used to protect agricultural
land from development and keep them devoted to agricultural
uses, including keeping grazing lands and important grasslands
in grazing and related uses. Wetland Easements are used to
restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, which are important for
water quality, quantity and wildlife habitat in many areas.
Sufficient funding and authority is provided to create a 10-
year baseline for all types of easements.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
The legislation continues the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP), providing farmers and ranchers with
important cost-share assistance on working lands for
conservation activities that help farmers meet or avoid the
need for natural resource regulation. Additionally, many parts
of the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) have been
consolidated into EQIP, focusing the program on farmers and
ranchers looking to create or improve areas for wildlife
habitat on their working lands.
Conservation Stewardship Program
The legislation continues the Conservation Stewardship
Program (CSP) as revised in the 2008 Farm Bill. This program
encourages higher levels of conservation and the adoption of
new and emerging conservation technologies on farms, ranches,
and forests. The Committee made changes to the program to ease
use and implementation, including a slight reduction in the
annual enrollment cap. The cap on nonindustrial private
forestland that can be enrolled in the program is removed and
greater focus is given to identifying resource concerns at the
local level. The program also adds flexibility to accept land
coming out of the Conservation Reserve Program when priority
resource concerns will be addressed.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
Current law authorizes four programs that are designed to
work with farmers, ranchers and partner organizations to
achieve conservation objectives: Agricultural Water Enhancement
Program; Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program; Cooperative
Conservation Partnership Initiative; and Great Lakes Basin
Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. The reported
bill consolidates these four programs into one that will
support projects that improve soil quality, water quality and
quantity, or wildlife habitat in a specific area or region.
Projects are selected through a competitive, merit-based
process, and leverage partner resources to achieve project
goals. Within the program is a Critical Conservation Area
component through which the Secretary shall designate areas
with particularly significant water quality and quantity issues
and natural resource regulatory pressures.
Conservation Innovation Grants
Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) are continued in the
reported bill, providing grants on a competitive basis to
encourage the development of new or improved conservation
practices. CIG is geared towards projects that offer new
approaches to providing producers environmental and production
benefits. The set-aside for air quality is removed. The
legislation includes a new reporting requirement to increase
program transparency.
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program
Private landowners are able to realize a value-added
benefit by creating wildlife habitat and opening their land up
to hunting, fishing, and other kinds of public outdoor
recreation. The legislation continues this program and requires
the Secretary to report to Congress on the program's
effectiveness by 2015.
Conservation of Private Grazing Land
The program is reauthorized to improve private grazing land
by offering technical assistance and educational activities to
landowners looking to better manage their land.
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program
State rural water associations are encouraged to use
technical assistance in order to promote conservation
activities that protect the quality of our nation's drinking
water through this program.
Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program
Many of the flood control structures (mainly dams) in our
country are reaching their maximum life expectancy. This
program provides funds for projects to rehabilitate and improve
the longevity of existing structures.
Terminal Lakes Assistance
The reported bill provides assistance for addressing unique
concerns regarding terminal lakes, defined as the lake and its
riparian and watershed resources that are considered flooded
with no natural outlet or at risk because of insufficient
water. For the flooded terminal lakes, the reported bill
creates a land purchase grant program in conjunction with the
State for the purchase of land flooded by the terminal lake.
For terminal lakes with insufficient water, the reported bill
transfers funds to the Department of the Interior to assist in
providing water through leases, land and related water rights
purchases and research, support and conservation activities.
TITLE III--TRADE
Export Credit Guarantee Program
The Export Credit Guarantee Program, also known as GSM-102,
provides export credit guarantees that help ensure the
availability of credit to finance the exports of U.S.
agricultural products to countries where financing might not be
available. The reported legislation continues the authorization
for the program through 2017 with one change. The Committee
seeks a resolution to the WTO dispute with Brazil by reducing
the current levels of export credit guarantees from $5.5
billion to $4.5 billion, while maintaining United States export
competitiveness for agriculture.
Market Access Program
The reported bill extends the authority and provides $200
million per year through fiscal year 2017.
Foreign Market Development Program
The reported bill extends that authority with $34.5 million
each fiscal year for fiscal years 2013 through 2017.
Emerging Markets and Facility Guarantee Loan Program
The legislation extends the program through fiscal year
2017 at existing funding and loan guarantee levels.
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
This program provides financial assistance to producers and
exporters of specialty crops in addressing barriers to trade in
their products in overseas markets. The reported bill makes
slight revisions to the purpose of the program to ensure that
technical barriers to trade (e.g., burdensome regulatory
requirements) can be addressed. The reported bill reauthorizes
the program through fiscal year 2017 with $9 million each
fiscal year.
Global Crop Diversity Trust
The reported bill authorizes annual appropriations of $60
million for each fiscal year through 2017 to fund the Global
Crop Diversity Trust. The bill also requires that U.S.
contributions may not exceed one fourth of the total of funds
contributed to the Trust from all sources.
Food for Peace
The reported legislation continues the authorities under
the Food for Peace Act through fiscal year 2017. In particular,
Title II of the Act contains the title's primary food aid
budget authority and is reauthorized to continue the nation's
ability to provide for emergency aid and non-emergency
development projects. This program enables the U.S. to donate
food overseas to promote food security. Additionally, the
reported bill increases the amount of funds available to
support strategic prepositioning, which brings food aid
commodities to at-risk regions before food emergencies strike.
The reported legislation also continues the Farmer-to-
Farmer program and slightly raises the percentage of funds that
may be used for this program from 0.5 percent to 0.6 percent.
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program
The reported bill reauthorizes the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
through fiscal year 2017. The legislation also expands on the
success of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement pilot
program created by the 2008 Farm Bill. The authority allows
organizations to purchase food through local and regional
markets and promotes stability by supporting local producers
and economies.
Food Aid Quality
The 2008 Farm Bill authorized a study to research the
quality of U.S. food aid. The reported bill puts into action
the recommendations of the study giving the Administrator
increased flexibility to improve the nutritional profile of
food aid for target populations, such as children under five
and mothers.
Resiliency Pilot in the Horn of Africa
Famine in the Horn of Africa has brought new organizations
and governments to the region, all intent on helping reduce
hunger and improve food security. The reported bill creates a
pilot program to help coordinate the efforts on the ground by
looking at interactions and providing for groups doing
resiliency. The bill authorizes the appropriation of $10
million in funding to this pilot through 2017.
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust holds extra resources
so that the U.S. can respond quickly to food crises when
domestic supplies are short. The Committee reauthorizes the Act
creating the trust through fiscal year 2017.
TITLE IV--NUTRITION
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
The reported bill reauthorizes the SNAP program through
fiscal year 2017 with a series of changes to improve the
program's effectiveness in providing food assistance to poor
families and individuals, while helping to eliminate fraud,
abuse and misuse of the program and its benefits. Specifically,
the Committee provides additional funding to USDA to prevent
trafficking of food assistance benefits and to strengthen
retailer program integrity. The legislation address concerns
about SNAP households with lottery or gambling winnings by
requiring households with substantial lottery or gambling
winnings to lose benefits immediately after receiving winnings.
Winners will be prevented from receiving new benefits if they
do not meet the financial requirements of SNAP. Eligibility for
college students is tied to Perkins program criteria to focus
eligibility on students participating in technical and
vocational education programs, primarily 2 year colleges, trade
studies, remedial course work, basic adult literacy, or English
as a second language.
The reported bill also requires participating retailers to
stock more staple foods like fruits and vegetables and bans
stores from participating if sales of prohibited items like
liquor and tobacco is higher than 45 percent of the store's
total sales. Further, the Committee reviewed benefit amounts
which are determined by evaluating both income and living
expenses. The Standard Utility Allowance is used by many states
to estimate average utility costs to make benefit
determinations. The reported bill includes a provision to stop
states from issuing nominal Low-Income Heating and Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) benefits to qualify households to
receive Standard Utility Allowances for the sole purpose of
increasing households' SNAP benefits. The provision will not
affect households that receive more than $10.00 in annual
LIHEAP assistance, or any household that can demonstrate
utility costs. Finally, the bill directs the Food and Nutrition
Service to conduct demonstration projects to test modern
technology including smartphones and online payments to improve
access to SNAP retailers.
SNAP Nutrition Education and Employment and Training Programs
The bill continues the Employment and Training components
of SNAP. The reported bill also adds physical activity as an
eligible use of the program, and maintains current funding
levels through fiscal year 2017.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
The reported bill maintains funding authorizations at
current levels for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP) through fiscal year 2017. Additionally, the legislation
contains provisions to transition CSFP to a program for senior
citizen populations while allowing the small percentage of
women and children currently participating in CSFP to continue
receiving benefits until they exceed the age of eligibility.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) helps
supplement the diets of low-income individuals by providing
emergency food and nutrition assistance, largely through food
banks. The reported bill provides additional resources to fund
TEFAP through fiscal year 2017.
Department of Defense Fresh Program
The reported bill reauthorizes and maintains current
funding for the Department of Defense Fresh Program, which
distributes fresh fruits and vegetables to schools and service
institutions.
Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program
The reported bill reauthorizes and maintains current
funding levels for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program,
which provides low-income seniors with coupons to be exchanged
for eligible foods (fruits, vegetables, honey, and fresh-cut
herbs) at farmers' markets, roadside stands, and community
supported agriculture programs.
Whole Grain Products
The reported bill continues the whole grain products
program to encourage school meals programs to sample a variety
of whole grains and whole-grain products. The program requires
an evaluation to determine whether whole-grain consumption
increased, and which products were most acceptable to
schoolchildren.
Healthy Food Financing Initiative
The reported bill authorizes the Healthy Food Financing
Initiative to administer loans and grants to improve access to
healthy foods in food deserts with goals of improving the
health of families and creating and preserving jobs.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Program
The reported bill reauthorizes and maintains current
funding levels for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Program,
which provides free fresh fruits and vegetables to elementary
school children throughout the school day in school districts
with a high proportion of low-income students.
Community Food Projects
The reported bill provides grants to eligible nonprofit
organizations to improve community access to food through the
development of innovative projects including school-to-garden
programs and urban greenhouse initiatives.
Hunger Free Communities
The reported bill authorizes grants to incentivize the
purchase of fruits and vegetables by SNAP participants in
underserved communities, with the Federal share limited to 50
percent.
TITLE V--CREDIT
Conservation Loan and Loan Guarantee Program
The Conservation Loan and Loan Guarantee Programs provide
authority for loans to borrowers to build conservation
structures or establish conservation practices. The reported
bill reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2017 at
current funding levels.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Accounts Pilot
Program
The reported legislation reauthorizes the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Individual Development Accounts Pilot Program which
provide matching-funds for savings accounts specifically to be
used for farming-related expenses for beginning farmers and
ranchers.
Ownership and Operating Direct and Guaranteed Loans
The reported bill reauthorizes the direct and guaranteed
ownership and operating loans administered through the Farm
Service Agency at existing levels through fiscal year 2017. The
bill maintains higher loan funds reserved for direct farm
ownership loans and improves the down payment loan program. The
bill continues the reserved portion of guaranteed farm
ownership loan and direct operating loan funding for beginning
farmers and ranchers. Also, the bill eliminates term limits for
guaranteed operating loans, and revises term limits for direct
operating loans to permit a borrower to receive eligibility of
one additional year for each period of three consecutive years
the borrower does not obtain a direct loan.
State-Mediation Program
State mediation programs assist in resolving agriculture
and USDA-related lending-related disputes. The reported bill
incorporates the program into the title by extending the
authorization to 2017.
TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Water, Waste Disposal and Wastewater Facility Grants and Loans
This program provides grants, loans and loan guarantees to
public agencies for projects that support the development,
storage, treatment, purification, or distribution of water or
the collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas.
The reported bill reauthorizes the program through fiscal year
2017 and provides that rural communities with populations of
less than 5,500 are prioritized for funding.
Community Facilities Loans, Loan Guarantees and Grants
The bill reauthorizes the Community Facilities Program
which supports projects related to economic development, public
safety, and health care delivery, and prioritizes communities
with less than 20,000 residents. It also provides that the
Secretary make up to 3 percent of funds provided through the
Community Facilities Loan and Grant Program available to
applicants for technical assistance to help smaller communities
in the development of their applications to the Community
Facilities program.
Rural Water and Wastewater Circuit Rider Program
The legislation continues the Rural Water and Wastewater
Circuit Rider Program which provides competitive grants to non-
profit organizations that give technical assistance to rural
public water systems. This technical assistance helps the water
systems to comply with state and federal environmental
regulations. The program is reauthorized to receive $25 million
annually.
Rural Business Development Programs
In general, the reported bill reauthorizes the suite of
rural business development programs through fiscal year 2017.
Notably, it combines two existing programs, the Rural Business
Opportunity Grants program and the Rural Business Enterprise
Grants program, into a single program, the Rural Business
Development Grants program, which awards competitive grants to
public agencies and non-profit community development
organizations for business development, planning, technical
assistance, or job training in rural areas. Also extended are
the Rural Cooperative Development Grants program, the Rural
Microenterprise Assistance Program created by the 2008 Farm
Bill, the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas
Program, the Value-Added Producers Grant Program with a
priority for projects in which at least 25 percent of
recipients are beginning farmers or socially-disadvantaged. The
Business and Industry Direct and Guaranteed Loan Program is
extended. The bill also reserves funds made available through
the program for projects that include the processing,
distribution, storage, and marketing of locally produced
agricultural food products.
General Rural Development Programs
The reported bill reauthorizes general loan and grant
authorities for rural development. Additionally, it authorizes
the Secretary to give priority to applications submitted for
funds through Rural Development programs that support regional
approaches to community and economic development. These
applications should reflect the participation of multiple
stakeholders in the service area of the proposal. The
applications should also have clear objectives and an
explanation of performance measures that will be used to
determine progress in meeting those objectives.
Access to Broadband Services in Rural Areas
Through the Broadband Program, USDA provides funds for the
construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and
equipment needed to provide broadband service in rural
communities. The reported bill authorizes USDA to begin
providing combinations of grants and loans for the expansion of
broadband service. The program will target funds to rural
communities isolated from significant population centers.
Distance Learning and Telemedicine
This program provides competitive grant and loan funding
that supports equipment and infrastructure improvements that
enhance telecommunications capabilities at educational and
medical facilities and is reauthorized through 2017.
Rural Energy Savings Program
The reported bill authorizes a new loan program,
administered by USDA, which will issue zero-interest loans to
any electric cooperative or coordinated group of electric
cooperatives for the purpose of lending the funds to their
customers to make energy saving retrofit and structural
improvements.
TITLE VII--RESEARCH
The reported bill reauthorizes critical agricultural
research programs that were reauthorized in the 2008 Farm Bill.
The Committee recognized the need to streamline the authorities
in this title and permitted some authorities that had not
received funding in recent years to expire.
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research
The Committee recognizes the significant need for
agricultural research and the challenge to find funding in the
current fiscal environment. As such the reported bill creates a
new non-profit foundation, the Foundation for Food and
Agriculture Research, to leverage private funding, matched with
federal dollars, to support public agricultural research. This
innovative approach will foster continued innovation in
agricultural research.
Specialty Crop Research Initiative
The reported bill reauthorizes this program and provides
mandatory funding over 10 years for the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative, ensuring funding will be available for key research
projects for fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
The reported bill reauthorizes the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI) program through fiscal year 2017
without policy changes; continuing to provide competitive
grants for basic and applied research.
University Research and Extension Service
The bill reauthorizes agricultural research activities at
1862, 1890 and 1994 land-grant institutions and funding for
extension service activities through fiscal year 2017 without
policy changes.
National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics
(NAREEE) Advisory Board
The bill reauthorizes the NAREEE advisory board through
fiscal year 2017, which provides consultation to USDA, industry
and Congress on agricultural research priorities. The
legislation directs the NAREEE advisory board to consult with
industry groups on agricultural research, extension, education,
and economics, and to make recommendations to the Secretary
based on that consultation.
Policy Research Centers
This program provides competitive grants for cooperative
agreements with policy research centers to conduct research and
education programs concerning the effect of policies on the
farm and agricultural sectors, the environment, rural families
and economies, and consumers, food and nutrition through fiscal
year 2017.
Capacity Building Grants for Non-Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture
(NLGCA) Institutions
This program provides competitive grants to assist NLGCA
institutions in maintaining and expanding the capacity to
conduct education, research, and outreach activities related to
agriculture, renewable resources, and other similar
disciplines. It is continued through fiscal year 2017 without
change.
Organic Research Initiative
Funding for the Organic Research and Extension Initiative
is provided over 5 years.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
The bill continues the Beginning Farmer program, which
develops and offers education, training, outreach and mentoring
programs to ensure the success of the next generation of
farmers. The bill expands eligibility to include military
veterans who wish to begin a career in agriculture.
Addresses Critical Shortages of Veterinarians
The reported bill seeks to help address the shortage of
veterinarians in rural agricultural areas by supporting
veterinary education and rural recruitment.
Increased Transparency for Budget Submissions
In order to increase transparency and reduce duplication
across agencies, the reported bill requires USDA to provide
more detailed information regarding expected research
expenditures when submitting its annual budget request to
Congress.
TITLE VIII--FORESTRY
Healthy Forest Reserve Program
The bill reauthorizes the Healthy Forest Reserve Program
(HFRP), a voluntary program that enhances forest ecosystems to
promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species,
improve biodiversity, and enhance carbon sequestration.
Forest Legacy Program
This program protects water quality, provides habitat,
recreational opportunities and other public benefits on our
working forests; making sure that we maintain our forests, the
program is extended through fiscal year 2017.
Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program
The Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program is
reauthorized. This program leverages federal dollars to help
communities, including tribes, to protect forests in threat of
conversion to non-forest use.
Forest Stewardship Program
Private forest landowners benefit from the landscape level
information that Forest Stewardship Plans developed through
this program provide. The reported bill seeks to make sure that
landowners have the resources necessary to manage their forests
in an economically and environmentally effective manner by
continuing this program through 2017.
International Forestry
The International Forestry Program encourages the trade of
legally harvested timber. It also supports domestic production
by working to prevent invasive species from entering the
country. The program is reauthorized through 2017.
Urban and Community Forestry
This program helps communities develop and maintain urban
forestry programs, which protect urban trees and forests, and
is reauthorized through 2017.
Stewardship Contracting
The reported bill provides permanent authority for
Stewardship End Result Contracting.
TITLE IX--ENERGY
Rural Energy for America Program
The reported bill reauthorizes the program through fiscal
year 2017 with $48.2 million in mandatory funding for each
fiscal year and provides for a streamlined application process
for farmers and rural businesses applying for small and medium
sized projects.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program
The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) program created
by the 2008 Farm Bill provides support for farmers and ranchers
who wish to plant energy crops to produce and use biomass crops
for conversion to advanced biofuels or bioenergy. Agricultural
producers in BCAP project areas may contract with the
Department of Agriculture to receive biomass crop establishment
payments up to 50 percent of costs, plus annual payments in
amounts determined by the Secretary in subsequent years to help
to compensate for lost opportunity costs until crops are
established. The program is reauthorized through fiscal year
2017 with $38.6 million in mandatory funding each fiscal year.
The reported bill revises the Collection, Harvest, Storage and
Transportation assistance provisions to limit payments for
wood-based biomass, while limiting the amount of funding that
can be used for this assistance.
BioPreferred Program and Federal Government Procurement Preference
Program
The bill reauthorizes USDA's BioPreferred Program and the
Federal Government Procurement Preference Program with
modifications to include reporting of biobased purchases by the
federal agencies, as well as providing for auditing and
enforcement of biobased purchasing activities. The reported
bill provides $3 million in mandatory funding each fiscal year.
Biorefinery Assistance Program
This program provides loan guarantees for renewable energy
projects and is extended through fiscal year 2017 with $100
million in mandatory funds for fiscal year 2013 and $58 million
for each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Eligibility for the
program has been expanded to include biobased manufacturing,
which is defined as a facility that uses agricultural products
to make end user products on a commercial scale, including
renewable chemicals.
Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels
This program provides production payments for advanced
bioenergy sources such as methane digesters, advanced biofuels
and biopower and is reauthorized through fiscal year 2017.
Biodiesel Fuel Education Program
The Biodiesel Fuel Education Program provides competitive
grants to non-profit entities to provide information about the
benefits of biodiesel fuel use to government and private
organizations. The bill reauthorizes the program through fiscal
year 2017 with $1 million per fiscal year in mandatory funding.
Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI)
The bill reauthorizes research on biomass feedstock
development for bioenergy and biobased products through fiscal
year 2017 with $26 million in mandatory funding for each fiscal
year.
Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy Producers
The Feedstock Flexibility Program assures that sugar
imports do not result in increased forfeitures of U.S. sugar
and it is reauthorized through 2017.
Community Wood Energy Program
This program provides competitive, cost-share grants for
communities to supply public buildings with energy from
sustainably-harvested wood from the local area and is
reauthorized through fiscal year 2017.
TITLE X--SPECIALTY CROPS & HORTICULTURE
Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program
The Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program
authorized in the reported bill continues the efforts from the
Farmers Market Promotion Program by providing competitive
grants to improve and expand farmers markets, roadside stands,
community-supported agriculture programs, and other direct
producer-to-consumer market opportunities. The program
authority is expanded to also provide assistance in developing
local food system infrastructure and central regional food
development centers like food hubs and terminal markets that
help producers with training, aggregating, distributing and
other market activities.
Local Food Data and Evaluation
The bill expands collection of data related to local and
regional food systems and directs USDA to evaluate the success
of and recommend improvements to current programs designed to
strengthen access to local foods.
Specialty Crop Block Grants
The reported bill adjusts the grant allocation formula from
solely the value of specialty crop production in a state to the
average of both the value of specialty crop production and
acres of specialty crops planted in a state. The bill also
allows funding for multistate projects related to pest and
disease, food safety, and commodity-specific projects.
Continues Data Collection on Organics
The bill improves coordination between the Agriculture
Marketing Service and the Risk Management Agency to ensure risk
management tools are sufficient.
National Organic Program
The National Organic Program is reauthorized and one-time
mandatory funding is provided for technology upgrades to
improve program performance.
National Organic Program
The bill continues to provide assistance to organic
producers seeking certification under the National Organic
Program. This program will provide up to 75 percent of the cost
of certification, but no more than $750.
Organic Promotion
The bill directs the Secretary to assess the feasibility of
creating an organic promotion program.
Pest and Disease Management
The bill consolidates the National Clean Plant Network and
the Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention
Program.
TITLE XI--CROP INSURANCE
Supplemental Coverage Option
The reported bill creates a Supplemental Coverage Option
insurance policy that allows producers to purchase additional
coverage on an area yield and loss basis. The coverage option
establishes a coverage deductible of 21 percent for producers
enrolled in ARC and 10 percent for all other producers.
Crop Insurance for Fruit and Vegetable Producers
Crop insurance coverage is expanded for underserved crops
and regions, including fruit and vegetable producers. The bill
provides additional assistance for underserved producers to
partner with private developers of crop insurance to create
improved insurance products. The bill also allows the Risk
Management Agency (RMA) to conduct research and development on
new or improved crop insurance products.
Stacked Income Protection Plan for Producers of Upland Cotton
The reported bill creates a new stand-alone revenue
protection coverage program for cotton growers. The program
covers between 10 percent and 30 percent of expected county
revenue, using the expected price established under existing
Group Risk Income Protection and higher of the expected county
yield or average county yield for the most recent five crop
years, dropping the highest and lowest years. The program
utilizes a multiplier factor to establish the maximum
protection at not more than 120 percent, provides distinct
coverage for irrigated and non-irrigated practices, and
provides 80 percent premium subsidy.
Peanut Revenue Crop Insurance
The reported bill creates a separate peanut revenue
insurance product with an effective price for peanut growers
using the Rotterdam price index with an adjustment to reflect
the farmer stock price.
Improves Crop Insurance for Beginning Farmers and Ranchers
The reported bill contains provisions to help these young
and beginning farmers fully utilize the Federal crop insurance
program. Beginning farmers and ranchers are given a 10
percentage point discount for all crop insurance premiums. The
bill also provides beginning farmers and ranchers with an
improved production history when they have previous farming
experience or when they face natural disasters.
Enterprise Units
The reported bill makes the pilot enterprise unit premium
assistance permanent and allows producers the choice to
separate their irrigated and non-irrigated enterprise unit
coverage on the farm.
Standard Reinsurance Agreement
The reported bill requires the FCIC Board to ensure budget
neutrality to the maximum extent practicable during
renegotiation of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA), and
return any savings realized in these renegotiations to RMA
programs
TITLE XII--MISCELLANEOUS
Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers
The reported bill continues grants to organizations that
work with minority farmers to help them acquire, own, operate,
and retain farms and ranches and equally participate in all
USDA programs.
Continues Advocacy and Outreach Efforts
The reported bill reauthorizes the Office of Advocacy and
Outreach, which was created in the 2008 Farm Bill to increase
the viability and profitability of small farms and ranches,
beginning farmers or ranchers, and socially disadvantaged
farmers or ranchers.
Wildlife Reservoir Zoonotic Disease Initiative
To ensure continued research to combat devastating
livestock diseases, the reported bill includes a Wildlife
Reservoir Zoonotic Disease Initiative to improve diagnostic
testing and vaccines for bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, and
other zoonotic diseases.
Ensures Health of American Livestock
The reported bill reauthorizes the Trichinae Certification
Program and the National Aquatic Health Plan.
Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program
The reported bill includes a competitive grant program to
enhance production and marketing of the sheep industry.
Pilot Program To Eradicate Feral Swine
The reported bill includes a pilot project that directs the
Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service to work together on eradication
methods that can be used throughout the country.
Grants To Improve Agricultural Labor Supply, Stability, Safety, and
Training
The reported bill reauthorizes the Agricultural Career and
Employment Grants Program. Funds may be used to assist
agricultural employers and farmworkers to develop skills, the
provision of agricultural labor market information,
transportation and short-term housing.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Hearings
Agriculture: Growing America's Economy
On February 17, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to
discuss growing America's economy through agricultural policy.
Witnesses giving testimony included: Honorable Thomas Vilsack,
Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC; Keith Creagh, Director, Michigan Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development, Lansing, MI; Thomas M. Hoenig,
President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City,
MO; Fred Yoder, Former President, National Corn Growers
Association, Plain City, OH; Dr. Joe Outlaw, Economist, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX.
Fundamentals and Farming: Evaluating High Gas Prices and How New Rules
and Innovative Farming Can Help
On March 30, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to evaluate
high gas prices and examine how new rules and innovative
farming can help with this issue. Witnesses giving testimony
included: Dr. Richard G. Newell, Administrator, Energy
Information Administration, United States Department of Energy,
Washington, DC; Dan M. Berkovitz, General Counsel, Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, Washington, DC; Stanley R.
Townsend, on behalf of the Kansas Farm Bureau, Weskan, KS; Jeff
Broin, President and CEO of POET, LLC, Co-Chairman of Growth
Energy, Sioux Falls, SD; Dr. Bruce E. Dale, Professor of
Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Michigan State
University, Lansing, MI.
Food for Thought: The Role, Risks and Challenges for American
Agriculture and the Next Farm Bill in Meeting the Demands of a
Growing World
On May 26, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to discuss
the role, risks and challenges for American agriculture and the
next farm bill in meeting the demands of a growing world.
Witnesses giving testimony included: Honorable Tom Vilsack,
Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC; Honorable Dan Glickman, Co-Chair of the Chicago Council's
Global Agricultural Development Initiative, Chicago, IL; former
Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC; Barry Mumby, Senior Member, Wakeshma Farms LLC, Colon, MI;
Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Senior Vice President for Science and
Knowledge, Conservation International, Arlington, VA; Douglas
DeVries, Senior Vice President, Global Marketing Services,
Agriculture and Turf Division, Deere and Company, Moline, IL;
Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, H.E. Babcock Professor of Food,
Nutrition, and Public Policy, J. Thomas Clark Professor of
Entrepreneurship, and Professor of Applied Economics, Cornell
University, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Copenhagen
University, Ithaca, NY.
Opportunities for Growth: Michigan and the 2012 Farm Bill: East
Lansing, MI
On May 31, 2011, the Committee held a field hearing to
consider opportunities for growth for Michigan in the 2012 Farm
Bill in East Lansing, MI. Witnesses giving testimony included:
Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon, President, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI; Dr. J. Ian Gray, Vice President for Research
and Graduate Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI; Dr. Thomas G. Coon, Director, Michigan State University
Extension, East Lansing, MI; Clark Gerstacker, Corn and Soybean
Production, Member, Michigan Corn Growers Association, Midland,
MI; Ben LaCross, Cherry Production, Chair, American Farm
Bureau, Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee, Cedar, MI; Ray
Van Driessche, Sugar Beet Production and Conservation, Director
of Community and Government Relations, Michigan Sugar Company,
Bay City, MI; Julia Baehre Rothwell, Apple Production, Chair,
Michigan Apple Association, Belding, MI; Ken Nobis, Dairy
Production, President, Michigan Milk Producers Association,
Novi, MI; Peter B. Blauwiekel, Pork Production, Member,
Michigan Pork Producers Council, Fowler, MI; Karen Serfass,
Forestry Production, Past President, Michigan Forest
Association, Dafter, MI; Kristen Holt, President, Quality
Assurance International, Senior Vice President, Food Safety and
Quality, NSF International, Ann Arbor, MI; Eric Davis,
Director, Food Initiative, United Way for Southeastern
Michigan, Detroit, MI; Dennis West, President, Northern
Initiatives, Marquette, MI; James Reid, Reid Dairy Farm, Grant
Township, MI; David Armstrong, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Greenstone Farm Credit Services, East Lansing, MI.
Farm Bill Accountability: The Importance of Measuring Performance,
While Eliminating Duplication and Waste
On June 23, 2011, the Committee held a hearing on Farm Bill
accountability and the importance of measuring performance
while eliminating the duplication of waste. Witnesses giving
testimony included: Honorable Dallas Tonsager, Under Secretary,
Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC; Honorable Michael Scuse, Acting Under
Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, United
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Honorable
Harris Sherman, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC; Honorable Kevin Concannon, Under Secretary,
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, United States
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Honorable Joe
Leonard, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, United States
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Phillis Fong,
Inspector General, United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC; Brett Blankenship, Blankenship Brothers,
Washtucna, WA; Masouda Omar, Manager of Business Finance Loan
Production, Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, Denver, CO.
The State of Livestock in America
On June 28, 2011, the Committee held a hearing on the state
of livestock in America. Witnesses giving testimony included:
Dr. Joe Glauber, Chief Economist, United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC; Dr. Greg Parham, Administrator,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Alfred V. Almanza,
Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, United
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Dave White,
Chief, National Resources Conservation Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Rick Sietsema,
Farmer, Sietsema Farms, Allendale, MI; Dennis O. Jones, Pork
Producer, South Dakota Farmers Union, Bath, SD; Steven D. Hunt,
Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, Kansas City,
MO; Frank Harper, President-elect, Kansas Livestock
Association, Sedgwick, KS; Michael Welch, President and CEO,
Harrison Poultry, Inc., Bethlehem, GA; Hans McPherson, Rancher
and Member, Montana Farm Bureau, Stevensville, MT.
Growing Jobs in Rural America
On July 14, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to discuss
ways to grow jobs in rural America. The witnesses on the first
panel were: Bruce Graham, CEO, Indiana Statewide Association of
Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc., Indianapolis, IN; Zac
Stewart, Ambient, LLC, Ignacio, CO; Paul Bony, Director,
Residential Market Development, Climate Master, Oklahoma City,
OK; Dr. Helen Sanders, Vice President, Technical Business
Development, SAGE Electrochromics, Inc, Faribault, MN. The
witnesses on the second panel were: Dr. Marc Verbruggen,
President and CEO, NatureWorks LLC, Wayzata, MN; Dr. Oliver
Peoples, Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Metabolix, Inc.,
Cambridge, MA; John McIntosh, Vice President of Sales and
Marketing, Signature Crypton Carpet, Dalton, GA; Dennis Hall,
Assistant Director, Ohio BioProducts Innovation Center,
Columbus, OH.
Opportunities for Specialty Crops and Organics in the Farm Bill
On July 28, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to discuss
opportunities for specialty crops and organics in the Farm
Bill. The witnesses on the first panel were: Dr. Catherine
Woteki, Under Secretary, USDA, Research, Education and
Economics, Washington, DC; Ann Wright, Deputy Under Secretary,
USDA, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Washington, DC. The
witnesses on the second panel were: Glenn Abbett, Manager,
Abbett Farms, LLC, LaCrosse, IN; Paul Bencal, Owner, Paul
Bencal Farm, Ransomville, NY; Dennis Engelhard, Owner,
Engelhard Family Farms, Unionville, MI; Kim Tait, Owner, Tait
Farm Foods, Inc., Centre Hall, PA; Charles Wingard, Director of
Field Operations, W.P. Rawls and Sons, Pelion, SC; Robert
Woolley, Dave Wilson Nursery, Hickman, CA.
Looking Ahead: Kansas and the 2012 Farm Bill
On August 25, 2011, the Committee held a field hearing in
Kansas to discuss ways to grow agriculture and strengthen rural
communities. The witnesses on the first panel were: Honorable
Sam Brownback, Governor, state of Kansas, Topeka, KS; Dr. Kirk
Schulz, President, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. The
witnesses on the second panel were: Steve Baccus, President,
Kansas Farm Bureau, Minneapolis, KS; Karl Esping, Kansas
Sunflower Commission, Lindsborg, KS; Kent Goyen, Kansas Cotton
Association, Cunningham, KS; Ken Grecian, Kansas Livestock
Association, Palco, KS; Bob Henry, Kansas Soybean Association,
Robinson, KS; Kenneth McCauley, Kansas Corn Growers, White
Cloud, KS; David Schemm, Kansas Association of Wheat Growers,
Sharon Springs, KS; Gregory Shelor, Kansas Grain Sorghum
Producers, Minneola, KS. The witnesses on the third panel were:
Ron Bach, High Plains Farm Credit, Jetmore, KS; Kathleen
Brinker, Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative Association,
Inc., Axtell, KS; Ron Brown, Kansas Association of Conservation
Districts, Fort Scott, KS; Barth Crouch, Playa Lakes Joint
Venture, Salina, KS; Robert Tempel, Windriver Grain LLC, Garden
City, KS; Jeff Whitham, Western State Bank, Garden City, KS;
Karen Wilder, The Schwan Food Company, Salina, KS.
Energy and Economic Growth for Rural America
On February 15, 2012, the Committee held a hearing to
examine USDA rural development and energy programs, and to
review policies to promote rural economic development and job
growth in connection with development of the 2012 farm
legislation. The witness on the first panel was: The Honorable
Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, USDA, Washington, DC. The witnesses
on the second panel were: Mathias McCauley, Regional Planning
and Community Development, Northwest Michigan Council of
Governments, National Association of Counties and National
Association of Development Organizations, Traverse City, MI;
Florine Raitano, Rural Community Assistance Corp, Dillom, CO;
Mark Rembert, Energize Clinton County, Wilmington, OH; Charles
Fluharty, Rural Policy Research Institute, Columbia, MO. The
witnesses on the third panel were: Steve Flick, Show Me Energy
Cooperative, National Farmers Union, Centerview, MO; Lee
Edwards, Virent, Inc., Madison, WI; Bennie Hutchins, Energy
Program, Ag Energy Resources, LLC, Brookhaven, MS; William
Greving, Greving Farms Inc., Prairie View, KS.
Strengthening Conservation through the 2012 Farm Bill
On February 28, 2012, the Committee held a hearing to
review performance of USDA agriculture conservation programs.
The witnesses on the first panel were: Bruce Nelson, Farm
Service Agency, USDA, Washington, DC; David White, Chief,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, DC.,
The witnesses on the second panel were: Jeff Trandahl, National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC; Becky Humphries,
Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Office, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.,
Ann Arbor, MI; Dean Stoskopf, Stoskopf Farms, Hoisington, KS;
Carl Mattson, George Mattson Farms, Chester, MT; Darrel Mosel,
Land Stewardship Project, Gaylord, MN; Earl Garber, National
Association of Conservation Districts, Washington, DC.
Healthy Food Initiatives, Local Production, and Nutrition
On March 7, 2012, the Committee held a hearing to examine
policies to promote regional and local agricultural markets and
improve access to healthy foods, and to review federal food
assistance programs. The witness on the first panel was:
Honorable Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, USDA, Washington, DC. The
witnesses on the second panel were: Dan Carmody, Eastern Market
Corporation, Detroit, MI; Ronald McCormick, Sustainable
Agriculture, Produce, Floral and Local Sourcing, Wal-Mart
Stores, Bentonville, AR; Jody Hardin, Grady, AR; Anne Goodman,
Cleveland Food Bank, Cleveland, OH; John Weidman, One Penn
Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Risk Management and Commodities in the 2012 Farm Bill
On March 15, 2012, the Committee held a hearing to examine
risk management and commodity programs. The witness on the
first panel was: Michael Scuse, Acting Under Secretary, Farm
and Foreign Agricultural Services, USDA, Washington, DC. The
witnesses on the second panel were: Hope Hills, Spicebush Creek
Farms, Bangor, MI; Jarvis Garetson, Copeland, KS; Bob Carden,
Carden & Associates, Inc, Winter Haven, FL; Steve Rutledge,
Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company, West Des Moines, IA. The
witnesses on the third panel were: Steve Wellman, American
Soybean Association, Syracuse, NE; Pam Johnson, National Corn
Growers Association, Floyd, IA; Erik Younggren, National
Association of Wheat Growers, Hallock, MN; Jimbo Grissom,
Western Peanut Growers Association, Seminole, TX; Travis
Satterfield, Satterfield Farms, Benoit, MS; Chuck Coley,
National Cotton Council, Vienna, GA. The witnesses on the third
panel were: Roger Johnson, National Farmers Union, Washington,
DC; Bob Stallman, American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington,
DC; Ryan Best, Future Farmers of America, Portales, NM.
Committee Consideration
On April 26, 2012, the Committee met in open session to
mark up the legislation. Those members in attendance included:
Senators Stabenow, Roberts, Leahy, Harkin, Conrad, Baucus,
Nelson, Brown, Casey, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Lugar,
Cochran, Chambliss, Johanns, Boozman, Grassley, Thune and
Hoeven. Committee Members made opening statements starting at
10:44 a.m. A substitute amendment containing a Manager's
Amendment to the Committee Print was accepted by voice vote,
with Senators Chambliss, Boozman, and Cochran recorded as
voting no. The substitute was considered the original text for
the purpose of further amendment. The Committee proceeded by
considering amendments to each title of the legislation.
TITLE XII--MISCELLANEOUS
An amendment was offered by Senator Chambliss to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the temporary
employment of foreign agricultural workers.
The amendment was withdrawn.
An amendment was offered by Senator Nelson with Senator
Johanns to clarify areas classified as rural for the Rural
Housing Act. The amendment was withdrawn.
An amendment was offered by Senator Boozman to enable the
Secretary of Agriculture to determine whether major rules
promulgated by any Federal agency could have a negative effect
on access to affordable food. The amendment was withdrawn.
An amendment was offered by Senator Boozman to transfer
regulatory authority over child labor regulations for
agriculture from the Secretary of Labor to the Secretary of
Agriculture. The amendment was withdrawn.
An amendment was offered by Senator Baucus with Senators
Nelson, Klobuchar, and Boozman to clarify payment terms for
sales of agricultural commodities or products to Cuba under the
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. The
amendment was withdrawn.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
An amendment was offered by Senator Bennet to allow the
Secretary of Agriculture to waive eligible entity contribution
requirements for agricultural land easements of special
significance. The amendment was withdrawn.
TITLE III--TRADE
An amendment was offered by Senator Johanns to require a
USDA study on the creation of an Under Secretary for Trade and
Foreign Agricultural Affairs. The amendment was adopted by
voice vote.
TITLE X--HORTICULTURE
No amendments pertaining to the horticulture title were
offered.
TITLE VII--RESEARCH
No amendments pertaining to the research title were
offered.
TITLE V--CREDIT
No amendments pertaining to the credit title were offered
initially. After it was closed, Senator Brown asked for
unanimous consent to revisit the title. An amendment was
offered by Senator Brown to provide USDA with the authority to
conduct pilot projects on a limited scale to test different
approaches that could improve program delivery and consumer
service. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
An amendment was offered by Senator Casey to assist in
production of locally and regionally produced food through the
RMAP program. The amendment was withdrawn.
Prior to a vote on final passage of the bill, Senator Brown
asked unanimous consent to revisit title VI to offer an
amendment. He offered an amendment to create a temporary task
force directed to help make USDA rural development programs
more accessible and user-friendly. The amendment was withdrawn.
TITLE VIII--FORESTRY
No amendments pertaining to the forestry title were
offered.
TITLE IX--ENERGY
An amendment was offered by Senator Conrad with Senator
Lugar to provide mandatory funding for agricultural energy
programs. A second degree amendment was offered by Senator
Chambliss to strike the language that calls for an offset and
instead uses the savings of the legislation to fund Senator
Conrad's amendment. Senator Chambliss' second degree amendment
was adopted by unanimous consent and Senator Conrad's amendment
was adopted by voice vote, with Senator Roberts recorded as
voting no.
An amendment was offered by Senator Hoeven to confirm that
USDA can provide REAP funds for blender pumps. The amendment
was withdrawn.
TITLE IV--NUTRITION
An amendment was offered by Senator Brown on behalf of
Senator Casey with Senators Gillibrand and Leahy to clarify the
authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase emergency
food. After a discussion, an agreement was made to delay the
consideration of the amendment before final passage of the bill
to give USDA and the Secretary an opportunity to make an
assessment of the amendment.
An amendment was offered by Senator Boozman to close the
LIHEAP loophole entirely and use part of the savings to
increase reimbursements for school breakfast and lunches to
offset increased costs from new nutrition standards. The
amendment was withdrawn.
An amendment was offered by Senator Gillibrand to protect
children from harm due to SNAP cuts. The amendment was
withdrawn.
An amendment was offered by Chairwoman Stabenow on behalf
of Senator Leahy to allow greater flexibility in the use of
benefits for the purchase of community-supported agriculture
(CSA) share. A second degree amendment was offered by
Chairwoman Stabenow on behalf of Ranking Member Roberts. The
second degree amendment was adopted by unanimous consent and
the first degree amendment was adopted by voice vote.
The Committee revisited the amendment offered by Senator
Brown on behalf of Senator Casey with Senators Gillibrand and
Leahy to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture
to purchase emergency food. The amendment, as modified, was
adopted by voice vote. Committee members were in agreement that
the amendment should not adversely impact the $4 billion in
deficit reductions from nutrition spending agreed to by members
of the Committee.
TITLE XI--CROP INSURANCE
No amendments pertaining to the crop insurance title were
offered.
TITLE I--COMMODITIES
An amendment was offered by Senator Baucus with Senators
Conrad, Harkin, and Hoeven to make changes to the individual
program under ARC. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
FINAL PASSAGE
The legislation, as amended and subject to technical
changes, was reported out by roll call vote of 16 yeas and 5
nays with the requisite quorum present, at which point the
Committee adjourned.
On May 24, 2012, the Committee held a business meeting to
vote on changes to the legislation. Those members in attendance
included: Senators Stabenow, Roberts, Leahy, Conrad, Nelson,
Casey, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Lugar, Johanns, and
Grassley. The bill as modified was ordered reported by voice
vote.
ESTIMATED COSTS
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
Congressional Budget Office letter is attached as pages 49A
through 49J.
S. 3240--Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012
Summary: S. 3240 would amend and extend a number of major
programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), including those addressing farm income support, food
and nutrition, land conservation, trade promotion, rural
development, research, forestry, energy, horticulture, and crop
insurance.
When combined with estimated spending under CBO's baseline
projections for those programs, CBO estimates that enacting S.
3240 would bring total direct spending for those USDA programs
to $970 billion over the 2013-2022 period--$23.1 billion less
than we project would be spent if those programs were continued
as under current law.
Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the
legislation would affect direct spending. Enacting S. 3240
would not affect revenues.
The act also would authorize appropriations over the 2013-
2017 period for existing and new USDA programs involving
research and education, nutrition, trade promotion, rural
development, credit assistance, forestry, and conservation
initiatives. CBO estimates that implementing those provisions
would cost about $29 billion over the next five years, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
S. 3240 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
The nontax provisions of S. 3240 would impose private-
sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, on entities in the dairy
industry and spectators of animal fighting ventures. Because
the cost of some of the mandates would depend on future
regulations, CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate cost of
the mandates would exceed the annual threshold established in
UMRA for private-sector mandates ($146 million in 2012,
adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 3240--relative to CBO baseline
projections--is shown in Table 1. The costs of this legislation
fall within budget functions 150 (international affairs), 270
(energy), 300 (natural resources and environment), 350
(agriculture), 450 (community and regional development), and
600 (income security).
TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF S. 3240 AS PASSED BY THE SENATE ON JUNE 21, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2013-2017 2013-2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority.... -93 -729 -2,852 -2,253 -2,222 -2,984 -2,838 -2,918 -2,871 -2,745 -8,149 -22,504
Estimated Outlays............. -24 -1,714 -2,956 -2,153 -2,209 -2,806 -2,774 -2,871 -2,870 -2,767 -9,055 -23,143
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level. 6,859 7,354 7,393 7,421 7,465 1,238 627 638 650 662 36,493 40,308
Estimated Outlays............. 2,845 5,165 6,606 7,096 7,325 4,693 2,450 1,172 816 677 29,036 38,844
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
3240 will be enacted around the end of fiscal year 2012. The
legislation would provide direct spending authority for most of
the USDA programs authorized, amended, or created by the
legislation through the 2013-2017 period. Following the
baseline projection rules of section 257 of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act, CBO estimates the 10-year
costs of S. 3240 by assuming that most of those programs
continue to operate beyond that five-year authorization period.
A description of the major budgetary effects of each title
of the act, including changes in direct spending for mandatory
programs and changes in spending that are subject to future
appropriation for discretionary programs, was provided in CBO's
cost estimate for S. 3240 as introduced on May 24, 2012.
Direct Spending
CBO's estimates of the changes in direct spending that
would result from enacting the legislation are presented in
Table 2. All estimates are relative to CBO's March 2012
baseline projections for spending by mandatory agriculture
programs. That baseline assumes that the agriculture programs
authorized by the most recent farm bill (Public Law 110-246)
continue to operate beyond their statutory expiration dates
through 2022. (The 2008 farm bill established authorizations
through 2012 for most such programs.)
TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED EFFECTS ON DIRECT SPENDING FOR S. 3240 AS PASSED BY THE SENATE ON JUNE 21, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2013-2017 2013-2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN OUTLAYS FROM DIRECT SPENDING
Title I--Commodity Programs
End Direct Payments............................... 0 -4,958 -4,958 -4,958 -4,958 -4,958 -4,958 -4,958 -4,958 -4,958 -19,832 -44,622
End Countercyclical Payments...................... 0 0 -101 -127 -121 -123 -130 -137 -134 -135 -349 -1,008
End Average Crop Revenue Elections Payments....... 0 0 -863 -637 -470 -479 -452 -547 -632 -533 -1,970 -4,613
Agriculture Risk Coverage......................... 0 2,906 2,954 3,447 3,444 2,951 3,101 3,118 3,282 3,333 12,751 28,536
Dairy Program..................................... -31 -45 -42 -32 9 15 -6 19 45 9 -141 -59
Supplemental Agriculture Disaster Assistance...... -2 447 217 214 221 219 219 221 225 231 1,097 2,212
Other Commodity Provisions........................ 0 85 17 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 107 125
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Title I............................... -33 -1,565 -2,776 -2,091 -1,872 -2,372 -2,222 -2,280 -2,169 -2,049 -8,336 -19,428
Title II--Conservation
Conservation Reserve Program...................... 27 25 -399 -438 -531 -523 -512 -478 -497 -469 -1,316 -3,795
Conservation Stewardship.......................... -7 -50 -93 -129 -173 -221 -264 -307 -350 -393 -452 -1,987
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.......... -70 -89 -80 -92 -100 -111 -121 -101 -100 -100 -431 -964
Agricultural Conservation Easement................ -222 -72 226 304 211 123 72 56 47 64 447 809
Regional Conservation Partnership................. -3 -7 -8 -8 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -36 -86
Other Conservation................................ 168 18 18 18 18 10 10 10 10 10 240 290
Repeal of Wildlife Habitat Incentives............. -18 -37 -47 -57 -66 -76 -85 -85 -85 -85 -225 -641
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Title II.............................. -125 -212 -383 -402 -651 -808 -910 -915 -985 -983 -1,775 -6,374
Title IV--Nutrition
Utility Allowances................................ 0 -130 -530 -540 -540 -540 -550 -550 -550 -560 -1,740 -4,490
Grant Programs.................................... 39 49 49 44 49 24 24 24 24 24 228 345
Retailer Equipment................................ -7 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -39 -79
Expiring Provisions............................... 33 49 29 23 15 15 15 15 15 15 149 224
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Title IV.............................. 65 -41 -461 -482 -485 -510 -520 -520 -520 -530 -1,403 -4,000
Title VI--Rural Development
Value-Added Marketing Grants...................... 0 0 5 8 12 12 8 4 1 0 25 50
Rural Microenterprise Program..................... 0 1 2 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 11 15
Rural Water and Waste Disposal.................... 0 3 14 13 7 6 5 2 0 0 37 50
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Title VI.............................. 0 4 21 25 23 21 14 6 1 0 73 115
Title VII--Research, Extension, and Related Matters
Organic Agriculture Research and Extension........ 8 13 16 16 16 8 3 0 0 0 69 80
Specialty Crop Research........................... 13 23 29 48 50 53 50 50 50 50 163 416
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development.......... 4 9 14 17 17 13 8 4 0 0 60 85
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research...... 10 20 20 30 20 0 0 0 0 0 100 100
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Title VII............................. 34 64 79 111 103 74 61 54 50 50 391 681
Title VIII--Forestry.................................. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 9
Title IX--Energy
Biorefinery Assistance............................ 5 32 50 55 44 20 10 0 0 0 186 216
Rural Energy for America Program.................. 10 30 42 48 48 38 20 4 0 0 178 240
Biomass Research and Development.................. 1 5 16 25 26 25 21 10 1 0 73 130
Biomass Crop Assistance........................... 4 12 20 27 31 29 23 16 8 4 94 174
Other Energy Programs............................. -2 -1 12 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 19 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Title IX.............................. 18 78 140 161 153 113 74 30 9 4 550 780
Title X--Horticulture
Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion........... 20 20 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 100 100
National Clean Plant Network...................... 3 6 8 9 11 13 14 15 15 15 37 109
Specialty Crop Block Grants....................... 8 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 67 142
Other Horticulture................................ 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Title X............................... 32 42 45 46 48 28 29 30 30 30 213 360
Title XI--Crop Insurance
Supplemental Coverage Option...................... 0 32 306 354 345 385 382 395 404 398 1,037 3,001
CAT Premiums...................................... 0 -5 -45 -53 -54 -54 -55 -56 -57 -58 -157 -437
Enterprise Units.................................. 0 5 50 59 60 62 65 67 68 70 174 506
Adjustment in APH Yields.......................... 0 2 26 53 82 111 139 146 147 149 163 855
Stacked Income Protection for Cotton.............. 0 0 263 334 315 417 463 481 473 478 912 3,224
Peanut Revenue Crop Insurance..................... 0 3 26 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 89 239
Beginning Farmer Provisions....................... 0 2 16 20 21 25 27 27 27 28 59 193
Crop Production on Native Sod..................... 0 -1 -6 -13 -19 -25 -26 -26 -26 -26 -39 -168
Participation Effects of Commodity Programs....... -23 -220 -260 -294 -296 -263 -268 -272 -284 -289 -1,093 -2,469
Other Crop Insurance Provisions................... 9 30 37 35 33 9 -7 -17 -18 -18 144 93
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Title XI.............................. -14 -152 413 525 517 697 750 775 764 762 1,289 5,036
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title XII--Miscellaneous
Outreach Tor Socially Disadvantaged Farmers....... 3 4 5 5 5 2 1 0 0 0 22 25
Sheep Production and Marketing Grant.............. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance............... -5 63 -40 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -52 -86 -346
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Title XII............................. -1 68 -35 -47 -47 -50 -51 -52 -52 -52 -62 -319
Total Changes in Direct Spending.............. -24 -1,714 -2,956 -2,153 -2,209 -2,806 -2,774 -2,871 -2,870 -2,767 -9,035 -23,143
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CAT = Catastrophic Crop Insurance; APH = Average Producer History.
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
CBO estimates that implementing the provisions of S. 3240
that authorize appropriations would cost $29 billion over the
2013-2017 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary
funds. Those discretionary costs are displayed in Table 3. Most
of those provisions were described in CBO's cost estimate of S.
3240 as introduced on May 24, 2012.
TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED EFFECTS ON DISCRETIONARY SPENDING FOR IMPLEMENTING S. 3240 AS PASSED BY THE SENATE ON JUNE
21, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Title I--Commodity Programs:
Estimated Authorization Level................ 5 5 5 5 5 25
Estimated Outlays............................ 4 5 5 5 5 24
Title II--Conservation:
Estimated Authorization Level................ 155 130 130 130 130 675
Estimated Outlays............................ 72 92 114 127 130 535
Title III--Trade:
Estimated Authorization Level................ 2,124 2,751 2,754 2,757 2,761 13,146
Estimated Outlays............................ 805 1,967 2,492 2,653 2,719 10,636
Title IV--Nutrition:
Estimated Authorization...................... 318 181 183 187 189 1,058
Level Estimated Outlays...................... 297 186 183 186 189 1,041
Title V--Credit:
Estimated Authorization Level................ 91 91 91 99 99 471
Estimated Outlays............................ 84 91 91 98 99 463
Title VI--Rural Development:
Estimated Authorization Level................ 1,120 1,128 1,137 1,144 1,156 5,685
Estimated Outlays............................ 158 527 812 980 1,065 3,542
Title VII--Research, Extension, and Related
Matters:
Estimated Authorization Level................ 2,078 2,102 2,128 2,154 2,180 10,641
Estimated Outlays............................ 1,061 1,675 2,110 2,136 2,162 9,144
Title VIII--Forestry:
Estimated Authorization Level................ 590 590 590 590 590 2,949
Estimated Outlays............................ 265 413 501 560 590 2,330
Title IX--Energy:
Estimated Authorization Level................ 228 228 228 228 228 1,140
Estimated Outlays............................ 29 96 160 205 228 718
Title X--Horticulture:
Estimated Authorization Level................ 50 50 50 50 50 250
Estimated Outlays............................ 35 47 50 50 50 231
Title XII--Miscellaneous:
Estimated Authorization Level................ 101 98 98 78 78 453
Estimated Outlays............................ 36 66 88 95 88 373
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level............ 6,859 7,354 7,393 7,421 7,465 36,493
Estimated Outlays........................ 2,845 5,165 6,606 7,096 7,325 29,036
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Pay-as-you-go-considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting on-budget direct spending
or revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to
those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4.--CBO ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR S. 3240, THE AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012, AS PASSED BY THE SENATE ON JUNE 21, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012-2017 2012-2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact.............................. 0 -24 -1,714 -2,956 -2,153 -2,209 -2,806 -2,774 -2,871 -2,870 -2,767 -9,055 -23,143
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
S. 3240 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. In general, state, local, and tribal governments would
benefit from the continuation of existing agricultural
assistance and the creation of new grant programs.
Estimated impact on the private sector: The nontax
provisions of the act would impose private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. Specifically, the act would:
Expand reporting requirements on manufacturers of
dairy products. Because manufacturers already report
information about dairy products to USDA, CBO expects that the
cost of reporting additional information would not be
significant.
Impose mandates on dairy handlers that purchase
milk from dairy producers participating in the Dairy Market
Stabilization Program (DMSP). Under the DMSP, when producer
margins fall below a designated amount, handlers would be
required to report information to USDA and reduce payments for
milk to participating dairy producers. In addition, the program
would require handlers to pay to USDA the amount by which the
payment was reduced. According to information from industry
sources, the cost for handlers to collect and report
information under the DMSP could amount to hundreds of millions
of dollars annually, depending on regulations to be issued by
USDA.
Prohibit individuals from attending animal
fighting ventures (defined as any event that involves a fight
between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of
sport, wagering, or entertainment). Currently, sponsoring an
animal fighting venture involving live birds is permitted,
under certain conditions, in states and territories where such
events would not violate the laws of the state or territory.
Because animal fighting ventures are banned in all states and
the District of Columbia, CBO expects that the cost of the
prohibition would be small.
Because the compliance cost for dairy handlers would depend
on future regulations, CBO has no basis to determine whether
the aggregate cost of the mandates in the act would exceed the
annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector
mandates ($146 million in 2012, adjusted annually for
inflation).
Previous CBO estimate: On May 24, 2012, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and
Jobs Act of 2012, as introduced in the United States Senate on
May 24, 2012. CBO estimated that version of the legislation,
when combined with estimated spending under CBO's baseline
projections for the mandatory agriculture and nutrition
programs included in the act, would bring total direct spending
for those USDA programs to $969 billion over the 2013-2022
period--S23.6 billion less than we projected would be spent if
those programs were continued as under current law.
The Senate passed S. 3240 on June 21, 2012, with several
amendments. CBO estimates that those amendments would increase
direct spending by $450 million over 10 years, compared with
the version of the legislation as introduced (see Table 5).
Taking into account the estimated outlay effects of the adopted
amendments, mandatory spending under S. 3240 for USDA programs
would be $970 billion over the 2013-2022 period--$23.1 billion
less than estimated under current law. Table 5 itemizes the
costs of the amendments adopted by the Senate.
S. 3240, as passed by the Senate, also includes several
amendments that would authorize more discretionary spending
compared with the version of the legislation introduced on May
24. 2012. CBO estimates that discretionary spending under the
act would total $29 billion over the 2013-2017 period, or $590
million more than for S. 3240 as introduced, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts. Those additional
authorizations of appropriations include:
$100 million a year to combat bark beetles
on forest land;
$20 million a year to promote maple syrup
production;
$25 million a year to research poultry feed;
and
$10 million to purchase pulse (certain grain
legume) crops for the School Lunch Program.
Other provisions of S. 3240 would require USDA to study a
variety of issues, establish a USDA Office of Tribal Relations,
and amend the operation of various discretionary USDA programs.
TABLE 5.--CBO ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT ON DIRECT SPENDING OF AMENDMENTS TO S. 3240 ADOPTED BY THE SENATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2013-2017 2013-2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING FOR S. 3240 AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 24, 2012
Estimated Budget Authority.......... 295 -1,352 -2,909 -2,305 -2,272 -3,000 -2,855 -2,934 -2,888 -2,764 -8,542 -22,983
Estimated Outlays................... 338 -2,092 -3,087 -2,226 -2,270 -2,869 -2,812 -2,897 -2,884 -2,795 -9,337 -23,593
AMENDMENTS ADOPTED AFFECTING DIRECT SPENDING
Manager's Amendment:
Estimated Budget Authority...... -355 410 22 18 18 18 19 19 19 21 113 209
Estimated Outlays............... -353 260 95 39 20 30 17 18 15 31 61 172
Improve Livestock Forage Disaster
Program:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 11 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 27 57
Estimated Outlays............... 0 11 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 27 57
Strengthen Rural Communities:
Estimated Budget Authority...... -33 83 33 33 33 0 0 0 0 0 149 149
Estimated Outlays............... -9 0 20 32 40 34 22 10 1 0 83 150
Organic Crop Price Elections For
Crop Insurance:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 9
Estimated Outlays............... 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 8
Disaster Assistance for 2012 Fruit
Losses:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 120
Estimated Outlays............... 0 108 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 120
Conservation Compliance for Crop
Insurance:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -2 -4 -6 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -21 -66
Estimated Outlays............... 0 0 -2 -4 --6 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -12 -56
Total Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority...... -388 623 57 51 49 16 17 17 17 19 392 478
Estimated Outlays............... -362 379 131 73 61 63 37 26 14 29 282 450 CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING FOR S. 3240 AS PASSED BY THE SENATE ON JUNE 21,2012Estimated Budget Authority.......... -93 -729 -2,852 -2,253 -2,222 -2,984 -2,838 -2,918 -2,871 -2,745 -8,149 -22,504
Estimated Outlays............... -24 -1,714 -2,956 -2,153 -2,209 -2,806 -2,774 -2,871 -2,870 -2,767 -9,055 -23,143
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jim Langley, Greg
Hitz, Dave Hull, Kathleen FitzGerald, Emily Holcombe, Ann
Futrell, Dan Hoople, and Jeff LaFave; Impact on State, Local,
and Tribal Governments: J'nell L. Blanco and Lisa Ramirez-
Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
In compliance with subsection (b)(2) of paragraph 11 of
rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee
states that, in its opinion, it is necessary to dispense with
the requirements of paragraph (1) of that subsection in order
to expedite the business of the Senate. The Committee further
notes that the programs in the reported bill are, by and large,
voluntary and are assistance-based not regulatory in nature
and, thus, the Committee does not foresee significant
regulatory impacts on groups or classes of individuals and
businesses as a result of this legislation. The regulations
issued pursuant to the implementation of the bill will
prescribe and define the programs authorized. Significant new
regulatory burdens are not expected to result from the
regulations issued pursuant to the reported bill.
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
The Committee notes that nearly every American will be
affected in some way by the reported legislation as it pertains
to the production of food, feed, fiber and fuel for the nation,
as well as providing assistance for conserving natural
resources, promoting international trade, providing assistance
to low-income Americans to feed themselves and their families,
provides economic development assistance for rural communities
and renewable energy, as well as for food and agricultural-
based research.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Committee concludes that the reported legislation will
not have an adverse economic impact on the nation. The reported
bill provides assistance to farmers, ranchers, rural
communities, rural businesses, low-income families and
universities. The reported legislation helps to support 16
million jobs in the U.S. and will have a positive impact on the
national economy.
PRIVACY
The Committee concludes that the reported legislation will
not have a negative impact on the personal privacy of
individuals.
PAPERWORK
The Committee does not anticipate a major increase in
paperwork burdens resulting from the reported legislation. In
fact, the reported legislation contains numerous efforts to
eliminate, consolidate and otherwise streamline programs and
improve the efficiency of administration, which the Committee
intends to help reduce overall paperwork for participants in
the programs contained within the reported legislation.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that, in its
opinion, the reported bill does not contain any congressionally
directed spending items requiring report.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents
This section supplies the short title for the legislation,
``Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012'' and the table
of contents for the entire legislation.
SUBTITLE A--REPEALS AND REFORMS
Sections 1101, 1102 and 1103 repeal direct payments,
counter-cyclical payments and Average Crop Revenue Election
program, respectively, effective with the 2013 crop year.
Section 1104. Definitions
Section 1104 provides definitions for various terms used in
this subtitle.
``Actual Crop Revenue'' with respect to a covered commodity
for a crop year means the amount determined by the Secretary
under section 1105(c)(4) that establishes whether agriculture
risk coverage payments are required to be made for that crop
year.
``Agriculture Risk Coverage Guarantee'' with respect to a
covered commodity for a crop year means the amount determined
by the Secretary under section 1105(c)(4) to determine whether
payments are required to be made for that crop year.
``Agriculture Risk Coverage Payment'' means a payment for a
covered commodity made under section 1105(c).
``County Coverage'' is for the purposes of agriculture risk
coverage under section 1105 and means the level of coverage
determined using the total quantity of all acreage in a county
of the covered commodity that is planted or prevented from
being planted by a producer with the yield determined by the
average county yield.
``Covered Commodity'' means wheat, corn, grain, sorghum,
barley, oats, long grain rice, medium grain rice, pulse crops,
soybeans, other oilseeds, and peanuts. Additionally, the
Secretary is instructed to study the feasibility of including
popcorn as a covered commodity by 2014 and if the Secretary
determines it to be feasible, shall designate popcorn as a
covered commodity.
``Eligible acres'' means all acres planted or prevented
from being planted to covered commodities on a farm in any crop
year. Eligible acres shall not exceed the average total acres
planted or prevented from being planted to covered commodities
and upland cotton on the farm for the 2009 through 2012 crop
years. The Secretary shall provide for an adjustment to
eligible acres to account for cropland coming out of
Conservation Reserve Program contracts and to account for
resource conserving rotations such as summer fallow.
Agricultural land that has been used for the purpose of
enriching land or conserving moisture in conjunction with a
crop rotation practice between crop years 2009-2012 is an
essential part of the definition of eligible land in the
Agricultural Risk Coverage program proposed in this bill. It is
the intent of the Committee that a land enriching crop such as
alfalfa be included in a rotation practice included in the
definition of eligible land. The Secretary is directed to
specifically include alfalfa as an eligible crop as part of a
rotation practice in this context when promulgating regulations
to implement the Agricultural Risk Coverage program.
``Extra Long Staple Cotton'' means cotton that 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 Unites States designated by the
Secretary or other areas designated by the Secretary as
suitable for the production of the varieties to types.
``Individual Coverage'' for purposes of the Agriculture
Risk Coverage program means the level of coverage determined
based on the sum of all of a producer's acreage in a county
planted or prevented from being planted to a covered commodity
and the yields associated with those acres.
``Medium Grain Rice'' includes short gain rice.
``Midseason price'' means the applicable national average
price received by producers for the first 5 months of the
applicable marketing year.
``Other Oilseed'' means a crop of sunflower seed, rapeseed,
canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed,
or any oilseed designated by the Secretary.
``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 the crop been produced.
``Pulse Crop'' means dry peas, lentils, small chickpeas,
and large chickpeas.
``State'' means a State of the United States and includes
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
any other territory or possession of the United States.
``Transitional Yield'' has the meaning given the term in
section 502(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act.
Section 1105. Agriculture risk coverage
Section 1105 authorizes Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)
payments for the 2013 through 2017 crop years. Producers are
provided an opportunity to make a one-time election to receive
coverage at either the individual level or county level for all
covered commodities and all acres under the control of the
producer. The coverage election is binding on the producer
through the 2017 crop year, so that new acreage coming under
the producer's control would be subject to the coverage level
elected by that producer and not a previous producer. Acreage
leaving the producer's control would no longer be subject to
that producer's election but would be subject to the subsequent
producer's election. Furthermore, the Secretary is required to
ensure that producers are not able to reconstitute or transfer
control of acreage in an attempt to alter or reverse the
coverage election.
ARC payments are required to be made when a producer's
actual crop revenue for a covered commodity is less than the
ARC coverage guarantee. The guarantee is set as 89 percent of
the benchmark revenue, which is defined as the product obtained
by multiplying the 5-year Olympic yield (individual or county)
by the 5 year Olympic national average price. The payment rate
is the difference between the agriculture risk coverage
guarantee for the covered commodity and the actual crop revenue
for the covered commodity, but not to exceed 10 percent of the
benchmark revenue for the crop year for the covered commodity.
This subsection establishes the ARC coverage band as between 89
percent and 79 percent of the benchmark or rolling historic
revenue. Payments for individual coverage are made on 65
percent of the eligible acres that were planted to the covered
commodity or 45 percent for those acres that were prevented
from being planted. Payments for county coverage are made on 80
percent of the eligible acres that were planted to the covered
commodity or 45 percent for those acres that were prevented
from being planted. Finally, the Secretary is required to use
all information to check for anomalies in making payments,
calculate a separate guarantee for irrigated and non-irrigated
commodities, differentiate by type or class the national
average price of sunflower, barley (using malting barley
values) and wheat, and assign a yield for producers who do not
have a yield history or whose yield is an unrepresentative
average yield.
The Committee intends for the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to
administer ARC through its existing system, but expects very
close cooperation and coordination between FSA and the Risk
Management Agency (RMA), especially with regard to sharing
information and reporting by farmers. For the yields in the ARC
calculation, the Committee intends that USDA utilize
information from RMA and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
(FCIC) as much as possible and where available. Individual
yields should be based on the yields the producer reports to
RMA for crop insurance and that are used to calculate the
producers' Actual Production History. The Committee does not
intend for USDA to duplicate yield information collection
efforts between RMA and FSA.
As discussed above, the eligible acres concept is a
significant departure from current policy regarding base acres.
The Committee does not intend for FSA to utilize any aspect of
historical base acres in the administration and operation of
ARC. Eligible acres are those planted or prevented from being
planted to covered commodities on the FSA farm. Eligible acres
are not to exceed the average annual total acres planted to
covered commodities and upland cotton during the 2009 through
2012 crop years. Specifically, this is a cap on the total
number of planted acres that can be eligible for payments under
ARC, rather than a revised or new base acre calculation.
Payments will not be made on eligible acres unless they are
planted to a covered commodity and the ARC program is triggered
for that covered commodity.
ARC payments are calculated using all of a producer's
planted or prevented acres in a county, (i.e., on an enterprise
unit basis), however the total acres eligible for ARC payments
planted cannot exceed the eligible acre cap on a FSA farm.
While the decision to opt for individual or county coverage
applies to all farms under control of a producer and while
benefits of ARC are calculated on an enterprise unit basis, the
acreage cap is to be applied on a farm by farm basis. The
following is an example of how this acreage cap would be
applied to two separate farms under the control of a single
producer:
Farm #1 has a 2009-2012 planting history of 200 acres of
covered commodities and upland cotton. These are the eligible
acres for Farm #1. In 2014, Farm #1 plants 100 acres of
soybeans and 100 acres of wheat for a total of 200 planted
acres. If this farm is eligible for an ARC payment for wheat or
soybeans, there would be no prorate factor because this
producer is planting the same number of acres as the eligible
acreage cap for that farm.
Farm #2, which is operated by the same producer as Farm #1,
has a 2009-2012 planting history of 700 acres of covered
commodities and upland cotton. These are the eligible acres for
Farm #2. In 2014, Farm #2 plants 400 acres of soybean and 400
acres of wheat for a total of 800 planted acres. This exceeds
the eligible acreage cap by 100 acres, so if the farm is
eligible for an ARC payment for wheat or soybeans, there would
be a prorate factor of 87.5% (700 acre cap/800 acres planted).
If the soybean actual revenue is less than the soybean
guarantee, but the wheat actual revenue is more than the wheat
guarantee, the producer will receive payment on 450 soybean
acres, 100 of the 450 soybean acres receiving payment will be
on Farm #1 and the remaining 350 acres receiving payment will
be on Farm #2 (350 acres is the prorate factor of 87.5% times
400 acres of planted soybeans on Farm #2). If the soybean
payment is $25 per acre and the producer elected county
coverage then the producer will be paid $9,000 ($25 multiplied
by 80% multiplied by 450 acres). If the producer receives less
than 100 percent of the crop production for either of the farms
due to, but not limited to partnership or share-crop
agreements, then the producer's share of the eligible acres for
each farm will be proportional to the producer's share of the
crop production.
Section 1106. Producer agreement required as condition of provision of
payments
Section 1106 continues current law regarding conservation
compliance, acreage reporting and transfers of interest for
eligibility for ARC payments. Producers are required to comply
with applicable conservation and wetland protections and
effectively control noxious weeds and otherwise maintain the
land in accordance with sound agricultural practices as
determined by the Secretary. As in current law, there is no
penalty with respect to benefits assessed against producers on
the farm for an inaccurate acreage or production report. Data
that is reported by the producer must meet the requirements
under the Federal Crop Insurance Act without additional
submission to the Department. Additionally, adequate safeguards
to protect the interests of tenants and sharecroppers are
required.
Section 1107. Period of effectiveness
Section 1107 establishes that the programs and provisions
of this subtitle are applicable through the 2017 crop year.
SUBTITLE B--MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS AND LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
Section 1201. Availability of nonrecourse marketing assistance loans
for loan commodities
In general, section 1201 continues current law through 2017
authorizing the Secretary to make nonrecourse marketing
assistance loans for loan commodities. The section defines
``Loan Commodity'' same as current law, except replaces
``wool'' with ``graded wool'' and ``non-graded wool.'' The only
revision to current law in this section involves applying the
same conservation compliance provisions applicable to ARC to
this program such that to be eligible to receive marketing
assistance loans producers must comply with applicable
conservation and wetland protections and effectively control
noxious weeds and otherwise maintain the land in accordance
with sound agricultural practices as determined by the
Secretary. Similarly, it sets requirements governing transfers
of interest, requires acreage and production reports, provides
for adequate safeguards to protect the interests of tenants and
sharecroppers and incorporates special loan, storage, handling,
and marketing rules for peanuts.
Section 1202. Loan rates for nonrecourse marketing assistance loans
Section 1202 continues current law establishing loan rates
for the loan commodities. The loan rates are the same as
provided for in the 2008 Farm Bill except the upland cotton
loan rate which has been adjusted due to the WTO dispute with
Brazil. The section also continues current law establishing
single loan rates in each county for each of the ``other
oilseeds.'' The following are the loan rates for the 2013-2017
crop years:
Wheat, $2.94 per bushel (Same as current law)
Corn, $1.95 per bushel (Same as current law)
Grain Sorghum, $1.95 per bushel (Same as current law)
Barley, $1.95 per bushel (Same as current law)
Oats, $1.39 per bushel (Same as current law)
Upland Cotton (changed from 2008 Farm Bill from $0.52 per
pound): for the 2013 and each subsequent crop year, the simple
average of the adjusted prevailing world price for the 2
immediately preceding the next domestic plantings, but in no
case less than $0.47 per pound or more than $0.52 per pound.
Extra-long staple cotton, $.7977 per pound (Same as current
law)
Long grain rice, $6.50 (Same as current law)
Medium grain rice, $6.50 (Same as current law)
Soybeans, $5.00 per bushel (Same as current law)
Other oilseeds, $10.09 per hundredweight (Same as current
law)
Dry Peas, $5.40 per hundredweight (Same as current law)
Lentils, $11.28 per hundredweight (Same as current law)
Small chickpeas, $7.43 per hundredweight (Same as current
law)
Large chickpeas, $11.28 per hundredweight (Same as current
law)
Graded wool, $1.15 per pound (Same as current law)
Non-graded wool, $0.40 per pound (Same as current law)
Mohair, $4.20 per pound (Same as current law)
Honey, $0.69 per pound ( $0.03 cents lower than current
law)
Peanuts, $355 per ton (Same as current law)
Section 1203. Terms of Loans
Section 1203 continues current law setting marketing
assistance loan terms at nine months and prohibiting
extensions.
Section 1204. Repayment of Loans
Section 1204 continues current law regarding repayment of
loans. Producers are required to repay a marketing assistance
loan for a loan commodity (other than upland cotton, long grain
rice, medium grain rice, extra long staple cotton, peanuts, and
confectionary and each other kind of sunflower seed (other than
oil sunflower seed)) at a rate established for the commodity
plus interest, calculated based on the average market prices
for the loan commodity during the preceding 30 day period.
The loan repayment rate for extra-long staple cotton is the
loan rate established under section 1202, plus interest. In
addition, it requires the Secretary to issue by regulation a
formula to determine the prevailing world market price for
upland cotton, long grain rice, and medium grain rice, and a
mechanism by which the Secretary shall announce periodically
those prevailing world market prices.
Current statutory requirements regarding adjustment to the
prevailing world market prices for long grain rice, medium
grain rice and upland cotton are continued. The Secretary is
required to establish a mechanism for determining and
announcing these adjustments in order to avoid undue disruption
in the United States market. Current law regarding the
repayment rates for confectionery and other kinds of sunflower
seeds (other than oil sunflower seed) at a rate that is lesser
of the loan rate established under section 1202, plus interest,
or the repayment rate established for oil sunflower seed is
continued.
The Secretary will temporarily adjust repayment rates in
the event of a severe disruption to marketing, transportation,
or related infrastructure.
Section 1205. Loan deficiency payments
Section 1205 continues current law through 2017 authorizing
the Secretary to make loan deficiency payments available to
producers who agree to forego marketing loans for the same
commodities. It authorizes loan deficiency payments for
producers of unshorn pelts and hay and silage, although such
producers are not eligible for marketing loans. The section
also establishes the computation for loan deficiency payments
as the product of the payment rate for commodity multiplied by
the quantity of the commodity produced by using the rate in
effect as of the date the producer requests payment.
Section 1206. Payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments for grazed
acreage
Section 1206 continues current law through 2017 authorizing
the Secretary to make payments to producers of wheat, barley,
oats, or triticale if the producer agrees to use the acreage
for grazing livestock and to forgo any other harvesting.
Payments must be made at the same time as loan deficiency
payments, in an amount that is the product of the loan
deficiency payment rate and the payment quantity, as determined
by multiplying the quantity of grazed acreage by the payment
yield. Separate rules apply for determining the triticale
payment amount. Such acreage is not eligible for a crop
insurance indemnity or noninsured crop assistance.
Section 1207. Special marketing loan provisions for upland cotton.
Section 1207 continues current law through 2017 requiring
an import quota program for upland cotton whenever the
Secretary determines that, for any consecutive four-week
period, the Friday through Thursday average price for the
lowest priced U.S. growth delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe
exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25 cents per
pound. This section prohibits the Secretary from adjusting the
average price quotation for the value of any certificates
during any month for which the Secretary estimates the season-
ending U.S. upland cotton stocks-to-use ratio to be below 16
percent. In making such estimates, the Secretary is required to
estimate and report the season-ending U.S. stocks-to-use ratio
on a monthly basis.
The Secretary must continue to provide economic adjustment
assistance 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. Assistance provided should be 3 cents per pound
and made available only to domestic users of upland cotton that
certify that the assistance is used to acquire, construct,
install, modernize, develop, convert, or expand land, plant,
buildings, equipment, facilities, or machinery.
Section 1208. Special competitive provisions for extra long staple
cotton
Section 1208 continues current law through 2017 requiring a
program to expand the domestic use of extra-long staple cotton
produced in the U.S., increase exports, and ensure that the
U.S. remains competitive in world markets. The Secretary makes
payments when, for a four week period, the world market price
for the lowest priced extra-long staple cotton is below the
prevailing price for a competing growth of extra-long staple
cotton is less than 134 percent of the loan rate for extra-long
staple cotton.
Section 1209. Availability of recourse loans for high moisture feed
grains and seed cotton
Section 1209 continues current law through 2017 authorizing
the Secretary to make recourse loans available to producers of
corn and grain sorghum who normally harvest all or a portion of
their crop in a high moisture state. Producers must present
certified scale tickets or field or other physical measurements
of the standing or stored crop. In regions without certified
commercial scales, producers must certify that they were the
owners of the feed grain and comply with established deadlines.
The section defines ``high moisture state'' as corn or grain
sorghum having moisture content in excess of Commodity Credit
Corporation standards for marketing assistance loans. The
Secretary is also authorized to make available recourse seed
cotton loans on any production.
Section 1210. Adjustments of loans.
Section 1210 provides that the programs and provisions of
this subtitle are applicable through 2017, and authorizes the
Secretary to make adjustments in the loan rates for any
commodity based on differences in grade, type, quality,
location, and other factors.
SUBTITLE C--SUGAR
Section 1301. Sugar
Section 1301 continues current law through 2017 requiring
the Secretary to make loans available to sugarcane processors
at 18.75 cents per pound for raw cane sugar, and to sugar beet
processors at a rate that is 128.5 percent of the loan rate for
raw cane sugar. The Secretary is authorized to reduce the loan
rates if negotiated reductions in domestic and export subsidies
of other major sugar producing countries in the aggregate
exceed the commitments made as part of the Agreement on
Agriculture. It also authorizes the Secretary to provide that
refined sugars, whether from beets or cane, are substitutable
for purposes of the refined sugar and sugar containing products
re-export programs. In addition, the Secretary will annually
estimate: the quantity of sugar subject to human consumption in
the United States; the quantity of sugar that would provide
reasonable carryover stocks; the quantity available from carry-
in stocks for human consumption; the quantity of sugar
available from domestic processing of sugarcane, sugar beets,
and in-process beet sugar; and the quantity of sugars, syrups,
and molasses that will be imported for human consumption.
SUBTITLE D--DAIRY
PART I--DAIRY PRODUCTION MARGIN PROTECTION PROGRAM AND DAIRY MARKET
STABILIZATION PROGRAMS
The United States dairy industry should be allowed to grow
and compete globally to help ensure a strong American
agricultural economy. The Committee recognizes the importance
of both the producer and processor sectors of the dairy
industry. The Secretary should use his authority granted in
this subtitle and his discretion to ensure the entire dairy
industry is strengthened by the new programs and policies.
Section 1401. Definitions
Section 1401 defines the terms used in the Dairy Production
Margin Protection Program (DPMPP) and Dairy Market
Stabilization Program (DMSP):
``Milk price'' is the ``all-milk price,'' or average price
received by dairy operations across the United States.
``Average feed cost'' is calculated based on specific
national corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa prices.
``Actual Dairy Production Margin'' is the difference
between the ``all-milk price'' and the ``average feed cost.''
``Dairy operation'' means 1 or more producers that produce
and market milk as a single operation, and each dairy producer
shares in the pooling of resources and a common ownership
structure, is at risk in the production of milk, and
contributes land, labor, management, equipment, or capital to
the dairy operation. The Secretary is allowed to determine
additional ownership structures.
``Handler'' means an initial handler that is the initial
individual or entity making payments directly to a dairy
operation.
``Consecutive 2-month period'' refers to the 2-month period
consisting of January and February, March and April, May and
June, July and August, September and October, November and
December.
``Basic Production History'' is the production history
determined for a participation operation for basic margin
protection
``Annual Production History'' is the production history
determined for a participating dairy operation when the
operation purchases supplemental margin protection.
Section 1402. Calculation of average feed cost and actual dairy
producer margins
Section 1402 establishes that the national average feed
cost shall be calculated by the Secretary, based on U.S. prices
for corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa each month. In the margin
protection program, actual dairy operation margin is calculated
by the Secretary by subtracting a defined, national average
feed cost from the all-milk price for defined consecutive 2-
month periods. In the stabilization program, actual dairy
operation margin is calculated by the Secretary by subtracting
the average feed cost from the all-milk price for the preceding
month. The Committee expects the Secretary to collect the data
necessary for the administration, functionality, and success of
the new programs as soon as practicable.
SUBPART A--DAIRY PRODUCTION MARGIN PROTECTION PROGRAM
Section 1411. Establishment of dairy production margin protection
program
Section 1411 establishes the DPMP program, to provide
assistance to dairy operations based on a calculated margin of
milk price over feed costs. Basic margin protection is
available to all operations with coverage for a $4.00 margin on
80 percent of production based on an established basic
production history. Supplemental margin protection is available
for purchase on an annual production history with subsidized
premiums. An operation will have the opportunity to purchase
supplemental coverage from a $4.50 margin up to an $8.00 margin
in $0.50 increments on up to 90 percent (no less than 25
percent) of the annual production history.
Section 1412. Participation of dairy operations in production margin
protection program
Section 1412 establishes that all operations are eligible
for payments pursuant to the margin protection program,
provided they sign up for basic or supplemental protection.
Operations may opt for coverage through the Milk Income Loss
Contract (MILC) established by FCEA of 2008, until June 2013 at
modified support levels. Operations may participate in either
MILC or DPMP program, but not both, through June 2013.
Additionally, dairy operations may participate in either
Livestock Gross Margin-Dairy (LGM-Dairy) or DPMP, but not both.
There are no guarantees that LGM-Dairy funding will be
available or that all producers will be able to get LGM-Dairy
coverage when funding is available. The Committee extended the
MILC program at modified levels until June 2013 to provide a
transition period for producers while the Secretary finalizes
rules for the new programs. The Department should notify MILC
participants of the MILC program end date. The Committee
intends for the Secretary to educate the dairy industry,
including potential program participants, about the new options
and obligations included in both the margin protection and
market stabilization programs. The Committee encourages the
Secretary to partner with market participants and State and
local organizations to carry out the educational activities.
The section also establishes an administration fee for the
margin protection program. Fees will be used to cover costs to
administer DPMP and DMSP and for USDA-administered dairy market
transparency measures. The administration fee is waived in the
case of limited resource farmers. The Committee intends for the
provided program administrative fees to be used to supplement
the Secretary's current budget for dairy programs, and not
serve as the primary source of funding for program
implementation. The Committee expects the fees to be used for
providing additional staff and services only if necessary to
expedite program implementation and to ensure sufficient staff
for program administration. The Committee also intends for the
Secretary to use the fees for providing consistent funding for
transparency measures.
Section 1413. Production history of participating dairy operations
Section 1413 establishes the methods for calculating
production histories for the basic and supplemental margin
protection programs. It allows herd growth by annually updating
production history for supplemental margin protection. The
section also authorizes the Secretary to specify conditions for
transferring production history of a dairy operation by sale or
lease. It prohibits a purchaser or lessee from obtaining a
different level of basic or supplemental protection coverage
during the calendar year in which the transfer is made. These
provisions are intended to ensure program integrity and not
allow dairy operations to game the program.
Section 1414. Basic margin protection
Section 1414 provides that basic protection is available to
all participating operations to receive a basic margin
protection payment whenever actual dairy margin for a
consecutive 2-month period is less than $4.00 per hundredweight
(cwt) of milk. Operations will receive payments equal to the
difference between $4.00 and the actual margin (when actual
margin is less than $4.00) on 80 percent of base production.
Section 1415. Supplemental margin protection
Section 1415 allows a dairy operation participating in the
basic margin protection program to annually purchase
supplemental protection to cover higher margins in increments
of $0.50 for margins between $4.50 and $8.00 on 25 percent to
90 percent of milk production. Operations must pay an annual
premium for supplemental protection based on actual production.
A discounted premium is offered on the first 4 million pounds
of milk, which covers production from approximately 200 to 250
cows annually. The premiums are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premium/cwt (< 4 Premium/cwt (>4
Coverage Level million lbs) million lbs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$4.50 $0.01 $0.02
5.00 0.02 0.04
5.50 0.035 0.10
6.00 0.045 0.15
6.50 0.09 0.29
7.00 0.40 0.62
7.50 0.60 0.83
8.00 0.95 1.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participating operations will receive payment whenever the
average actual margin for a defined consecutive two-month
period is less than the selected coverage threshold. Payment is
based on the difference between actual margin and guaranteed
margin, multiplied by the selected coverage percentage and the
lesser of the annual production history divided by 6, or the
actual amount of milk marketed during the previous 2-month
period.
The Committee expects the Secretary to provide flexibility
for producers when establishing payment plans for the new
programs. Limited discretion is provided to design the new
programs with flexibilities for producers, including the
monthly payment of administrative fees and premium payments, or
payment using other appropriate time periods to maximize
program integrity and producer convenience. Where applicable
and practicable, premium payments should be withheld from a
producer's milk check.
Section 1416. Effect of failure to pay premiums
Section 1416 establishes that a participating operation
that fails to pay the required administrative fees or premiums
remains legally obligated to pay them and may not receive basic
or supplemental margin protections payments until fees are
fully paid.
SUBPART B--DAIRY MARKET STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Section 1431. Establishment of dairy market stabilization program
Section 1431 creates the Dairy Market Stabilization Program
to assist in balancing the supply of milk with demand when
producers are experiencing low or negative operating margins.
Subject to exceptions in Section 1436, when dairy margins fall
below a certain level, the Secretary is required to have
initial dairy handlers reduce the payments to dairy operations
in order to encourage them to either scale back milk production
temporarily or to avoid increasing production while margins are
considered low or negative. The payment reductions are based on
actual margin, according to the following schedule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milk payment, greater of the
Actual margin following
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>$5.00-<$6.00/2-month..................... 98% of base or 94% of
month's milk marketed
<$5.00->$4.00/2-month..................... 97% of base or 93% of
month's milk marketed
<$4.00/1-month............................ 96% of base or 92% of
month's milk marketed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This program is voluntary, but any operation enrolled in
the Dairy Production Margin Protection Program is required to
enroll in Dairy Market Stabilization. Handlers that are tasked
with reducing the payments and remitting them to the Secretary
are initial handlers defined as the initial individual or
entity making payments directly to a dairy operation. The Dairy
Market Stabilization program is voluntary, but any operation
enrolled in the Dairy Production Margin Protection Program is
required to enroll in the Dairy Market Stabilization Program.
To permit overall growth in dairy production in general,
operations may update their production history base calculation
method annually.
Section 1432. Threshold for implementation and reduction in dairy
operation payments
Section 1432 requires the Secretary to announce that the
stabilization program takes effect when actual margin has been
$6.00 or less for two months, or actual margin has been $4.00
or less for one month. The stabilization program will go into
effect on the first day of the month following an announcement
by the Secretary that margin triggers have been met. The
stabilization program will be suspended, or not triggered, as
soon as certain conditions are met.
Section 1433. Producer milk marketings information
Section 1433 directs the Secretary to establish a process
for collecting milk marketing information from dairy operations
and handlers and to minimize regulatory burden on dairy
operations and handlers. It also requires the Secretary to
minimize the regulatory burden on operations and handlers.
Section 1434. Calculation and collection of reduced dairy producer
payments
Section 1434 defines payment reduction requirements for the
stabilization program based on actual dairy margin. Payments
will not be reduced if an operation's monthly milk marketings
are equal to or less than the percentage of a defined rolling
base.
Section 1435. Remitting monies to the secretary and use of monies
Section 1435 requires initial handlers to remit to the
Secretary an amount equal to that which they withheld from
dairy operations. The Secretary must use the remitted monies
for the purpose of expanding consumption and building demand
for dairy products by purchasing dairy products for donation to
food banks and other appropriate programs.
Section 1436. Suspension of reduced payment requirement
Section 1436 provides the criteria by which the
stabilization program will be suspended. The section creates a
suspension trigger that is based on world prices, as determined
by the Secretary, for dairy products such that U.S. cheddar
cheese and nonfat dry milk prices are compared to world cheddar
cheese and skim milk powder prices. If certain conditions are
met, the Secretary shall suspend the program or simply not make
the announcement to trigger the program. Once suspended,
stabilization cannot resume until 2 months have passed and the
stabilization criteria have been met to warrant stabilization
implementation. The suspension triggers are as follows:
Actual margin is greater than $6.00 for two months, or
Actual margin is greater than $5.00 and less than or equal
to $6.00 for 2 months and: the U.S. price for cheddar cheese is
equal to or greater than the world price for cheddar cheese, or
the U.S. price for nonfat dry milk is equal to or greater than
the world price for skim milk powder, or
Actual margin is greater than $4.00 and less than or equal
to $5.00 for 2 months and: the U.S. price for cheddar cheese is
more than 5 percent above the world price for cheddar cheese,
or the U.S. price for nonfat dry milk is more than 5 percent
above the world price for skim milk powder, or
Actual margin is less than or equal to $4.00 for 2 months
and: the U.S. price for cheddar cheese is more than 7 percent
above the world price for cheddar cheese, or nonfat dry milk is
more than 7 percent above the world price for skim milk powder.
The suspension trigger ensures that the stabilization
program will be sensitive to world market conditions. The
Committee intends for the market stabilization program to
suspend when supply outpaces demand as authorized by the world
price provisions. This Committee has included a voluntary
stabilization program to send signals to all dairy producers
that they should slow down milk marketings in order to better
balance milk supply and demand, decrease price volatility, and
increase margins received by producers. The programs allow
dairy producers to take risk management into their own hands.
Section 1437. Enforcement
Section 1437 requires timely and accurate reporting of
stabilization funds to the Secretary and allows the Secretary
to take necessary actions to ensure compliance.
Section 1438. Audit requirements
Section 1438 authorizes the Secretary to conduct periodic
audits of participating dairy operations and handlers to ensure
compliance. The audits must be random and statistically valid
and the Secretary shall submit audit results to Congress,
including recommendations the Secretary considers appropriate
regarding the stabilization program.
Section 1439. Study; report
Section 1439 requires the Secretary to direct the Office of
the Chief Economist to conduct a study of the impacts of the
stabilization program and report to Congress by December 1,
2016.
SUBPART C--DURATION
Section 1451. Duration
Section 1451 authorizes the DPMP and DMSP through fiscal
year 2017.
PART II--DAIRY MARKET TRANSPARENCY
Section 1461. Dairy product mandatory reporting
Section 1461 amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
to allow the Secretary to report on any products that may
significantly aid price discovery in the dairy markets;
requiring each manufacturer to report to the Secretary, at
least monthly, information concerning price, quantity, moisture
content, or any characteristics that may aid in price discovery
of dairy products sold. The section further allows the
Secretary to modify the format used to provide information to
ensure the information is readily understood by market
participants. Each manufacturer and person storing dairy
products is required to report to the Secretary, at least
monthly, information on the quantity of dairy products stored,
and ensuring dairy products in cold storage are included in
reportable products. The Committee provided the Secretary with
additional authority for collecting information on dairy
products and dairy product prices to enhance price discovery.
The Secretary should use the authority whenever appropriate.
Whilethis Committee supports increased transparency, it expects
the Secretary will use this additional authority judiciously and
consider public and Congressional input when considering potential
changes to reporting requirements.
Section 1462. Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) information
Section 1462 directs the Secretary to establish an
information clearinghouse for the purposes of educating the
public about the FMMO system and any order referenda, including
proposal information and timelines. FMMO information must be
made available through website and appropriate publications.
The Committee extended the Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO)
Review Commission and provided funding to consider FMMO
changes.
PART III--REPEAL OR REAUTHORIZATION OF OTHER DAIRY-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sections 1471 and 1472 repeal the following programs: Dairy
Product Price Support Price Support from the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and the Dairy Export
Incentive Program from the Food Security Act of 1985. However,
the Milk Income Loss Contract Program is extended through June
2013 to permit time to implement the programs contained in the
reported bill at the current 45 percent level and provides
conforming amendments to the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000.
Sections 1473, 1474, 1475, and 1476 extend the Dairy
Forward Pricing Program, Dairy Indemnity Program, Dairy
Promotion and Research Program, and the Federal Milk Marketing
Order Review Commission through 2017.
PART IV--EFFECTIVE DATE
Section 1481. Effective date
Section 1481 requires the amendments made by the reported
bill to take effect on October 1, 2012.
SUBTITLE E--SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Section 1501. Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance
Section 1501 provides for certain supplemental agricultural
disaster assistance programs created in the 2008 Farm Bill to
be available to producers through fiscal year 2017 and that
funding for the programs shall be out of the funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation.
Livestock Indemnity Payments (LIP) are to be made for
livestock lost in excess of normal mortality rates due to
adverse weather including hurricanes, blizzards, extreme heat,
floods, disease, wildfires, extreme cold and attacks by animals
reintroduced into the wild by the Federal Government. Payments
are 65 percent of the market value of the animal. LIP is to
provide benefits to all livestock producers, including but not
limited to those involved in range operations, who follow
appropriate management practices.
Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) provides payments
that are to be made for forage losses to eligible livestock
producers due to drought or fire. Eligible land to be covered
includes native or improved pastureland with permanent
vegetative cover or land that has crops planted specifically
for the purpose of providing grazing for livestock. Payments
are to be calculated using the monthly feed cost for all
covered livestock and the normal carrying capacity of eligible
grazing lands. With regard to section 1501(c)(1)(E), the
Committee notes that the program covers grazing loses due to
drought during the grazing season, which is the normal period
of time in which livestock graze in the geographic area. The
Committee emphasizes that LFP is designed to cover grazing
losses during the normal grazing period, not the normal growing
period.
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees and Farm
Raised Fish (ELAP) is to be made to eligible producers of
livestock, honey bees and farm raised fish to aid with losses
due to disease, adverse weather, or other conditions that are
not otherwise covered by LIP or LFP. The funding for ELAP is
$10 million per fiscal year.
The Secretary shall provide assistance to eligible
orchardists and nursery tree growers for losses due to natural
disaster under the Tree Assistance Program (TAP).
Section 1502. Conforming Amendments
Section 1502 continues current law through 2017 and
requires the Secretary to use such sums as are necessary of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out the programs in this
subtitle.
SUBTITLE F--ADMINISTRATION
Section 1601. Administration generally
Section 1601 continues current law regarding administration
of programs in the title through 2017 and reauthorizes the use
of the funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity
Credit Corporation to carry out the programs, including the
current law for promulgation of regulations. The Secretary is
required to make adjustments in the amount of expenditures
under subtitles A through E that are subject to the total
allowable domestic support levels under the Uruguay Round
Agreements, if the Secretary determines that those expenditures
will exceed such allowable levels for any applicable reporting
periods.
Section 1602. Suspension of permanent price support authority
Section 1602 continues current law through 2017 pursuant to
which the permanent price support authority of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 and Agricultural Act of 1949 is
suspended for the 2013 through 2017 fiscal years for covered
commodities (as defined in section 1104), cotton, and sugar.
Those provisions shall not be applicable to milk during the
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through
December 31, 2017.
Section 1603. Payment limitations
Section 1603 limits 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 the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act to
$50,000 for all covered commodities and a separate limit for
peanuts of $50,000.
Section 1604. Payments limited to active farmers
Section 1604 amends Section 1001A of the Food Security Act
of 1985 to ensure that payments do not go to individuals who
are not farming by striking ``or active personal management''
each place it appears in subparagraphs (A)(i)(II) and(B)(ii).
In its place, the section permits a single person to qualify as
actively engaged solely based upon providing management to the
farming operation, but that individual cannot qualify multiple
entities. However, the Committee does not intend for the
addition of a manager to qualify the farm operation for
payments above the payment limit established in section 1603.
The Committee also recognizes the importance of spouses to
family farming operations and the long-standing policy that
permits the individual who qualifies as actively engaged in
farming to also qualify his or her spouse as actively engaged,
including qualifying for an additional payment and payment
limit. Nothing in this section alters current law with regard
to the spouse in a farming operation, and so long as one spouse
qualifies as actively engaged the other spouse qualifies as
well. If, however, the qualifying spouse was considered
actively engaged solely based on providing active personal
management to the farm operation neither spouse will now
qualify as actively engaged, unless one qualifies under
subparagraph 7 pertaining to the single manager for the farm
operation.
Section 1605. Adjusted gross income limitation
Section 1605 amends current law regarding the adjusted
gross income (AGI) eligibility requirements. The reported bill
eliminates the distinction between farm AGI and nonfarm AGI.
Pursuant to the reported bill, a person or legal entity is
prohibited from receiving benefits under subtitle A in any year
where the average gross income of the person or legal entity
exceeds $750,000. AGI is calculated by using a three-year,
moving average.
Section 1606. Geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers
Section 1606 continues current law through 2017 authorizing
the Secretary to provide geographically disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers direct reimbursement payments as described.
Section 1607. Personal liability for producers for deficiencies
Section 1607 continues current law exempting producers from
liability for certain deficiencies in collateral.
Section 1608. Prevention of deceased individuals receiving payments
under farm commodity
Section 1608 continues current law through 2017 requiring
the Secretary to reconcile social security numbers of all
individuals who receive payments, whether directly or
indirectly, with the Commissioner or Social Security to
determine if the individuals are alive. The Secretarywill
preclude the issuance of payments to, and on behalf of, deceased
individuals that were not eligible for payments.
The Committee recognizes the improvements made by the
Secretary in recent years to prevent payments to deceased
individuals. The Committee also recognizes that individuals can
be entitled to a payment but become deceased before that
payment is issued, and that such a payment is proper.
Section 1609. Appeals
Section 1609 amends current law to improve the appeals
process at USDA and to ensure proper oversight, transparency
and accountability for the Director of the National Appeals
Division without inhibiting the proper functioning of the
appeals process.
Section 1610. Technical corrections
This section continues current law permitting necessary
technical changes be made in program operation and
administration.
Section 1611. Assignments of payments
This section continues current law regarding the assignment
of payments including that they be assigned in accordance with
USDA regulations.
Section 1612. Tracking of benefits
Section 1612 continues current law through 2017 requiring
the Secretary to establish procedures to track program benefits
under Title I and II of that Act directly or indirectly to
individuals and entities.
Section 1613. Signature authority
Section 1613 continues current law through 2017 authorizing
the Secretary to approve documents containing signatures of
program applicants. The Secretary shall not subsequently
determine a document is inadequate or invalid because of the
lack of authority of any applicant signing the document on
behalf of the applicant unless the applicant knowingly and
willfully falsified the evidence of signature authority or a
signature.
Section 1614. Implementation
Section 1614 authorizes the Secretary to make $100,000,000
in funds available to the Farm Service Agency to carry out this
title and instructs the Secretary to seek to reduce paperwork
and other administrative burdens, take advantage of new
technologies to improve efficiency, as well as improve
coordination with the Risk Management Agency and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
SUBTITLE A--CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Section 2001. Extension and enrollment requirements of conservation
reserve program
Section 2001 extends the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
authorization through 2017, and adds the definition for
grasslands that will be eligible to be enrolled in the program.
The reported bill also reduces the limit on the acres that can
be enrolled in CRP contracts, such that the maximum enrolled
acres shall be: 32 million acres for fiscal year (FY) 2012; 30
million acres for FY2013; 27.5 million acres for FY2014; 26.5
million acres for FY2015; 25.5 million acres for FY2016; and 25
million acres for FY2017.
Within the overall acreage cap, the bill provides for the
enrollment in CRP of up to 1.5 million acres of grasslands and
authorizes the Secretary to grant priority to lands expiring
from current conservation reserve program contracts that will
retain grass cover. This modification accommodates acreage that
previously would have been eligible for short-term rental
contracts under the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP).
The specific priority designations for the Chesapeake Bay
Region, the Great Lakes Region, and the Long Island Sound
Region are removed. The authority for the Secretary to
designate conservation priority areas is retained, recognizing
the importance of the program for addressing State-identified
areas of special environmental sensitivity.
Section 2002. Farmable wetland program
Section 2002 extends the Pilot Program for Enrollment and
Buffer Acreage in Conservation Reserve authorization through
2017, and renames it the Farmable Wetland Program. The pilot
has been in place since 2002, and the Committee action changes
the program from a pilot program to a standing program.
Section 2003. Duties of owners and operators
Section 2003 removes the provisions for harvesting,
grazing, and wind turbines, and rental rate reductions for
authorized activities from the duties of owners and operators.
These provisions are revised and moved to the duties of the
Secretary.
Section 2004. Duties of the Secretary
Section 2004 amends current law to address reductions in
rental rates for harvesting, grazing, or other commercial use
of CRP lands. For harvesting, grazing or other commercial use
of the forage on CRP lands in response to flooding, drought, or
other emergency, the reported bill removes the requirement to
reduce the rental rate. The bill provides for a reduction in
the rental rate of not less than 25 percent for authorized
harvesting or grazing activity, or in the case of grazing by
livestock of beginning farmers or ranchers, no reduction in
rental rate.
The Committee did not specify the range of situations under
which CRP could be used to mitigate the impacts on agricultural
producers resulting from adverse and extreme weather events or
conditions. While these acres can provide additional forage
when they are located within the disaster footprint, these
forages also could assist in meeting livestock forage needs
when near to the affected area, or when other CRP contract
holders are willing to make their forage available to those
affected by the emergency, or when flooding displaces grazing
livestock. In the waiver of rental rate reduction, it is
expected USDA will take appropriate action to ensure the
program participant does not receive additional compensation of
cash or in-kind services for the hay, or grazing from this
permitted use of the forage. This section establishes the
frequency of harvesting and routine grazing on acres enrolled
in CRP contracts, consistent with a conservation plan, and
provides for the incidental use of buffers adjacent to
agricultural lands.
Authorized activities for newly eligible grasslands include
grazing, haying, mowing, or harvesting for seed production. The
Secretary shall permit activities such as fire pre-suppression,
rehabilitation and construction of fire breaks, fencing,
livestock watering, and necessary cultural practices. These
uses of the land are consistent with those allowed for rental
contracts under the Grassland Reserve Program, and are carried
over here to align with the authorized eligibility for those
grasslands in the conservation reserve.
Provisions are added to allow conservation and land
improvement practices in the final year of a contract, with a
commensurate reduction in rental value. Re-enrollment of lands
modified through this provision is prohibited for at least 5
years.
The Committee intends that the intensity of all specified
activities permitted by the revisions to section 1233(b) of
current law shall be conducted within the parameters outlined
in the statute, and consistent with the conservation of soil,
water quality, and wildlife habitat and other the purposes of
the program, and to control invasive species. Additionally, the
Secretary with advice from State Technical Committees shall
ensure that the frequency and duration of all specified
activities permitted are reflected in associated conservation
plans appropriate for the local climatic conditions,
precipitation, soils, and other necessary factors in order to
meet the purposes of the program.
For the purposes of this program, the term ``critical
birds'' shall include candidate, threatened or endangered
species; species of economic significance; and priority fish
and wildlife species identified in state, regional, or national
wildlife plans and initiatives.
The revisions made to section 1233(b)(2) of the current
statute clarify the intent of the Committee to allow some uses
of the conservation reserve when the activities are beneficial
to the health and viability of the established cover. In doing
so, the Committee focused on grasslands-related activities
since grasslands are the predominant cover for the program. The
Secretary should consider this sufficient authority to allow
such activities to occur on other cover types when they could
serve a similar benefit to the health and vigor of the cover.
For example, the pre-commercial thinning of pine, or the
harvesting of pine straw may be allowed with commensurate
reduction of rental rates if these activities would be a
technically accepted activity for improving the health and
viability of the stand, as reflected in the conservation plan.
Section 2005. Payments
Section 2005 clarifies the cost-share payments for proper
thinning and practices to improve the condition of lands
planted to trees, windbreaks, shelterbelts, and wildlife
corridors. The section provides that annual payments for
grasslands enrolled shall not be in amount that is more than 75
percent of the grazing value of the land under contract and
provides flexibility for the Secretary to consider the NASS
survey data in establishing payment rates. It also strikes
theprovisions for ``payments in kind'' through Commodity Credit
Corporation stocks.
Section 2006. Contract requirements
Section 2006 continues the language for transitioning lands
for a retiring farmer and rancher to a beginning farmer or
rancher, or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher with
conforming changes to other sections.
Section 2007. Conversion of land subject to contract to other
conserving uses
Section 2007 repeals this provision which is no longer
applicable for contracts in place prior to November 28, 1990.
Section 2008. Effective date
Section 2008 sets the effective date of the amendments made
by the reported bill as October 1, 2012, except that section
2001 (acreage limitations) is effective upon passage of the
Act, and establishes no effect on existing contracts.
SUBTITLE B--CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
Section 2101. Conservation stewardship program
Section 2101 of the reported bill contains a complete
revision to the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
contained in current law and while constituting a substitute
for it, the reported bill's provisions are primarily derived
from current law. The legislation amends section 1238D by
adding definitions of ``agricultural operation'' and ``eligible
land,'' clarifies ``priority resource concern'' and
``stewardship threshold,'' and strikes ``conservation
measurement tool'' and ``resource concern'' definitions.
The revised section 1238D in the reported bill streamlines
and consolidates key definitions for the program. The meaning
of agricultural operation tracks existing law. Conservation
activities involve conservation systems, practices, and
management measures. The term has an inclusive plain language
meaning, encompassing, for example, conservation planning. The
specific mention in the statute of inclusions does not exclude
conservation activities that are otherwise within the
definition. The definition of conservation stewardship plan
makes it clear the plan is to inventory and identify priority
resource concerns and to contain the additional specified
elements encompassing new as well as existing conservation
activities. Eligible land is defined to mean private and tribal
land on which agricultural commodities, livestock, or forest-
related products are produced plus associated land on which
priority resource concerns could be addressed through a
contract under the program.
A priority resource concern is defined to mean a natural
resource concern or problem that is identified at the national,
state, or local level as a priority for a particular area, and
that represents a significant concern in a state or region that
is likely to be addressed successfully through implementing
conservation activities. The Committee understands that the
process of identifying priority resource concerns should
involve consultation, such as with State Technical Committees,
at the state and local levels to the maximum extent
practicable. The stewardship threshold is the level of
management required to conserve and improve the quality and
condition of a natural resource. The stewardship threshold for
a natural resource is a science-based standard at an advanced
level of conservation providing for the long-term continued
productivity, use, and quality of the resource.
The reported bill extends the conservation stewardship
program for the fiscal years 2013 through 2017 in order to
encourage producers to address priority resource concerns and
to improve and conserve the quality and condition of natural
resources in a comprehensive manner. The program assists
producers who accomplish this purpose by undertaking additional
conservation activities and by improving, maintaining, and
managing conservation activities existing at the beginning of
the contract.
Subsection (b) excludes from the program land that is
enrolled in the conservation reserve program, in a wetland
easement, or in the conservation security program. The
provision prevents concurrent enrollment in and receipt of
payments through the conservation stewardship program and any
of the listed programs. It does not prohibit enrollment in the
program if other land in the operation is enrolled in the
conservation reserve program or a wetland easement, nor does it
prohibit the uninterrupted entry of land into the conservation
stewardship program upon expiration of a contract under one of
the other programs described in this subsection.
The Secretary shall prioritize for enrollment in the
program lands that are expiring from the Conservation Reserve
Program in an effort to protect the taxpayer's conservation
investment by continuing conservation benefits on those lands
and enabling the transition from CRP to a sustainable grass-
based or other type of agricultural operation where some of the
conservation benefits will continue. The Committee encourages
the Secretary to conduct outreach to producers and to
facilitate enrollment of such land into the conservation
stewardship program in order to maintain and improve
conservation values, such as through grass-based production
systems. The subsection also updates the provision excluding
land recently converted to cropland.
The amended section 1238F pertains to Stewardship
contracts. An eligible contract offer must also demonstrate
that by the end of the stewardship contract the producer will
at a minimum be meeting or exceeding the stewardship threshold
for at least one priority resource concern in addition to
continuing to meet or exceed the stewardship threshold for the
two priority resource concerns that were the basis for the
producer's eligibility to submit a contract offer and enroll in
the program.
Subsection (b) lists six criteria for ranking contract
offers, prohibits giving a higher ranking to a contract offer
based on the applicant's willingness to accept a reduced
payment, and allows the development and use of additional
criteria to ensure national, state, and local priority resource
concerns are addressed effectively. Such additional criteria,
should they be developed and used, are not to supersede or be
more heavily weighted than the six statutory ranking criteria.
Subsection (c) provides for entering into conservation
stewardship program contracts.
Subsection (d) specifies that conservation stewardship
contracts shall be for a period of five years, shall require
the producer to implement a conservation stewardship plan that
describes the program purposes to be achieved through one or
more conservation activities, shall permit all economic uses of
the eligible land that maintain its agricultural nature and are
consistent with the conservation purposes of the contract,
shall include a provision to ensure the producer is not
considered in violation of the contract for failure to comply
with the contract due to circumstances beyond the control of
the producer, shall include provisions specifying the remedies
available to the Secretary upon violation of a term or
condition of the contract, shall include provisions governing a
change of interest in land subject to the contract and
modification or termination of the contract, and shall include
additional provisions the Secretary determines necessary to
carry out the program. The Committee expects that the Secretary
will allow for appropriate modification of contracts and
commensurate adjustment in annual payments to take into account
the addition of acreage to an operation by purchase or lease or
a reduction in acreage through sale, termination of a lease, or
enrollment of land in a land retirement or easement program
Subsection (e) provides that the Secretary may allow a
producer to renew the contract for one additional five-year
period if the producer demonstrates compliance with the terms
of the existing initial contract, agrees to adopt and continue
to integrate conservation activities across the producer's
entire agricultural operation, and agrees at a minimum to meet
or exceed the stewardship threshold as to at least two priority
resource concerns in addition to the priority resource concerns
that were the basis of meeting the eligibility requirements of
the initial contract offer specified in subsection (a).
The revised section 1238G contains the duties of the
Secretary in the administration of CSP and increases the number
of locally identified priority resource concerns from 3 to 5 to
at least 5. It also eliminates the requirement for use of the
conservation measurement tool but calls for establishing a
science-based stewardship threshold for each priority resource
concern.
Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary shall make the
conservation stewardship program available for continuous
enrollment with one or more ranking periods, one of which
occurring in the first quarter of each fiscal year, shall
identify not less than five priority resource concerns in a
particular watershed or appropriate region or area within a
state, and shall establish a science-based stewardship
threshold for each priority resource concern that is
identified.
Subsection (b) provides criteria for the Secretary to
allocate acreage to the states for enrollment in the program.
Subsection (c) provides that during the period October 1,
2012 through September 30, 2021 the Secretary shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, enroll in the conservation
stewardship program an additional 10,348,000 acres for each
fiscal year and manage the program to achieve a national
average annual rate of $18 an acre, including the costs of all
financial assistance, technical assistance, and any other
expenses associated with enrollment or participation in the
program.
Subsection (d) provides that the Secretary shall make
annual payments under the program to compensate producers for
installing and adopting additional conservation activities and
for improving, maintaining, and managing conservation
activities in place in the operation of the producer at the
time the conservation stewardship contract offer is accepted.
The subsection specifies factors the Secretary shall use to
determine the amount of the conservation stewardship annual
payment, practices and activities that are excluded from
payments, and proration and timing of payments.
Subsection (e) provides for the continuation of the
availability, requirements, and eligibility with respect to
supplemental payments for resource-conserving crop rotations.
Subsection (f) provides that a person or legal entity may
not directly or indirectly receive payments under the
conservation stewardship program that in the aggregate exceed
$200,000 under all contracts entered into during fiscal years
2013 through 2017, excluding arrangements with Indian tribes.
Subsection (g) continues the requirement for outreach
activities and appropriate technical assistance to specialty
crop and organic producers and for ensuring they are able to
participate effectively in the program.
Subsection (h) continues the requirement for establishing a
transparent means for producers to initiate certification under
the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 while participating in
the conservation stewardship program.
Subsection (i) provides for the issuance of regulations by
the Secretary to carry out the conservation stewardship program
and to ensure a fair and reasonable application and enforcement
of the payment limitations in subsection (f).
Finally, subsection (c) of section 2101 provides that the
amendment made by this section to 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.) shall not affect the validity or terms of
any contract, or any payments required to be made in connection
with the contract, entered by the Secretary under such
subchapter before October 1, 2012 and provides for the use of
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)) to administer and make payments to
participants enrolled in conservation stewardship contracts
during any of fiscal years 2009 through 2012.
SUBTITLE C--ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Section 2201. Purposes
Section 2201 adds ``develop and improve wildlife habitat''
as a purpose for assisting producers to install and maintain
conservation practices.
Section 2202. Definitions
Section 2202 removes the definition for the National
Organic Program and incorporates the reference to the program
in the organic system plan definition.
Section 2203. Establishment and administration
Section 2203 extends the program authorization through
2017. It allows limited resource, socially disadvantaged,
beginning, and veteran farmers or ranchers to obtain advance
payments and up to 90 days to implement practices from the date
of the advance. It continues the allocation of funding
practices related to livestock production as at least 60
percent of the funds.
It also establishes at least five percent of the funds will
be targeted to practices benefitting wildlife habitat, and
establishes wildlife habitat incentive practices as
conservation practices that support restoration, development,
and improvement of wildlife habitat for upland wildlife,
wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered species, fish
habitat, pivot corners and irregular fields, and other types.
The Committee intends that the revisions to Section
1240B(3)(f)(2) of the statute made by this section regarding
funding of wildlife habitat practices should prioritize fish
and wildlife species identified in state, regional, or national
wildlife plans and initiatives.
Management practices for which the Secretary may accord
special significance in determining payment amounts are revised
to reflect better the natural resource objectives of program
participants, including soil health, water quality and quantity
improvement, nutrient management, pest management, wildlife
habitat development, and invasive species management. The
Committee intends to continue the ability of the Secretary to
enter into contracts for long-term grassland rotation,
conversion to less water-intensive crops or dryland farming, or
irrigation reduction, as well as other water conservation
measures. The Committee expects that the EQIP program will
continue to emphasize and allocate considerable funding to the
critical issue of surface and groundwater conservation,
including groundwater conservation in multistate areas
overlying an aquifer with significant agricultural use.
The Committee intends that conservation programs should
recognize the use of innovative technology, such as enhanced
efficiency fertilizers (e.g., slow and controlled-release
fertilizers, stabilized nitrogen fertilizers). This innovative
technology can help producers to protect water quality and
reduce greenhouse emissions, and are recognized by State
regulators of fertilizers. In the case of EQIP applications
involving manure-to-energy projects, the Committee encourages
the Secretary to consider whether the projects include an
integrative approach to addressing nutrient management and
water quality issues.
Section 2204. Evaluation of applications
Section 2204 makes minor wording changes to the underlying
law to emphasize the conservation purpose of the program.
Section 2205. Duties of producers
Section 2205 makes minor wording changes to the underlying
statute to clarify duties of producers relate only to enrolled
lands.
Section 2206. Limitation on payments
Section 2206 amends current law to replace the 6-year
rolling payment limit with a firm time period of 2013 through
2017 that will streamline and simplify program administration.
This revision aligns the payment limitation with the time
period to be covered by this bill.
Section 2207. Conservation innovation grants and payments
Section 2207 includes a reporting requirement for the
Secretary to increase transparency of how funds are used and
the derived benefits. The Committee acknowledges the emphasis
and successes of EQIP in assisting producers to address
Federal, state, and local air quality regulatory requirements
and expects the Secretary to continue the existing commitment
to air quality under the program.
Section 2208. Effective date
Section 2208 establishes October 1, 2012, as the effective
date for this section and clarifies that this amendment will
not affect contracts entered into before October 1, 2012.
SUBTITLE D--AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAM
Section 2301. Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
Section 2301 establishes a new Subtitle H within the Food
Security Act of 1985, as amended, that combines the easement
authorities of the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Grasslands
Reserve Program (GRP), and Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
into an agricultural conservation easement program.
Section 1265A defines common terms for the program,
including the two easement types (agricultural land easements
and wetland easements), eligible entities, and eligible lands.
The Committee includes non-industrial private forest land in
the eligible land definition for ALE. It is the Committee's
intent that non-industrial private forest land used for farming
or agriculture as defined by State law shall be treated as
cropland for the purposes of the program. For example, where
the cultivation of maple trees, collection of maple sap, and
the production of maple syrup are defined as farming or
agriculture in State law, the Secretary shall treat such land
as cropland for the program.
Section 1265B describes agricultural land easements (ALE),
which are acquired and held by eligible entities with cost-
share assistance from the Secretary. Three valuation options
are established for determining the fair market value of an
easement, consistent with the methods used under the
consolidated programs. The terms of easements are permanent, or
the maximum allowed by state law.
The language clarifies that the Secretary may provide up to
50 percent of the appraised fair market value of an
agricultural land easement and that eligible entities may
include a landowner donation as part of their match. The
Committee recognizes the cost incurred by eligible entities in
completing transactions and the reported bill continues to
allow for landowner donations as part of the non-federal match
requirement. It also provides a waiver authority for the
Secretary to provide up to 75 percent of the appraised fair
market value of an easement placed on grasslands of special
environmental significance. The consolidation of easement
programs eliminated the Grasslands Reserve Program provisions
that permitted the Secretary to acquire and hold grassland
easements or acquire and transfer easements to eligible
entities at no cost to the entity. The Committee recognizes the
need to protect important grasslands and permits the Secretary
in special circumstances to provide up to 75 percent of the
fair market value of the easement. The increased cost share
available for specific grasslands easements is intended to help
in the transition to the new program format, and reflects the
Committees commitment to the nation's grasslands.
The entity certification process from FPP is retained and
the opportunity for non-certified entities to participate. The
Committee expects the term `agricultural viability' in the ALE
purpose to clarify that eligible entities may include in their
terms and conditions for conservation easements a right to
purchase at the property's agricultural use value, if the
seller agrees to accept such terms and conditions.
Pursuant to section 1265B, the Secretary shall emphasize
the protection of agriculture-producing areas when developing
criteria for the evaluation of applications for ALE. The
Committee intends that eligible entities should seek to
maximize the protection of eligible land in viable agricultural
areas where applicable. The Committee does not intend that
easement parcels must abut each other, but that to the extent
possible they should be contiguous with other lands in
agricultural uses, irrespective of whether or not those lands
are under an easement. The Secretary should consider regional
variation in agricultural land use patterns when establishing
evaluation criteria. Additionally, the Secretary shall
emphasize acquisition of easements to protect the agricultural
use and conservation values of the agricultural lands,
including retention of native grasslands and rangelands that
are at high risk for conversion to uses other than grazing or
related activities.
The Committee expects that eligible entities will be
responsible for enforcement of the easement terms and
conditions. The right of enforcement for the Secretary that is
required under section 1265B is included in the event that the
eligible entity is dissolved or otherwise fails to carry out
its responsibility in which case USDA will enforce the easement
terms and conditions. The Committee does not intend for the
Secretary to be directly in the chain of title.
Section 1265C describes wetland easements. The reported
bill provides 30 year, permanent, and maximum duration by state
law easement enrollment options, and 30 year contract
enrollment option for Indian Tribes. It also establishes a land
ownership requirement of 24 months prior to enrollment, which
is reduced from the 7-year requirement in current law. It
retains WRP ranking criteria and priority for migratory and
other wildlife habitat and WRP easement terms and conditions
(permitted and prohibited activities) and compatible uses. It
revises the WRP grazing rights pilot such that it is a
permanent provision, and includes a wetlands enhancement option
for States, which is the same as the wetlands reserve
enhancement in WRP.
In carrying out the provisions in section 1265C, the
Secretary shall encourage the use of wildlife plans and wetland
protection plans to assist in making priority determinations
for easement acquisitions to protect and enhance habitat for
migratory birds and other wildlife. The Committee intends that
priority determinations will guide easement acquisition to
achieve the greatest benefits for the federal funds invested.
This includes considering a priority for easements that are
permanent in duration.
To ensure wetland functions and values are developed, the
Committee expects that the Secretary may permit the use of
berms, water control structures, pumps and other acceptable
wetland management and enhancement techniques, as appropriate.
The Committee expects the Secretary to encourage the wetland
plan developed under this section, with input from the
landowner, to achieve: (1) restoration of wetlands that were
formerly on site or in the immediate region, to the extent
practicable; (2) wetland restoration needs and priorities
identified in a state or regional restoration plan; or (3)
restoration of other appropriate wetland types and
configurations, as determined by the Secretary. The easement
restoration plan should include the priorities identified in
the section for protecting and enhancing habitat for migratory
birds and other wildlife.
Section 1265D contains administration provisions common to
both easement types. It describes certain ineligible land and
provides clarification and criteria for easement subordination,
exchange, modification, and termination determinations (new for
agricultural land easements and subordination added for WRP).
In evaluating applications, the Secretary may allow an
enrollment priority for acres expiring from CRP, where
continuing environmental benefits would be achieved through
enrollment in the program. It establishes October 1, 2012, as
the effective date for this section.
The Committee expects that the funding allocations made
available under section 1265D(e) shall be managed at the
national level, affording flexibility at the State level for
prioritizing easement needs: agricultural land easements or
wetland easements, as appropriate. The Committee expects that
the Secretary will annually target no less than 40 percent of
funds for agricultural land easements.
SUBTITLE E--REGIONAL CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Section 2401. Regional Conservation Partnership Program
Section 2401 combines the authorities of the agricultural
water enhancement program (AWEP), Chesapeake Bay watershed
program, cooperative conservation partnership initiative
(CCPI), and Great Lakes basin program for soil erosion and
sediment control into a regional conservation partnership
program (RCPP).
Section 1271 specifies that the program will work through
partnership agreements and contracts directly with
participating producers. Program purposes include furthering
conservation efforts at regional or watershed scales, and
encouraging partners to work with producers to meet or
eliminate the need for regulatory requirements related to
agriculture and implement projects that benefit multiple
producers on a local, regional, state or multistate basis.
Section 1271A identifies EQIP, CSP, and ACEP as the covered
programs through which RCPP is delivered. It defines eligible
activities that address water resource concerns (flooding,
drought, retention, quality, conversion to dryland farming,
sedimentation reduction), erosion, and wildlife, with a
flexibility for the Secretary to identify other activities. It
defines eligible partners to include producer associations or
cooperatives, States or units of local government, Indian
tribes, institutions of higher education, and organizations
with a history of working with producers on agricultural land
(all partners previously eligible for AWEP and CCPI). The
Committee expects that the Secretary will work cooperatively
with eligible partners that have a history of working with
farmers and ranchers. The Secretary should give strong
consideration to partnerships that seek to restore and enhance
water quantity in the nation's large river systems and
aquifers; addressing areas where there is low annual
precipitation or high variability in annual precipitation and
multiple demands on limited water resources.
Section 1271B establishes partnership agreement authority
for the Secretary. It clarifies that the duties of the partners
include defining the scope of the project, identifying the
program resources needed, conducting producer outreach and
education, leveraging resources, and reporting to the Secretary
on the results of the project. It also clarifies that proposal
selection is competitive and merit-based. The Committee also
expects the Secretary to include the type of projects that are
innovative in nature, public-private market instruments that
assist the producers in meeting or avoiding the need for a
natural resource regulatory requirement, such as water quality
trading markets.
The Committee recognizes the importance of water resource
management at the watershed scale, especially interconnected
bodies of water, and the need for fully integrating the effort
across regions and programs. Accordingly, the Committee has
included outreach and education in the duties of partners
(section 1271B(c)(1)(B)) and strongly recommends USDA look
across titles to combine resources, program authorities and
priorities strategically in addressing these large-scale,
conservation challenges. The Committee recommends that USDA
coordinate available authorities to provide grants and funding
to universities working in collaboration with producers and
conservation partners, especially for the critical conservation
areas designated pursuant to section 1271F. The effort should
include research into conservation solutions, combined with
education and outreach programs to producers, communities,
partners and other stakeholders. The Committee encourages
approaches that include analysis of the programs, tools and
solutions put into practice so they can be evaluated for
overall effectiveness and help inform future policy decisions.
Section 1271C describes that contracts with producers must
be consistent with the rules of the covered programs, but
allows the Secretary to make limited adjustments in
discretionary program requirements, at the request of the
partner. It provides authority for the Secretary to enter into
alternative funding arrangements with up to 10 multi-state
water resource agencies or authorities if they can ensure
programmatic integrity and comply with rigorous reporting and
audit requirements to the Secretary. It clarifies that payments
are made consistent with the covered programs. It allows for
payments for a period of 5 years for conversion to less water-
intensive crops, or from irrigated to dryland farming or long-
term grassland rotation. The Committee encourages the Secretary
to continue to provide funding for individual agricultural
producers to promote groundwater conservation, as appropriate
for their operations, including adoption of water conserving
crops and production practices, conversion to dryland farming,
or diversification of operations to include long-term grassland
rotation. The Committee also encourages the Secretary to
consult with State agencies and coordinate federal assistance
with state programs.
Section 1271D authorizes the program from 2013 through 2017
and makes available $100,000,000 per year in mandatory funding.
It provides additional funding and acres at 6 percent from each
of the covered programs (EQIP, CSP, and ACEP). It allocates
funding as 50 percent to national competition, 25 percent to
State level competition, and 25 percent for critical
conservation areas. In allocating the funds in this way, the
Committee intends for the program to address partnership
projects and resource concerns at local, state, multistate and
regional levels.
Section 1271E requires the Secretary to report biennially
to Congress on the status of projects under the program. The
reporting requirement includes specific oversight reporting on
any selected alternative funding arrangements to ensure
adequate scrutiny on the use of funds through these
arrangements.
Section 1271F authorizes the Secretary to designate up to 8
critical conservation areas with priority for multistate areas
with significant agricultural production, areas covered by an
existing plan with established goals and objectives (the
managers encourage USDA to look to include areas where they
have an existing initiative in place), areas with large bodies
of water with water quality concerns, areas with water quantity
concerns (flood prevention, water retention, water supply
(including multistate areas with substantial groundwater
withdrawals for agricultural use and high historic levels of
groundwater depletion.)), or areas that may be subject to
regulatory requirements that could reduce the economic scope of
agriculture in the area. These designations do not require the
presence of a partner or partnership agreement, although it is
the Committee's expectation that these areas will garner
significant interest by local, state, and regional entities.
Once designated, producers within critical conservation areas
may begin to apply for program assistance independent of a
partner or in connection with a partnership agreement if one
exists.
Subsection (b) of section 2401 establishes October 1, 2012,
as the effective date for this section.
SUBTITLE F--OTHER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Section 2501. Conservation of private grazing land
Section 2510 reauthorizes funding at a reduced level of
$30,000,000 in appropriations for each fiscal year from 2013
through 2017.
Section 2502. Grassroots source water protection program
Section 2502 reauthorizes funding at a reduced level of
$15,000,000 in appropriations for each fiscal year from 2013
through 2017.
Section 2503. Voluntary public access and habitat incentive program
Section 2503 authorizes mandatory funding at $40,000,000
for FY 2013 through 2017, and requires the Secretary to report
on the effectiveness of the program.
Section 2504. Agriculture conservation experienced services program
Section 2504 adds ACEP to the programs that can be used
under the agriculture conservation experienced services
program.
Section 2505. Small watershed rehabilitation program
Section 2505 reauthorizes program and authorizes
appropriations at $85,000,000 each year through FY 2017.
Section 2506. Terminal lakes assistance program
Section 2506 reauthorizes and amends the Desert Terminal
Lakes program to include an appropriations authorization for
land purchase grant opportunities. It authorizes mandatory
funding at $150,000,000 for FY 2013 through 2017 and authorizes
appropriations of $25 million. It is the Committee's intent
that the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, use as guidance for implementing
subsection (d) Water Assistance, the authorities in the
following provisions of Public Law: section 207 of Public Law
108-7, section 208 of Public Law 109-103, sections 206 and 208
of Public Law 111-85, and subsection 208(b) of Public Law 112-
74.
SUBTITLE G--FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION
Section 2601. Funding
Section 2601 authorizes Commodity Credit Corporation
funding for programs under this title through FY2017. It
authorizes conservation reserve program transition incentive
payments at $50,000,000 and tree thinning activities at
$10,000,000. It authorizes the Agriculture Conservation
Easement Program at: $450,000,000 for FY2013, $475,000,000 for
FY2014, $500,000,000 for FY2015, $525,000,000 for FY2016, and
$250,000,000 for FY2017. It authorizes the conservation
security program, the conservation stewardship program, and the
environmental quality incentives program at: $1,500,000,000 for
FY2013; $1,600,000,000 for FY2014; and $1,650,000,000 for
FY2015 through FY2017.
Section 2602. Technical assistance
Section 2602 adds a requirement for the Secretary to report
annually to the Committees on the amount of funds requested and
apportioned for technical assistance. The Committee intends for
the Secretary to encourage any qualified third-party provider
who meets the certification requirements of section 1242(e) and
who has experience working with individuals who do not accept
government assistance due to religious tenets, to enroll as a
technical service provider.
Section 2603. Regional equity
Section 2603 strikes the $15,000,000 target for regional
equity allocations and replaces it with 0.6 percent in order to
allow allocations to synchronize with annual program
appropriations.
Section 2604. Reservation of funds to provide assistance to certain
farmers or ranchers for conservation access
Section 2604 extends the EQIP and CSP 5 percent set aside
for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers
to 2017 and adds priority for eligible producers who are also
veterans.
Section 2605. Annual report on program enrollments and assistance
Section 2605 aligns the Secretary's reporting requirements
on program enrollments and assistance to reflect the
consolidation and related program adjustments made by this
amendment.
Section 2606. Administrative requirements applicable to all
conservation programs
Section 2606 combines language on improved administrative
efficiency and streamlining from individual programs and places
it here to apply to all conservation programs. It expands and
clarifies requirements for developing a streamlined
conservation application process. It clarifies that any payment
received under this title is in addition to and does not affect
total payments that an owner or operator is otherwise eligible
to receive. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
significantly increase the use of computer-based conservation
practice planning tools that incorporate Light Detection and
Ranging (LiDAR) elevation data to modernize and simplify
conservation planning, improve efficiency of technical
assistance, and improve service to private landowners.
The Committee expects the Secretary to promptly establish
and maintain a user-friendly, publicly available website to
provide information on Federal, State, local and private
resources available to those interested in implementing
conservation practices which provides: (1) user-friendly access
for agricultural producers, owners of nonindustrial private
forest land, Federal, State, and local governments, academic
and nongovernmental organizations, industry associations, and
other interested parties to industry-specific regulatory
compliance and conservation program information that the
Secretary considers potentially useful to agricultural
producers and owners of nonindustrial private forest land
located in critical conservation areas; and (2) detailed
examples of successful conservation projects. The Committee
further expects the Secretary to enhance and update the website
as necessary.
Section 2607. Rulemaking authority
Section 2607 directs the Secretary to move expeditiously
with rulemaking and provides for operation of programs under
interim rules.
Section 2608. Standards for State technical committees
Section 2608 modifies language to require the Secretary to
review and update state technical committee operating standards
only as necessary.
SUBTITLE H--REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED PROGRAM AUTHORITIES AND TRANSITIONAL
PROVISIONS
Section 2701. Comprehensive conservation enhancement program
Section 2701 repeals the comprehensive conservation
enhancement program.
Section 2702. Emergency forestry conservation reserve program
Section 2702 removes this provision for enrolling lands in
response to the hurricanes of calendar year 2005 and provides
for enrolled contracts to continue until their expiration date
because it is no longer applicable.
Section 2703. Wetlands reserve program
Section 2703 repeals the wetlands reserve program.
Section 2704. Farmland protection program and farm viability program
Section 2704 repeals the farmland protection program.
Section 2705. Grassland reserve program
Section 2705 repeals the grassland reserve program.
Section 2706. Agricultural water enhancement program
Section 2706 repeals the agricultural water enhancement
program.
Section 2707. Wildlife habitat incentive program
Section 2707 repeals the wildlife habitat incentive
program.
Section 2708. Great Lakes basin program
Section 2708 repeals the Great Lakes basin program for soil
erosion and sediment control. The Committee recognizes that the
Great Lakes Basin Program has been an important and successful
program for 22 years that has implemented over 400 projects
that have reduced soil erosion and improved water quality in
Great Lakes watersheds. Since 2008, the program has supported
implementation of both the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
(GLRC) and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) by
directing resources to priority watersheds. The Committee
intends the program to continue serving this purpose for the
duration of the GLRI.
Section 2709. Chesapeake Bay watershed program
Section 2709 repeals the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The
Committee recognizes that the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program
established in 2008 complemented other conservation programs by
enhancing their reach and effectiveness within the tributary
watersheds. Since 2008, the program has supported farm level
implementation of conservation practices benefiting water
quality by improving nutrient management, reducing
sedimentation, and restoring riparian areas. With the
consolidation of the Chesapeake Bay watershed program into the
regional conservation partnership program (RCPP), the Committee
intends the RCPP to continue assistance to agricultural
producers consistent with the purposes of the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Program.
Section 2710. Cooperative conservation partnership initiative
Section 2710 repeals the cooperative conservation
partnership initiative.
Section 2711. Environmental easement program
Section 2711 repeals the environmental easement program.
TITLE III--TRADE
SUBTITLE A--FOOD FOR PEACE ACT
Section 3001. Support for eligible organizations
Section 3001 raises the amount of funds available to
organizations to facilitate the delivery of food aid to 15
percent of the total appropriation.
Section 3002. Food aid quality
Section 3002 expands the Administrator's ability to develop
nutritious food aid products.
Section 3003. Minimum levels of assistance
Section 3003 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3004. Reauthorization of Food Aid Consultative Group
Section 3004 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3005. Monitoring and evaluation
Section 3005 removes authority to spend money on upgrading
IT systems, deletes section on a completed GAO report, and
reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3006. Food aid delivery
Section 3006 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3007. Monetization
Section 3007 sets a 70 percent cost recovery rate when
monetizing commodities. If the rate of return is below that
threshold, the Administrator must report the reasons to
Congress.
Section 3008. Flexibility
Section 3008 adds flexibility for the Administrator to
facilitate food aid distribution.
Section 3009. Prepositioning
Section 3009 increases funds available for getting food aid
to strategic positions in case of emergency.
Section 3010. Deadline for agreements to finance sales or to provide
other assistance
Section 3010 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3011. Safebox
Section 3011 provides for the Administrator to spend
between 15 percent and 30 percent of the total appropriation on
non-emergency projects.
Section 3012. Coordination of foreign assistance programs report
Section 3012 strikes language for a completed report.
Section 3013. Micronutrient fortification programs
Section 3013 deletes reference to an obsolete study.
Section 3014. John Ogonowski and Doug Bereuter farmer-to-farmer program
Section 3014 changes the alternative minimum on the program
to 0.6 percent of the total appropriation.
SUBTITLE B--AGRICULTURAL TRADE ACT OF 1978
Section 3101. Export credit guarantee program
Section 3101 reauthorizes program authority through 2017
and allows for up to $4,500,000,000 in credit guarantees.
Section 3102. Market access program
Section 3102 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3103. Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program
Section 3103 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
SUBTITLE C--OTHER AGRICULTURAL TRADE LAWS
Section 3201. Food for Progress Act of 1985
Section 3201 deletes reference to a completed project in
Malawi and adds flexibility for the Administrator to facilitate
food aid distribution. It sets a 70 percent cost recovery rate
when monetizing commodities, and provides that when the rate of
return is below that threshold, the Administrator must report
to Congress.
Section 3202. Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
Section 3202 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3203. Promotion of agricultural exports to emerging markets
Section 3203 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3204. McGovern-Dole
Section 3204 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3205. Technical assistance for specialty crops
Section 3205 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3206. Global crop diversity trust
Section 3206 reauthorizes program authority through 2017.
Section 3207. Local and regional procurement projects
Section 3207 continues the authority for USDA to conduct
local and regional procurement projects. It gives preference to
organizations with projects under the McGovern-Dole program to
promote graduation from that program and requires the Secretary
to submit a report to Congress on the impact of these projects.
Section 3208. Donald Payne Horn of Africa food resilience program
Section 3208 provides grants for projects that are working
on the ground in the Horn of Africa to build resilience to food
crises and prevent future outbreaks. It requires a study of the
projects implemented through government agencies and how they
can better work together to improve outcomes.
Section 3209. Agricultural trade enhancement study
Section 3209 requests that the Secretary study a
reorganization of the international trade functions (imports
and exports) at USDA including the establishment of an Under
Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs.
TITLE IV--NUTRITION
SUBTITLE A--SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM
Section 4001. Food distribution on indian reservations
Section 4001 reauthorizes the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations.
Section 4002. Standard utility allowances based on the receipt of
energy assistance payments
Section 4002 amends current law in order to preclude States
from annually issuing nominal LIHEAP benefits to qualify
otherwise ineligible households for Standard Utility
Allowances, which result in increased monthly SNAP benefits.
Only annual LIHEAP benefits of $10 or more will qualify a
household without out-of-pocket utility expenses to receive a
Standard Utility Allowance deduction for calculating monthly
SNAP food benefits. The Committee intends that the Secretary
utilize this authority only to further the intent of the
connection between SNAP and LIHEAP as outlined in this report.
Section 4003. Eligibility disqualifications
Section 4003 limits SNAP eligibility for college students
to students participating in technical and vocational education
programs, such as 2-year colleges, remedial course work, basic
adult literacy, and English as a Second Language instruction.
Section 4004. Ending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits
for gambling winners
Section 4004 makes households ineligible to receive SNAP
food benefits if one of the household members receives
substantial lottery or gambling winnings. The household remains
ineligible for SNAP until income eligibility requirements are
met. It requires States to coordinate with State lottery and
gambling authorities to identify individuals participating in
SNAP who receive substantial winnings.
In May 2011, news reports indicated that a man who had
recently received lotto winnings totaling $1 million was
continuing to receive SNAP benefits. The Committee acknowledges
that this is a rare, but also egregious, violation of the
intent for the program. The Committee seeks to provide the
Secretary clear direction to assist states in improving
oversight of major gambling activities that result in large
winnings, and help states to improve coordination between
entities responsible for gambling and SNAP administrative
offices. The Committee does not intend to increase the
administrative burden on states by instituting extensive
oversight of private or charitable gaming activities, such as
those that occur at senior centers, churches, private homes or
other non-commercial gaming. Further, it is not the intent of
the Committee that the Secretary be required to impose
statutory requirements that may otherwise be waived under State
option in this Act. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
evaluate the criteria for substantial winnings in a manner that
does not produce an outcome that increases poverty.
Section 4005. Retailers
Section 4005 requires participating retailers to stock at
least 3 of the 4 staple food categories: dairy products; meat
poultry or fish; fruits or vegetables; and bread or cereals.
Previously, a qualified SNAP retailer had to carry 2 of the 4
staple food categories. It bans retailers from participating in
SNAP if sales attributable to liquor and tobacco exceed 45
percent of total sales. It requires SNAP retailers to pay 100
percent of the cost of electronic benefit transfer machines,
with an exemption for farmers' markets, military commissaries,
nonprofit food buying cooperatives or other entities determined
by the Secretary. It restricts States from issuing manual
vouchers for SNAP unless the Secretary deems it necessary for
emergency purposes. It requires all parties providing EBT
machines to provide unique identification numbers to enable the
Secretary to access precise data for addressing retailer
trafficking. The Committee notes that the changes in this
section should not be interpreted as support for any action
that would result in interchange fees being imposed on SNAP
transactions. The Committee acknowledges that many small
businesses and direct-to-consumer retailers continue to face
challenges related to the cost of utilizing EBT and advanced
technologies. The Committee encourages the Secretary to take
steps to minimize the impact of these provisions on those
retailers.
Section 4006. Improving Security of Food Assistance
Section 4006 requires households with excessive replacement
card requests to provide State agencies with an explanation for
the lost cards. It allows State agencies to decline issuance of
replacement cards until the household provides an explanation.
It requires States to protect the interests of homeless,
disabled, victims of crimes, and other vulnerable citizens. The
Committee intends for this provision to require that a state
agency be allowed to withhold an EBT card only until such time
as an explanation is provided by the SNAP recipient. Any
additional actions, including denial of benefits, should follow
due process as described in the underlying statute.
Section 4007. Technology modernization for retailers
Section 4007 authorizes demonstration projects for
authorized retailers to accept SNAP benefits through mobile
electronic devices other than stationary EBT machines, and to
accept SNAP benefits through on-line transactions. It requires
retailers and States to protect consumer information privacy,
ensure the price of food is not higher when using mobile
technologies, and pay costs associated with implementing mobile
technologies. It requires States to test mobile technologies
before approving use in all SNAP retailers, and requires the
Secretary to issue a report to Congress. It prohibits SNAP
benefits for the payment of any food delivery fees and any
purchase online other than eligible food.
Section 4008. Use of benefits for purchase of community-supported
agriculture share
Section 4008 allows SNAP benefits for the purchase of CSA
shares. The initial cost of the share may be paid at an
appropriate amount of time in advance of food delivery. The
Committee does not intend to require the Secretary to make any
adjustments to benefits allocations in order to accommodate the
purchase of CSA shares under this section.
Section 4009. Restaurant meals program
Section 4009 ensures the integrity of the SNAP restaurant
meals program by providing the Secretary with additional
authority over State restaurant meal program options and
retailer eligibility requirements.
Section 4010. Quality control error rate determination
Section 4010 establishes the State threshold level for
reporting SNAP errors at $25 or greater.
Section 4011. Authorization of appropriations
Section 4011 reauthorizes appropriations for the
administration of SNAP through fiscal year 2017.
Section 4012. Assistance for community food projects
Section 4012 provides grants to eligible nonprofit
organizations to improve community access to food. It
eliminates grant eligibility for infrastructure improvement and
development. It increases funding by $5 million per year
starting in fiscal year 2013; raising the total annual funding
to $10 million per year.
Section 4013. Emergency food assistance
Section 4013 requires funding for the Emergency Food
Assistance Program to be available for 2 years. It increases
existing funding indexed to inflation by $150 million over 10
years. It front-loads the funding increase by $28 million in
FY2013, $24 million in FY2014, $20 million in FY2015, $18
million in FY2016, and by adding $10 in FY2017 and every
following fiscal year. The Committee encourages the Secretary
to utilize existing authority to make additional purchases for
use at food banks in times of high need when funds are
available within the existing budget to accommodate additional
commodity purchasing.
Section 4014. Nutrition education
Section 4104 allows ``physical activity'' as an eligible
use of SNAP Nutrition Education funding.
Section 4015. Retailer and recipient trafficking
Section 4105 provides the Secretary $18.5 million per year
in additional funding to prevent SNAP food benefit trafficking.
The additional funding in this section is intended to
supplement trafficking interventions, which may include data
mining, activities in partnership with state agencies involved
in the investigation of both recipients and retail food stores
and any other actions necessary to investigate program abuses.
Section 4016. Technical and conforming amendments
SUBTITLE B--COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS
Section 4101. Commodity distribution program
Section 4101 reauthorizes the Commodity Distribution
Program.
Section 4102. Commodity supplemental food program
Section 4102 revises the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP) to serve senior citizens, and phases-out
eligibility for women, infants, and children. The Committee
intends for the women, infants and children participating in
CSFP to instead participate in the Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) program because WIC is better suited to meet
participants' needs.
Section 4103. Distribution of surplus commodities to special nutrition
projects
Section 4103 reauthorizes the Secretary's authority to
participate in reprocessing agreements with private companies
to stretch the value and amount of surplus commodity foods
available for nutrition programs.
Section 4104. Technical and conforming amendments
SUBTITLE C--MISCELLANEOUS
Section 4201. Purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables for distribution
to schools and service institutions
Section 4201 reauthorizes the Department of Defense Fresh
Program.
Section 4202. Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
Section 4202 reauthorizes the Senior Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program.
Section 4203. Nutrition information awareness pilot program
Section 4203 repeals the nutrition information awareness
pilot program.
Section 4204. Whole grains products
Section 4204 renews funding for the whole grain products
program at $10 million for 2 years.
Section 4205. Hunger-free communities
Section 4205 establishes hunger-free communities incentive
grants to incentivize purchases of fruits and vegetables by
SNAP participants in underserved communities. It limits the
Federal cost share of grants to 50 percent, and provides $100
million over 5 years in mandatory funding: $15 million for
FY2013; $20 million for FY2014-2016; and $25 million for
FY2017. Additionally, $5 million per year is authorized for
appropriations. The Committee encourages the Secretary to award
grants to projects that maximize the impact of incentives on
both SNAP recipients and local agricultural producers.
Section 4206. Healthy food financing initiative
Section 4206 provides an authorization of funding for
community development financial institutions to create
revolving loan programs for fresh, healthy food retailers to
overcome high costs of entry into underserved areas. It
authorizes $125 million to remain available until expended.
Section 4207. Purchase of commodities by the commodity credit
corporation
Section 4207 clarifies the Secretary's authority for
considering the needs of emergency feeding organizations when
making Section 32 commodity food purchases.
TITLE V--CREDIT
Section 5001. Farm loans, servicing and other assistance under the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.
Titles V and VI of this bill restructure the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act. While most of current law is
maintained, the reorganization required considerable movement
and restatement of the program provisions. Provisions of the
renumbered sections that relate to farm credit are described in
detail below.
SUBTITLE A--FARM LOANS, SERVICING, AND OTHER ASSISTANCE
Section 3101. Farm ownership loans
Section 3101 permits farm ownership loans for ``joint
operation, or other such legal entities as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate'' to expand access to farm loans
in response to modern legal entities created for estate
succession planning. It allows the Secretary to define
additional qualifying agriculture experience to make it easier
for applicants to meet the 3-year farming or ranching
experience requirement.
Section 3102. Purposes of loans
Section 3102 continues current law.
Section 3103. Conservation loan and loan guarantee program
Section 3103 reauthorizes the program through 2017.
Section 3104. Loan maximums
Section 3104 continues current law.
Section 3105. Repayment requirements for farm ownership loans
Section 3105 continues current law.
Section 3106. Limited-resource loans
Section 3106 continues current law.
Section 3107. Down payment loan program
Section 3107 reauthorizes the program through 2017, and
increases the maximum loan value in the program to 45 percent
of $667,000.
Section 3201. Operating loans
Section 3201 permits operating loans for ``other such legal
entity as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to expand
access to farm loans in response to modern legal entities
created for estate succession planning. It extends the 7-year
term limits for direct operating loans by allowing one
additional year for every three consecutive years a borrower
does not receive a direct operating loan. It eliminates the 15-
year term limits for guaranteed operating loans.
Section 3202. Purposes of loans
Section 3202 continues current law.
Section 3203. Restrictions on loans
Section 3203 continues current law.
Section 3204. Terms of loans
Section 3204 continues current law.
Section 3301. Emergency loans
Section 3301 continues current law.
Section 3302. Purposes of loans
Section 3302 continues current law.
Section 3303. Terms of loans
Section 3303 continues current law.
Section 3304. Production losses
Section 3304 continues current law.
Section 3401. Agricultural credit insurance
Section 3401 continues current law.
Section 3402. Guaranteed farmer loans
Section 3402 continues current law.
Section 3403. Provision of information to borrowers
Section 3403 continues current law.
Section 3404. Notice of loan service programs
Section 3404 continues current law.
Section 3405. Planting and production history guidelines
Section 3405 continues current law.
Section 3406. Special conditions and limitations on loans
Section 3406 continues current law.
Section 3407. Graduation of borrowers
Section 3407 continues current law.
Section 3408. Debt adjustment and credit counseling
Section 3408 continues current law.
Section 3409. Security servicing
Section 3409 continues current law.
Section 3410. Contracts on loan security properties
Section 3410 continues current law.
Section 3411. Debt restructuring and loan servicing
Section 3411 continues current law.
Section 3412. Relief for mobilized military reservists from certain
agricultural loan obligations
Section 3412 continues current law.
Section 3413. Interest rate reduction program
Section 3413 continues current law.
Section 3414. Homestead property
Section 3414 continues current law.
Section 3415. Transfer on inventory land
Section 3415 continues current law.
Section 3416. Target participation rates
Section 3416 continues current law.
Section 3417. Compromise or adjustment of debts of claims by guaranteed
lender
Section 3417 continues current law.
Section 3418. Waiver of mediation rights by borrowers
Section 3418 continues current law.
Section 3419. Borrower training
Section 3419 continues current law.
Section 3420. Loan assessments
Section 3420 continues current law.
Section 3421. Supervised credit
Section 3421 continues current law.
Section 3422. Market placement
Section 3422 continues current law.
Section 3423. Recordkeeping of loans by gender of borrower
Section 3423 continues current law.
Section 3424. Crop insurance requirement
Section 3424 continues current law.
Section 3425. Loan and loan servicing limitations
Section 3425 continues current law.
Section 3426. Short form certification of farm program borrower
compliance
Section 3426 continues current law.
Section 3427. Underwriting forms and standards
Section 3427 continues current law.
Section 3428. Beginning farmer individual development accounts pilot
program.
Section 3428 reauthorizes the program through 2017.
Section 3429. Farmer loan pilot projects
Section 3429 allows the Secretary to conduct targeted pilot
projects within the Farm Loan programs after soliciting input
from the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate.
Section 3430. Authorization of appropriations and allocation of funds
Section 3430 reauthorizes direct ownership and operating
loan levels through 2017.
Section 5101. State agricultural mediation programs
Section 5101 reauthorizes the program through 2017.
Section 5102. Loans to purchasers of highly fractionated lands.
Section 5102 allows the Secretary to establish intermediary
relending for the highly fractionated land program for Indian
tribes and tribal corporations.
Section 5103. Removal of duplicative appraisals.
Section 5103 simplifies the appraisal process for loans to
Indian tribes or tribal corporations for the purchase of highly
fractionated land by allowing an appraisal from either the
Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior.
TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT
SUBTITLE A--REORGANIZATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT
Section 6001. Reorganization of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act
Titles V and VI of this bill restructure the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act. While most of current law is
maintained, the reorganization required considerable movement
and restatement of the program provisions. Provisions of the
renumbered sections that relate to rural development are
described in detail below.
Section 6002. Conforming amendments
Section 6002 corrects references to the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act to comport with the Act as
restructured.
Section 3002. Definitions
Section 3002 defines ``rural'' and ``rural area.'' It
raises population eligibility requirement to 50,000 for Rural
Community and Rural Business Programs. It excludes urbanized
areas contiguous or adjacent to city or towns larger than
50,000 from being defined as ``rural.'' It also allows cities
or towns located within an urbanized area to petition the Under
Secretary for Rural Development to be considered a rural area
and includes criteria for the Under Secretary to take in
consideration when making such determinations, including
population density, economic conditions, commuting patterns,
and whether a community was eligible for Rural Water, Community
Facilities or Rural Broadband programs under previous
definition of rural.
This section extends the current exclusion for ``urbanized
areas'' where a single road may cause a rural town or area to
be included within an urbanized area. The exclusion language
directs the Secretary to disregard the urbanized area
classification for areas that are rural in all aspects but for
a road connecting the area to a bigger city.
The Committee recognizes the concerns by both USDA and
rural constituents about the confusion resulting from the
multiple definitions of ``rural'' used by USDA to determine
program eligibility that were instituted by previous Farm
Bills. The Committee acknowledges that the previous definitions
were developed for sound reasons and with good intent. However,
the Committee is concerned that 96 different cities and towns
had received waivers through legislation passed by the Congress
subsequent to passage of previous Farm Bills that granted them
eligibility for rural development programs despite the fact
that their populations had grown beyond the population limits
established in Farm Bill legislation. USDA will begin using
data from the 2010 Census data in the Fall of 2012, and the
Committee expects that a number of currently eligible
communities will lose that eligibility. Therefore, to address
these concerns, the Committee has provided a single definition
of ``rural'' that is intended to clarify eligibility. The new
definition grants eligibility to cities and towns of less than
50,000 in population and not contiguous or adjacent to
urbanized areas. The Committee recognizes that some cities and
towns of less than 50,000 in population that are located within
an urbanized area may in fact be ``rural in character.'' To
provide these cities and towns with an opportunity to maintain
their eligibility for rural development programs, the Committee
has provided for a process by which USDA may determine these
areas ``rural in character.'' The Committee has directed USDA
to consider the following factors when making such
determinations: population density, economic conditions,
commuting patterns, and whether a community was eligible for
Rural Water, Community Facilities or Rural Broadband programs
under the definition of ``rural'' established in the 2008 Farm
Bill.
This section also expands eligibility for farm ownership
loans for new and beginning farmers by changing the
definitional requirement that beginning farmer loan applicants
cannot own real estate that is over 30 percent of the median
farm size in their county to that they cannot own over 30
percent of the average farm size in their county.
Section 3501.Water and waste disposal loans, loan guarantees, and
grants
Section 3501 reauthorizes the Rural Water Grant and Loan
Program, the Revolving Funds for Financing Water and Wastewater
Projects, the Emergency and Imminent Community Water Assistance
Program, the Water and Waste Facility Loans and Grants to
Alleviate Health Risks, Solid Waste Management Grants, Rural
Water and Wastewater Technical Assistance and Training
Programs, including the Rural Water and Wastewater Circuit
Rider Program, and the Special Evaluation Assistance for Rural
Communities and Households (SEARCH) Program. It specifies
eligibility for native villages for Alaska and Hawaii for Water
and Waste Facility Loans and Grants to Alleviate Health Risks.
It establishes priorities for Rural Water programs, which is
similar to current law, and includes prioritization of
communities of less than 5,500 in population. It maintains
current law preventing larger municipal systems from
encroaching upon the service area of rural water program
borrowers.
Section 3502. Community facilities loans, loan guarantees, and grants
Section 3502 reauthorizes the Community Facilities
Programs. It establishes priorities for programs, including
prioritization of communities with less than 20,000 in
population. It reauthorizes Tribal Colleges and Universities
Program and authorizes Technical Assistance for Community
Facilities Projects as a part of current Community Facilities
program.
Section 3503. Health care services
Section 3503 reauthorizes the Delta Heath Care Services
Program.
Section 3601. Business programs
Section 3601 creates the Rural Business Development Grant
Program by combining the Rural Business Opportunity Grants and
Rural Business Enterprise Grants authorities into one program.
It reauthorizes Value Added Agricultural Producer Grants and
establishes priority for projects in which at least 25 percent
of the project recipients are beginning farmers or ranchers or
socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers. It reauthorizes
Rural Cooperative Development Grants and includes a directive
for the Secretary to coordinate an interagency working group
among Federal agencies to support cooperative development. It
reauthorizes the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas Program. It reauthorizes Business and Industry Direct and
Guaranteed Loans and raises the initial fee to three percent
from current authorization of two percent. It reauthorizes
Relending Programs, the Intermediate Relending Program, and the
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program. It adds a
definition of ``training'' and ``technical assistance.'' It
also clarifies the match requirement of 15 percent. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue working with
dairy product processors to enhance their ability to produce
dairy products and access export markets. Exports have become
an integral focus of the U.S. dairy industry and the industry
needs to accommodate an increasingly global market.
Section 3602. Rural business investment program
Section 3602 reauthorizes the Rural Business Investment
Program, while providing authority to the Secretary to
establish capital requirements, establish fees for applicants
applying for a license to operate as a rural business
investment company, and ensures the majority of capital of each
rural business company is invested in rural concerns.
Section 3701. General provisions for loans and grants
Section 3701 reauthorizes general provisions for Loans and
Grants authority.
Section 3702. Strategic economic and community development
Section 3702 authorizes the Secretary to prioritize
otherwise eligible applications that support strategic economic
and community development, and establishes criteria by which
the Secretary should evaluate strategic applications. The bill
also gives the Secretary discretion to prioritize applications
for funding that reflect an applicant's efforts to think
strategically about long-term community and economic
development. The Committee has provided criteria for the
Secretary to consider when determining that an application
should be considered ``strategic'' and thus prioritized. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to use the discretion to
prioritize these applications in manner that rewards rural
communities and entities for proposing an effective use of
resources.
Section 3703. Guaranteed rural development loans
Section 3703 reauthorizes guaranteed rural development loan
authority.
Section 3704. Rural Development Insurance Fund
Section 3704 reauthorizes the Rural Development Insurance
Fund.
Section 3705. Rural economic Area Partnership zones
Section 3705 establishes a competitive process for the
Secretary to designate new Rural Economic Area Partnership
zones, and directs the Secretary to carry out those rural
economic area partnership zones in effect on date of enactment
of the bill.
Section 3706. Streamlining applications and improving accessibility of
rural development programs
Section 3706 directs the Secretary to expedite the process
of creating user-friendly and accessible application forms and
procedures prioritizing programs and applications at the
individual level with an emphasis on utilizing current
technologies such as online applications.
Section 3801 through Section 3814. Delta Regional Authority
Sections 3801 through 3814 reauthorize the Delta Regional
Authority.
Section 3821 through Section 3835. Northern Great Plains Regional
Authority
Sections 3821 through 3835 reauthorize the Northern Great
Plains Regional Authority.
Section 3834 establishes a cap on administrative expenses
of ten percent, an increase from the current five percent cap.
SUBTITLE C--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3901. Full faith and credit
Section 3901 establishes that a contract of insurance or
guarantee executed by the Secretary under this title shall be
an obligation supported by the full faith and credit of the
United States.
Section 3902. Purchase and sale of guaranteed portions of loans
Section 3902 establishes that terms under which the
Secretary may purchase and sell the guaranteed portion of a
loan guaranteed under this title if the Secretary determines
that an adequate secondary market is not available in the
private sector.
Section 3903. Administration
Section 3903 re-establishes that terms under which the
Secretary may administer programs under this title.
Section 3904. Loan moratorium and policy on foreclosures
Section 3904 re-establishes the Secretary's authority to
permit, at the request of the borrower, the deferral of
principal and interest on any outstanding loan made or
guaranteed by the Secretary under this title and to forgo
foreclosure on the loan for a time period that the Secretary
considers necessary upon demonstration that the borrower is
temporarily unable to continue making payments.
Section 3905. Oil and gas royalty payments on loans
Section 3905 re-establishes the Secretary's authority to
permit a borrower to make a prospective payment on a loan with
proceeds from the leasing of oil, gas, or other mineral rights
to real property used to secure the loan or the sale of oil,
gas, or other minerals removed from the property used to secure
the loan if the value of the rights to the oil, gas, or other
minerals has not been used to secure the loan.
Section 3906. Taxation
Section 3906 re-establishes that all property subject to a
lien held by the United States or the title to which is
acquired or held by the Secretary under this title (other than
property used for administrative purposes) will be subject to
taxation by state, territory, district, and local political
subdivisions in the same manner and to the same extent as other
property is taxed.
Section 3907. Conflicts of interest
Section 3907 re-establishes that no officer, attorney, or
other employee of USDA may, directly or indirectly, be the
beneficiary of or receive any fee, commission, gift, or other
consideration for or in connection with any transaction or
business under this title other than such salary, fee, or other
compensation as they might receive in those positions, and
states penalties for violation of the section. It re-
establishes that an officer or employee of USDA that has
reviewed an application for a loan to purchase land under this
title may not acquire an interest in that land for a period of
three years, and states penalties for violation of the section.
Section 3908. Loan summary statements
Section 3908 re-establishes that upon the request of a
borrower of a loan made (but not guaranteed) under this title,
the Secretary shall issue to the borrower a loan summary
statement that reflects the account activity during the summary
period for each loan made under this title to the borrower.
Section 3909. Certified lenders program
Section 3909 directs the Secretary to establish a program
under which the Secretary will guarantee loans under this title
that are made by lending institutions certified by the
Secretary.
Section 3910. Loans to resident aliens
Section 3910 re-establishes the Secretary's authority to
make a loan under this title to an alien lawfully admitted to
the United States for permanent residence under the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
Section 3911. Expedited clearing of title to inventory property
Section 3911 re-establishes the Secretary's authority to
employ local attorneys, on a case-by-case basis, to process
legal procedures necessary to clear the title to foreclosed
properties in USDA's inventory.
Section 3912. Prohibition on use of loans for certain purposes
Section 3912 re-establishes that the Secretary may not
approve a loan under this title to drain, dredge, fill, level
or otherwise manipulate a wetland or engage in any activity
that results in impairing or reducing the flow, circulation or
reach of water. An exemption is provided in the case of an
activity begun before November 28, 1990 or a loan made for a
utility line.
Section 3913. Regulations
Section 3913 establishes the Secretary's authority to issue
regulations and rules necessary to implement the title.
SUBTITLE B--RURAL ELECTRIFICATION
Section 6101. Definition of rural area
Section 6101 changes the definition of rural area for
programs under the Rural Electrification Act to be the same as
in Section 3002(28)(A)(i).
Section 6102. Guarantees for Bonds and Notes Issued for Electrification
or Telephone Purposes
Section 6102 reauthorizes Guarantees for Bonds and Notes
Issued for Electrification or Telephone Purposes.
Section 6103. Expansion of 911 Access
Section 6103 reauthorizes Expansion of 911 Access
authority.
Section 6104. Access to broadband telecommunications services in rural
areas
Section 6104 establishes a grant component to the current
Broadband Loan Program. It creates priority for communities
without an incumbent service provider, for communities with a
population of less than 20,000 permanent residents, rural
communities experiencing outmigration, a community with a high
percentage of low-income residents, or a rural community
isolated from other significant population centers. It
establishes the maximum grant limit as 50 percent of project
development costs. It provides the Secretary with the authority
to increase the grant up to 75 percent for communities that do
not have an existing service provider, are remote and have low-
income populations. It establishes transparency and reporting
requirements for projects that receive funding.
SUBTITLE C--MISCELLANEOUS
Section 6201. Distance Learning and Telemedicine
Section 6201 reauthorizes Distance Learning and
Telemedicine.
Section 6202. Rural Energy Savings Program
Section 6202 authorizes a Rural Energy Savings Program
through which the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides loans to eligible
borrowers, such as rural electric cooperatives, for the purpose
of relending to their customers for durable, cost-effective
energy efficiency improvements. Consumers repay the loans to
the borrowers on their monthly utility bill. The borrowing
entity, not the consumer, holds responsibility for repayment of
the loan to RUS.
TITLE VII--RESEARCH
SUBTITLE A--NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND TEACHING
POLICY ACT OF 1977
Section 7101. National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and
Economics Advisory Board
Section 7101 reauthorizes the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board
(NAREEE). The NAREEE Board will consult with affected industry
groups before recommendations are given to the Secretary.
Section 7102. Specialty Crop Committee
Section 7102 enhances the Specialty Crop Committee,
strengthens its role with the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative, and clarifies that Committee membership shall
reflect the diversity in the specialty crop industry.
Section 7103. Veterinary Services Grant Program
Section 7103 authorizes the Veterinary Services Grant
Program and an additional matching competitive grant program
with qualified entities to develop, implement, and sustain
veterinary services. A qualifying entity must carry out
programs that: (1) relieve veterinarian shortage situations,
(2) support private veterinary practices engaged in public
health activities, or (3) support practices of veterinarians
who are participating in or have successfully completed a
specified service requirement. This program is authorized at
$10 million per year.
Section 7104. Grants and Fellowships for Food and Agriculture Sciences
Education
Section 7104 reauthorizes Grants and Fellowships for Food
and Agriculture Sciences Education at $40 million per year.
Section 7105. Agriculture and Food Policy Research Centers
Section 7105 authorizes Policy Research Centers. The
Secretary will award grants through the Office of the Chief
Economist, only competitive grants may be awarded under this
section and preference is given to centers that have databases,
models and experience providing Congress with agricultural
market projections, rural development analysis, agriculture
policy analysis and baseline projections. This program is
authorized at $5 million per year.
Section 7106. Education Grants to Alaska Native Serving Institutions
and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
Section 7106 reauthorizes the Education Grants to Alaska
Native Serving Institutions and Native Hawaiian Serving
Institutions and clarifies only competitive grants may be
awarded under this section.
Section 7107. Nutrition Education Program
Section 7107 reauthorizes the Nutrition Education Program.
Section 7108. Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research Programs
Section 7108 reauthorizes the Continuing Animal Health and
Disease Research Programs at $25 million per year.
Section 7109. Grants to Upgrade Agricultural and Food Sciences
Facilities at 1890 Land-Grant Colleges, Including Tuskegee
University
Section 7109 reauthorizes Grants to Upgrade Agricultural
and Food Sciences Facilities at 1890 Land-Grant Colleges,
Including Tuskegee University.
Section 7110. Grants to Upgrade Agricultural and Food Sciences
Facilities and Equipment at Insular Area Land-Grant
Institutions
Section 7110 reauthorizes Grants to Upgrade Agricultural
and Food Sciences Facilities and Equipment at Insular Area
Land-Grant Institutions.
Section 7111. Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Section 7111 reauthorizes the Hispanic-Serving
Institutions.
Section 7112. Competitive Grants for International Agricultural Science
and Education Programs
Section 7112 reauthorizes the Competitive Grants for
International Agricultural Science and Education Programs at $5
million per year.
Section 7113. University Research
Section 7113 reauthorizes University Research.
Section 7114. Extension Service
Section 7114 reauthorizes Extension Service. The
Cooperative Extension System is a nationwide, non-credit
educational network. Each state and territory has an office at
its land-grant university and a network of local or regional
offices which are staffed by one or more experts who provide
practical, research-based information to agricultural
producers, small business owners, youth, consumers, and others
in rural communities.The Committee encourages the Secretary to
ensure that the Cooperative Extension Service is effectively
and efficiently utilized to deliver the educational component
of USDA programs. The Secretary is also encouraged to engage in
discussions with other federal departments and agencies to
consider ways to use the Cooperative Extension Service to
deliver education extension for other federal programs as
practicable.
Section 7115. Supplemental and Alternative Crops
Section 7115 reauthorizes Supplemental and Alternative
Crops research at $1 million per year and clarifies that only
competitive grants can be awarded under this section.
Section 7116. Capacity Building Grants for NLGCA Institutions
Section 7116 reauthorizes Capacity Building Grants for
NLGCA Institutions.
Section 7117. Aquaculture Assistance Programs
Section 7117 reauthorizes the Aquaculture Assistance
Programs at $5 million per year and clarifies that only
competitive grants can be awarded under this section.
Section 7118. Rangeland Research Programs
Section 7118 reauthorizes the Rangeland Research Programs
at $2 million per year.
Section 7119. Special Authorization for Biosecurity Planning and
Response
Section 7119 reauthorizes the Special Authorization for
Biosecurity Planning and Response at $20 million per year.
Section 7120. Distance Education and Resident Instruction Grants
Program for Insular Area Institutions of Higher Education
Section 7120 reauthorizes the Distance Education and
Resident Instruction Grants Program for Insular Area
Institutions of Higher Education at $2 million per year and
clarifies that only competitive grants will be awarded under
the section of Distance Education Grants for Insular Areas.
SUBTITLE B--FOOD, AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND TRADE ACT OF 1990
Section 7201. Best Utilization of Biological Applications
Section 7201 reauthorizes the Best Utilization of
Biological Applications at $40 million per year.
Section 7202. Integrated Management Systems
Section 7202 reauthorizes the Integrated Management Systems
at $20 million per year.
Section 7203. Sustainable Agriculture Technology Development and
Transfer Program
Section 7203 reauthorizes the Sustainable Agriculture
Technology Development and Transfer Program.
Section 7204. National Training Program
Section 7204 reauthorizes the National Training Program at
$20 million per year.
Section 7205. National Genetics Resources Program
Section 7205 reauthorizes the National Genetics Resources
Program at $1 million per year.
Section 7206. National Agricultural Weather Information System
Section 7206 reauthorizes National Agricultural Weather
Information System at $1 million per year.
Section 7207. High-priority research and extension initiatives
Section 7207 reauthorizes authority for grants to address
Pollinator Protection, Alfalfa Forage Research Program, Deer
Initiative, Bighorn and Domestic Sheep Disease Mechanisms,
Potato Research and Extension, Dairy Financial Risk Management
Research and Extension, and Wood Use Research and Extension. It
moves authority for the Secretary to designate Regional Centers
of Excellence to a separate section of the Act (see section
7210). This section also authorizes the Pulse Health Initiative
and Training Coordination for Food and Agriculture Protection.
It allows the Secretary to appoint a task force to make
recommendations on high priority research and extension.
Section 7208. Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative
Section 7208 reauthorizes the Organic Agriculture Research
and Extension Initiative and provides $80 million in mandatory
funding at $16 million per year for fiscal years 2013 through
2017. It adds education as a function of the program and makes
minor modifications to priority areas.
Section 7209. Farm Business Management
Section 7209 reauthorizes the Farm Business Management
program at $5 million per year.
Section 7210. Regional Centers of Excellence
Section 7210 reauthorizes Regional Centers of Excellence at
$10 million per year and moves the provisions from a separate
section of the Act (see section 7207).
Section 7211. Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with
Disabilities
Section 7211 reauthorizes the Assistive Technology Program
for Farmers with Disabilities at $5 million per year.
Section 7212. National Rural Information Center Clearinghouse
Section 7212 reauthorizes the National Rural Information
Center Clearinghouse.
SUBTITLE C--AGRICULTURE RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION REFORM ACT
OF 1998
Section 7301. Relevance and merit of agricultural research, extension,
and education funded by the department
Section 7301 amends the law to emphasize that the
``relevance'' of the underlying research and extension programs
to the affected industry shall be considered in evaluating
grant applications. The Secretary will also consult regularly
with the Advisory Board.
Section 7302. Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive
Grants Program
Section 7302 reauthorizes the Integrated Research,
Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program.
Section 7303. Support for Research Regarding Diseases of Wheat,
Triticale, and Barley Caused by Fusarium Graminearum or by
Tilletia Indica
Section 7303 reauthorizes Research Regarding Diseases of
Wheat, Triticale, and Barley Caused by Fusarium Graminearum or
by Tilletia Indica at $10 million per year.
Section 7304. Grants for Youth Organizations
Section 7304 reauthorizes the Grants for Youth
Organizations at $3 million per year.
Section 7305. Specialty Crop Research Initiative
Section 7305 reauthorizes the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative which now includes language for handling and
processing in the priority areas. It modifies the matching fund
provision to allow for the use of other federal and non-federal
funds in meeting the match requirements. It removes 10 percent
minimum funding carve out for program priorities 1 through 5.
It provides mandatory funding for the program as follows for
each fiscal year: $25 million for 2013; $30 million for 2014
through 2015; $65 million for 2016; $50 million for 2017 and
each fiscal year thereafter. The Committee directs the
Secretary to incorporate appropriate industry consultation as
an integral part of the proposal review process. Such industry
review shall be coordinated with the specialty crops
subcommittee, as directed under Section 7102 of this Act. The
Secretary shall ensure the specialty crop subcommittee has
appropriate representation to provide comment on the relevance
and impact of any proposal for the affected industry segment
and provide a means for additional industry consultation should
an appropriate representative not be available on the
subcommittee.
The Committee expects that industry comments on specific
proposals will be provided and taken into consideration by the
scientific review panel prior to the scientific peer review.
Section 7306. Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database Program
Section 7306 reauthorizes the Food Animal Residue Avoidance
Database Program at $2.5 million per year.
Section 7307. Office of Pest Management Policy
Section 7307 reauthorizes the Office of Pest Management
Policy at $3 million per year.
Section 7308. Authorization of Regional Integrated Pest Management
Centers
Section 7308 authorizes the Regional Integrated Pest
Management Centers.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER LAWS
Section 7401. Critical Agricultural Materials Act
Section 7401 reauthorizes the Critical Agricultural
Materials Act at $2 million per year.
Section 7402. Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994
Section 7402 reauthorizes the Equity in Educational Land-
Grant Status Act of 1994, and updates the names of
institutions, as well as providing for additional entities and
one deletion. It changes research grant requirements by
allowing grant applications to be submitted in cooperative
agreement with ARS or at least 1 other land grants institution,
a non-land-grant college of agriculture or a cooperating
forestry school.
Section 7403. Research Facilities Act
Section 7403 reauthorizes the Research Facilities Act.
Section 7404. Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act
Section 7404 reauthorizes USDA's Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI) at $700 million per year. It directs
USDA to report on barriers that exist in the competitive grant
process that may prevent eligible institutions with limited
resources to apply and provide specific recommendations the
Department may take to remove these barriers. The Committee
recognizes concerns with the impact that inefficiencies in the
current regulatory process for agricultural biotechnology and
related court decisions have begun to take on growers who have
adopted plant biotechnology products and the effect on research
and development of additional products with new food and
industrial uses that can benefit the priority areas identified
in subsection (b) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities
Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)). The Secretary is
encouraged to provide information to the Committee on
themeasures taken and to be taken under statutory authorities to
provide for balanced and non-duplicative regulatory oversight between
Federal Agencies and Departments of products of agricultural
biotechnology, the impact of court decisions on the affected agencies'
budgets, and estimated financial impact on growers.
Section 7405. Enhanced Use Lease Authority Pilot Program Under
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
Section 7405 reauthorizes Enhanced Use Lease Authority
Pilot Program Under Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994.
Section 7406. Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978
Section 7406 reauthorizes the Renewable Resources Extension
Act of 1978.
Section 7407. National Aquaculture Act of 1980
Section 7407 reauthorizes the National Aquaculture Act of
1980.
Section 7408. Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
Section 7408 reauthorizes Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Development Program. It adds dedicated funds to military
veterans as defined and provides for a one-time allocation of
$50 million in mandatory funding to remain available until
expended.
SUBTITLE E--FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008 PART I:
AGRICULTURAL SECURITY
Section 7501. Agricultural Biosecurity Communication Center
Section 7501 reauthorizes the Agricultural Biosecurity
Communication Center at $2 million per year.
Section 7502. Assistance to Build Local Capacity in Agricultural
Biosecurity Planning, Preparation, and Response
Section 7502 reauthorizes the Assistance to Build Local
Capacity in Agricultural Biosecurity Planning, Preparation, and
Response at $15 million per year.
Section 7503. Research and Development of Agricultural Countermeasures
Section 7503 reauthorizes the Research and Development of
Agricultural Countermeasures at $15 million per year.
Section 7504. Agricultural Biosecurity Grant Program
Section 7504 reauthorizes the Agricultural Biosecurity
Grant Program at $5 million per year.
PART II--MISCELLANEOUS
Section 7511. Grazing-lands Research Laboratory
Section 7511 reauthorizes the Grazing-lands Research
Laboratory.
Section 7512. Budget submission and funding
Section 7512 promotes transparency and accountability with
regard to intramural and extramural research programs
administered by the Department. The annual Presidential Budget
Submission must include sufficient information for the Congress
to thoroughly evaluate and approve future spending plans with
regard to extramural competitive grants programs and intramural
research spending.
The Committee recognizes that the U.S. ethanol industry has
increased the efficiency of their production process in recent
years such that the amount of ethanol produced from a bushel of
corn has increased. Current yield calculations used by USDA
agencies may no longer reflect the current production. The
Committee recognizes the concerns that the calculations impact
corn supply forecasts by overestimating the amount of corn
needed to meet U.S. ethanol production. The Committee
encourages the National Agricultural Statistics Service to
provide an accurate, up-to-date value for the ethanol yield
from a bushel of corn.
Section 7513. Natural Products Research Program
Section 7513 reauthorizes the Natural Products Research
Program at $7 million per year.
Section 7514. Sun Grant Program
Section 7514 reauthorizes, consolidates, and amends the Sun
Grant Program to expand input from other appropriate federal
agencies, authorize bioproducts, eliminate authorization for
gasification research and make the program competitive. The
Committee recognizes the leadership and work of the Sun Grant
Centers in each region and intends that the revisions to the
program to make it competitive do not reduce the effectiveness
of the overall program. The Committee recognizes the importance
of demonstrated experience in working with multiple federal
agencies and in awarding and managing funding provided through
competitive grants to land grant institutions and institutions
partnering with land grant institutions. Finally, the Committee
recognizes the value and importance of committed use of peer
review principles and other research best practices in the
selection, management, and dissemination of research projects.
SUBTITLE F--MISCELLANEOUS
Section 7601. Foundation for food and agriculture research
Section 7601 establishes a non-profit organization
administered by an appointed Board of Directors representing
the diverse sectors of the agriculture and agricultural
research community with the primary purpose of supplementing
the efforts of USDA basic and applied research activities.
Federal investment is leveraged in agricultural research
through soliciting and accepting private donations to award
grants for collaborative public/private partnerships with
scientists and entities including USDA, academia, non-profits,
and the private sector. This section also incorporates
accountability and transparency measures for good governance.
TITLE VIII--FORESTRY
SUBTITLE A--REPEAL OF CERTAIN FORESTRY PROGRAMS
Section 8001. Forest land enhancement program
Section 8001 repeals the forest land enhancement program.
Section 8002. Watershed forestry assistance program
Section 8002 repeals the watershed forestry assistance
program.
Section 8003. Expired cooperative national forest products marketing
program
Section 8003 repeals cooperative national forest products
marketing program.
Section 8004. Hispanic-serving institution agricultural land national
resources leadership program
Section 8004 repeals the Hispanic-serving institution
agricultural land national resources leadership program.
Section 8005. Tribal watershed forestry assistance program
Section 8005 repeals the Tribal watershed forestry
assistance program.
SUBTITLE B--REAUTHORIZATION OF COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ASSISTANCE ACT OF
1978 PROGRAMS
Section 8101. State-Wide Assessment and Strategies for Forest Resources
Section 8101 reauthorizes the State-Wide Assessment and
Strategies for Forest Resources at $10 million per year. It
focuses state efforts on achieving national priorities by
assisting landowners with planning and implementing forest and
land management practices.
Section 8102. Forest Stewardship Program
Section 8102 reauthorizes the Forest Stewardship Program at
a new authorized level of $50 million per year.
Section 8103.Forest Legacy Program
Section 8103 reauthorizes the Forest Legacy Program at a
new authorized level of $200 million per year.
Section 8104. Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program
Section 8104 reauthorizes the Community Forest and Open
Space Conservation Program at a new authorized level of $50
million per year.
Section 8105. Urban and Community Forestry Assistance
Section 8105 reauthorizes the Urban and Community Forestry
Assistance at a new authorized level of $50 million per year.
SUBTITLE C--REAUTHORIZATION OF OTHER FORESTRY-RELATED LAWS
Section 8201. Rural revitalization technologies
Section 8201 reauthorizes rural revitalization
technologies.
Section 8202. Office of International Forestry
Section 8202 reauthorizes the Office of International
Forestry at a new authorized level of $10 million per year.
Section 8203. Insect infestations and related diseases
Section 8203 reauthorizes the Secretary to designate areas
impacted by insect infestation and disease for treatment. The
Secretary will also designate treatment areas on National
Forest land due to insect or disease infestation. This section
is authorizes for appropriations at $100 million per year.
Section 8204. Stewardship end result contracting projects.
Section 8204 reauthorizes Stewardship end result
contracting projects.
Section 8205. Healthy Forest Reserve Program
Section 8205 expands the Healthy Forest Reserve Program
eligibility for lands owned by Indian tribes and reauthorizes
the program at a new authorization level at $9.75 million per
year.
SUBTITLE D--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 8301. McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act
Section 8301 provides the Secretary the ability to waive
matching requirement for 1890 institutions and to expand
program participation eligibility for institutions in the
Federated States of Micronesia, American Samoa, Northern
Mariana Islands and Guam.
Section 8302. Revision of strategic plan for forest inventory and
analysis
Section 8302 requires the Secretary to revise the strategic
plan for forest inventory and analysis to include further
investigation into a series of areas to improve forest
management.
TITLE IX--ENERGY
Section 9001: Definitions
Section 9001 adds a definition for renewable chemical.
Section 9002. Biobased Markets Program
Section 9002 reauthorizes the Biobased Markets Program at
$2 million per year and allows the Secretary to establish a
targeted number of biobased procurement requirements for the
Biobased Procurement Preference Program. It requires reporting
of biobased purchases from federal government procurement
agencies. The Secretary will designate assembled and finished
products for the procurement and labeling program. This section
also adds auditing and compliance provisions for the
biopreferred labeling program. It allows outreach and education
activities for the biobased markets program. It directs USDA to
conduct an economic impact study on biobased products and sets
a new focus on products that demonstrate innovation regardless
of date of entry into the marketplace. The Forest Products Lab
is to assist in approval for forest related products as well as
providing technical assistance to the forestry industry.
Mandatory funding is $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013
through 2017. The Committee recognizes the growth and
development of biobased markets and the potential these markets
offer for significant job growth and economic development. As
biobased companies reach their full potential, new
manufacturing jobs will be created in the United States while
also providing environmental and energy security benefits.
The Committee recognizes concerns with the USDA Biobased
Markets Program and the exclusion of most forest products. This
exclusion, created in USDA rulemaking, has effectively made
many forest products ineligible for the program. Therefore, the
language included in Section 9002 (a)(1)(B)(i)(III)(vi) is
intended to clarify that all forest products, regardless of the
market share the product holds, the age of the product, or
whether the product's market is new or emerging, are eligible
for the procurement and labeling program as long as the product
meets the innovation standards for the program as outlined in
Section 9002(a)(1)(B)(i)(III)(vi). It is the Committee's
intention that all products in the program use innovative
approaches in the growing, harvesting, procuring, processing,
or manufacturing of the product. The Committee directs USDA to
work through the USDA Forest Products Laboratory to develop a
set of guidelines for forest product inclusion in the program
thatincorporates these and other relevant innovations to ensure
forest products are included in the program.
Section 9003. Biorefinery, renewable chemical and biobased product
manufacturing assistance
Section 9003 reauthorizes the Biorefinery Assistance
Program at $150 million per year. Program eligibility is
expanded to include renewable chemicals and biobased products.
It defines Biobased Product Manufacturing as the development,
construction, and retrofitting of technologically new
commercial-scale processing and manufacturing equipment and
required facilities that will be used to convert renewable
chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries into end-
user products on a commercial scale. Mandatory funding is
provided for the program at $100 million for fiscal year 2013
and $58 million for each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Of the
total amount of funds made available for the period of fiscal
years 2013 through 2015 not more than $25,000,000 can be
directed towards biobased product manufacturing.
Section 9004. Repeal of repowering assistance program and transfer of
remaining funds
Section 9004 repeals repowering assistance program and
directs the remaining funds to the Rural Energy for America
Program (REAP). The Committee has simplified the REAP
application process requirements and believes that these
changes will improve access for all applicants. The Committee
does not believe that a farmer, rancher or rural small business
should find it necessary to pay significant consulting fees in
order to successfully compete for funding through this program.
Section 9005. Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels
Section 905 reauthorizes the Bioenergy Program at $20
million per year.
Section 9006. Biodiesel Fuel Education Program
Section 9006 reauthorizes the Biofuels Education Program at
$1 million per year in mandatory funding.
Section 9007. Rural Energy for America Program (REAP)
Section 9007 reauthorizes the Rural Energy for America
Program (REAP) at $20 million per year and amends the 2-meter
rule by including ``agricultural and associated residential
purposes'' as eligible. It allows RC&D councils to be eligible
for energy audit and technical assistance portion of the
program and removes feasibility studies. The grant application
process is revised into three tiers of grants: less than
$80,000; between $80,000 and $200,000; and greater than
$200,000. This section also instructs the Secretary to
streamline and simplify grant application process for grants
under $80,000 and sets a cap of $500,000 for grants. Mandatory
funding is provided at $48.2 million for each of fiscal years
2013 through 2017.
Section 9008. Biomass research and development initiative
Section 9008 reauthorizes the Biomass R&D Program at $30
million per year, with mandatory funding of $26 million for
each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017. The Committee
encourages the Department to support research, development and
demonstration efforts focused on reducing the costs of
producing sugars from cellulosic biomass.
Section 9009. Feedstock Flexibility Program for bioenergy producers
Section 9009 reauthorizes the Feedstock Flexibility
Program.
Section 9010. Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP)
Section 9010 reauthorizes the Biomass Crop Assistance
Program at $20 million per fiscal year and specifies eligible
verses non-eligible materials for the Collection, Harvest,
Storage, and Transport (CHST) payments with modifications to
ensure spending in line with Congressional intent. Mandatory
funding is provided at $38.6 million for each of fiscal years
2013 through 2017. Of the mandatory money made available for
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall use not less than 10
percent, nor more than 50 percent, of the amount to make
collection, harvest, transportation, and storage payments.
Section 9011. Repeal of Forest Biomass for Energy
Section 9011 repeals Forest Biomass for Energy.
Section 9012. Community Wood Energy Program
Section 9012 reauthorizes the Community Wood Energy Program
at $5 million per year.
Section 9013. Repeal of Renewable Fertilizer Study
Section 9013 repeals the Study on Renewable Fertilizer.
TITLE X--SPECIALTY CROPS
Section 10001. Specialty crops market news allocation
Section 10001 reauthorizes specialty crop market news
allocation and expands market news activities to provide timely
price information on fruits and vegetables with funding
authorized at $9 million per year.
Section 10002. Repeal of grant program to improve movement of specialty
crops
Section 10002 repeals the grant program to improve the
movement of specialty crops.
Section 10003. Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program
Section 10003 reauthorizes and expands the existing Farmers
Market Promotion Program. It provides competitive grants to
improve and expand farmers markets, roadside stands, community-
supported agriculture programs, and other direct producer-to-
consumer market opportunities. Grants may also be used to help
develop local food system infrastructure targeted at serving
low-income populations. The section requires cost share of 25
percent of funding. Mandatory funding of $100 million is
provided for five years and $20 million per year is authorized
for appropriations. The reported bill restricts grant funding
from being used for the purchase, construction or
rehabilitation of a building or structure. This provision is
specifically intended to prevent activities such as acquiring
land, repairing roofing structures or building warehouses. The
Committee does not intend for this language to restrict
resources for other key uses such as cold storage or equipment.
Section 10004. Study on local food production and program evaluation
Section 10004 directs Secretary to collect data on the
production and marketing of locally or regionally produced
agricultural food products, facilitate interagency
collaboration and data sharing on programs related to local and
regional food systems, and evaluate the success of current
local promotion programs. No resources are provided for this
study and evaluation.
Section 10005. Organic agriculture
Section 10005 authorizes the Organic Production and Market
Data Initiatives. The Organic Production and Market Data
Initiatives program funds basic USDA data collection on the
organic sector. One-time mandatory funding of $5 million is
provided and $5 million per year is authorized for
appropriations. This section also authorizes the National
Organic Program (NOP) and ensures the integrity of the organic
seal by enforcing standards and accrediting certifiers. A
report is required to be submitted to the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees describing the efforts of the Secretary
to assess the feasibility of establishing an organic research
and promotion program. The funding level authorized for the NOP
is $15 million per year. This section upgrades the NOP
technology that will modernize NOP organic database technology
systems. The new funding level is set at a $5 million mandatory
lump sum payment.
Section 10006. Food safety and education initiatives
Section 10006 maintains the current authorization for food
safety and education initiatives. This program educates persons
involved in fresh produce industry, and public, about sanitary
handling practices and ways to reduce pathogens in fresh
produce. The funding level is authorized at $1 million per
year.
Section 10007. Consolidation of plant pest and disease management and
disaster prevention programs
Section 10007 consolidates the National Clean Plant
Network, which produces clean pathogen free plant material for
producers, into a larger program focused on plant pest and
disease management, early detection and surveillance, and
disaster prevention projects. The funding level for the
consolidated program is increased. The reported bill provides
mandatoryfunding of $60 million in fiscal years 2013 through
2016 and $65 million for fiscal year 2017. The Committee has provided
funding at a level that it believes is sufficient to continue the
functions of both the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster
Prevention Program and the National Clean Plant Network. The Committee
provided a modest increase in resources for the consolidated program in
order to address unmet needs. Therefore, the Committee expects that
annual funding for the National Clean Plant Network will be not less
than that level provided in fiscal year 2012.
Section 10008. Specialty Crop Block Grants
Section 10008 increases funding for Specialty Crop Block
Grants which provide States with funding for projects that
benefit both producers and consumers of fruits, vegetables,
tree nuts, and nursery crops. Examples of project areas that
would qualify for funds include, but are not limited to: food
safety; food security; nutrition; trade enhancement; education;
research; promotion; marketing, and plant health programs. The
changes made to the grant allocation formula are from using
solely the value of specialty crop production in a state, to
use of the average of both value of specialty crop production
and acres of specialty crops planted in a state. It includes a
new set aside for multi-state projects which is re-allocated to
States if funds are unused. Mandatory funding of $70 million
per year is provided. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
incorporate financial benchmarking through state block grant
proposals or as a part of multistate projects as a tool to
enhance the competiveness of specialty crops.
Section 10009. Recordkeeping, investigations, and enforcement
Section 10009 requires all organic producers to maintain
records of contracts, agreements, and receipts associated with
the organic certification program. The Secretary is given
authority to carry out investigations, administer oaths and
affirmations, subpoena witnesses, and obtain documentation
related to an investigation. The Secretary may suspend or
revoke organic certification if producers or handlers do not
provide Secretary with requested information pertinent to
organic certification. The Secretary is also given authority to
stop sale if a producer or handler misrepresents their product
as being organic. A civil penalty is issued if not more than
$10,000 for violating an order of organic certification
revocation.
Section 10010. Report on honey
Subsection (a) requires the Secretary to consult with honey
industry stakeholders, including the American Honey Producers
Association, the American Beekeeping Federation, the National
Honey Packers and Dealers Association, the Sioux Honey
Association, and the Western States Honey Packers and Dealers
Association, on a report describing the contents of a new
federal standard of identity for honey. The honey industry is
currently faced with a number of major challenges, including
the dilution of honey with increased quantities of other
substances as well as the addition or substitution of
substances in order to mask dilution. This subsection requires
that this report be submitted to the Commissioner of the Food
and Drug Administration within 180 days of enactment.
Subsection (b) refers to the citizens' petition filed with
the Food and Drug Administration in March 2006, which
represented the honey industry's previous effort to develop a
federal honey standard of identity. Since 2006, a number of
states have enacted differing honey standards raising concerns
about inconsistencies, the flow of commerce within the honey
industry, confusion in the market place and unanticipated legal
challenges. The honey industry is now undertaking efforts to
develop a consensus federal standard of identity for
consideration in the Secretary's report to the Food and Drug
Administration.
Section 10011. Effective date
Section 10011 establishes October 1, 2012 as the effective
date for the provisions in the title.
TITLE XI--CROP INSURANCE
Section 11001. Supplemental Coverage Option
Section 11001 amends section 508(c) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to create a new coverage option that allows
coverage based on an area yield and loss basis that covers all
or part of the deductible under the individual yield or loss
policy. The Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) includes the
following provisions: (1) triggers only if losses in the area
exceed 10 percent of normal levels; (2) includes a deductible
of 21 percent of the expected value of the crop under the
underlying insurance policy for producers in ARC and 10 percent
for those not participating in ARC; (3) provides for a premium
subsidy of 70 percent of the premium associated with the
coverage; and (4) covers the operating and administrative
expenses in accordance with the rules applicable to other area
policies. For administrative purposes, SCO policies are to be
treated as separate policies from individual policies. For
purposes of implementation, cotton policies should be the
priority until policies under section 11011 are fully
available.
This section also allows for margin insurance policies to
be utilized in conjunction with individual yield and loss
policies.
Section 11002. Premium amounts for catastrophic risk protection
Section 11002 amends Section 508(d) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to establish, in the case of catastrophic risk
protection, that 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.
Section 11003. Permanent enterprise unit
Section 11003 amends section 508(e)(5) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to allow the Corporation to pay a portion of
premiums for whole farm or enterprise unit insurance policies.
The Committee recognizes that enterprise units and the
additional assistance provided for enterprise unit policies has
made higher levels of buy-up crop insurance more attainable for
many farmers. Accordingly, the reported bill makes the pilot
enterprise unit premium assistance permanent and allows
producers the choice to separate their irrigated and non-
irrigated enterprise unit coverage on the farm.
Section 11004. Enterprise units for irrigated and nonirrigated crops
Section 11004 amends section 508(e)(5) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to make available to a producer the option to
choose to separate enterprise units for irrigated and
nonirrigated acreages of crops in counties beginning in the
2013 crop year.
Section 11005. Data collection
Section 11005 amends section 508(g)(2) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to allow the use of data collected by the Risk
Management Agency, the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, or both, to determine yields. Where sufficient county
data is not available, the Secretary is authorized to use data
from other sources.
Section 11006. Adjustment in actual production history to establish
insurable yields
Section 11006 amends section 508(g)(4)(B) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act to increase the percentage of the applicable
transitional yield used to replace excluded recorded or
appraised yields from 60 percent to 70 percent for the 2013 and
subsequent crop years.
Section 11007. Submission and review of policies
Section 11007 amends section 508(h)(1) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to require the Corporation to review policies
developed under the research and development contracting
authority in section 522(c), or pilot program developed under
section 523, and to submit to the Board for review programs
that will likely result in viable and marketable policies,
provide crop insurance in a significantly improved form, and
adequately protect the interests of producers.
Section 11008. Board review and approval
Section 11008 amends section 508(h) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to provide additional guidance to the Board to
approve plans that do not unfairly discriminate among producers
or have adverse impacts on crop insurance delivery, and are
likely to result in viable and marketable policies, offer an
improved form of insurance, or provide previously unavailable
coverage. It allows the Board to establish and publish annual
priorities on its website and requires the Board to consider
prioritizing products that address underserved commodities,
inadequate coverage, and low participation.
Section 11009. Consultation
Section 11009 amends Section 508(h)(4) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to require the submitter to consult with groups
representing producers of agricultural commodities in all major
producing areas for the commodities to be served or impacted by
the submission. Thisconsultation is intended to ascertain the
support or opposition of potentially impacted agricultural producers in
all major producing areas before making a determination to proceed with
the product development and is to be included as part of the submission
under the 508(h) process. This consultation requirement also
establishes that any product developer must provide a market impact
assessment and analysis of the potential impacts on regional and
national markets for the development of any new product.
Section 11010. Budget limitations on renegotiation of the Standard
Reinsurance Agreement
Section 11010 amends section 508(k)(8) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to require the Board to ensure budget neutrality
to the maximum extent practicable during renegotiation of the
Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA), and return any savings
realized in these renegotiations to RMA programs. Crop
insurance is recognized by this Committee as the cornerstone to
farmers' ability to manage risk. As such, the Committee has
made it a priority to protect and preserve the crop insurance
program and therefore included the language in this section to
ensure Administrative action through the renegotiation of the
Standard Reinsurance Agreement cannot be a means by which
funding is removed from the crop insurance system.
Section 11011. Stacked income protection plan for producers of upland
cotton
Section 11011 adds a new section 508B to the Federal Crop
Insurance Act that provides upland cotton producers an area-
wide revenue loss coverage option of not more than 30 percent
of expected county revenue, specified in increments of five
percent and with deductible no less than 10 percent. It
establishes coverage based on: (1) an expected price that is
the expected price established under existing Group Risk Income
Protection or is the area wide policy offered by the
Corporation; and (2) an expected county yield that is the
higher of the expected county yield for area wide plans or the
average of applicable yield data from the county for the most
recent five years, excluding the highest and lowest years. It
uses a multiplier factor to establish maximum protection per
acre of not more than 120 percent. It also establishes distinct
coverage for irrigated and non-irrigated practices, and
provides for a premium subsidy of 80 percent of the premium by
the Corporation. This coverage can stand alone or be combined
with an underlying individual policy. For administrative
purposes, STAX policies are to be treated as separate policies
from individual policies. Finally, the Committee intends for
administrative and operating expenses to be covered in
accordance with the rules applicable to other area policies.
Section 11012. Peanut revenue crop insurance
Section 11012 adds a new section 508C to the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to create a revenue crop insurance program for
peanut producers, beginning in crop year 2013, using the
effective price for peanuts equal to the Rotterdam price index,
adjusted to reflect the farmer stock price of peanuts in the
U.S.
Section 11013. Authority to correct errors
Section 11013 amends section 515(c) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to allow an insurance provider or agent to
correct information to make it consistent with information a
producer reported to FSA, provided the corrections do not allow
the producer to obtain a disproportionate benefit or avoid any
ineligibility requirements or legal obligations.
Section 11014. Implementation
Section 11014 amends section 515 of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to implement an acreage report streamlining
initiative that will allow producers to report acreage and
other information directly to the Department. It requires the
Secretary to notify Congress of substantial completion of the
initiative by July 1, 2013, and provides funding of $25 million
for fiscal year 2013 and $10 million for fiscal years 2014
through 2017. If initiative deadlines are met, it provides for
$15 million per year for fiscal years 2014 through 2017 instead
of $10 million.
Section 11015. Approval of costs for research and development
Section 11015 amends Section 522(b)(2) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to allow the Board, at its discretion, to
increase the 50 percent limitation to 75 percent on advance
payments for research and development if the proposal provides
coverage for an underserved region or crop, including specialty
crops, and the submitter of the proposal does not have
sufficient resources to fund development.
Section 11016. Whole farm risk management insurance
Section 11016 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to develop a whole farm risk management insurance
plan with a liability limitation of $1,500,000 that allows a
diversified crop and livestock producer to qualify for an
indemnity if actual gross revenue is below 85 percent of
average gross farm revenue or reasonable expected gross farm
revenue. It includes provisions on eligible producers,
diversification, and market readiness value, and requires a
report to Congress not later than two years after enactment to
determine the results and feasibility of the research and
development, including an analysis of potential adverse market
distortions.
Section 11017. Crop insurance for livestock
Section 11017 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (as amended by section 11016) by requiring a
contract with a qualified person to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of insuring swine producers for a
catastrophic event. It requires the Corporation to submit a
report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
of the Senate on results of the study.
Section 11018. Margin coverage for catfish
Section 11018 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (as amended by section 11017) by requiring the
Corporation to offer a contract to 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.
Section 11019. Research and development
Section 11019 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act by allowing the Corporation to conduct activities
or enter into contracts to carry out research and development
to maintain or improve existing policies or develop new
policies, in accordance with the consultation requirement in
section 11009.
Section 11020. Pilot programs
Section 11020 amends section 523(a) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to increase Corporation discretion to conduct
pilot programs and eliminates the evaluation and reporting
requirement.
Section 11021. Index-based weather insurance pilot program
Section 11021 amends section 523(a)(2) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to allow the Corporation to conduct a pilot
program to provide financial assistance for producers of
underserved crops and livestock (including specialty crops) to
purchase an index-based weather insurance product from a
private insurance company. This type of coverage, also referred
to as parametric weather insurance, automatically provides
payments to producers when a weather-related event occurs that
typically results in yield or revenue loss. It requires the
Corporation to use $10 million to carry out the pilot programs
for each of the fiscal years 2013 through 2017.
Section 11022. Enhancing producer self-help through farm financial
benchmarking
Section amends section 502(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act by adding farm financial benchmarking, which is the process
of comparing the performance of an agricultural enterprise
against the performance of other similar enterprises. It also
amends section 522(d)(3)(F) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act
by adding ``farm financial benchmarking'' after ``management''
and section 524(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act by adding
``farm financial benchmarking'' after ``risk reduction'' and
adding ``including farm financial benchmarking'' after
``management strategies''. The Committee recognizes that the
profitability and financial viability of agricultural producers
depends on their ability to make sound economic and financial
farming decisions while managing and mitigating significant
risks in a frequently changing policy environment. Likewise,
the Committee and other policy makers benefit from receiving
analysis that is timely and sound; constituting feedback based
on the events, decisions and outcomes in the day-to-day
operation of farms as producers utilize various programs and
policies. The significant reforms contained in the reported
bill for farmers provides a unique and necessary focus on this
as federal agriculture policy becomes more centered on risk
management. Because farming does not fit neatly into one
program or title, the Committee encourages USDA to look for
opportunities that combine programs, resources and authorities
across titles in an integrated approach with a goal towards
developing comprehensive research and educationfocused on risk
management, risk mitigation, improved farm practices, financial
benchmarking and farm management. The research and education should be
targeted to agricultural producers, educators and agribusinesses
(including crop insurance), as well as providing evaluation and
feedback to state and federal policymakers. As the Committee works to
move towards risk-based agricultural policy, efforts to enable the
deployment of strategies and practices that help farmers manage and
mitigate their risks are paramount, especially in the face of changing
technologies that require modification of products, practices and
policies for timely adaptation to the challenges farmers face today and
into the future.
Section 11023. Beginning farmer and rancher provisions
Section 11023 amends section 502(b) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act by adding the definition of ``beginning farmer or
rancher''. It also amends section 508 of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to allow: (1) beginning farmers or ranchers to
receive premium assistance 10 percentage points greater than
premium assistance that would be otherwise is available; (2)
beginning farmers or ranchers previously involved in a farming
operation to use the previous producer's production history or
assigned yield in determining yield coverage; and (3) beginning
farmers or ranchers to replace each excluded yield with a yield
equal to 80 percent of the applicable transitional yield.
Section 11024. Agricultural management assistance, risk management
education, and organic certification cost share assistance
Section 11024 amends section 524 of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to provide assistance for: (1) provisions of
organic certification cost share assistance; (2) activities to
support risk management education and community outreach
partnerships; and (3) provisions of agricultural management
assistance grants to producers in States in which there has
been a low level of Federal crop insurance participation. The
assistance is limited to $50,000 per person per year. It
requires the Commodity Credit Corporation to make available $23
million for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017 to carry out
this assistance. Additionally, the program provides organic
producers with up to 75 percent of or $750 toward the cost of
organic certification with funding set at $11.5 million each of
fiscal years 2013 through 2017.
Section 11025. Crop production on native sod
Section 11025 amends Section 508(o) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act to provide sod producers during the first 4 years
of planting on native sod acreage the following: (1) 65 percent
of the transitional yield; and (2) a crop insurance premium
subsidy 50 percentage points less than the premium subsidy that
would otherwise apply. It requires the Secretary to submit a
report that describes the cropland acreage in each county and
State, and the change in cropland acreage from the preceding
year in each county and State to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate..
Section 11026. Technical amendments
Section 11026 amends section 508(b) Federal Crop Insurance
Act to remove the requirement that producers purchase
catastrophic insurance or waive eligibility for emergency crop
loss assistance to be eligible for certain payments and loans.
TITLE XII--MISCELLANEOUS
SUBTITLE A--SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED PRODUCERS AND LIMITED RESOURCE
PRODUCERS
Section 12001. Outreach and assistance for socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers
Section 12001 extends the program with an authorization
level of $20 million per fiscal year and provides $5 million in
mandatory funds per fiscal year. Veteran farmers and ranchers
have also been included in the Outreach and Assistance for
Socially Disadvantaged Producers and Limited Resource
Producers.
Section 12002. Office of Advocacy and Outreach
Section 12002 extends the office with an authorization
level of $2 million per year.
SUBTITLE B--LIVESTOCK
In general with regard to livestock issues, the Committee
is aware that equine disease outbreaks have occurred with
increased frequency over the last several years. These
outbreaks threaten the health and welfare of U.S. horses and
the economic viability of the $102 billion horse industry. The
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is directed
to coordinate with equine stakeholders and others to develop a
national equine health plan for the purpose of detecting,
controlling, and/or eradicating contagious equine diseases and
promoting equine-specific biosecurity practices. The Committee
is also concerned that the equine veterinary position at APHIS
has been vacant for an extended period of time. This equine
veterinary position is vital for an efficient and coordinated
response to equine disease outbreaks and to handle the many
equine issues for which APHIS is responsible. The Committee
expects APHIS to fill this position as soon as possible.
Section 12101. Wildlife reservoir zoonotic disease initiative
Section 12101 authorizes a competitive grant program to
improve diagnostic testing and vaccines for Bovine
Tuberculosis, Brucellosis and other zoonotic diseases in
livestock, authorized for $7 million in appropriations per
fiscal year.
Section 12102. Trichinae Certification Program
Section 12102 reauthorizes the Trichinae Certification
Program.
Section 12103. National Aquatic Health Plan
Section 12103 reauthorizes the National Aquatic Health
Plan.
Section 12104. Sheep production and marketing grant program
Section 12104 authorizes a competitive grant program to
improve the sheep industry and provides mandatory funding of
$1.5 million and authorizes $3 million in appropriations per
fiscal year.
Section 12105. Pilot to eradicate feral swine
Section 12105 authorizes a pilot between NRCS and APHIS to
eradicate feral swine and authorizes $2 million per fiscal
year.
SUBTITLE C--OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 12201. Military veterans agricultural liaison
Section 12201 establishes a military veteran liaison to
connect returning veterans with beginning farmer training and
help veterans access USDA programs.
Section 12202. Information gathering
Section 12202 revises section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill to
permit information sharing with certain State agencies.
Section 12203. Grants to improve supply, stability, safety, and
training of agricultural labor force
Section 12203 reauthorizes grants to improve Supply,
Stability, Safety, and Training of Agricultural Labor Force at
$10 million per fiscal year.
Section 12204. Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
Section 12204 contains a revision to the Noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) that provides a ``buy-up''
option to producers of crops that are not covered by crop
insurance. The section allows producers to elect and pay for
higher coverage levels between 55 percent and 65 percent.
Producers who elect higher coverage levels would pay a premium
based upon the value of their production and acres planted. The
buy-up option in Section 12204 was included to assist producers
of non-covered crops who have been left without adequate
support when facing loses under NAP as it now exists. The
Committee recognizes concerns that the inadequate level of
support under NAP has been a disincentive for utilization of
the program by producers. The Committee intends for the new
buy-up option to provide more effective coverage for producers
of non-covered crops against losses and improve their ability
to manage the risks they face. Additionally, section 12204
removes overlap between NAP and the disaster programs in Title
I.
Section 12205. Regional and economic infrastructure development
Section 12205 reauthorizes the program, with a slight
adjustment to the cap on administration fees.
Section 12206. Canada geese removal
Section 12206 directs the Secretary, in consultation with
Interior and FAA, to publish a management plan to remove Canada
geese residing on NPS land within five miles of any commercial
airport.
Section 2. Definition of secretary.
This section defines the term ``Secretary'' for the entire
act as the Secretary of Agriculture.
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, OR MINORITY VIEWS
Additional Views of Senator Roberts
While I agree with much of the content of the committee
report, I regretfully file these additional views to clarify
committee action and consideration of the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry originally reported bill,
S. 3240.
TITLES I, II AND XI
The devastating drought impacting the vast majority of the
country puts a fine point on the need for many of the
provisions included in this bill. The livestock disaster
programs will help producers purchase feed when forage and
pastureland is destroyed by drought, flood, or other weather-
related disasters. These programs can also help producers when
mortality rates increase due to natural disasters.
Several crop insurance provisions are also designed to help
producers manage risk in the face of severe weather events.
Specifically, the increase in yield plugs in Section 11006
would help producers maintain yield coverage guarantees even
after a disaster, and allowing the split of irrigated and non-
irrigated enterprise units in Section 11004 would be invaluable
in years such as this when rainfall is scarce.
This bill also revises the emergency haying and grazing
provisions of the Conservation Reserve Program, eliminating the
rental rate reduction for producers affected by drought and
other emergencies.
TITLE IV
The USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
provided a total of $71.8 billion in food benefits to an
average of 44.7 million people per month in fiscal year 2011.
While USDA should continue efforts on access for needy
Americans, Congress and USDA must strive to eliminate waste,
fraud, and abuse within the nutrition assistance programs. The
bill addresses waste, fraud, and abuse with provisions outlined
below.
First, the bill takes a small step toward stopping States
from taking advantage of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) loophole, where at least 17 State agencies
annually issue as little as $1.00 in LIHEAP benefits to
increase monthly SNAP food benefits by $90.00 ($1,080 per
year). Each State develops and uses a simplified Standard
Utility Allowance (SUA), a fixed dollar amount representing the
average household energy costs in the State, to determine the
SNAP utilities expense deduction when calculating households'
SNAP food benefits. Households that qualify for the SUA will
typically receive a higher than average amount of monthly SNAP
food benefits. To qualify for the SUA, in most cases,
households must provide actual utility bills. Households do not
normally qualify for the SUA if they do not pay utilities out
of pocket. An exception is LIHEAP. SNAP allows households that
receive LIHEAP but do not otherwise pay utilities out of pocket
to claim the SUA, thus increasing households' monthly SNAP food
benefits. To narrow this ``LIHEAP loophole,'' the bill raises
the minimum LIHEAP payment required to qualify households for
the SUA. However, under this provision, States can still confer
$10.00 in annual LIHEAP benefits to qualify otherwise
ineligible households for an average of $1,080 in annual SNAP
benefits.
Second, the bill provides additional resources to help USDA
fight SNAP food benefit trafficking. The percentage of SNAP
food benefits trafficked reached an historic low of 1 percent,
but totaled over $700 million in FY2011. The Committee will
continue to work with USDA to improve program integrity.
Third, the bill terminates SNAP food benefits for
households with substantial lottery or gambling winnings.
Winners may reapply for SNAP, but will not receive food
benefits if SNAP eligibility requirements are not met.
Overall, the nutrition title saves nearly $4 billion over
10 years by trimming wasteful, abusive practices by States, and
makes key investments to help fight fraud. During the Committee
Markup, several amendments were filed by Senators to achieve
greater program accountability, but unfortunately were not
adopted by the Committee. While the bill is a step in the right
direction, there is more work to be done to safeguard the
American taxpayers' investment in food assistance. Program
improvements the Committee should consider in the future
include but are not limited to the following:
1. Eliminating the LIHEAP Loophole. As described above,
States should not have the ability to leverage nominal LIHEAP
payments for billions of dollars in Federal expenditures.
According to the CBO, a complete elimination of the LIHEAP
loophole would save taxpayers an estimated $13.96 billion over
10 years (Of note, on September 26, 2011, CBO estimated the
complete elimination would save $8.372 billion over 10 years;
the amount potentially saved increased by 60 percent due to
food price inflation, additional States participating, and
increased use by previously participating States.).
2. Restoring Program Integrity for SNAP by limiting SNAP
Categorical Eligibility to cash assistance. Today, 43 States
are gaming the system to qualify otherwise ineligible
households for SNAP. Under current law, States have the option
of using ``broad-based categorical eligibility,'' or automatic
eligibility (Cat-El) for recipients of the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families program (TANF). Cat-El was originally
intended to help streamline States' administration of SNAP by
allowing households to be certified as eligible for SNAP
without evaluating household assets or gross income if the
household received assistance through TANF. However, at the
encouragement of USDA in a 2009 policy memo to States, States
are exploiting an unintended loophole of TANF-provided
informational brochures and informational 1-800 numbers to
maximize SNAP enrollment and the corresponding increase in
Federal food benefits. According to CBO, limiting SNAP Cat-El
to TANF cash assistance would save $10.045 billion over 10
years.
3. Eliminating Inflation Adjustments for Countable
Resources. The 2008 farm bill indexed the SNAP asset
requirements to inflation using the Consumer Price Index to
gradually increase the pool of households eligible for SNAP,
and to encourage savings for current SNAP participants (liquid
assets are used to calculate SNAP eligibility along with gross
income, and current liquid asset limits are $2,000 for most
adults and $3,000 for the elderly and disabled.). While
individuals' savings should be encouraged, increasing the
Federal cost of SNAP by expanding eligibility should not be
encouraged. Savings of $234 million over 10 years would result
from maintaining current SNAP asset levels without expanding
eligibility over time due to inflation.
4. Eliminating SNAP State Bonuses. Under current law, USDA
awards $48 million each fiscal year to State agencies for
``Best Program Access'' (signing up as many households for SNAP
as possible); ``Most Improved Program Access'' (how many
additional households signed up for SNAP compared to the
previous year); and ``Best Application Processing Timeliness''
(handling SNAP applications within required guidelines). In
essence, State agencies are rewarded for performing what the
taxpayer should expect, at a minimum, for stewardship of the
tax dollar. The bonuses are not required to be used for SNAP
administration; the State may choose to use the funding for any
State priority. Savings of $480 million over 10 years would
result from ending the State bonuses.
5. Eliminating Duplicative Employment and Training (E&T).
The Government Accountability Office reported in January 2011
there are 47 Federal employment and training programs at an
annual cost of $18 billion. SNAP participants should utilize
the existing Department of Labor's Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) programs. Some States already contract with WIA programs
to conduct the State's SNAP E&T programs. USDA provides a total
of $99 million in base program funding to State agencies each
fiscal year to operate SNAP E&T programs. In addition to the
base program funding, States have the option of providing their
own funding to their State E&T program, which USDA is required
to match dollar for dollar. In FY2010, 4 States received over
78 percent of the total 50/50 match funding, including New York
(36 percent), California (20.2 percent), Pennsylvania (12.4
percent), and New Jersey (9.7 percent). This optional 50/50
Federal match is uncapped, and can be used by States to provide
reimbursement for participants' expenses that are ``reasonable
and necessary and directly related to participation in E&T,''
including union dues, test fees; clothing and tools required
for the job; relocation expenses; licensing and bonding fees;
transportation; and child care. Eliminating the SNAP E&T
programs would save $3.806 billion over 10 years.
6. Eliminating Inflation Adjustments for Emergency Food
Assistance Resources. The 2008 farm bill indexed the annual
program amount to inflation using the Consumer Price Index.
Under current law, TEFAP provides $260 million annually in
USDA-purchased commodities to food banks. While food bank
donations are important, food banks should rely more on
privatedonations and less on the American taxpayer. Savings of $330
million would result from ending the increases in program spending due
to inflation.
7. Eliminating the SNAP Nutrition Education Federal block
grant program. States provide SNAP Nutrition Education to SNAP
participants with 100 percent Federal-funded block grants. The
funding formula is skewed to only a few States, with the top 4
States receiving over 54 percent of the funding including:
California (37 percent); Michigan (6.8 percent); Pennsylvania
(6.5 percent); and New York (4.4 percent). Other existing
nutrition education programs are delivered more equitably
through by other government programs, including, but not
limited to: USDA National Agricultural Library ``Healthy Meals
Resource System''; USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and
Prevention ``MyPlate.gov''; USDA Food and Nutrition Service--
``Eat Smart, Live Strong materials for Older Adults''; National
Institute of Health ``Eat, Think, and Be Active''; National
Food Service Management Institute; and the Land Grant
University Extension Programs. Ending the SNAP Nutrition
Education program would save $4.296 billion over 10 years.
8. Terminating the Stimulus' Temporary Increase in SNAP
Benefits. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA) included a temporary increase to SNAP food benefits. The
current end date for the temporary increase is October 31,
2013. The end date had been moved up twice in FY2010 to pay for
education jobs and Medicaid (cut $11.9 billion from SNAP), and
school meals programs (cut $2.5 billion from SNAP). Terminating
the temporary increase would save taxpayers $5.289 billion over
the next 10 years, which represents less than a 0.7 percent cut
to SNAP food benefits over 10 years.
While the Committee report states ``that SNAP will shrink
to nearly pre-recession levels as the economy recovers,'' CBO
estimates the SNAP program will continue to cost taxpayers at
least twice as much as compared to the $33.2 billion it cost in
2007 which was before the recession. The CBO estimates Federal
expenditures for SNAP will remain above $72.6 billion per year
for at least the next 10 years. In this budget climate, it is
absolutely critical that Congress reign in the out of control
spending and reinstitute program integrity for the SNAP
program.
TITLE IX
Unfortunately, the committee report fails to accurately
reflect the views of the entire Committee with regard to the
Energy Title. The various Energy Title programs have broad
based support, but given the budget climate in which the
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 has been
developed, the future funding for these programs should be
maintained as discretionary budget items, and not provided
mandatory spending through the bill.
The 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills each made 5-year investments
in several USDA energy programs. With these bills, Congress
created programs providing for outreach, education, and the
development of new technology, markets and feedstock
production. As with any federal government program, Congress
must be careful not to adversely impact existing markets,
especially when providing significant federal financial
resources for the program. For example, implementation of
provisions of the Energy Title of the 2008 Farm Bill resulted
in adverse impacts to wood products markets. The reported bill
strives to correct the administrative decisions USDA made while
implementing that legislation.
As demand for energy increases, our nation's energy policy
should foster growth in all aspects of energy production
including both traditional and renewable resources.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that, in its
opinion, it is necessary to dispense with the requirements of
that paragraph in order to expedite the business of the Senate.