[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9611-9759]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further 
consideration of H.R. 1947, pursuant to House Resolution 271, amendment 
No. 55, printed in part B of House Report 113-117, may be considered 
out of sequence.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
allowed 5 legislative days to add additional material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 271 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1947.
  Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1453


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1947) to provide for the reform and continuation of 
agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture 
through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes, with Mr. Webster of 
Florida (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
June 18, 2013, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 271, no further general debate shall be 
in order. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on 
Agriculture and the Judiciary, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-14, modified by the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 113-117. That amendment in 
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1947

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal 
     Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

       Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
       Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary of Agriculture.

                          TITLE I--COMMODITIES

                    Subtitle A--Repeals and Reforms

Sec. 1101. Repeal of direct payments.
Sec. 1102. Repeal of counter-cyclical payments.
Sec. 1103. Repeal of average crop revenue election program.
Sec. 1104. Definitions.
Sec. 1105. Base acres.
Sec. 1106. Payment yields.
Sec. 1107. Farm risk management election.
Sec. 1108. Producer agreements.
Sec. 1109. Period of effectiveness.

                      Subtitle B--Marketing Loans

Sec. 1201. Availability of nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for 
              loan commodities.
Sec. 1202. Loan rates for nonrecourse marketing assistance loans.
Sec. 1203. Term of loans.
Sec. 1204. Repayment of loans.
Sec. 1205. Loan deficiency payments.
Sec. 1206. Payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments for grazed 
              acreage.
Sec. 1207. Special marketing loan provisions for upland cotton.
Sec. 1208. Special competitive provisions for extra long staple cotton.
Sec. 1209. Availability of recourse loans for high moisture feed grains 
              and seed cotton.
Sec. 1210. Adjustments of loans.

                           Subtitle C--Sugar

Sec. 1301. Sugar program.

                           Subtitle D--Dairy

Part I--Dairy Producer Margin Protection and Dairy Market Stabilization 
                                Programs

Sec. 1401. Definitions.
Sec. 1402. Calculation of average feed cost and actual dairy producer 
              margins.

          subpart a--dairy producer margin protection program

Sec. 1411. Establishment of dairy producer margin protection program.
Sec. 1412. Participation of dairy producers in margin protection 
              program.
Sec. 1413. Production history of participating dairy producers.
Sec. 1414. Basic margin protection.
Sec. 1415. Supplemental margin protection.
Sec. 1416. Effect of failure to pay administrative fees or premiums.

             subpart b--dairy market stabilization program

Sec. 1431. Establishment of dairy market stabilization program.
Sec. 1432. Threshold for implementation and reduction in dairy producer 
              payments.
Sec. 1433. Producer milk marketing information.
Sec. 1434. Calculation and collection of reduced dairy producer 
              payments.
Sec. 1435. Remitting monies to the Secretary and use of monies.
Sec. 1436. Suspension of reduced payment requirement.
Sec. 1437. Enforcement.
Sec. 1438. Audit requirements.

                subpart c--commodity credit corporation

Sec. 1451. Use of Commodity Credit Corporation.

                   subpart d--initiation and duration

Sec. 1461. Rulemaking.
Sec. 1462. Duration.

  Part II--Repeal or Reauthorization of Other Dairy-related Provisions

Sec. 1481. Repeal of dairy product price support and milk income loss 
              contract programs.
Sec. 1482. Repeal of dairy export incentive program.
Sec. 1483. Extension of dairy forward pricing program.
Sec. 1484. Extension of dairy indemnity program.
Sec. 1485. Extension of dairy promotion and research program.
Sec. 1486. Repeal of Federal Milk Marketing Order Review Commission.

                        Part III--Effective Date

Sec. 1491. Effective date.

   Subtitle E--Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs

Sec. 1501. Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance.

                       Subtitle F--Administration

Sec. 1601. Administration generally.
Sec. 1602. Suspension of permanent price support authority.
Sec. 1603. Payment limitations.
Sec. 1604. Adjusted gross income limitation.
Sec. 1605. Geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
Sec. 1606. Personal liability of producers for deficiencies.

[[Page 9612]]

Sec. 1607. Prevention of deceased individuals receiving payments under 
              farm commodity programs.
Sec. 1608. Technical corrections.
Sec. 1609. Assignment of payments.
Sec. 1610. Tracking of benefits.
Sec. 1611. Signature authority.
Sec. 1612. Implementation.
Sec. 1613. Protection of producer information.

                         TITLE II--CONSERVATION

                Subtitle A--Conservation Reserve Program

Sec. 2001. Extension and enrollment requirements of conservation 
              reserve program.
Sec. 2002. Farmable wetland program.
Sec. 2003. Duties of owners and operators.
Sec. 2004. Duties of the Secretary.
Sec. 2005. Payments.
Sec. 2006. Contract requirements.
Sec. 2007. Conversion of land subject to contract to other conserving 
              uses.
Sec. 2008. Effective date.

              Subtitle B--Conservation Stewardship Program

Sec. 2101. Conservation stewardship program.

          Subtitle C--Environmental Quality Incentives Program

Sec. 2201. Purposes.
Sec. 2202. Establishment and administration.
Sec. 2203. Evaluation of applications.
Sec. 2204. Duties of producers.
Sec. 2205. Limitation on payments.
Sec. 2206. Conservation innovation grants and payments.
Sec. 2207. Effective date.

         Subtitle D--Agricultural Conservation Easement Program

Sec. 2301. Agricultural conservation easement program.

         Subtitle E--Regional Conservation Partnership Program

Sec. 2401. Regional conservation partnership program.

                Subtitle F--Other Conservation Programs

Sec. 2501. Conservation of private grazing land.
Sec. 2502. Grassroots source water protection program.
Sec. 2503. Voluntary public access and habitat incentive program.
Sec. 2504. Agriculture conservation experienced services program.
Sec. 2505. Small watershed rehabilitation program.
Sec. 2506. Agricultural management assistance program.

                 Subtitle G--Funding and Administration

Sec. 2601. Funding.
Sec. 2602. Technical assistance.
Sec. 2603. Reservation of funds to provide assistance to certain 
              farmers or ranchers for conservation access.
Sec. 2604. Annual report on program enrollments and assistance.
Sec. 2605. Review of conservation practice standards.
Sec. 2606. Administrative requirements applicable to all conservation 
              programs.
Sec. 2607. Standards for State technical committees.
Sec. 2608. Rulemaking authority.

 Subtitle H--Repeal of Superseded Program Authorities and Transitional 
                    Provisions; Technical Amendments

Sec. 2701. Comprehensive conservation enhancement program.
Sec. 2702. Emergency forestry conservation reserve program.
Sec. 2703. Wetlands reserve program.
Sec. 2704. Farmland protection program and farm viability program.
Sec. 2705. Grassland reserve program.
Sec. 2706. Agricultural water enhancement program.
Sec. 2707. Wildlife habitat incentive program.
Sec. 2708. Great Lakes basin program.
Sec. 2709. Chesapeake Bay watershed program.
Sec. 2710. Cooperative conservation partnership initiative.
Sec. 2711. Environmental easement program.
Sec. 2712. Technical amendments.

                            TITLE III--TRADE

                     Subtitle A--Food for Peace Act

Sec. 3001. General authority.
Sec. 3002. Support for organizations through which assistance is 
              provided.
Sec. 3003. Food aid quality.
Sec. 3004. Minimum levels of assistance.
Sec. 3005. Food Aid Consultative Group.
Sec. 3006. Oversight, monitoring, and evaluation.
Sec. 3007. Assistance for stockpiling and rapid transportation, 
              delivery, and distribution of shelf-stable prepackaged 
              foods.
Sec. 3008. General provisions.
Sec. 3009. Prepositioning of agricultural commodities.
Sec. 3010. Annual report regarding food aid programs and activities.
Sec. 3011. Deadline for agreements to finance sales or to provide other 
              assistance.
Sec. 3012. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 3013. Micronutrient fortification programs.
Sec. 3014. John Ogonowski and Doug Bereuter Farmer-to-Farmer Program.

               Subtitle B--Agricultural Trade Act of 1978

Sec. 3101. Funding for export credit guarantee program.
Sec. 3102. Funding for market access program.
Sec. 3103. Foreign market development cooperator program.

               Subtitle C--Other Agricultural Trade Laws

Sec. 3201. Food for Progress Act of 1985.
Sec. 3202. Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
Sec. 3203. Promotion of agricultural exports to emerging markets.
Sec. 3204. McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
              Nutrition Program.
Sec. 3205. Technical assistance for specialty crops.
Sec. 3206. Global Crop Diversity Trust.
Sec. 3207. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Foreign Agricultural 
              Services.

                          TITLE IV--NUTRITION

         Subtitle A--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Sec. 4001. Preventing payment of cash to recipients of supplemental 
              nutrition assistance benefits for the return of empty 
              bottles and cans used to contain food purchased with 
              benefits provided under the program.
Sec. 4002. Retailers.
Sec. 4003. Enhancing services to elderly and disabled supplemental 
              nutrition assistance program participants.
Sec. 4004. Food distribution program on Indian reservations.
Sec. 4005. Updating program eligibility.
Sec. 4006. Exclusion of medical marijuana from excess medical expense 
              deduction.
Sec. 4007. Standard utility allowances based on the receipt of energy 
              assistance payments.
Sec. 4008. Eligibility disqualifications.
Sec. 4009. Ending supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits 
              for lottery or gambling winners.
Sec. 4010. Improving security of food assistance.
Sec. 4011. Demonstration projects on acceptance of benefits of mobile 
              transactions.
Sec. 4012. Use of benefits for purchase of community-supported 
              agriculture share.
Sec. 4013. Restaurant meals program.
Sec. 4014. Mandating State immigration verification.
Sec. 4015. Data exchange standardization for improved interoperability.
Sec. 4016. Pilot projects to improve Federal-State cooperation in 
              identifying and reducing fraud in the supplemental 
              nutrition assistance program.
Sec. 4017. Prohibiting government-sponsored recruitment activities.
Sec. 4018. Repeal of bonus program.
Sec. 4019. Funding of employment and training programs.
Sec. 4020. Monitoring employment and training programs.
Sec. 4021. Cooperation with program research and evaluation.
Sec. 4022. Pilot projects to reduce dependency and increase work effort 
              in the supplemental nutrition assistance program.
Sec. 4023. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 4024. Limitation on use of block grant to Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4025. Assistance for community food projects.
Sec. 4026. Emergency food assistance.
Sec. 4027. Nutrition education.
Sec. 4028. Retailer trafficking.
Sec. 4029. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 4030. Tolerance level for excluding small errors.
Sec. 4031. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands pilot program.
Sec. 4032. Annual State report on verification of SNAP participation.

              Subtitle B--Commodity Distribution Programs

Sec. 4101. Commodity distribution program.
Sec. 4102. Commodity supplemental food program.
Sec. 4103. Distribution of surplus commodities to special nutrition 
              projects.
Sec. 4104. Processing of commodities.

                       Subtitle C--Miscellaneous

Sec. 4201. Farmers' market nutrition program.
Sec. 4202. Nutrition information and awareness pilot program.
Sec. 4203. Fresh fruit and vegetable program.
Sec. 4204. Additional authority for purchase of fresh fruits, 
              vegetables, and other specialty food crops.
Sec. 4205. Encouraging locally and regionally grown and raised food.
Sec. 4206. Review of public health benefits of white potatoes.
Sec. 4207. Healthy Food Financing Initiative.

                            TITLE V--CREDIT

                    Subtitle A--Farm Ownership Loans

Sec. 5001. Eligibility for farm ownership loans.
Sec. 5002. Conservation loan and loan guarantee program.
Sec. 5003. Down payment loan program.
Sec. 5004. Elimination of mineral rights appraisal requirement.

                      Subtitle B--Operating Loans

Sec. 5101. Eligibility for farm operating loans.
Sec. 5102. Elimination of rural residency requirement for operating 
              loans to youth.
Sec. 5103. Authority to waive personal liability for youth loans due to 
              circumstances beyond borrower control.
Sec. 5104. Microloans.

                      Subtitle C--Emergency Loans

Sec. 5201. Eligibility for emergency loans.

[[Page 9613]]

                 Subtitle D--Administrative Provisions

Sec. 5301. Beginning farmer and rancher individual development accounts 
              pilot program.
Sec. 5302. Eligible beginning farmers and ranchers.
Sec. 5303. Loan authorization levels.
Sec. 5304. Priority for participation loans.
Sec. 5305. Loan fund set-asides.
Sec. 5306. Conforming amendment to borrower training provision, 
              relating to eligibility changes.

           Subtitle E--State Agricultural Mediation Programs

Sec. 5401. State agricultural mediation programs.

      Subtitle F--Loans to Purchasers of Highly Fractionated Land

Sec. 5501. Loans to purchasers of highly fractionated land.

                      TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT

        Subtitle A--Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

Sec. 6001. Water, waste disposal, and wastewater facility grants.
Sec. 6002. Rural business opportunity grants.
Sec. 6003. Elimination of reservation of community facilities grant 
              program funds.
Sec. 6004. Utilization of loan guarantees for community facilities.
Sec. 6005. Rural water and wastewater circuit rider program.
Sec. 6006. Tribal college and university essential community 
              facilities.
Sec. 6007. Essential community facilities technical assistance and 
              training.
Sec. 6008. Emergency and imminent community water assistance grant 
              program.
Sec. 6009. Household water well systems.
Sec. 6010. Rural business and industry loan program.
Sec. 6011. Rural cooperative development grants.
Sec. 6012. Locally or regionally produced agricultural food products.
Sec. 6013. Intermediary relending program.
Sec. 6014. Rural college coordinated strategy.
Sec. 6015. Rural water and waste disposal infrastructure.
Sec. 6016. Simplified applications.
Sec. 6017. Grants for NOAA weather radio transmitters.
Sec. 6018. Rural microentrepreneur assistance program.
Sec. 6019. Delta Regional Authority.
Sec. 6020. Northern Great Plains Regional Authority.
Sec. 6021. Rural business investment program.

             Subtitle B--Rural Electrification Act of 1936

Sec. 6101. Relending for certain purposes.
Sec. 6102. Fees for certain loan guarantees.
Sec. 6103. Guarantees for bonds and notes issued for electrification or 
              telephone purposes.
Sec. 6104. Expansion of 911 access.
Sec. 6105. Access to broadband telecommunications services in rural 
              areas.

                       Subtitle C--Miscellaneous

Sec. 6201. Distance learning and telemedicine.
Sec. 6202. Value-added agricultural market development program grants.
Sec. 6203. Agriculture innovation center demonstration program.
Sec. 6204. Program metrics.
Sec. 6205. Study of rural transportation issues.
Sec. 6206. Certain Federal actions not to be considered major.

          TITLE VII--RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND RELATED MATTERS

  Subtitle A--National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
                           Policy Act of 1977

Sec. 7101. Option to be included as non-land-grant college of 
              agriculture.
Sec. 7102. National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and 
              Economics Advisory Board.
Sec. 7103. Specialty crop committee.
Sec. 7104. Veterinary services grant program.
Sec. 7105. Grants and fellowships for food and agriculture sciences 
              education.
Sec. 7106. Policy research centers.
Sec. 7107. Repeal of human nutrition intervention and health promotion 
              research program.
Sec. 7108. Repeal of pilot research program to combine medical and 
              agricultural research.
Sec. 7109. Nutrition education program.
Sec. 7110. Continuing animal health and disease research programs.
Sec. 7111. Repeal of appropriations for research on national or 
              regional problems.
Sec. 7112. Grants to upgrade agricultural and food sciences facilities 
              at 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee 
              University.
Sec. 7113. Grants to upgrade agriculture and food science facilities 
              and equipment at insular area land-grant institutions.
Sec. 7114. Repeal of national research and training virtual centers.
Sec. 7115. Hispanic-serving institutions.
Sec. 7116. Competitive Grants Program for Hispanic Agricultural Workers 
              and Youth.
Sec. 7117. Competitive grants for international agricultural science 
              and education programs.
Sec. 7118. Repeal of research equipment grants.
Sec. 7119. University research.
Sec. 7120. Extension service.
Sec. 7121. Auditing, reporting, bookkeeping, and administrative 
              requirements.
Sec. 7122. Supplemental and alternative crops.
Sec. 7123. Capacity building grants for NLGCA institutions.
Sec. 7124. Aquaculture assistance programs.
Sec. 7125. Rangeland research programs.
Sec. 7126. Special authorization for biosecurity planning and response.
Sec. 7127. Distance education and resident instruction grants program 
              for insular area institutions of higher education.
Sec. 7128. Matching funds requirement.

   Subtitle B--Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990

Sec. 7201. Best utilization of biological applications.
Sec. 7202. Integrated management systems.
Sec. 7203. Sustainable agriculture technology development and transfer 
              program.
Sec. 7204. National training program.
Sec. 7205. National Genetics Resources Program.
Sec. 7206. Repeal of National Agricultural Weather Information System.
Sec. 7207. Repeal of rural electronic commerce extension program.
Sec. 7208. Repeal of agricultural genome initiative.
Sec. 7209. High-priority research and extension initiatives.
Sec. 7210. Repeal of nutrient management research and extension 
              initiative.
Sec. 7211. Organic agriculture research and extension initiative.
Sec. 7212. Repeal of agricultural bioenergy feedstock and energy 
              efficiency research and extension initiative.
Sec. 7213. Farm business management.
Sec. 7214. Centers of excellence.
Sec. 7215. Repeal of red meat safety research center.
Sec. 7216. Assistive technology program for farmers with disabilities.
Sec. 7217. National rural information center clearinghouse.

Subtitle C--Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act 
                                of 1998

Sec. 7301. Relevance and merit of agricultural research, extension, and 
              education funded by the Department.
Sec. 7302. Integrated research, education, and extension competitive 
              grants program.
Sec. 7303. Repeal of coordinated program of research, extension, and 
              education to improve viability of small and medium size 
              dairy, livestock, and poultry operations.
Sec. 7304. Fusarium Graminearum grants.
Sec. 7305. Repeal of Bovine Johne's disease control program.
Sec. 7306. Grants for youth organizations.
Sec. 7307. Specialty crop research initiative.
Sec. 7308. Food animal residue avoidance database program.
Sec. 7309. Repeal of national swine research center.
Sec. 7310. Office of pest management policy.
Sec. 7311. Repeal of studies of agricultural research, extension, and 
              education.

                         Subtitle D--Other Laws

Sec. 7401. Critical Agricultural Materials Act.
Sec. 7402. Equity in Educational Land-grant Status Act of 1994.
Sec. 7403. Research Facilities Act.
Sec. 7404. Repeal of carbon cycle research.
Sec. 7405. Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act.
Sec. 7406. Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978.
Sec. 7407. National Aquaculture Act of 1980.
Sec. 7408. Repeal of use of remote sensing data.
Sec. 7409. Repeal of reports under Farm Security and Rural Investment 
              Act of 2002.
Sec. 7410. Beginning farmer and rancher development program.
Sec. 7411. Inclusion of Northern Mariana Islands as a State under 
              McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act.

         Subtitle E--Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

                     Part 1--Agricultural Security

Sec. 7501. Agricultural biosecurity communication center.
Sec. 7502. Assistance to build local capacity in agricultural 
              biosecurity planning, preparation, and response.
Sec. 7503. Research and development of agricultural countermeasures.
Sec. 7504. Agricultural biosecurity grant program.

                         Part 2--Miscellaneous

Sec. 7511. Enhanced use lease authority pilot program.
Sec. 7512. Grazinglands research laboratory.
Sec. 7513. Budget submission and funding.
Sec. 7514. Repeal of research and education grants for the study of 
              antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Sec. 7515. Repeal of farm and ranch stress assistance network.
Sec. 7516. Repeal of seed distribution.
Sec. 7517. Natural products research program.
Sec. 7518. Sun grant program.
Sec. 7519. Repeal of study and report on food deserts.
Sec. 7520. Repeal of agricultural and rural transportation research and 
              education.

                  Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 7601. Agreements with nonprofit organizations for National 
              Arboretum.
Sec. 7602. Cotton Disease Research Report.
Sec. 7603. Acceptance of facility for Agricultural Research Service.
Sec. 7604. Miscellaneous technical corrections.

[[Page 9614]]

                          TITLE VIII--FORESTRY

            Subtitle A--Repeal of Certain Forestry Programs

Sec. 8001. Forest land enhancement program.
Sec. 8002. Watershed forestry assistance program.
Sec. 8003. Expired cooperative national forest products marketing 
              program.
Sec. 8004. Hispanic-serving institution agricultural land national 
              resources leadership program.
Sec. 8005. Tribal watershed forestry assistance program.
Sec. 8006. Separate Forest Service decisionmaking and appeals process.

 Subtitle B--Reauthorization of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
                             1978 Programs

Sec. 8101. State-wide assessment and strategies for forest resources.
Sec. 8102. Forest Legacy Program.
Sec. 8103. Community forest and open space conservation program.

       Subtitle C--Reauthorization of Other Forestry-Related Laws

Sec. 8201. Rural revitalization technologies.
Sec. 8202. Office of International Forestry.
Sec. 8203. Change in funding source for healthy forests reserve 
              program.
Sec. 8204. Stewardship end result contracting project authority.

           Subtitle D--National Forest Critical Area Response

Sec. 8301. Definitions.
Sec. 8302. Designation of critical areas.
Sec. 8303. Application of expedited procedures and activities of the 
              Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to critical 
              areas.
Sec. 8304. Good neighbor authority.

                  Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 8401. Revision of strategic plan for forest inventory and 
              analysis.
Sec. 8402. Forest Service participation in ACES Program.
Sec. 8403. Green science and technology transfer research under Forest 
              and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978.
Sec. 8404. Extension of stewardship contracts authority regarding use 
              of designation by prescription to all thinning sales 
              under National Forest Management Act of 1976.
Sec. 8405. Reimbursement of fire funds expended by a State for 
              management and suppression of certain wildfires.
Sec. 8406. Ability of National Forest System lands to meet needs of 
              local wood producing facilities for raw materials.
Sec. 8407. Report on the National Forest System roads.

                            TITLE IX--ENERGY

Sec. 9001. Definition of renewable energy system.
Sec. 9002. Biobased markets program.
Sec. 9003. Biorefinery Assistance.
Sec. 9004. Repowering assistance program.
Sec. 9005. Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels.
Sec. 9006. Biodiesel Fuel Education Program.
Sec. 9007. Rural Energy for America Program.
Sec. 9008. Biomass Research and Development.
Sec. 9009. Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy Producers.
Sec. 9010. Biomass Crop Assistance Program.
Sec. 9011. Community wood energy program.
Sec. 9012. Repeal of biofuels infrastructure study.
Sec. 9013. Repeal of renewable fertilizer study.

                         TITLE X--HORTICULTURE

Sec. 10001. Specialty crops market news allocation.
Sec. 10002. Repeal of grant program to improve movement of specialty 
              crops.
Sec. 10003. Farmers market and local food promotion program.
Sec. 10004. Organic agriculture.
Sec. 10005. Investigations and enforcement of the Organic Foods 
              Production Act of 1990.
Sec. 10006. Food safety education initiatives.
Sec. 10007. Specialty crop block grants.
Sec. 10008. Report on honey.
Sec. 10009. Bulk shipments of apples to Canada.
Sec. 10010. Inclusion of olive oil in import controls under the 
              Agricultural Adjustment Act.
Sec. 10011. Consolidation of plant pest and disease management and 
              disaster prevention programs.
Sec. 10012. Modification, cancellation, or suspension on basis of a 
              biological opinion.
Sec. 10013. Use and discharges of authorized pesticides.
Sec. 10014. Seed not pesticide or device for purposes of importation.
Sec. 10015. Stay of regulations related to Christmas Tree Promotion, 
              Research, and Information Order.
Sec. 10016. Study on proposed order pertaining to sulfuryl fluoride.
Sec. 10017. Study on local and regional food production and program 
              evaluation.

                        TITLE XI--CROP INSURANCE

Sec. 11001. Information sharing.
Sec. 11002. Publication of information on violations of prohibition on 
              premium adjustments.
Sec. 11003. Supplemental coverage option.
Sec. 11004. Premium amounts for catastrophic risk protection.
Sec. 11005. Repeal of performance-based discount.
Sec. 11006. Permanent enterprise unit subsidy.
Sec. 11007. Enterprise units for irrigated and nonirrigated crops.
Sec. 11008. Data collection.
Sec. 11009. Adjustment in actual production history to establish 
              insurable yields.
Sec. 11010. Submission and review of policies.
Sec. 11011. Equitable relief for specialty crop policies.
Sec. 11012. Budget limitations on renegotiation of the standard 
              reinsurance agreement.
Sec. 11013. Crop production on native sod.
Sec. 11014. Coverage levels by practice.
Sec. 11015. Beginning farmer and rancher provisions.
Sec. 11016. Stacked income protection plan for producers of upland 
              cotton.
Sec. 11017. Peanut revenue crop insurance.
Sec. 11018. Authority to correct errors.
Sec. 11019. Implementation.
Sec. 11020. Research and development priorities.
Sec. 11021. Additional research and development contracting 
              requirements.
Sec. 11022. Program compliance partnerships.
Sec. 11023. Pilot programs.
Sec. 11024. Technical amendments.

                        TITLE XII--MISCELLANEOUS

                         Subtitle A--Livestock

Sec. 12101. National Sheep Industry Improvement Center.
Sec. 12102. Repeal of certain regulations under the Packers and 
              Stockyards Act, 1921.
Sec. 12103. Trichinae certification program.
Sec. 12104. National Aquatic Animal Health Plan.
Sec. 12105. Country of origin labeling.
Sec. 12106. National animal health laboratory network.
Sec. 12107. Repeal of duplicative catfish inspection program.
Sec. 12108. National Poultry Improvement Program.
Sec. 12109. Report on bovine tuberculosis in Texas.

   Subtitle B--Socially Disadvantaged Producers and Limited Resource 
                               Producers

Sec. 12201. Outreach and assistance for socially disadvantaged farmers 
              and ranchers and veteran farmers and ranchers.
Sec. 12202. Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
Sec. 12203. Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Policy Research 
              Center.

               Subtitle C--Other Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 12302. Grants to improve supply, stability, safety, and training 
              of agricultural labor force.
Sec. 12303. Program benefit eligibility status for participants in high 
              plains water study.
Sec. 12304. Office of Tribal Relations.
Sec. 12305. Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison.
Sec. 12306. Prohibition on keeping GSA leased cars overnight.
Sec. 12307. Noninsured crop assistance program.
Sec. 12308. Ensuring high standards for agency use of scientific 
              information.
Sec. 12309. Evaluation required for purposes of prohibition on closure 
              or relocation of county offices for the Farm Service 
              Agency.
Sec. 12310. Acer access and development program.
Sec. 12311. Regulatory review by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Sec. 12312. Agricultural commodity definition.
Sec. 12313. Prohibition on attending an animal fighting venture or 
              causing a minor to attend an animal fighting venture.
Sec. 12314. Prohibition against interference by State and local 
              governments with production or manufacture of items in 
              other States.
Sec. 12315. Increased protection for agricultural interests in the 
              Missouri River Basin.
Sec. 12316. Increased protection for agricultural interests in the 
              Black Dirt region.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.

                          TITLE I--COMMODITIES

                    Subtitle A--Repeals and Reforms

     SEC. 1101. REPEAL OF DIRECT PAYMENTS.

       (a) Repeal.--Sections 1103 and 1303 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713, 8753) 
     are repealed.
       (b) Continued Application for 2013 Crop Year.--Sections 
     1103 and 1303 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713, 8753), as in effect on the day before 
     the date of enactment of this Act, shall continue to apply 
     through the 2013 crop year with respect to all covered 
     commodities (as defined in section 1001 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 
     8702)) and peanuts on a farm.
       (c) Continued Application for 2014 and 2015 Crop Years.--
     Subject to this subtitle, the amendments made by sections 
     1603 and 1604 of this Act, and sections 1607 and 1611 of this 
     Act, section 1103 of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713), as in effect on the day before the date 
     of enactment of this Act, shall continue to apply through the 
     2014 and

[[Page 9615]]

     2015 crop years with respect to upland cotton only (as 
     defined in section 1001 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 8702)), except 
     that, in applying such section 1103, the term ``payment 
     acres'' means the following:
       (1) For crop year 2014, 70 percent of the base acres of 
     upland cotton on a farm on which direct payments are made.
       (2) For crop year 2015, 60 percent of the base acres of 
     upland cotton on a farm on which direct payments are made.

     SEC. 1102. REPEAL OF COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS.

       (a) Repeal.--Sections 1104 and 1304 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8714, 8754) 
     are repealed.
       (b) Continued Application for 2013 Crop Year.--Sections 
     1104 and 1304 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 8714, 8754), as in effect on the day before 
     the date of enactment of this Act, shall continue to apply 
     through the 2013 crop year with respect to all covered 
     commodities (as defined in section 1001 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 
     8702)) and peanuts on a farm.

     SEC. 1103. REPEAL OF AVERAGE CROP REVENUE ELECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 1105 of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8715) is repealed.
       (b) Continued Application for 2013 Crop Year.--Section 1105 
     of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     8715), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment 
     of this Act, shall continue to apply through the 2013 crop 
     year with respect to all covered commodities (as defined in 
     section 1001 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 8702)) and peanuts on a 
     farm for which the irrevocable election under section 1105 of 
     that Act was made before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1104. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle and subtitle B:
       (1) Actual county revenue.--The term ``actual county 
     revenue'', with respect to a covered commodity for a crop 
     year, means the amount determined by the Secretary under 
     section 1107(c)(4) to determine whether revenue loss coverage 
     payments are required to be provided for that crop year.
       (2) Base acres.--The term ``base acres'', with respect to a 
     covered commodity and cotton on a farm, means the number of 
     acres established under section 1101 and 1302 of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7911, 
     7952) or section 1101 and 1302 of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8711, 8752), as in effect on 
     September 30, 2013, subject to any adjustment under section 
     1105 of this Act. For purposes of making payments under 
     subsections (b) and (c) of section 1107, base acres are 
     reduced by the payment acres calculated in 1101(c).
       (3) County revenue loss coverage trigger.--The term 
     ``county revenue loss coverage trigger'', with respect to a 
     covered commodity for a crop year, means the amount 
     determined by the Secretary under section 1107(c)(5) to 
     determine whether revenue loss coverage payments are required 
     to be provided for that crop year.
       (4) Covered commodity.--The term ``covered commodity'' 
     means wheat, oats, and barley (including wheat, oats, and 
     barley used for haying and grazing), corn, grain sorghum, 
     long grain rice, medium grain rice, pulse crops, soybeans, 
     other oilseeds, and peanuts.
       (5) Effective price.--The term ``effective price'', with 
     respect to a covered commodity for a crop year, means the 
     price calculated by the Secretary under section 1107(b)(2) to 
     determine whether price loss coverage payments are required 
     to be provided for that crop year.
       (6) Extra long staple cotton.--The term ``extra long staple 
     cotton'' means cotton that--
       (A) is produced from pure strain varieties of the 
     Barbadense species or any hybrid of the species, or other 
     similar types of extra long staple cotton, designated by the 
     Secretary, having characteristics needed for various end uses 
     for which United States upland cotton is not suitable and 
     grown in irrigated cotton-growing regions of the United 
     States designated by the Secretary or other areas designated 
     by the Secretary as suitable for the production of the 
     varieties or types; and
       (B) is ginned on a roller-type gin or, if authorized by the 
     Secretary, ginned on another type gin for experimental 
     purposes.
       (7) Farm base acres.--The term ``farm base acres'' means 
     the sum of the base acreage for all covered commodities and 
     cotton on a farm in effect as of September 30, 2013, and 
     subject to any adjustment under section 1105.
       (8) Medium grain rice.--The term ``medium grain rice'' 
     includes short grain rice.
       (9) Midseason price.--The term ``midseason price'' means 
     the applicable national average market price received by 
     producers for the first 5 months of the applicable marketing 
     year, as determined by the Secretary.
       (10) Other oilseed.--The term ``other oilseed'' means a 
     crop of sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, 
     flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, or any oilseed 
     designated by the Secretary.
       (11) Payment acres.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     through (D), the term ``payment acres'', with respect to the 
     provision of price loss coverage payments and revenue loss 
     coverage payments, means--
       (i) 85 percent of total acres planted for the year to each 
     covered commodity on a farm; and
       (ii) 30 percent of total acres approved as prevented from 
     being planted for the year to each covered commodity on a 
     farm.
       (B) Maximum.--The total quantity of payment acres 
     determined under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed the farm 
     base acres.
       (C) Reduction.--If the sum of all payment acres for a farm 
     exceeds the limits established under subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall reduce the payment acres applicable to each 
     crop proportionately.
       (D) Exclusion.--The term ``payment acres'' does not include 
     any crop subsequently planted during the same crop year on 
     the same land for which the first crop is eligible for 
     payments under this subtitle, unless the crop was approved 
     for double cropping in the county, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (12) Payment yield.--The term ``payment yield'' means the 
     yield established for counter-cyclical payments under section 
     1102 or 1302 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 (7 U.S.C. 7912, 7952), section 1102 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8712), as in 
     effect on September 30, 2013, or under section 1106 of this 
     Act, for a farm for a covered commodity.
       (13) Price loss coverage.--The term ``price loss coverage'' 
     means coverage provided under section 1107(b).
       (14) Producer.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``producer'' means an owner, 
     operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper that shares in 
     the risk of producing a crop and is entitled to share in the 
     crop available for marketing from the farm, or would have 
     shared had the crop been produced.
       (B) Hybrid seed.--In determining whether a grower of hybrid 
     seed is a producer, the Secretary shall--
       (i) not take into consideration the existence of a hybrid 
     seed contract; and
       (ii) ensure that program requirements do not adversely 
     affect the ability of the grower to receive a payment under 
     this title.
       (15) Pulse crop.--The term ``pulse crop'' means dry peas, 
     lentils, small chickpeas, and large chickpeas.
       (16) Reference price.--The term ``reference price'', with 
     respect to a covered commodity for a crop year, means the 
     following:
       (A) Wheat, $5.50 per bushel.
       (B) Corn, $3.70 per bushel.
       (C) Grain sorghum, $3.95 per bushel.
       (D) Barley, $4.95 per bushel.
       (E) Oats, $2.40 per bushel.
       (F) Long grain rice, $14.00 per hundredweight.
       (G) Medium grain rice, $14.00 per hundredweight.
       (H) Soybeans, $8.40 per bushel.
       (I) Other oilseeds, $20.15 per hundredweight.
       (J) Peanuts $535.00 per ton.
       (K) Dry peas, $11.00 per hundredweight.
       (L) Lentils, $19.97 per hundredweight.
       (M) Small chickpeas, $19.04 per hundredweight.
       (N) Large chickpeas, $21.54 per hundredweight.
       (17) Revenue loss coverage.--The term ``revenue loss 
     coverage'' means coverage provided under section 1107(c).
       (18) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (19) State.--The term ``State'' means--
       (A) a State;
       (B) the District of Columbia;
       (C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
       (D) any other territory or possession of the United States.
       (20) Temperate japonica rice.--The term ``temperate 
     japonica rice'' means rice that is grown in high altitudes or 
     temperate regions of high latitudes with cooler climate 
     conditions, in the Western United States, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       (21) Transitional yield.--The term ``transitional yield'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 502(b) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)).
       (22) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used 
     in a geographical sense, means all of the States.
       (23) United states premium factor.--The term ``United 
     States Premium Factor'' means the percentage by which the 
     difference in the United States loan schedule premiums for 
     Strict Middling (SM) 1\1/8\-inch upland cotton and for 
     Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch upland cotton exceeds the 
     difference in the applicable premiums for comparable 
     international qualities.

     SEC. 1105. BASE ACRES.

       (a) Adjustment of Base Acres.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for an 
     adjustment, as appropriate, in the base acres for covered 
     commodities and cotton for a farm whenever any of the 
     following circumstances occurs:
       (A) A conservation reserve contract entered into under 
     section 1231 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3831) with respect to the farm expires or is voluntarily 
     terminated.
       (B) Cropland is released from coverage under a conservation 
     reserve contract by the Secretary.
       (C) The producer has eligible oilseed acreage as the result 
     of the Secretary designating additional oilseeds, which shall 
     be determined in the same manner as eligible oilseed acreage 
     under section 1101(a)(1)(D) of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8711(a)(1)(D)).
       (2) Special conservation reserve acreage payment rules.--
     For the crop year in which a base acres adjustment under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) is first made, the 
     owner of the farm shall elect to receive price loss coverage 
     or revenue loss coverage with respect to the acreage added to 
     the farm under this subsection or a prorated payment under 
     the conservation reserve contract, but not both.

[[Page 9616]]

       (b) Prevention of Excess Base Acres.--
       (1) Required reduction.--If the sum of the base acres for a 
     farm, together with the acreage described in paragraph (2) 
     exceeds the actual cropland acreage of the farm, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the base acres for 1 or more covered 
     commodities or cotton for the farm so that the sum of the 
     base acres and acreage described in paragraph (2) does not 
     exceed the actual cropland acreage of the farm.
       (2) Other acreage.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall include the following:
       (A) Any acreage on the farm enrolled in the conservation 
     reserve program or wetlands reserve program (or successor 
     programs) under chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.).
       (B) Any other acreage on the farm enrolled in a Federal 
     conservation program for which payments are made in exchange 
     for not producing an agricultural commodity on the acreage.
       (C) If the Secretary designates additional oilseeds, any 
     eligible oilseed acreage, which shall be determined in the 
     same manner as eligible oilseed acreage under subsection 
     (a)(1)(C).
       (3) Selection of acres.--The Secretary shall give the owner 
     of the farm the opportunity to select the base acres for a 
     covered commodity or cotton for the farm against which the 
     reduction required by paragraph (1) will be made.
       (4) Exception for double-cropped acreage.--In applying 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make an exception in the 
     case of double cropping, as determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Reduction in Base Acres.--
       (1) Reduction at option of owner.--
       (A) In general.--The owner of a farm may reduce, at any 
     time, the base acres for any covered commodity or cotton for 
     the farm.
       (B) Effect of reduction.--A reduction under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be permanent and made in a manner prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Required action by secretary.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall proportionately reduce 
     base acres on a farm for covered commodities and cotton for 
     land that has been subdivided and developed for multiple 
     residential units or other nonfarming uses if the size of the 
     tracts and the density of the subdivision is such that the 
     land is unlikely to return to the previous agricultural use, 
     unless the producers on the farm demonstrate that the land--
       (i) remains devoted to commercial agricultural production; 
     or
       (ii) is likely to be returned to the previous agricultural 
     use.
       (B) Requirement.--The Secretary shall establish procedures 
     to identify land described in subparagraph (A).

     SEC. 1106. PAYMENT YIELDS.

       (a) Establishment and Purpose.--For the purpose of making 
     payments under this subtitle, the Secretary shall provide for 
     the establishment of a yield for each farm for any designated 
     oilseed for which a payment yield was not established under 
     section 1102 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 8712) in accordance with this section.
       (b) Payment Yields for Designated Oilseeds.--
       (1) Determination of average yield.--In the case of 
     designated oilseeds, the Secretary shall determine the 
     average yield per planted acre for the designated oilseed on 
     a farm for the 1998 through 2001 crop years, excluding any 
     crop year in which the acreage planted to the designated 
     oilseed was zero.
       (2) Adjustment for payment yield.--
       (A) In general.--The payment yield for a farm for a 
     designated oilseed shall be equal to the product of the 
     following:
       (i) The average yield for the designated oilseed determined 
     under paragraph (1).
       (ii) The ratio resulting from dividing the national average 
     yield for the designated oilseed for the 1981 through 1985 
     crops by the national average yield for the designated 
     oilseed for the 1998 through 2001 crops.
       (B) No national average yield information available.--To 
     the extent that national average yield information for a 
     designated oilseed is not available, the Secretary shall use 
     such information as the Secretary determines to be fair and 
     equitable to establish a national average yield under this 
     section.
       (3) Use of county average yield.--If the yield per planted 
     acre for a crop of a designated oilseed for a farm for any of 
     the 1998 through 2001 crop years was less than 75 percent of 
     the county yield for that designated oilseed, the Secretary 
     shall assign a yield for that crop year equal to 75 percent 
     of the county yield for the purpose of determining the 
     average under paragraph (1).
       (4) No historic yield data available.--In the case of 
     establishing yields for designated oilseeds, if historic 
     yield data is not available, the Secretary shall use the 
     ratio for dry peas calculated under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) in 
     determining the yields for designated oilseeds, as determined 
     to be fair and equitable by the Secretary.
       (c) Effect of Lack of Payment Yield.--
       (1) Establishment by secretary.--If no payment yield is 
     otherwise established for a farm for which a covered 
     commodity is planted and eligible to receive price loss 
     coverage payments, the Secretary shall establish an 
     appropriate payment yield for the covered commodity on the 
     farm under paragraph (2).
       (2) Use of similarly situated farms.--To establish an 
     appropriate payment yield for a covered commodity on a farm 
     as required by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into 
     consideration the farm program payment yields applicable to 
     that covered commodity for similarly situated farms. The use 
     of such data in an appeal, by the Secretary or by the 
     producer, shall not be subject to any other provision of law.
       (d) Single Opportunity to Update Yields Used to Determine 
     Price Loss Coverage Payments.--
       (1) Election to update.--At the sole discretion of the 
     owner of a farm, the owner of a farm shall have a 1-time 
     opportunity to update the payment yields on a covered 
     commodity-by-covered commodity basis that would otherwise be 
     used in calculating any price loss coverage payment for 
     covered commodities on the farm.
       (2) Time for election.--The election under paragraph (1) 
     shall be made at a time and manner to be in effect for the 
     2014 crop year as determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Method of updating yields.--If the owner of a farm 
     elects to update yields under this subsection, the payment 
     yield for a covered commodity on the farm, for the purpose of 
     calculating price loss coverage payments only, shall be equal 
     to 90 percent of the average of the yield per planted acre 
     for the crop of the covered commodity on the farm for the 
     2008 through 2012 crop years, as determined by the Secretary, 
     excluding any crop year in which the acreage planted to the 
     crop of the covered commodity was zero.
       (4) Use of county average yield.--If the yield per planted 
     acre for a crop of the covered commodity for a farm for any 
     of the 2008 through 2012 crop years was less than 75 percent 
     of the average of the 2008 through 2012 county yield for that 
     commodity, the Secretary shall assign a yield for that crop 
     year equal to 75 percent of the average of the 2008 through 
     2012 county yield for the purposes of determining the average 
     yield under paragraph (3).
       (5) Effect of lack of payment yield.--
       (A) Establishment by secretary.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, if no payment yield is otherwise established for 
     a covered commodity on a farm, the Secretary shall establish 
     an appropriate updated payment yield for the covered 
     commodity on the farm under subparagraph (B).
       (B) Use of similarly situated farms.--To establish an 
     appropriate payment yield for a covered commodity on a farm 
     as required by subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall take 
     into consideration the farm program payment yields applicable 
     to that covered commodity for similarly situated farms. The 
     use of such data in an appeal, by the Secretary or by the 
     producer, shall not be subject to any other provision of law.

     SEC. 1107. FARM RISK MANAGEMENT ELECTION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Payments required.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), if the Secretary determines that payments are required 
     under subsection (b)(1) or (c)(2) for a covered commodity, 
     the Secretary shall make payments for that covered commodity 
     available under such subsection to producers on a farm 
     pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section.
       (2) Prohibition on payments; exceptions.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this title, a producer on a farm may 
     not receive price loss coverage payments or revenue loss 
     coverage payments if the sum of the planted acres of covered 
     commodities on the farm is 10 acres or less, as determined by 
     the Secretary, unless the producer is--
       (A) a socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher (as defined 
     in section 355(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2003(e))); or
       (B) a limited resource farmer or rancher, as defined by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Price Loss Coverage.--
       (1) Payments.--For each of the 2014 through 2018 crop 
     years, the Secretary shall make price loss coverage payments 
     to producers on a farm for a covered commodity if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       (A) the effective price for the covered commodity for the 
     crop year; is less than
       (B) the reference price for the covered commodity for the 
     crop year.
       (2) Effective price.--The effective price for a covered 
     commodity for a crop year shall be the higher of--
       (A) the midseason price; or
       (B) the national average loan rate for a marketing 
     assistance loan for the covered commodity in effect for crop 
     years 2014 through 2018 under subtitle B.
       (3) Payment rate.--The payment rate shall be equal to the 
     difference between--
       (A) the reference price for the covered commodity; and
       (B) the effective price determined under paragraph (2) for 
     the covered commodity.
       (4) Payment amount.--If price loss coverage payments are 
     required to be provided under this subsection for any of the 
     2014 through 2018 crop years for a covered commodity, the 
     amount of the price loss coverage payment to be paid to the 
     producers on a farm for the crop year shall be equal to the 
     product obtained by multiplying--
       (A) the payment rate for the covered commodity under 
     paragraph (3);
       (B) the payment yield for the covered commodity; and
       (C) the payment acres for the covered commodity.
       (5) Time for payments.--If the Secretary determines under 
     this subsection that price loss coverage payments are 
     required to be provided for the covered commodity, the 
     payments shall be made beginning October 1, or as soon as 
     practicable thereafter, after the end of the applicable 
     marketing year for the covered commodity.

[[Page 9617]]

       (6) Special rule for barley.--In determining the effective 
     price for barley in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall use 
     the all-barley price.
       (7) Special rule for temperate japonica rice.--The 
     Secretary shall provide a reference price with respect to 
     temperate japonica rice in an amount equal to 115 percent of 
     the amount established in subparagraphs (F) and (G) of 
     section 1104(16) in order to reflect price premiums.
       (c) Revenue Loss Coverage.--
       (1) Available as an alternative.--As an alternative to 
     receiving price loss coverage payments under subsection (b) 
     for a covered commodity, all of the owners of the farm may 
     make a one-time, irrevocable election on a covered commodity-
     by-covered commodity basis to receive revenue loss coverage 
     payments for each covered commodity in accordance with this 
     subsection. If any of the owners of the farm make different 
     elections on the same covered commodity on the farm, all of 
     the owners of the farm shall be deemed to have not made the 
     election available under this paragraph.
       (2) Payments.--In the case of owners of a farm that make 
     the election described in paragraph (1) for a covered 
     commodity, the Secretary shall make revenue loss coverage 
     payments available under this subsection for each of the 2014 
     through 2018 crop years if the Secretary determines that--
       (A) the actual county revenue for the crop year for the 
     covered commodity; is less than
       (B) the county revenue loss coverage trigger for the crop 
     year for the covered commodity.
       (3) Time for payments.--If the Secretary determines under 
     this subsection that revenue loss coverage payments are 
     required to be provided for the covered commodity, payments 
     shall be made beginning October 1, or as soon as practicable 
     thereafter, after the end of the applicable marketing year 
     for the covered commodity.
       (4) Actual county revenue.--The amount of the actual county 
     revenue for a crop year of a covered commodity shall be equal 
     to the product obtained by multiplying--
       (A) the actual county yield, as determined by the 
     Secretary, for each planted acre for the crop year for the 
     covered commodity; and
       (B) the higher of--
       (i) the midseason price; or
       (ii) the national average loan rate for a marketing 
     assistance loan for the covered commodity in effect for crop 
     years 2014 through 2018 under subtitle B.
       (5) County revenue loss coverage trigger.--
       (A) In general.--The county revenue loss coverage trigger 
     for a crop year for a covered commodity on a farm shall equal 
     85 percent of the benchmark county revenue.
       (B) Benchmark county revenue.--
       (i) In general.--The benchmark county revenue shall be the 
     product obtained by multiplying--

       (I) subject to clause (ii), the average historical county 
     yield as determined by the Secretary for the most recent 5 
     crop years, excluding each of the crop years with the highest 
     and lowest yields; and
       (II) subject to clause (iii), the average national 
     marketing year average price for the most recent 5 crop 
     years, excluding each of the crop years with the highest and 
     lowest prices.

       (ii) Yield conditions.--If the historical county yield in 
     clause (i)(I) for any of the 5 most recent crop years, as 
     determined by the Secretary, is less than 70 percent of the 
     transitional yield, as determined by the Secretary, the 
     amounts used for any of those years in clause (i)(I) shall be 
     70 percent of the transitional yield.
       (iii) Reference price.--If the national marketing year 
     average price in clause (i)(II) for any of the 5 most recent 
     crop years is lower than the reference price for the covered 
     commodity, the Secretary shall use the reference price for 
     any of those years for the amounts in clause (i)(II).
       (6) Payment rate.--The payment rate shall be equal to the 
     lesser of--
       (A) the difference between--
       (i) the county revenue loss coverage trigger for the 
     covered commodity; and
       (ii) the actual county revenue for the crop year for the 
     covered commodity; or
       (B) 10 percent of the benchmark county revenue for the crop 
     year for the covered commodity.
       (7) Payment amount.--If revenue loss coverage payments 
     under this subsection are required to be provided for any of 
     the 2014 through 2018 crop years of a covered commodity, the 
     amount of the revenue loss coverage payment to be provided to 
     the producers on a farm for the crop year shall be equal to 
     the product obtained by multiplying--
       (A) the payment rate under paragraph (6); and
       (B) the payment acres of the covered commodity on the farm.
       (8) Duties of the secretary.--In providing revenue loss 
     coverage payments under this subsection, the Secretary--
       (A) shall ensure that producers on a farm do not 
     reconstitute the farm of the producers to void or change the 
     election made under paragraph (1);
       (B) to the maximum extent practicable, shall use all 
     available information and analysis, including data mining, to 
     check for anomalies in the provision of revenue loss coverage 
     payments;
       (C) to the maximum extent practicable, shall calculate a 
     separate county revenue loss coverage trigger for irrigated 
     and nonirrigated covered commodities and a separate actual 
     county revenue for irrigated and nonirrigated covered 
     commodities;
       (D) shall assign a benchmark county yield for each planted 
     acre for the crop year for the covered commodity on the basis 
     of the yield history of representative farms in the State, 
     region, or crop reporting district, as determined by the 
     Secretary, if--
       (i) the Secretary cannot establish the benchmark county 
     yield for each planted acre for a crop year for a covered 
     commodity in the county in accordance with paragraph (5); or
       (ii) the yield determined under paragraph (5) is an 
     unrepresentative average yield for the county (as determined 
     by the Secretary); and
       (E) to the maximum extent practicable, shall ensure that in 
     order to be eligible for a payment under this subsection, the 
     producers on the farm suffered an actual loss on the covered 
     commodity for the crop year for which payment is sought.
       (d) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate a report annually containing an evaluation of the 
     impact of price loss coverage and revenue loss coverage--
       (1) on the planting, production, price, and export of 
     covered commodities; and
       (2) on the cost of each commodity program.

     SEC. 1108. PRODUCER AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Compliance With Certain Requirements.--
       (1) Requirements.--Before the producers on a farm may 
     receive payments under this subtitle with respect to the 
     farm, the producers shall agree, during the crop year for 
     which the payments are made and in exchange for the 
     payments--
       (A) to comply with applicable conservation requirements 
     under subtitle B of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq.);
       (B) to comply with applicable wetland protection 
     requirements under subtitle C of title XII of that Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3821 et seq.); and
       (C) to effectively control noxious weeds and otherwise 
     maintain the land in accordance with sound agricultural 
     practices, as determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Compliance.--The Secretary may issue such rules as the 
     Secretary considers necessary to ensure producer compliance 
     with the requirements of paragraph (1).
       (3) Modification.--At the request of the transferee or 
     owner, the Secretary may modify the requirements of this 
     subsection if the modifications are consistent with the 
     objectives of this subsection, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Transfer or Change of Interest in Farm.--
       (1) Termination.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     transfer of (or change in) the interest of the producers on a 
     farm for which payments under this subtitle are provided 
     shall result in the termination of the payments, unless the 
     transferee or owner of the acreage agrees to assume all 
     obligations under subsection (a).
       (B) Effective date.--The termination shall take effect on 
     the date determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Exception.--If a producer entitled to a payment under 
     this subtitle dies, becomes incompetent, or is otherwise 
     unable to receive the payment, the Secretary shall make the 
     payment in accordance with rules issued by the Secretary.
       (c) Acreage Reports.--As a condition on the receipt of any 
     benefits under this subtitle or subtitle B, the Secretary 
     shall require producers on a farm to submit to the Secretary 
     annual acreage reports with respect to all cropland on the 
     farm.
       (d) Tenants and Sharecroppers.--In carrying out this 
     subtitle, the Secretary shall provide adequate safeguards to 
     protect the interests of tenants and sharecroppers.
       (e) Sharing of Payments.--The Secretary shall provide for 
     the sharing of payments made under this subtitle among the 
     producers on a farm on a fair and equitable basis.

     SEC. 1109. PERIOD OF EFFECTIVENESS.

       This subtitle shall be effective beginning with the 2014 
     crop year of each covered commodity through the 2018 crop 
     year.

                      Subtitle B--Marketing Loans

     SEC. 1201. AVAILABILITY OF NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE 
                   LOANS FOR LOAN COMMODITIES.

       (a) Definition of Loan Commodity.--In this subtitle, the 
     term ``loan commodity'' means wheat, corn, grain sorghum, 
     barley, oats, upland cotton, extra long staple cotton, long 
     grain rice, medium grain rice, peanuts, soybeans, other 
     oilseeds, graded wool, nongraded wool, mohair, honey, dry 
     peas, lentils, small chickpeas, and large chickpeas.
       (b) Nonrecourse Loans Available.--
       (1) In general.--For each of the 2014 through 2018 crops of 
     each loan commodity, the Secretary shall make available to 
     producers on a farm nonrecourse marketing assistance loans 
     for loan commodities produced on the farm.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--The marketing assistance loans 
     shall be made under terms and conditions that are prescribed 
     by the Secretary and at the loan rate established under 
     section 1202 for the loan commodity.
       (c) Eligible Production.--The producers on a farm shall be 
     eligible for a marketing assistance loan under subsection (b) 
     for any quantity of a loan commodity produced on the farm.
       (d) Compliance With Conservation and Wetlands 
     Requirements.--As a condition of the receipt of a marketing 
     assistance loan under subsection (b), the producer shall 
     comply with

[[Page 9618]]

     applicable conservation requirements under subtitle B of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811 et 
     seq.) and applicable wetland protection requirements under 
     subtitle C of title XII of that Act (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) 
     during the term of the loan.
       (e) Special Rules for Peanuts.--
       (1) In general.--This subsection shall apply only to 
     producers of peanuts.
       (2) Options for obtaining loan.--A marketing assistance 
     loan under this section, and loan deficiency payments under 
     section 1205, may be obtained at the option of the producers 
     on a farm through--
       (A) a designated marketing association or marketing 
     cooperative of producers that is approved by the Secretary; 
     or
       (B) the Farm Service Agency.
       (3) Storage of loan peanuts.--As a condition on the 
     approval by the Secretary of an individual or entity to 
     provide storage for peanuts for which a marketing assistance 
     loan is made under this section, the individual or entity 
     shall agree--
       (A) to provide the storage on a nondiscriminatory basis; 
     and
       (B) to comply with such additional requirements as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate to accomplish the purposes of 
     this section and promote fairness in the administration of 
     the benefits of this section.
       (4) Storage, handling, and associated costs.--
       (A) In general.--To ensure proper storage of peanuts for 
     which a loan is made under this section, the Secretary shall 
     pay handling and other associated costs (other than storage 
     costs) incurred at the time at which the peanuts are placed 
     under loan, as determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Redemption and forfeiture.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) require the repayment of handling and other associated 
     costs paid under subparagraph (A) for all peanuts pledged as 
     collateral for a loan that is redeemed under this section; 
     and
       (ii) pay storage, handling, and other associated costs for 
     all peanuts pledged as collateral that are forfeited under 
     this section.
       (5) Marketing.--A marketing association or cooperative may 
     market peanuts for which a loan is made under this section in 
     any manner that conforms to consumer needs, including the 
     separation of peanuts by type and quality.
       (6) Reimbursable agreements and payment of administrative 
     expenses.--The Secretary may implement any reimbursable 
     agreements or provide for the payment of administrative 
     expenses under this subsection only in a manner that is 
     consistent with those activities in regard to other loan 
     commodities.

     SEC. 1202. LOAN RATES FOR NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE 
                   LOANS.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of each of the 2014 through 
     2018 crop years, the loan rate for a marketing assistance 
     loan under section 1201 for a loan commodity shall be equal 
     to the following:
       (1) In the case of wheat, $2.94 per bushel.
       (2) In the case of corn, $1.95 per bushel.
       (3) In the case of grain sorghum, $1.95 per bushel.
       (4) In the case of barley, $1.95 per bushel.
       (5) In the case of oats, $1.39 per bushel.
       (6) In the case of base quality of upland cotton, for the 
     2014 and each subsequent crop year, the simple average of the 
     adjusted prevailing world price for the 2 immediately 
     preceding marketing years, as determined by the Secretary and 
     announced October 1 preceding the next domestic plantings, 
     but in no case less than $0.47 per pound or more than $0.52 
     per pound.
       (7) In the case of extra long staple cotton, $0.7977 per 
     pound.
       (8) In the case of long grain rice, $6.50 per 
     hundredweight.
       (9) In the case of medium grain rice, $6.50 per 
     hundredweight.
       (10) In the case of soybeans, $5.00 per bushel.
       (11) In the case of other oilseeds, $10.09 per 
     hundredweight for each of the following kinds of oilseeds:
       (A) Sunflower seed.
       (B) Rapeseed.
       (C) Canola.
       (D) Safflower.
       (E) Flaxseed.
       (F) Mustard seed.
       (G) Crambe.
       (H) Sesame seed.
       (I) Other oilseeds designated by the Secretary.
       (12) In the case of dry peas, $5.40 per hundredweight.
       (13) In the case of lentils, $11.28 per hundredweight.
       (14) In the case of small chickpeas, $7.43 per 
     hundredweight.
       (15) In the case of large chickpeas, $11.28 per 
     hundredweight.
       (16) In the case of graded wool, $1.15 per pound.
       (17) In the case of nongraded wool, $0.40 per pound.
       (18) In the case of mohair, $4.20 per pound.
       (19) In the case of honey, $0.69 per pound.
       (20) In the case of peanuts, $355 per ton.
       (b) Single County Loan Rate for Other Oilseeds.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a single loan rate in each county 
     for each kind of other oilseeds described in subsection 
     (a)(11).

     SEC. 1203. TERM OF LOANS.

       (a) Term of Loan.--In the case of each loan commodity, a 
     marketing assistance loan under section 1201 shall have a 
     term of 9 months beginning on the first day of the first 
     month after the month in which the loan is made.
       (b) Extensions Prohibited.--The Secretary may not extend 
     the term of a marketing assistance loan for any loan 
     commodity.

     SEC. 1204. REPAYMENT OF LOANS.

       (a) General Rule.--The Secretary shall permit the producers 
     on a farm to repay a marketing assistance loan under section 
     1201 for a loan commodity (other than upland cotton, long 
     grain rice, medium grain rice, extra long staple cotton, 
     peanuts and confectionery and each other kind of sunflower 
     seed (other than oil sunflower seed)) at a rate that is the 
     lesser of--
       (1) the loan rate established for the commodity under 
     section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with 
     section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283));
       (2) a rate (as determined by the Secretary) that--
       (A) is calculated based on average market prices for the 
     loan commodity during the preceding 30-day period; and
       (B) will minimize discrepancies in marketing loan benefits 
     across State boundaries and across county boundaries; or
       (3) a rate that the Secretary may develop using alternative 
     methods for calculating a repayment rate for a loan commodity 
     that the Secretary determines will--
       (A) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
       (B) minimize the accumulation of stocks of the commodity by 
     the Federal Government;
       (C) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government in 
     storing the commodity;
       (D) allow the commodity produced in the United States to be 
     marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and 
     internationally; and
       (E) minimize discrepancies in marketing loan benefits 
     across State boundaries and across county boundaries.
       (b) Repayment Rates for Upland Cotton, Long Grain Rice, and 
     Medium Grain Rice.--The Secretary shall permit producers to 
     repay a marketing assistance loan under section 1201 for 
     upland cotton, long grain rice, and medium grain rice at a 
     rate that is the lesser of--
       (1) the loan rate established for the commodity under 
     section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with 
     section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
       (2) the prevailing world market price for the commodity, as 
     determined and adjusted by the Secretary in accordance with 
     this section.
       (c) Repayment Rates for Extra Long Staple Cotton.--
     Repayment of a marketing assistance loan for extra long 
     staple cotton shall be at the loan rate established for the 
     commodity under section 1202, plus interest (determined in 
     accordance with section 163 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)).
       (d) Prevailing World Market Price.--For purposes of this 
     section and section 1207, the Secretary shall prescribe by 
     regulation--
       (1) a formula to determine the prevailing world market 
     price for each of upland cotton, long grain rice, and medium 
     grain rice; and
       (2) a mechanism by which the Secretary shall announce 
     periodically those prevailing world market prices.
       (e) Adjustment of Prevailing World Market Price for Upland 
     Cotton, Long Grain Rice, and Medium Grain Rice.--
       (1) Rice.--The prevailing world market price for long grain 
     rice and medium grain rice determined under subsection (d) 
     shall be adjusted to United States quality and location.
       (2) Cotton.--The prevailing world market price for upland 
     cotton determined under subsection (d)--
       (A) shall be adjusted to United States quality and 
     location, with the adjustment to include--
       (i) a reduction equal to any United States Premium Factor 
     for upland cotton of a quality higher than Middling (M) 1\3/
     32\-inch; and
       (ii) the average costs to market the commodity, including 
     average transportation costs, as determined by the Secretary; 
     and
       (B) may be further adjusted, during the period beginning on 
     the date of enactment of this Act and ending on July 31, 
     2019, if the Secretary determines the adjustment is 
     necessary--
       (i) to minimize potential loan forfeitures;
       (ii) to minimize the accumulation of stocks of upland 
     cotton by the Federal Government;
       (iii) to ensure that upland cotton produced in the United 
     States can be marketed freely and competitively, both 
     domestically and internationally; and
       (iv) to ensure an appropriate transition between current-
     crop and forward-crop price quotations, except that the 
     Secretary may use forward-crop price quotations prior to July 
     31 of a marketing year only if--

       (I) there are insufficient current-crop price quotations; 
     and
       (II) the forward-crop price quotation is the lowest such 
     quotation available.

       (3) Guidelines for additional adjustments.--In making 
     adjustments under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     establish a mechanism for determining and announcing the 
     adjustments in order to avoid undue disruption in the United 
     States market.
       (f) Repayment Rates for Confectionery and Other Kinds of 
     Sunflower Seeds.--The Secretary shall permit the producers on 
     a farm to repay a marketing assistance loan under section 
     1201 for confectionery and each other kind of sunflower seed 
     (other than oil sunflower seed) at a rate that is the lesser 
     of--
       (1) the loan rate established for the commodity under 
     section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with 
     section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or

[[Page 9619]]

       (2) the repayment rate established for oil sunflower seed.
       (g) Payment of Cotton Storage Costs.--Effective for each of 
     the 2014 through 2018 crop years, the Secretary shall make 
     cotton storage payments available in the same manner, and at 
     the same rates as the Secretary provided storage payments for 
     the 2006 crop of cotton, except that the rates shall be 
     reduced by 10 percent.
       (h) Repayment Rate for Peanuts.--The Secretary shall permit 
     producers on a farm to repay a marketing assistance loan for 
     peanuts under section 1201 at a rate that is the lesser of--
       (1) the loan rate established for peanuts under section 
     1202(a)(20), plus interest (determined in accordance with 
     section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
       (2) a rate that the Secretary determines will--
       (A) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
       (B) minimize the accumulation of stocks of peanuts by the 
     Federal Government;
       (C) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government in 
     storing peanuts; and
       (D) allow peanuts produced in the United States to be 
     marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and 
     internationally.
       (i) Authority to Temporarily Adjust Repayment Rates.--
       (1) Adjustment authority.--In the event of a severe 
     disruption to marketing, transportation, or related 
     infrastructure, the Secretary may modify the repayment rate 
     otherwise applicable under this section for marketing 
     assistance loans under section 1201 for a loan commodity.
       (2) Duration.--Any adjustment made under paragraph (1) in 
     the repayment rate for marketing assistance loans for a loan 
     commodity shall be in effect on a short-term and temporary 
     basis, as determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 1205. LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS.

       (a) Availability of Loan Deficiency Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the 
     Secretary may make loan deficiency payments available to 
     producers on a farm that, although eligible to obtain a 
     marketing assistance loan under section 1201 with respect to 
     a loan commodity, agree to forgo obtaining the loan for the 
     commodity in return for loan deficiency payments under this 
     section.
       (2) Unshorn pelts, hay, and silage.--
       (A) Marketing assistance loans.--Subject to subparagraph 
     (B), nongraded wool in the form of unshorn pelts and hay and 
     silage derived from a loan commodity are not eligible for a 
     marketing assistance loan under section 1201.
       (B) Loan deficiency payment.--Effective for the 2014 
     through 2018 crop years, the Secretary may make loan 
     deficiency payments available under this section to producers 
     on a farm that produce unshorn pelts or hay and silage 
     derived from a loan commodity.
       (b) Computation.--A loan deficiency payment for a loan 
     commodity or commodity referred to in subsection (a)(2) shall 
     be equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
       (1) the payment rate determined under subsection (c) for 
     the commodity; by
       (2) the quantity of the commodity produced by the eligible 
     producers, excluding any quantity for which the producers 
     obtain a marketing assistance loan under section 1201.
       (c) Payment Rate.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of a loan commodity, the 
     payment rate shall be the amount by which--
       (A) the loan rate established under section 1202 for the 
     loan commodity; exceeds
       (B) the rate at which a marketing assistance loan for the 
     loan commodity may be repaid under section 1204.
       (2) Unshorn pelts.--In the case of unshorn pelts, the 
     payment rate shall be the amount by which--
       (A) the loan rate established under section 1202 for 
     ungraded wool; exceeds
       (B) the rate at which a marketing assistance loan for 
     ungraded wool may be repaid under section 1204.
       (3) Hay and silage.--In the case of hay or silage derived 
     from a loan commodity, the payment rate shall be the amount 
     by which--
       (A) the loan rate established under section 1202 for the 
     loan commodity from which the hay or silage is derived; 
     exceeds
       (B) the rate at which a marketing assistance loan for the 
     loan commodity may be repaid under section 1204.
       (d) Exception for Extra Long Staple Cotton.--This section 
     shall not apply with respect to extra long staple cotton.
       (e) Effective Date for Payment Rate Determination.--The 
     Secretary shall determine the amount of the loan deficiency 
     payment to be made under this section to the producers on a 
     farm with respect to a quantity of a loan commodity or 
     commodity referred to in subsection (a)(2) using the payment 
     rate in effect under subsection (c) as of the date the 
     producers request the payment.

     SEC. 1206. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR 
                   GRAZED ACREAGE.

       (a) Eligible Producers.--
       (1) In general.--Effective for the 2014 through 2018 crop 
     years, in the case of a producer that would be eligible for a 
     loan deficiency payment under section 1205 for wheat, barley, 
     or oats, but that elects to use acreage planted to the wheat, 
     barley, or oats for the grazing of livestock, the Secretary 
     shall make a payment to the producer under this section if 
     the producer enters into an agreement with the Secretary to 
     forgo any other harvesting of the wheat, barley, or oats on 
     that acreage.
       (2) Grazing of triticale acreage.--Effective for the 2014 
     through 2018 crop years, with respect to a producer on a farm 
     that uses acreage planted to triticale for the grazing of 
     livestock, the Secretary shall make a payment to the producer 
     under this section if the producer enters into an agreement 
     with the Secretary to forgo any other harvesting of triticale 
     on that acreage.
       (b) Payment Amount.--
       (1) In general.--The amount of a payment made under this 
     section to a producer on a farm described in subsection 
     (a)(1) shall be equal to the amount determined by 
     multiplying--
       (A) the loan deficiency payment rate determined under 
     section 1205(c) in effect, as of the date of the agreement, 
     for the county in which the farm is located; by
       (B) the payment quantity determined by multiplying--
       (i) the quantity of the grazed acreage on the farm with 
     respect to which the producer elects to forgo harvesting of 
     wheat, barley, or oats; and
       (ii)(I) the payment yield in effect for the calculation of 
     price loss coverage under subtitle A with respect to that 
     loan commodity on the farm; or
       (II) in the case of a farm without a payment yield for that 
     loan commodity, an appropriate yield established by the 
     Secretary in a manner consistent with section 1106(c) of this 
     Act.
       (2) Grazing of triticale acreage.--The amount of a payment 
     made under this section to a producer on a farm described in 
     subsection (a)(2) shall be equal to the amount determined by 
     multiplying--
       (A) the loan deficiency payment rate determined under 
     section 1205(c) in effect for wheat, as of the date of the 
     agreement, for the county in which the farm is located; by
       (B) the payment quantity determined by multiplying--
       (i) the quantity of the grazed acreage on the farm with 
     respect to which the producer elects to forgo harvesting of 
     triticale; and
       (ii)(I) the payment yield in effect for the calculation of 
     price loss coverage under subtitle A with respect to wheat on 
     the farm; or
       (II) in the case of a farm without a payment yield for 
     wheat, an appropriate yield established by the Secretary in a 
     manner consistent with section 1106(c) of this Act.
       (c) Time, Manner, and Availability of Payment.--
       (1) Time and manner.--A payment under this section shall be 
     made at the same time and in the same manner as loan 
     deficiency payments are made under section 1205.
       (2) Availability.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     availability period for the payments authorized by this 
     section.
       (B) Certain commodities.--In the case of wheat, barley, and 
     oats, the availability period shall be consistent with the 
     availability period for the commodity established by the 
     Secretary for marketing assistance loans authorized by this 
     subtitle.
       (d) Prohibition on Crop Insurance Indemnity or Noninsured 
     Crop Assistance.--A 2014 through 2018 crop of wheat, barley, 
     oats, or triticale planted on acreage that a producer elects, 
     in the agreement required by subsection (a), to use for the 
     grazing of livestock in lieu of any other harvesting of the 
     crop shall not be eligible for an indemnity under a policy or 
     plan of insurance authorized under the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) or noninsured crop assistance 
     under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333).

     SEC. 1207. SPECIAL MARKETING LOAN PROVISIONS FOR UPLAND 
                   COTTON.

       (a) Special Import Quota.--
       (1) Definition of special import quota.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``special import quota'' means a 
     quantity of imports that is not subject to the over-quota 
     tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota.
       (2) Establishment.--
       (A) In general.--The President shall carry out an import 
     quota program during the period beginning on August 1, 2014, 
     and ending on July 31, 2019, as provided in this subsection.
       (B) Program requirements.--Whenever the Secretary 
     determines and announces that for any consecutive 4-week 
     period, the Friday through Thursday average price quotation 
     for the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for 
     Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered to a definable 
     and significant international market, as determined by the 
     Secretary, exceeds the prevailing world market price, there 
     shall immediately be in effect a special import quota.
       (3) Quantity.--The quota shall be equal to the consumption 
     during a 1-week period of cotton by domestic mills at the 
     seasonally adjusted average rate of the most recent 3 months 
     for which official data of the Department of Agriculture are 
     available or, in the absence of sufficient data, as estimated 
     by the Secretary.
       (4) Application.--The quota shall apply to upland cotton 
     purchased not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     Secretary's announcement under paragraph (2) and entered into 
     the United States not later than 180 days after that date.
       (5) Overlap.--A special quota period may be established 
     that overlaps any existing quota period if required by 
     paragraph (2), except that a special quota period may not be 
     established under this subsection if a quota period has been 
     established under subsection (b).
       (6) Preferential tariff treatment.--The quantity under a 
     special import quota shall be considered to be an in-quota 
     quantity for purposes of--

[[Page 9620]]

       (A) section 213(d) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(d));
       (B) section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3203);
       (C) section 503(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2463(d)); and
       (D) General Note 3(a)(iv) to the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule.
       (7) Limitation.--The quantity of cotton entered into the 
     United States during any marketing year under the special 
     import quota established under this subsection may not exceed 
     the equivalent of 10 week's consumption of upland cotton by 
     domestic mills at the seasonally adjusted average rate of the 
     3 months immediately preceding the first special import quota 
     established in any marketing year.
       (b) Limited Global Import Quota for Upland Cotton.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Demand.--The term ``demand'' means--
       (i) the average seasonally adjusted annual rate of domestic 
     mill consumption of cotton during the most recent 3 months 
     for which official data of the Department of Agriculture are 
     available or, in the absence of sufficient data, as estimated 
     by the Secretary; and
       (ii) the larger of--

       (I) average exports of upland cotton during the preceding 6 
     marketing years; or
       (II) cumulative exports of upland cotton plus outstanding 
     export sales for the marketing year in which the quota is 
     established.

       (B) Limited global import quota.--The term ``limited global 
     import quota'' means a quantity of imports that is not 
     subject to the over-quota tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota.
       (C) Supply.--The term ``supply'' means, using the latest 
     official data of the Department of Agriculture--
       (i) the carry-over of upland cotton at the beginning of the 
     marketing year (adjusted to 480-pound bales) in which the 
     quota is established;
       (ii) production of the current crop; and
       (iii) imports to the latest date available during the 
     marketing year.
       (2) Program.--The President shall carry out an import quota 
     program that provides that whenever the Secretary determines 
     and announces that the average price of the base quality of 
     upland cotton, as determined by the Secretary, in the 
     designated spot markets for a month exceeded 130 percent of 
     the average price of the quality of cotton in the markets for 
     the preceding 36 months, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, there shall immediately be in effect a limited global 
     import quota subject to the following conditions:
       (A) Quantity.--The quantity of the quota shall be equal to 
     21 days of domestic mill consumption of upland cotton at the 
     seasonally adjusted average rate of the most recent 3 months 
     for which official data of the Department of Agriculture are 
     available or, in the absence of sufficient data, as estimated 
     by the Secretary.
       (B) Quantity if prior quota.--If a quota has been 
     established under this subsection during the preceding 12 
     months, the quantity of the quota next established under this 
     subsection shall be the smaller of 21 days of domestic mill 
     consumption calculated under subparagraph (A) or the quantity 
     required to increase the supply to 130 percent of the demand.
       (C) Preferential tariff treatment.--The quantity under a 
     limited global import quota shall be considered to be an in-
     quota quantity for purposes of--
       (i) section 213(d) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(d));
       (ii) section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3203);
       (iii) section 503(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2463(d)); and
       (iv) General Note 3(a)(iv) to the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule.
       (D) Quota entry period.--When a quota is established under 
     this subsection, cotton may be entered under the quota during 
     the 90-day period beginning on the date the quota is 
     established by the Secretary.
       (3) No overlap.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a quota 
     period may not be established that overlaps an existing quota 
     period or a special quota period established under subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Economic Adjustment Assistance to Users of Upland 
     Cotton.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall, on a monthly basis, make economic adjustment 
     assistance available to domestic users of upland cotton in 
     the form of payments for all documented use of that upland 
     cotton during the previous monthly period regardless of the 
     origin of the upland cotton.
       (2) Value of assistance.--Effective beginning on August 1, 
     2013, the value of the assistance provided under paragraph 
     (1) shall be 3 cents per pound.
       (3) Allowable purposes.--Economic adjustment assistance 
     under this subsection shall be made available only to 
     domestic users of upland cotton that certify that the 
     assistance shall be used only to acquire, construct, install, 
     modernize, develop, convert, or expand land, plant, 
     buildings, equipment, facilities, or machinery.
       (4) Review or audit.--The Secretary may conduct such review 
     or audit of the records of a domestic user under this 
     subsection as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out 
     this subsection.
       (5) Improper use of assistance.--If the Secretary 
     determines, after a review or audit of the records of the 
     domestic user, that economic adjustment assistance under this 
     subsection was not used for the purposes specified in 
     paragraph (3), the domestic user shall be--
       (A) liable for the repayment of the assistance to the 
     Secretary, plus interest, as determined by the Secretary; and
       (B) ineligible to receive assistance under this subsection 
     for a period of 1 year following the determination of the 
     Secretary.

     SEC. 1208. SPECIAL COMPETITIVE PROVISIONS FOR EXTRA LONG 
                   STAPLE COTTON.

       (a) Competitiveness Program.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act through July 31, 2019, the Secretary 
     shall carry out a program--
       (1) to maintain and expand the domestic use of extra long 
     staple cotton produced in the United States;
       (2) to increase exports of extra long staple cotton 
     produced in the United States; and
       (3) to ensure that extra long staple cotton produced in the 
     United States remains competitive in world markets.
       (b) Payments Under Program; Trigger.--Under the program, 
     the Secretary shall make payments available under this 
     section whenever--
       (1) for a consecutive 4-week period, the world market price 
     for the lowest priced competing growth of extra long staple 
     cotton (adjusted to United States quality and location and 
     for other factors affecting the competitiveness of such 
     cotton), as determined by the Secretary, is below the 
     prevailing United States price for a competing growth of 
     extra long staple cotton; and
       (2) the lowest priced competing growth of extra long staple 
     cotton (adjusted to United States quality and location and 
     for other factors affecting the competitiveness of such 
     cotton), as determined by the Secretary, is less than 134 
     percent of the loan rate for extra long staple cotton.
       (c) Eligible Recipients.--The Secretary shall make payments 
     available under this section to domestic users of extra long 
     staple cotton produced in the United States and exporters of 
     extra long staple cotton produced in the United States that 
     enter into an agreement with the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to participate in the program under this section.
       (d) Payment Amount.--Payments under this section shall be 
     based on the amount of the difference in the prices referred 
     to in subsection (b)(1) during the fourth week of the 
     consecutive 4-week period multiplied by the amount of 
     documented purchases by domestic users and sales for export 
     by exporters made in the week following such a consecutive 4-
     week period.

     SEC. 1209. AVAILABILITY OF RECOURSE LOANS FOR HIGH MOISTURE 
                   FEED GRAINS AND SEED COTTON.

       (a) High Moisture Feed Grains.--
       (1) Definition of high moisture state.--In this subsection, 
     the term ``high moisture state'' means corn or grain sorghum 
     having a moisture content in excess of Commodity Credit 
     Corporation standards for marketing assistance loans made by 
     the Secretary under section 1201.
       (2) Recourse loans available.--For each of the 2014 through 
     2018 crops of corn and grain sorghum, the Secretary shall 
     make available recourse loans, as determined by the 
     Secretary, to producers on a farm that--
       (A) normally harvest all or a portion of their crop of corn 
     or grain sorghum in a high moisture state;
       (B) present--
       (i) certified scale tickets from an inspected, certified 
     commercial scale, including a licensed warehouse, feedlot, 
     feed mill, distillery, or other similar entity approved by 
     the Secretary, pursuant to regulations issued by the 
     Secretary; or
       (ii) field or other physical measurements of the standing 
     or stored crop in regions of the United States, as determined 
     by the Secretary, that do not have certified commercial 
     scales from which certified scale tickets may be obtained 
     within reasonable proximity of harvest operation;
       (C) certify that the producers on the farm were the owners 
     of the feed grain at the time of delivery to, and that the 
     quantity to be placed under loan under this subsection was in 
     fact harvested on the farm and delivered to, a feedlot, feed 
     mill, or commercial or on-farm high-moisture storage 
     facility, or to a facility maintained by the users of corn 
     and grain sorghum in a high moisture state; and
       (D) comply with deadlines established by the Secretary for 
     harvesting the corn or grain sorghum and submit applications 
     for loans under this subsection within deadlines established 
     by the Secretary.
       (3) Eligibility of acquired feed grains.--A loan under this 
     subsection shall be made on a quantity of corn or grain 
     sorghum of the same crop acquired by the producer equivalent 
     to a quantity determined by multiplying--
       (A) the acreage of the corn or grain sorghum in a high 
     moisture state harvested on the farm of the producer; by
       (B) the lower of the farm program payment yield used to 
     make payments under subtitle A or the actual yield on a 
     field, as determined by the Secretary, that is similar to the 
     field from which the corn or grain sorghum was obtained.
       (b) Recourse Loans Available for Seed Cotton.--For each of 
     the 2014 through 2018 crops of upland cotton and extra long 
     staple cotton, the Secretary shall make available recourse 
     seed cotton loans, as determined by the Secretary, on any 
     production.
       (c) Repayment Rates.--Repayment of a recourse loan made 
     under this section shall be at the loan rate established for 
     the commodity by the Secretary, plus interest (determined in 
     accordance with section 163 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)).

     SEC. 1210. ADJUSTMENTS OF LOANS.

       (a) Adjustment Authority.--Subject to subsection (e), the 
     Secretary may make appropriate

[[Page 9621]]

     adjustments in the loan rates for any loan commodity (other 
     than cotton) for differences in grade, type, quality, 
     location, and other factors.
       (b) Manner of Adjustment.--The adjustments under subsection 
     (a) shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be made in such 
     a manner that the average loan level for the commodity will, 
     on the basis of the anticipated incidence of the factors, be 
     equal to the level of support determined in accordance with 
     this subtitle and subtitle C.
       (c) Adjustment on County Basis.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may establish loan rates for 
     a crop for producers in individual counties in a manner that 
     results in the lowest loan rate being 95 percent of the 
     national average loan rate, if those loan rates do not result 
     in an increase in outlays.
       (2) Prohibition.--Adjustments under this subsection shall 
     not result in an increase in the national average loan rate 
     for any year.
       (d) Adjustment in Loan Rate for Cotton.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may make appropriate 
     adjustments in the loan rate for cotton for differences in 
     quality factors.
       (2) Types of adjustments.--Loan rate adjustments under 
     paragraph (1) may include--
       (A) the use of non-spot market price data, in addition to 
     spot market price data, that would enhance the accuracy of 
     the price information used in determining quality adjustments 
     under this subsection;
       (B) adjustments in the premiums or discounts associated 
     with upland cotton with a staple length of 33 or above due to 
     micronaire with the goal of eliminating any unnecessary 
     artificial splits in the calculations of the premiums or 
     discounts; and
       (C) such other adjustments as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate, after consultations conducted in accordance with 
     paragraph (3).
       (3) Consultation with private sector.--
       (A) Prior to revision.--In making adjustments to the loan 
     rate for cotton (including any review of the adjustments) as 
     provided in this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with 
     representatives of the United States cotton industry.
       (B) Inapplicability of federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to consultations under this subsection.
       (4) Review of adjustments.--The Secretary may review the 
     operation of the upland cotton quality adjustments 
     implemented pursuant to this subsection and may make further 
     adjustments to the administration of the loan program for 
     upland cotton, by revoking or revising any adjustment taken 
     under paragraph (2).
       (e) Rice.--The Secretary shall not make adjustments in the 
     loan rates for long grain rice and medium grain rice, except 
     for differences in grade and quality (including milling 
     yields).

                           Subtitle C--Sugar

     SEC. 1301. SUGAR PROGRAM.

       (a) Continuation of Current Program and Loan Rates.--
       (1) Sugarcane.--Section 156(a)(5) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7272(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``the 2012 crop year'' and 
     inserting ``each of the 2012 through 2018 crop years''.
       (2) Sugar beets.--Section 156(b)(2) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7272(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.
       (3) Effective period.--Section 156(i) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7272(i)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.
       (b) Flexible Marketing Allotments for Sugar.--
       (1) Sugar estimates.--Section 359b(a)(1) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(a)(1)) 
     is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
       (2) Effective period.--Section 359l(a) of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359ll(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

                           Subtitle D--Dairy

PART I--DAIRY PRODUCER MARGIN PROTECTION AND DAIRY MARKET STABILIZATION 
                                PROGRAMS

     SEC. 1401. DEFINITIONS.

       In this part:
       (1) Actual dairy producer margin.--The term ``actual dairy 
     producer margin'' means the difference between the all-milk 
     price and the average feed cost, as calculated under section 
     1402.
       (2) All-milk price.--The term ``all-milk price'' means the 
     average price received, per hundredweight of milk, by dairy 
     producers for all milk sold to plants and dealers in the 
     United States, as determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Annual production history.--The term ``annual 
     production history'' means the production history determined 
     for a participating dairy producer under section 1413(b) 
     whenever the dairy producer purchases supplemental margin 
     protection.
       (4) Average feed cost.--The term ``average feed cost'' 
     means the average cost of feed used by a dairy operation to 
     produce a hundredweight of milk, determined under section 
     1402 using the sum of the following:
       (A) The product determined by multiplying 1.0728 by the 
     price of corn per bushel.
       (B) The product determined by multiplying 0.00735 by the 
     price of soybean meal per ton.
       (C) The product determined by multiplying 0.0137 by the 
     price of alfalfa hay per ton.
       (5) Basic production history.--The term ``basic production 
     history'' means the production history determined for a 
     participating dairy producer under section 1413(a) for 
     provision of basic margin protection.
       (6) Consecutive two-month period.--The term ``consecutive 
     two-month period'' refers to the two-month period consisting 
     of the months of January and February, March and April, May 
     and June, July and August, September and October, or November 
     and December, respectively.
       (7) Dairy producer.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     ``dairy producer'' means an individual or entity that 
     directly or indirectly (as determined by the Secretary)--
       (i) shares in the risk of producing milk; and
       (ii) makes contributions (including land, labor, 
     management, equipment, or capital) to the dairy operation of 
     the individual or entity that are at least commensurate with 
     the share of the individual or entity of the proceeds of the 
     operation.
       (B) Additional ownership structures.--The Secretary shall 
     determine additional ownership structures to be covered by 
     the definition of dairy producer.
       (8) Handler.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``handler'' means the initial 
     individual or entity making payment to a dairy producer for 
     milk produced in the United States and marketed for 
     commercial use.
       (B) Producer-handler.--The term includes a ``producer-
     handler'' when the producer satisfies the definition in 
     subparagraph (A).
       (9) Margin protection program.--The term ``margin 
     protection program'' means the dairy producer margin 
     protection program required by subpart A.
       (10) Participating dairy producer.--The term 
     ``participating dairy producer'' means a dairy producer 
     that--
       (A) signs up under section 1412 to participate in the 
     margin protection program under subpart A; and
       (B) as a result, also participates in the stabilization 
     program under subpart B.
       (11) Stabilization program.--The term ``stabilization 
     program'' means the dairy market stabilization program 
     required by subpart B for all participating dairy producers.
       (12) Stabilization program base.--The term ``stabilization 
     program base'', with respect to a participating dairy 
     producer, means the stabilization program base calculated for 
     the producer under section 1431(b).
       (13) United states.--The term ``United States'', in a 
     geographical sense, means the 50 States, the District of 
     Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, and any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.

     SEC. 1402. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE FEED COST AND ACTUAL DAIRY 
                   PRODUCER MARGINS.

       (a) Calculation of Average Feed Cost.--The Secretary shall 
     calculate the national average feed cost for each month using 
     the following data:
       (1) The price of corn for a month shall be the price 
     received during that month by farmers in the United States 
     for corn, as reported in the monthly Agricultural Prices 
     report by the Secretary.
       (2) The price of soybean meal for a month shall be the 
     central Illinois price for soybean meal, as reported in the 
     Market News-Monthly Soybean Meal Price Report by the 
     Secretary.
       (3) The price of alfalfa hay for a month shall be the price 
     received during that month by farmers in the United States 
     for alfalfa hay, as reported in the monthly Agricultural 
     Prices report by the Secretary.
       (b) Calculation of Actual Dairy Producer Margins.--
       (1) Margin protection program.--For use in the margin 
     protection program under subpart A, the Secretary shall 
     calculate the actual dairy producer margin for each 
     consecutive two-month period by subtracting--
       (A) the average feed cost for that consecutive two-month 
     period, determined in accordance with subsection (a); from
       (B) the all-milk price for that consecutive two-month 
     period.
       (2) Stabilization program.--For use in the stabilization 
     program under subpart B, the Secretary shall calculate each 
     month the actual dairy producer margin for the preceding 
     month by subtracting--
       (A) the average feed cost for that preceding month, 
     determined in accordance with subsection (a); from
       (B) the all-milk price for that preceding month.
       (3) Time for calculations.--The calculations required by 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be made as soon as practicable 
     each month using the full month price of the applicable 
     reference month, but in no case shall the calculation be made 
     later than the last business day of the month.

          Subpart A--Dairy Producer Margin Protection Program

     SEC. 1411. ESTABLISHMENT OF DAIRY PRODUCER MARGIN PROTECTION 
                   PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall establish and administer a dairy 
     producer margin protection program for the purpose of 
     protecting dairy producer income by paying participating 
     dairy producers--
       (1) basic margin protection payments when actual dairy 
     producer margins are less than the threshold levels for such 
     payments; and
       (2) supplemental margin protection payments if purchased by 
     a participating dairy producer.

     SEC. 1412. PARTICIPATION OF DAIRY PRODUCERS IN MARGIN 
                   PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Eligibility.--All dairy producers in the United States 
     are eligible to participate in the

[[Page 9622]]

     margin protection program, except that a dairy producer must 
     sign up with the Secretary before the producer may receive--
       (1) basic margin protection payments under section 1414; 
     and
       (2) if the dairy producer purchases supplemental margin 
     protection under section 1415, supplemental margin protection 
     payments under such section.
       (b) Sign-up Process.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall allow all interested 
     dairy producers to sign up to participate in the margin 
     protection program. The Secretary shall specify the manner 
     and form by which a dairy producer must sign up to 
     participate in the margin protection program.
       (2) Treatment of multi-producer operations.--If a dairy 
     operation consists of more than one dairy producer, all of 
     the dairy producers of the operation shall be treated as a 
     single dairy producer for purposes of--
       (A) registration to receive basic margin protection and 
     purchase supplemental margin protection;
       (B) payment of the administrative fee under subsection (e) 
     and producer premiums under section 1415; and
       (C) participation in the stabilization program under 
     subpart B.
       (3) Treatment of producers with multiple dairy 
     operations.--If a dairy producer operates two or more dairy 
     operations, each dairy operation of the producer shall 
     require a separate registration to receive basic margin 
     protection and purchase supplemental margin protection. Only 
     those dairy operations so registered shall be subject to the 
     stabilization program.
       (c) Time for Sign up.--
       (1) Existing dairy producers.--During the one-year period 
     beginning on the date of the initiation of the sign-up period 
     for the margin protection program, a dairy producer that is 
     actively engaged in a dairy operation as of such date may 
     sign up with the Secretary--
       (A) to receive basic margin protection; and
       (B) if the producer elects, to purchase supplemental margin 
     protection.
       (2) New entrants.--A dairy producer that has no existing 
     interest in a dairy operation as of the date of the 
     initiation of the sign-up period for the margin protection 
     program, but that, after such date, establishes a new dairy 
     operation, may sign up with the Secretary during the one year 
     period beginning on the date on which the dairy operation 
     first markets milk commercially--
       (A) to receive basic margin protection; and
       (B) if the producer elects, to purchase supplemental margin 
     protection.
       (d) Retroactivity Provision.--
       (1) Notice of availability of retroactive protection.--Not 
     later than 30 days after the effective date of this subtitle, 
     the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register 
     to inform dairy producers of the availability of retroactive 
     basic margin protection and retroactive supplemental margin 
     protection, subject to the condition that interested 
     producers must file a notice of intent (in such form and 
     manner as the Secretary specifies in the Federal Register 
     notice)--
       (A) to participate in the margin protection program and 
     receive basic margin protection; and
       (B) at the election of the producer under paragraph (3), to 
     also obtain supplemental margin protection.
       (2) Retroactive basic margin protection.--
       (A) Availability.--If a dairy producer files a notice of 
     intent under paragraph (1) to participate in the margin 
     protection program before the initiation of the sign-up 
     period for the margin protection program and subsequently 
     signs up for the margin protection program, the producer 
     shall receive basic margin protection retroactive to the 
     effective date of this subtitle.
       (B) Duration.--Retroactive basic margin protection under 
     this paragraph for a dairy producer shall apply from the 
     effective date of this subtitle until the date on which the 
     producer signs up for the margin protection program.
       (3) Retroactive supplemental margin protection.--
       (A) Availability.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), if 
     a dairy producer files a notice of intent under paragraph (1) 
     to participate in the margin protection program and obtain 
     supplemental margin protection and subsequently signs up for 
     the margin protection program, the producer shall receive 
     supplemental margin protection, in addition to the basic 
     margin protection under paragraph (2), retroactive to the 
     effective date of this subtitle.
       (B) Deadline for submission.--A notice of intent to obtain 
     retroactive supplemental margin protection must be filed with 
     the Secretary no later than the earlier of the following:
       (i) 150 days after the date on which the Secretary 
     publishes the notice in the Federal Register required by 
     paragraph (1).
       (ii) The date on which the Secretary initiates the sign up 
     period for the margin protection program.
       (C) Election of coverage level and percentage of 
     coverage.--To be sufficient to obtain retroactive 
     supplemental margin protection, the notice of intent to 
     participate filed by a dairy producer must specify--
       (i) a selected coverage level that is higher, in any 
     increment of $0.50, than the payment threshold for basic 
     margin protection specified in section 1414(b), but not to 
     exceed $6.00; and
       (ii) the percentage of coverage, subject to limits imposed 
     in section 1415(c).
       (D) Duration.--The coverage level and percentage specified 
     in the notice of intent to participate filed by a dairy 
     producer shall apply from the effective date of this subtitle 
     until the later of the following:
       (i) October 1, 2013.
       (ii) The date on which the Secretary initiates the sign-up 
     period for the margin protection program.
       (4) Notice of intent and obligation to participate in 
     margin protection program.--In no way does filing a notice of 
     intent under this subsection obligate a dairy producer to 
     sign up for the margin protection program once the program 
     rules are final, but if a producer does file a notice of 
     intent and subsequently signs up for the margin protection 
     program, that dairy producer is obligated to pay fees and 
     premiums for any retroactive basic margin protection or 
     retroactive supplemental margin protection selected in the 
     notice of intent.
       (e) Administrative Fee.--
       (1) Administrative fee required.--A dairy producer shall 
     pay an administrative fee under this subsection to sign up to 
     participate in the margin protection program. The 
     participating dairy producer shall pay the administrative fee 
     annually thereafter to continue to participate in the margin 
     protection program.
       (2) Fee amount.--The administrative fee for a participating 
     dairy producer for a calendar year is based on the pounds of 
     milk (in millions) marketed by the dairy producer in the 
     previous calendar year, as follows:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Pounds Marketed (in millions)                  Admin. Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 less than 1                                 $100
                     1 to 10                                 $250
          more than 10 to 40                                 $500
                more than 40                                $1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (3) Deposit of fees.--All administrative fees collected 
     under this subsection shall be credited to the fund or 
     account used to cover the costs incurred to administer the 
     margin protection program and the stabilization program and 
     shall be available to the Secretary, subject to appropriation 
     and until expended, for use or transfer as provided in 
     paragraph (4).
       (4) Use of fees.--The Secretary shall use administrative 
     fees collected under this subsection--
       (A) to cover administrative costs of the margin protection 
     program and stabilization program; and
       (B) to the extent funds remain available after operation of 
     subparagraphs (A), to cover costs of the Department of 
     Agriculture relating to reporting of dairy market news and to 
     carry out section 273 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
     1946 (7 U.S.C. 1637b).
       (f) Reconstitution.--The Secretary shall prohibit a dairy 
     producer from reconstituting a dairy operation for the sole 
     purpose of the dairy producer--
       (1) receiving basic margin protection;
       (2) purchasing supplemental margin protection; or
       (3) avoiding participation in the stabilization program.
       (g) Priority Consideration.--A dairy operation that 
     participates in the margin protection program shall be 
     eligible to participate in the livestock gross margin for 
     dairy program under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1501 et seq.) only after operations that are not 
     participating in the production margin protection program are 
     enrolled.

     SEC. 1413. PRODUCTION HISTORY OF PARTICIPATING DAIRY 
                   PRODUCERS.

       (a) Production History for Basic Margin Protection.--
       (1) Determination required.--For purposes of providing 
     basic margin protection, the Secretary shall determine the 
     basic production history of the dairy operation of each 
     participating dairy producer in the margin protection 
     program.
       (2) Calculation.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the 
     basic production history of a participating dairy producer 
     for basic margin protection is equal to the highest annual 
     milk marketings of the dairy producer during any one of the 
     three calendar years immediately preceding the calendar year 
     in which the dairy producer first signed up to participate in 
     the margin protection program.
       (3) Election by new producers.--If a participating dairy 
     producer has been in operation for less than a year, the 
     dairy producer shall elect one of the following methods for 
     the Secretary to determine the basic production history of 
     the dairy producer:
       (A) The volume of the actual milk marketings for the months 
     the dairy producer has been in operation extrapolated to a 
     yearly amount.
       (B) An estimate of the actual milk marketings of the dairy 
     producer based on the herd size of the producer relative to 
     the national rolling herd average data published by the 
     Secretary.
       (4) No change in production history for basic margin 
     protection.--Once the basic production history of a 
     participating dairy producer is determined under paragraph 
     (2) or (3), the basic production history shall not be 
     subsequently changed for purposes of determining the amount 
     of any basic margin protection payments for the dairy 
     producer made under section 1414.
       (b) Annual Production History for Supplemental Margin 
     Protection.--
       (1) Determination required.--For purposes of providing 
     supplemental margin protection for a participating dairy 
     producer that purchases supplemental margin protection for a 
     year under section 1415, the Secretary shall determine the 
     annual production history of the dairy operation of the dairy 
     producer under paragraph (2).

[[Page 9623]]

       (2) Calculation.--The annual production history of a 
     participating dairy producer for a year is equal to the 
     actual milk marketings of the dairy producer during the 
     preceding calendar year.
       (3) New producers.--Subsection (a)(3) shall apply with 
     respect to determining the annual production history of a 
     participating dairy producer that has been in operation for 
     less than a year.
       (c) Required Information.--A participating dairy producer 
     shall provide all information that the Secretary may require 
     in order to establish--
       (1) the basic production history of the dairy operation of 
     the dairy producer under subsection (a); and
       (2) the production history of the dairy operation of the 
     dairy producer whenever the producer purchases supplemental 
     margin protection under section 1415.
       (d) Transfer of Production Histories.--
       (1) Transfer by sale or lease.--In promulgating the rules 
     to initiate the margin protection program, the Secretary 
     shall specify the conditions under which and the manner by 
     which the production history of a dairy operation may be 
     transferred by sale or lease.
       (2) Coverage level.--
       (A) Basic margin protection.--A purchaser or lessee to whom 
     the Secretary transfers a basic production history under this 
     subsection shall not obtain a different level of basic margin 
     protection than the basic margin protection coverage held by 
     the seller or lessor from whom the transfer was obtained.
       (B) Supplemental margin protection.--A purchaser or lessee 
     to whom the Secretary transfers an annual production history 
     under this subsection shall not obtain a different level of 
     supplemental margin protection coverage than the supplemental 
     margin protection coverage in effect for the seller or lessor 
     from whom the transfer was obtained for the calendar year in 
     which the transfer was made.
       (e) Movement and Transfer of Production History.--
       (1) Movement and transfer authorized.--Subject to paragraph 
     (2), if a dairy producer moves from one location to another 
     location, the dairy producer may maintain the basic 
     production history and annual production history associated 
     with the operation.
       (2) Notification requirement.--A dairy producer shall 
     notify the Secretary of any move of a dairy operation under 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Subsequent occupation of vacated location.--A party 
     subsequently occupying a dairy operation location vacated as 
     described in paragraph (1) shall have no interest in the 
     basic production history or annual production history 
     previously associated with the operation at such location.

     SEC. 1414. BASIC MARGIN PROTECTION.

       (a) Eligibility.--All participating dairy producers are 
     eligible to receive basic margin protection under the margin 
     protection program.
       (b) Payment Threshold.--Participating dairy producers shall 
     receive a basic margin protection payment whenever the 
     average actual dairy producer margin for a consecutive two-
     month period is less than $4.00 per hundredweight of milk.
       (c) Basic Margin Protection Payment.--
       (1) Payment required.--The Secretary shall make a basic 
     margin protection payment to each participating dairy 
     producer whenever such a payment is required by subsection 
     (b).
       (2) Amount of payment.--The basic margin protection payment 
     for the dairy operation of a participating dairy producer for 
     a consecutive two-month period shall be determined as 
     follows:
       (A) The Secretary shall calculate the difference between 
     the average actual dairy producer margin for the consecutive 
     two-month period and $4.00, except that, if the difference is 
     more than $4.00, the Secretary shall use $4.00.
       (B) The Secretary shall multiply the amount under 
     subparagraph (A) by the lesser of the following:
       (i) 80 percent of the production history of the dairy 
     producer, divided by six.
       (ii) The actual amount of milk marketed by the dairy 
     operation of the dairy producer during the consecutive two-
     month period.

     SEC. 1415. SUPPLEMENTAL MARGIN PROTECTION.

       (a) Election of Supplemental Margin Protection.--
     Supplemental margin protection is available only on an annual 
     basis. A participating dairy producer may annually purchase 
     supplemental margin protection to protect, during the 
     calendar year for which purchased, a higher level of the 
     income of a participating dairy producer than the income 
     level guaranteed by basic margin protection under section 
     1414.
       (b) Selection of Payment Threshold.--A participating dairy 
     producer purchasing supplemental margin protection for a year 
     shall elect a coverage level that is higher, in any increment 
     of $0.50, than the payment threshold for basic margin 
     protection specified in section 1414(b), but not to exceed 
     $8.00.
       (c) Selection of Coverage Percentage.--A participating 
     dairy producer purchasing supplemental margin protection for 
     a year shall elect a percentage of coverage equal to not more 
     than 90 percent, nor less than 25 percent, of the annual 
     production history of the dairy operation of the 
     participating dairy producer.
       (d) Producer Premiums for Supplemental Margin Protection.--
       (1) Premiums required.--A participating dairy producer that 
     purchases supplemental margin protection shall pay an annual 
     premium equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
       (A) the percentage selected by the dairy producer under 
     subsection (c);
       (B) the annual production history of the dairy producer; 
     and
       (C) the premium per hundredweight of milk, as specified in 
     the applicable table under paragraph (2) or (3).
       (2) Premium per hundredweight for first 4 million pounds of 
     production.--For the first 4,000,000 pounds of milk 
     marketings included in the annual production history of a 
     participating dairy producer, the premium per hundredweight 
     corresponding to each coverage level specified in the 
     following table is as follows:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Coverage Level                      Premium per Cwt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       $4.50                                $0.01
                       $5.00                               $0.025
                       $5.50                                $0.04
                       $6.00                               $0.065
                       $6.50                                $0.09
                       $7.00                               $0.434
                       $7.50                               $0.590
                       $8.00                               $0.922
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (3) Premium per hundredweight for production in excess of 4 
     million pounds.--For milk marketings in excess of 4,000,000 
     pounds included in the annual production history of a 
     participating dairy producer, the premium per hundredweight 
     corresponding to each coverage level is as follows:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Coverage Level                      Premium per Cwt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       $4.50                               $0.015
                       $5.00                               $0.036
                       $5.50                               $0.081
                       $6.00                               $0.155
                       $6.50                               $0.230
                       $7.00                               $0.434
                       $7.50                               $0.590
                       $8.00                               $0.922
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (4) Time for payment.--In promulgating the rules to 
     initiate the margin protection program, the Secretary shall 
     provide more than one method by which a participating dairy 
     producer that purchases supplemental margin protection for a 
     calendar year may pay the premium under this subsection for 
     that year that maximizes producer payment flexibility and 
     program integrity.
       (e) Producer's Premium Obligations.--
       (1) Pro-ration of premium for new producers.--A dairy 
     producer described in section 1412(c)(2) that purchases 
     supplemental margin protection for a calendar year after the 
     start of the calendar year shall pay a pro-rated premium for 
     that calendar year based on the portion of the calendar year 
     for which the producer purchases the coverage.
       (2) Legal obligation.--A participating dairy producer that 
     purchases supplemental margin protection for a calendar year 
     shall be legally obligated to pay the applicable premium for 
     that calendar year, except that, if the dairy producer 
     retires, the producer may request that Secretary cancel the 
     supplemental margin protection if the producer has terminated 
     the dairy operation entirely and certifies under oath that 
     the producer will not be actively engaged in any dairy 
     operation for at least the next seven years.
       (f) Supplemental Payment Threshold.--A participating dairy 
     producer with supplemental margin protection shall receive a 
     supplemental margin protection payment whenever the average 
     actual dairy producer margin for a consecutive two-month 
     period is less than the coverage level threshold selected by 
     the dairy producer under subsection (b).
       (g) Supplemental Margin Protection Payments.--
       (1) In general.--The supplemental margin protection payment 
     for a participating dairy producer is in addition to the 
     basic margin protection payment.
       (2) Amount of payment.--The supplemental margin protection 
     payment for the dairy operation of a participating dairy 
     producer shall be determined as follows:
       (A) The Secretary shall calculate the difference between 
     the coverage level threshold selected by the dairy producer 
     under subsection (b) and the greater of--
       (i) the average actual dairy producer margin for the 
     consecutive two-month period; or
       (ii) $4.00.
       (B) The amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     multiplied by the percentage selected by the participating 
     dairy producer under subsection (c) and by the lesser of the 
     following:
       (i) The annual production history of the dairy operation of 
     the dairy producer, divided by six.
       (ii) The actual amount of milk marketed by the dairy 
     operation of the dairy producer during the consecutive two-
     month period.

     SEC. 1416. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PAY ADMINISTRATIVE FEES OR 
                   PREMIUMS.

       (a) Loss of Benefits.--A participating dairy producer that 
     fails to pay the required administrative fee under section 
     1412 or is in arrears on premium payments for supplemental 
     margin protection under section 1415--
       (1) remains legally obligated to pay the administrative fee 
     or premiums, as the case may be; and
       (2) may not receive basic margin protection payments or 
     supplemental margin protection payments until the fees or 
     premiums are fully paid.
       (b) Enforcement.--The Secretary may take such action as 
     necessary to collect administrative fees and premium payments 
     for supplemental margin protection.

[[Page 9624]]



             Subpart B--Dairy Market Stabilization Program

     SEC. 1431. ESTABLISHMENT OF DAIRY MARKET STABILIZATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Required; Purpose.--The Secretary shall 
     establish and administer a dairy market stabilization program 
     applicable to participating dairy producers for the purpose 
     of assisting in balancing the supply of milk with demand when 
     dairy producers are experiencing low or negative operating 
     margins.
       (b) Election of Stabilization Program Base Calculation 
     Method.--
       (1) Election.--When a dairy producer signs up under section 
     1412 to participate in the margin protection program, the 
     dairy producer shall inform the Secretary of the method by 
     which the stabilization program base for the dairy producer 
     for fiscal year 2013 will be calculated under paragraph (3).
       (2) Change in calculation method.--A participating dairy 
     producer may change the stabilization program base 
     calculation method to be used for a calendar year by 
     notifying the Secretary of the change not later than a date 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Calculation methods.--A participating dairy producer 
     may elect either of the following methods for calculation of 
     the stabilization program base for the producer:
       (A) The volume of the average monthly milk marketings of 
     the dairy producer for the three months immediately preceding 
     the announcement by the Secretary that the stabilization 
     program will become effective.
       (B) The volume of the monthly milk marketings of the dairy 
     producer for the same month in the preceding year as the 
     month for which the Secretary has announced the stabilization 
     program will become effective.

     SEC. 1432. THRESHOLD FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND REDUCTION IN 
                   DAIRY PRODUCER PAYMENTS.

       (a) When Stabilization Program Required.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (b), the Secretary shall announce that 
     the stabilization program is in effect and order reduced 
     payments for any participating dairy producer that exceeds 
     the applicable percentage of the producer's stabilization 
     program base whenever--
       (1) the actual dairy producer margin has been $6.00 or less 
     per hundredweight of milk for each of the immediately 
     preceding two months; or
       (2) the actual dairy producer margin has been $4.00 or less 
     per hundredweight of milk for the immediately preceding 
     month.
       (b) Exception.--The Secretary shall not make the 
     announcement under subsection (a) to implement the 
     stabilization program or order reduced payments if any of the 
     conditions described in section 1436(b) have been met during 
     the two months immediately preceding the month in which the 
     announcement under subsection (a) would otherwise be made by 
     the Secretary in the absence of this exception.
       (c) Effective Date for Implementation of Payment 
     Reductions.--Reductions in dairy producer payments shall 
     commence beginning on the first day of the month immediately 
     following the date of the announcement by the Secretary under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 1433. PRODUCER MILK MARKETING INFORMATION.

       (a) Collection of Milk Marketing Data.--The Secretary shall 
     establish, by regulation, a process to collect from 
     participating dairy producers and handlers such information 
     that the Secretary considers necessary for each month during 
     which the stabilization program is in effect.
       (b) Reduce Regulatory Burden.--When implementing the 
     process under subsection (a), the Secretary shall minimize 
     the regulatory burden on dairy producers and handlers.

     SEC. 1434. CALCULATION AND COLLECTION OF REDUCED DAIRY 
                   PRODUCER PAYMENTS.

       (a) Reduced Producer Payments Required.--During any month 
     in which payment reductions are in effect under the 
     stabilization program, each handler shall reduce payments to 
     each participating dairy producer from whom the handler 
     receives milk.
       (b) Reductions Based on Actual Dairy Producer Margin.--
       (1) Reduction requirement 1.--Unless the reduction required 
     by paragraph (2) or (3) applies, when the actual dairy 
     producer margin has been $6.00 or less per hundredweight of 
     milk for two consecutive months, the handler shall make 
     payments to a participating dairy producer for a month based 
     on the greater of the following:
       (A) 98 percent of the stabilization program base of the 
     dairy producer.
       (B) 94 percent of the marketings of milk for the month by 
     the producer.
       (2) Reduction requirement 2.--Unless the reduction required 
     by paragraph (3) applies, when the actual dairy producer 
     margin has been $5.00 or less per hundredweight of milk for 
     two consecutive months, the handler shall make payments to a 
     participating dairy producer for a month based on the greater 
     of the following:
       (A) 97 percent of the stabilization program base of the 
     dairy producer.
       (B) 93 percent of the marketings of milk for the month by 
     the producer.
       (3) Reduction requirement 3.--When the actual dairy 
     producer margin has been $4.00 or less for any one month, the 
     handler shall make payments to a participating dairy producer 
     for a month based on the greater of the following:
       (A) 96 percent of the stabilization program base of the 
     dairy producer.
       (B) 92 percent of the marketings of milk for the month by 
     the producer.
       (c) Continuation of Reductions.--The largest level of 
     payment reduction required under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) 
     of subsection (b) shall be continued for each month until the 
     Secretary suspends the stabilization program and terminates 
     payment reductions in accordance with section 1436.
       (d) Payment Reduction Exception.--Notwithstanding any 
     preceding subsection of this section, a handler shall make no 
     payment reductions for a dairy producer for a month if the 
     producer's milk marketings for the month are equal to or less 
     than the percentage of the stabilization program base 
     applicable to the producer under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) 
     of subsection (b).

     SEC. 1435. REMITTING MONIES TO THE SECRETARY AND USE OF 
                   MONIES.

       (a) Remitting Monies.--As soon as practicable after the end 
     of each month during which payment reductions are in effect 
     under the stabilization program, each handler shall remit to 
     the Secretary an amount equal to the amount by which payments 
     to participating dairy producers are reduced by the handler 
     under section 1434.
       (b) Deposit of Monies.--All monies received under 
     subsection (a) shall, subject to appropriation, be available 
     to the Secetary until expended for use or transfer as 
     provided in subsection (c).
       (c) Use of Monies.--
       (1) Availability for certain commodity donations.--Within 
     three months of the receipt of monies under subsection (a), 
     and as provided in subsection (b), Secretary shall obligate 
     the monies for the purpose of--
       (A) purchasing dairy products for donation to food banks 
     and other programs that the Secretary determines appropriate; 
     and
       (B) expanding consumption and building demand for dairy 
     products.
       (2) No duplication of effort.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that expenditures under paragraph (1) are compatible with, 
     and do not duplicate, programs supported by the dairy 
     research and promotion activities conducted under the Dairy 
     Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.).
       (3) Accounting.--The Secretary shall keep an accurate 
     account of all monies obligated under paragraph (1).
       (d) Annual Report.--Not later than December 31 of each year 
     that the stabilization program is in effect, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a report that provides an accurate 
     accounting of--
       (1) the monies received by the Secretary during the 
     preceding fiscal year under subsection (a); and
       (2) all expenditures made by the Secretary under subsection 
     (b) during the preceding fiscal year.
       (e) Enforcement.--If a participating dairy producer or 
     handler fails to remit or collect the amounts by which 
     payments to participating dairy producers are reduced under 
     section 1434, the producer or handler responsible for the 
     failure shall be liable to the Secretary for the amount that 
     should have been remitted or collected, plus interest. In 
     addition to the enforcement authorities available under 
     section 1437, the Secretary may enforce this subsection in 
     the courts of the United States.

     SEC. 1436. SUSPENSION OF REDUCED PAYMENT REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Determination of Prices.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The price in the United States for cheddar cheese and 
     nonfat dry milk shall be determined by the Secretary.
       (2) The world price of cheddar cheese and skim milk powder 
     shall be determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Initial Suspension Thresholds.--The Secretary shall 
     announce that the stabilization program shall be suspended 
     whenever the Secretary determines that--
       (1) the actual dairy producer margin is greater than $6.00 
     per hundredweight of milk for two consecutive months;
       (2) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than 
     $6.00 (but greater than $5.00) for two consecutive months, 
     and during the same two consecutive months--
       (A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is 
     equal to or greater than the world price of cheddar cheese; 
     or
       (B) the price in the United States for nonfat dry milk is 
     equal to or greater than the world price of skim milk powder;
       (3) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than 
     $5.00 (but greater than $4.00) for two consecutive months, 
     and during the same two consecutive months--
       (A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is 
     more than 5 percent above the world price of cheddar cheese; 
     or
       (B) the price in the United States for nonfat dry milk is 
     more than 5 percent above the world price of skim milk 
     powder; or
       (4) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than 
     $4.00 for two consecutive months, and during the same two 
     consecutive months--
       (A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is 
     more than 7 percent above the world price of cheddar cheese; 
     or
       (B) the price in the United States for nonfat dry milk is 
     more than 7 percent above the world price of skim milk 
     powder.
       (c) Enhanced Suspension Thresholds.--If the stabilization 
     program is not suspended pursuant to subsection (b) for six 
     consecutive months or more, the stabilization program shall 
     be suspended whenever the Secretary determines that--

[[Page 9625]]

       (1) the actual dairy producer margin is greater than $6.00 
     per hundredweight of milk for two consecutive months;
       (2) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than 
     $6.00 (but greater than $5.00) for two consecutive months, 
     and during the same two consecutive months--
       (A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is 
     not less than 97 percent of the world price of cheddar 
     cheese; or
       (B) the price in the United States for non-fat dry milk is 
     not less than 97 percent of the world price of skim milk 
     powder;
       (3) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than 
     $5.00 (but greater than $4.00) for two consecutive months, 
     and during the same two consecutive months--
       (A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is 
     more than 3 percent above the world price of cheddar cheese; 
     or
       (B) the price in the United States for non fat dry milk is 
     more than 3 percent above the world price of skim milk 
     powder; or
       (4) the dairy producer margin is equal to or less than 
     $4.00 for two consecutive months, and during the same two 
     consecutive months--
       (A) the price in the United States for cheddar cheese is 
     more than 6 percent above the world price of cheddar cheese; 
     or
       (B) the price in the United States for non fat dry milk is 
     more than 6 percent above the world price of skim milk 
     powder.
       (d) Implementation by Handlers.--Effective on the day after 
     the date of the announcement by the Secretary under 
     subsection (b) or (c) of the suspension of the stabilization 
     program, the handler shall cease reducing payments to 
     participating dairy producers under the stabilization 
     program.
       (e) Condition on Resumption of Stabilization Program.--Upon 
     the announcement by the Secretary under subsection (b) or (c) 
     that the stabilization program has been suspended, the 
     stabilization program may not be implemented again until, at 
     the earliest--
       (1) two months have passed, beginning on the first day of 
     the month immediately following the announcement by the 
     Secretary; and
       (2) the conditions of section 1432(a) are again met.

     SEC. 1437. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Unlawful Act.--It shall be unlawful and a violation of 
     the this subpart for any person subject to the stabilization 
     program to willfully fail or refuse to provide, or delay the 
     timely reporting of, accurate information and remittance of 
     funds to the Secretary in accordance with this subpart.
       (b) Order.--After providing notice and opportunity for a 
     hearing to an affected person, the Secretary may issue an 
     order against any person to cease and desist from continuing 
     any violation of this subpart.
       (c) Appeal.--An order of the Secretary under subsection (b) 
     shall be final and conclusive unless an affected person files 
     an appeal of the order of the Secretary in United States 
     district court not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     issuance of the order. A finding of the Secretary in the 
     order shall be set aside only if the finding is not supported 
     by substantial evidence.
       (d) Noncompliance With Order.--If a person subject to this 
     subpart fails to obey an order issued under subsection (b) 
     after the order has become final and unappealable, or after 
     the appropriate United States district court has entered a 
     final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the United States 
     may apply to the appropriate United States district court for 
     enforcement of the order. If the court determines that the 
     order was lawfully made and duly served and that the person 
     violated the order, the court shall enforce the order.

     SEC. 1438. AUDIT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Audits of Producer and Handler Compliance.--
       (1) Audits authorized.--If determined by the Secretary to 
     be necessary to ensure compliance by participating dairy 
     producers and handlers with the stabilization program, the 
     Secretary may conduct periodic audits of participating dairy 
     producers and handlers.
       (2) Sample of dairy producers.--Any audit conducted under 
     this subsection shall include, at a minimum, investigation of 
     a statistically valid and random sample of participating 
     dairy producers.
       (b) Submission of Results.--The Secretary shall submit the 
     results of any audit conducted under subsection (a) to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate and include such recommendations as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate regarding the stabilization program.

                Subpart C--Commodity Credit Corporation

     SEC. 1451. USE OF COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.

       The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and the 
     authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out 
     this part.

                   Subpart D--Initiation and Duration

     SEC. 1461. RULEMAKING.

       (a) Procedure.--The promulgation of regulations for the 
     initiation of the margin protection program and the 
     stabilization program, and for administration of such 
     programs, shall be made--
       (1) without regard to chapter 35 of title 44, United States 
     Code (commonly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act);
       (2) without regard to the Statement of Policy of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. 
     Reg. 13804), relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and 
     public participation in rulemaking; and
       (3) subject to subsection (b), pursuant to section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Special Rulemaking Requirements.--
       (1) Interim rules prohibited for stabilization program.--
     With respect to the stabilization program, the Secretary may 
     not use the authority of subparagraph (B) of section 553(b) 
     of title 5, United States Code, to promulgate interim rules 
     or to otherwise avoid the requirements of such section.
       (2) Interim rules authorized for margin protection 
     program.--With respect to the margin protection program, the 
     Secretary may promulgate interim rules under the authority 
     provided in subparagraph (B) of section 553(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, if the Secretary determines such interim 
     rules to be needed. Any such interim rules for the margin 
     protection program shall be effective on publication.
       (3) Final rules.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to the margin protection 
     program and stabilization program, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate final rules, with an opportunity for public notice 
     and comment, no later than 21 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) Additional stabilization program requirement.--The 
     final rules required for the stabilization program shall 
     include a certification by the Secretary of compliance with 
     the requirements contained in sections 1, 3(f), and 6(a) of 
     Executive Order 12866, as amended (Regulatory Planning and 
     Review; 5 U.S.C. 601 note) and a detailed description of the 
     process used by the Secretary to ensure such compliance and 
     the issues considered, determinations made, and the grounds 
     for those determinations in such process.
       (c) Inclusion of Additional Order.--Section 143(a)(2) of 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 7253(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``Subsection (b)(2) does not apply to 
     the authority of the Secretary under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 1462. DURATION.

       The margin protection program and the stabilization program 
     shall end on December 31, 2018.

  PART II--REPEAL OR REAUTHORIZATION OF OTHER DAIRY-RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 1481. REPEAL OF DAIRY PRODUCT PRICE SUPPORT AND MILK 
                   INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Repeal of Dairy Product Price Support Program.--Section 
     1501 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 8771) is repealed.
       (b) Repeal of Milk Income Loss Contract Program.--Section 
     1506 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 8773) is repealed.

     SEC. 1482. REPEAL OF DAIRY EXPORT INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 153 of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (15 U.S.C. 713a-14) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 902(2) of the Trade 
     Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 
     U.S.C. 7201(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (D); and
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively.

     SEC. 1483. EXTENSION OF DAIRY FORWARD PRICING PROGRAM.

       Section 1502(e) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8772(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2015'' and inserting 
     ``2021''.

     SEC. 1484. EXTENSION OF DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM.

       Section 3 of Public Law 90-484 (7 U.S.C. 450l) is amended 
     by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 1485. EXTENSION OF DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       Section 113(e)(2) of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act 
     of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4504(e)(2)) is amended by striking ``2012'' 
     and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 1486. REPEAL OF FEDERAL MILK MARKETING ORDER REVIEW 
                   COMMISSION.

       Section 1509 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1726) is repealed.

                        PART III--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 1491. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

   Subtitle E--Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs

     SEC. 1501. SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible producer on a farm.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``eligible producer on a farm'' 
     means an individual or entity described in subparagraph (B) 
     that, as determined by the Secretary, assumes the production 
     and market risks associated with the agricultural production 
     of crops or livestock.
       (B) Description.--An individual or entity referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is--
       (i) a citizen of the United States;
       (ii) a resident alien;
       (iii) a partnership of citizens of the United States; or
       (iv) a corporation, limited liability corporation, or other 
     farm organizational structure organized under State law.
       (2) Farm-raised fish.--The term ``farm-raised fish'' means 
     any aquatic species that is propagated and reared in a 
     controlled environment.

[[Page 9626]]

       (3) Livestock.--The term ``livestock'' includes--
       (A) cattle (including dairy cattle);
       (B) bison;
       (C) poultry;
       (D) sheep;
       (E) swine;
       (F) horses; and
       (G) other livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (b) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--
       (1) Payments.--For each of the fiscal years 2012 through 
     2018, the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary of 
     the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make 
     livestock indemnity payments to eligible producers on farms 
     that have incurred livestock death losses in excess of the 
     normal mortality, as determined by the Secretary, due to--
       (A) attacks by animals reintroduced into the wild by the 
     Federal Government or protected by Federal law, including 
     wolves and avian predators; or
       (B) adverse weather, as determined by the Secretary, during 
     the calendar year, including losses due to hurricanes, 
     floods, blizzards, disease, wildfires, extreme heat, and 
     extreme cold.
       (2) Payment rates.--Indemnity payments to an eligible 
     producer on a farm under paragraph (1) shall be made at a 
     rate of 75 percent of the market value of the applicable 
     livestock on the day before the date of death of the 
     livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Special rule for payments made due to disease.--The 
     Secretary shall ensure that payments made to an eligible 
     producer under paragraph (1) are not made for the same 
     livestock losses for which compensation is provided pursuant 
     to section 10407(d) of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 8306(d)).
       (c) Livestock Forage Disaster Program.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Covered livestock.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     term ``covered livestock'' means livestock of an eligible 
     livestock producer that, during the 60 days prior to the 
     beginning date of a qualifying drought or fire condition, as 
     determined by the Secretary, the eligible livestock 
     producer--

       (I) owned;
       (II) leased;
       (III) purchased;
       (IV) entered into a contract to purchase;
       (V) is a contract grower; or
       (VI) sold or otherwise disposed of due to qualifying 
     drought conditions during--

       (aa) the current production year; or
       (bb) subject to paragraph (3)(B)(ii), 1 or both of the 2 
     production years immediately preceding the current production 
     year.
       (ii) Exclusion.--The term ``covered livestock'' does not 
     include livestock that were or would have been in a feedlot, 
     on the beginning date of the qualifying drought or fire 
     condition, as a part of the normal business operation of the 
     eligible livestock producer, as determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Drought monitor.--The term ``drought monitor'' means a 
     system for classifying drought severity according to a range 
     of abnormally dry to exceptional drought, as defined by the 
     Secretary.
       (C) Eligible livestock producer.--
       (i) In general.--The term ``eligible livestock producer'' 
     means an eligible producer on a farm that--

       (I) is an owner, cash or share lessee, or contract grower 
     of covered livestock that provides the pastureland or grazing 
     land, including cash-leased pastureland or grazing land, for 
     the livestock;
       (II) provides the pastureland or grazing land for covered 
     livestock, including cash-leased pastureland or grazing land 
     that is physically located in a county affected by drought;
       (III) certifies grazing loss; and
       (IV) meets all other eligibility requirements established 
     under this subsection.

       (ii) Exclusion.--The term ``eligible livestock producer'' 
     does not include an owner, cash or share lessee, or contract 
     grower of livestock that rents or leases pastureland or 
     grazing land owned by another person on a rate-of-gain basis.
       (D) Normal carrying capacity.--The term ``normal carrying 
     capacity'', with respect to each type of grazing land or 
     pastureland in a county, means the normal carrying capacity, 
     as determined under paragraph (3)(D)(i), that would be 
     expected from the grazing land or pastureland for livestock 
     during the normal grazing period, in the absence of a drought 
     or fire that diminishes the production of the grazing land or 
     pastureland.
       (E) Normal grazing period.--The term ``normal grazing 
     period'', with respect to a county, means the normal grazing 
     period during the calendar year for the county, as determined 
     under paragraph (3)(D)(i).
       (2) Program.--For each of the fiscal years 2012 through 
     2018, the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary of 
     the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide 
     compensation for losses to eligible livestock producers due 
     to grazing losses for covered livestock due to--
       (A) a drought condition, as described in paragraph (3); or
       (B) fire, as described in paragraph (4).
       (3) Assistance for losses due to drought conditions.--
       (A) Eligible losses.--
       (i) In general.--An eligible livestock producer may receive 
     assistance under this subsection only for grazing losses for 
     covered livestock that occur on land that--

       (I) is native or improved pastureland with permanent 
     vegetative cover; or
       (II) is planted to a crop planted specifically for the 
     purpose of providing grazing for covered livestock.

       (ii) Exclusions.--An eligible livestock producer may not 
     receive assistance under this subsection for grazing losses 
     that occur on land used for haying or grazing under the 
     conservation reserve program established under subchapter B 
     of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.).
       (B) Monthly payment rate.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     payment rate for assistance under this paragraph for 1 month 
     shall, in the case of drought, be equal to 60 percent of the 
     lesser of--

       (I) the monthly feed cost for all covered livestock owned 
     or leased by the eligible livestock producer, as determined 
     under subparagraph (C); or
       (II) the monthly feed cost calculated by using the normal 
     carrying capacity of the eligible grazing land of the 
     eligible livestock producer.

       (ii) Partial compensation.--In the case of an eligible 
     livestock producer that sold or otherwise disposed of covered 
     livestock due to drought conditions in 1 or both of the 2 
     production years immediately preceding the current production 
     year, as determined by the Secretary, the payment rate shall 
     be 80 percent of the payment rate otherwise calculated in 
     accordance with clause (i).
       (C) Monthly feed cost.--
       (i) In general.--The monthly feed cost shall equal the 
     product obtained by multiplying--

       (I) 30 days;
       (II) a payment quantity that is equal to the feed grain 
     equivalent, as determined under clause (ii); and
       (III) a payment rate that is equal to the corn price per 
     pound, as determined under clause (iii).

       (ii) Feed grain equivalent.--For purposes of clause 
     (i)(II), the feed grain equivalent shall equal--

       (I) in the case of an adult beef cow, 15.7 pounds of corn 
     per day; or
       (II) in the case of any other type of weight of livestock, 
     an amount determined by the Secretary that represents the 
     average number of pounds of corn per day necessary to feed 
     the livestock.

       (iii) Corn price per pound.--For purposes of clause 
     (i)(III), the corn price per pound shall equal the quotient 
     obtained by dividing--

       (I) the higher of--

       (aa) the national average corn price per bushel for the 12-
     month period immediately preceding March 1 of the year for 
     which the disaster assistance is calculated; or
       (bb) the national average corn price per bushel for the 24-
     month period immediately preceding that March 1; by

       (II) 56.

       (D) Normal grazing period and drought monitor intensity.--
       (i) Fsa county committee determinations.--

       (I) In general.--The Secretary shall determine the normal 
     carrying capacity and normal grazing period for each type of 
     grazing land or pastureland in the county served by the 
     applicable committee.
       (II) Changes.--No change to the normal carrying capacity or 
     normal grazing period established for a county under 
     subclause (I) shall be made unless the change is requested by 
     the appropriate State and county Farm Service Agency 
     committees.

       (ii) Drought intensity.--

       (I) D2.--An eligible livestock producer that owns or leases 
     grazing land or pastureland that is physically located in a 
     county that is rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor as having a 
     D2 (severe drought) intensity in any area of the county for 
     at least 8 consecutive weeks during the normal grazing period 
     for the county, as determined by the Secretary, shall be 
     eligible to receive assistance under this paragraph in an 
     amount equal to 1 monthly payment using the monthly payment 
     rate determined under subparagraph (B).
       (II) D3.--An eligible livestock producer that owns or 
     leases grazing land or pastureland that is physically located 
     in a county that is rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor as 
     having at least a D3 (extreme drought) intensity in any area 
     of the county at any time during the normal grazing period 
     for the county, as determined by the Secretary, shall be 
     eligible to receive assistance under this paragraph--

       (aa) in an amount equal to 3 monthly payments using the 
     monthly payment rate determined under subparagraph (B);
       (bb) if the county is rated as having a D3 (extreme 
     drought) intensity in any area of the county for at least 4 
     weeks during the normal grazing period for the county, or is 
     rated as having a D4 (exceptional drought) intensity in any 
     area of the county at any time during the normal grazing 
     period, in an amount equal to 4 monthly payments using the 
     monthly payment rate determined under subparagraph (B); or
       (cc) if the county is rated as having a D4 (exceptional 
     drought) intensity in any area of the county for at least 4 
     weeks during the normal grazing period, in an amount equal to 
     5 monthly payments using the monthly rate determined under 
     subparagraph (B).
       (4) Assistance for losses due to fire on public managed 
     land.--
       (A) In general.--An eligible livestock producer may receive 
     assistance under this paragraph only if--

[[Page 9627]]

       (i) the grazing losses occur on rangeland that is managed 
     by a Federal agency; and
       (ii) the eligible livestock producer is prohibited by the 
     Federal agency from grazing the normal permitted livestock on 
     the managed rangeland due to a fire.
       (B) Payment rate.--The payment rate for assistance under 
     this paragraph shall be equal to 50 percent of the monthly 
     feed cost for the total number of livestock covered by the 
     Federal lease of the eligible livestock producer, as 
     determined under paragraph (3)(C).
       (C) Payment duration.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), an eligible 
     livestock producer shall be eligible to receive assistance 
     under this paragraph for the period--

       (I) beginning on the date on which the Federal agency 
     excludes the eligible livestock producer from using the 
     managed rangeland for grazing; and
       (II) ending on the last day of the Federal lease of the 
     eligible livestock producer.

       (ii) Limitation.--An eligible livestock producer may only 
     receive assistance under this paragraph for losses that occur 
     on not more than 180 days per year.
       (5) No duplicative payments.--An eligible livestock 
     producer may elect to receive assistance for grazing or 
     pasture feed losses due to drought conditions under paragraph 
     (3) or fire under paragraph (4), but not both for the same 
     loss, as determined by the Secretary.
       (d) Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and 
     Farm-raised Fish.--
       (1) In general.--For each of the fiscal years 2012 through 
     2018, the Secretary shall use not more than $20,000,000 of 
     the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide 
     emergency relief to eligible producers of livestock, honey 
     bees, and farm-raised fish to aid in the reduction of losses 
     due to disease (including cattle tick fever), adverse 
     weather, or other conditions, such as blizzards and 
     wildfires, as determined by the Secretary, that are not 
     covered under subsection (b) or (c).
       (2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this 
     subsection shall be used to reduce losses caused by feed or 
     water shortages, disease, or other factors as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       (3) Availability of funds.--Any funds made available under 
     this subsection shall remain available until expended.
       (e) Tree Assistance Program.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Eligible orchardist.--The term ``eligible orchardist'' 
     means a person that produces annual crops from trees for 
     commercial purposes.
       (B) Natural disaster.--The term ``natural disaster'' means 
     plant disease, insect infestation, drought, fire, freeze, 
     flood, earthquake, lightning, or other occurrence, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (C) Nursery tree grower.--The term ``nursery tree grower'' 
     means a person who produces nursery, ornamental, fruit, nut, 
     or Christmas trees for commercial sale, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (D) Tree.--The term ``tree'' includes a tree, bush, and 
     vine.
       (2) Eligibility.--
       (A) Loss.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for each of the 
     fiscal years 2012 through 2018, the Secretary shall use such 
     sums as are necessary of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation to provide assistance--
       (i) under paragraph (3) to eligible orchardists and nursery 
     tree growers that planted trees for commercial purposes but 
     lost the trees as a result of a natural disaster, as 
     determined by the Secretary; and
       (ii) under paragraph (3)(B) to eligible orchardists and 
     nursery tree growers that have a production history for 
     commercial purposes on planted or existing trees but lost the 
     trees as a result of a natural disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (B) Limitation.--An eligible orchardist or nursery tree 
     grower shall qualify for assistance under subparagraph (A) 
     only if the tree mortality of the eligible orchardist or 
     nursery tree grower, as a result of damaging weather or 
     related condition, exceeds 15 percent (adjusted for normal 
     mortality).
       (3) Assistance.--Subject to paragraph (4), the assistance 
     provided by the Secretary to eligible orchardists and nursery 
     tree growers for losses described in paragraph (2) shall 
     consist of--
       (A)(i) reimbursement of 65 percent of the cost of 
     replanting trees lost due to a natural disaster, as 
     determined by the Secretary, in excess of 15 percent 
     mortality (adjusted for normal mortality); or
       (ii) at the option of the Secretary, sufficient seedlings 
     to reestablish a stand; and
       (B) reimbursement of 50 percent of the cost of pruning, 
     removal, and other costs incurred by an eligible orchardist 
     or nursery tree grower to salvage existing trees or, in the 
     case of tree mortality, to prepare the land to replant trees 
     as a result of damage or tree mortality due to a natural 
     disaster, as determined by the Secretary, in excess of 15 
     percent damage or mortality (adjusted for normal tree damage 
     and mortality).
       (4) Limitations on assistance.--
       (A) Definitions of legal entity and person.--In this 
     paragraph, the terms ``legal entity'' and ``person'' have the 
     meaning given those terms in section 1001(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)).
       (B) Amount.--The total amount of payments received, 
     directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity 
     (excluding a joint venture or general partnership) under this 
     subsection may not exceed $125,000 for any crop year, or an 
     equivalent value in tree seedlings.
       (C) Acres.--The total quantity of acres planted to trees or 
     tree seedlings for which a person or legal entity shall be 
     entitled to receive payments under this subsection may not 
     exceed 500 acres.
       (f) Payment Limitations.--
       (1) Definitions of legal entity and person.--In this 
     subsection, the terms ``legal entity'' and ``person'' have 
     the meaning given those terms in section 1001(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(a)).
       (2) Amount.--The total amount of disaster assistance 
     payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or 
     legal entity (excluding a joint venture or general 
     partnership) under this section (excluding payments received 
     under subsection (e)) may not exceed $125,000 for any crop 
     year.
       (3) Direct attribution.--Subsections (e) and (f) of section 
     1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) or any 
     successor provisions relating to direct attribution shall 
     apply with respect to assistance provided under this section.

                       Subtitle F--Administration

     SEC. 1601. ADMINISTRATION GENERALLY.

       (a) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall use the funds, facilities, and authorities 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this title.
       (b) Determinations by Secretary.--A determination made by 
     the Secretary under this title shall be final and conclusive.
       (c) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, as appropriate, shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement this title and the 
     amendments made by this title.
       (2) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this title and the amendments made by this 
     title and sections 11003 and 11016 of this Act shall be 
     made--
       (A) pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 
     including by interim rules effective on publication under the 
     authority provided in subparagraph (B) of subsection (b) of 
     such section if the Secretary determines such interim rules 
     to be needed and final rules, with an opportunity for notice 
     and comment, no later than 21 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act;
       (B) without regard to chapter 35 of title 44, United States 
     Code (commonly known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''); and
       (C) without regard to the Statement of Policy of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. 
     Reg. 13804), relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and 
     public participation in rulemaking.
       (d) Adjustment Authority Related to Trade Agreements 
     Compliance.--
       (1) Required determination; adjustment.--If the Secretary 
     determines that expenditures under this title that are 
     subject to the total allowable domestic support levels under 
     the Uruguay Round Agreements (as defined in section 2 of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501)) will exceed 
     the allowable levels for any applicable reporting period, the 
     Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make 
     adjustments in the amount of the expenditures during that 
     period to ensure that the expenditures do not exceed the 
     allowable levels.
       (2) Congressional notification.--Before making any 
     adjustment under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a report describing the determination made under 
     that paragraph and the extent of the adjustment to be made.

     SEC. 1602. SUSPENSION OF PERMANENT PRICE SUPPORT AUTHORITY.

       (a) Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.--The following 
     provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 shall 
     not be applicable to the 2014 through 2018 crops of covered 
     commodities (as defined in section 1104), cotton, and sugar 
     and shall not be applicable to milk during the period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through 
     December 31, 2018:
       (1) Parts II through V of subtitle B of title III (7 U.S.C. 
     1326 et seq.).
       (2) In the case of upland cotton, section 377 (7 U.S.C. 
     1377).
       (3) Subtitle D of title III (7 U.S.C. 1379a et seq.).
       (4) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
       (b) Agricultural Act of 1949.--The following provisions of 
     the Agricultural Act of 1949 shall not be applicable to the 
     2013 through 2018 crops of covered commodities (as defined in 
     section 1104), cotton, and sugar and shall not be applicable 
     to milk during the period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act and through December 31, 2018:
       (1) Section 101 (7 U.S.C. 1441).
       (2) Section 103(a) (7 U.S.C. 1444(a)).
       (3) Section 105 (7 U.S.C. 1444b).
       (4) Section 107 (7 U.S.C. 1445a).
       (5) Section 110 (7 U.S.C. 1445e).
       (6) Section 112 (7 U.S.C. 1445g).
       (7) Section 115 (7 U.S.C. 1445k).
       (8) Section 201 (7 U.S.C. 1446).
       (9) Title III (7 U.S.C. 1447 et seq.).
       (10) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.), other than sections 
     404, 412, and 416 (7 U.S.C. 1424, 1429, and 1431).
       (11) Title V (7 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.).
       (12) Title VI (7 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.).
       (c) Suspension of Certain Quota Provisions.--The joint 
     resolution entitled ``A joint

[[Page 9628]]

     resolution relating to corn and wheat marketing quotas under 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended'', 
     approved May 26, 1941 (7 U.S.C. 1330, 1340), shall not be 
     applicable to the crops of wheat planted for harvest in the 
     calendar years 2014 through 2018.

     SEC. 1603. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is amended by striking subsections (b) 
     and (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Limitation on Payments for Covered Commodities (other 
     Than Peanuts).--
       ``(1) In general.--The total amount of payments received, 
     directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity (except a 
     joint venture or general partnership) for any crop year under 
     section 1101(c) of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk 
     Management Act of 2013 and subsections (b) and (c) of section 
     1107 of such Act (other than peanuts) may not exceed 
     $125,000.
       ``(2) Additional limitation on payments related to upland 
     cotton.--The total amount of direct payments received, 
     directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity (except a 
     joint venture or a general partnership) for each of the 2014 
     and 2015 crop years under section 1101(c) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 may not 
     exceed $40,000.
       ``(c) Limitation on Payments for Peanuts.--The total amount 
     of payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or 
     legal entity (except a joint venture or general partnership) 
     for any crop year under subtitle A of title I of the Federal 
     Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 for 
     peanuts may not exceed $125,000.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1001(f) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 
     U.S.C. 1308(f)) is amended by striking ``or title XII'' each 
     place it appears in paragraphs (5)(A) and (6)(A) and 
     inserting ``, title I of the Federal Agriculture Reform and 
     Risk Management Act of 2013, or title XII''.
       (2) Section 1001C(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 
     U.S.C. 1308-3(a)) is amended by inserting ``title I of the 
     Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013,'' 
     after ``2008,''.
       (c) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply beginning with the 2014 crop year.

     SEC. 1604. ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME LIMITATION.

       (a) Limitations and Covered Benefits.--Section 1001D(b) of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Limitations'' 
     and inserting ``Limitations on Commodity and Conservation 
     Programs'';
       (2) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(1) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a person or legal entity shall not be eligible to 
     receive any benefit described in paragraph (2) during a crop, 
     fiscal, or program year, as appropriate, if the average 
     adjusted gross income of the person or legal entity exceeds 
     $950,000.
       ``(2) Covered benefits.--Paragraph (1) applies with respect 
     to a payment or benefit under subtitle A, B, or E of title I, 
     or title II of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk 
     Management Act of 2013, title II of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002, title II of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, title XII of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985, section 524(b) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)), or section 196 of the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 7333).''.
       (b) Elimination of Unused Definitions.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 1001D(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308-3a(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Average adjusted gross income.--In this section, the 
     term `average adjusted gross income', with respect to a 
     person or legal entity, means the average of the adjusted 
     gross income or comparable measure of the person or legal 
     entity over the 3 taxable years preceding the most 
     immediately preceding complete taxable year, as determined by 
     the Secretary.''.
       (c) Income Determination.--Section 1001D of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1001D of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B) of''; and
       (B) by striking ``, the average adjusted gross farm income, 
     and the average adjusted gross nonfarm income'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``, average adjusted 
     gross farm income, and average adjusted gross nonfarm 
     income'' both places it appears;
       (3) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by subsection (c)(2) 
     of this section)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, average adjusted 
     gross farm income, and average adjusted gross nonfarm 
     income'' both places it appears; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraphs (1)(C) and 
     (2)(B) of subsection (b)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (b)(2)''; and
       (4) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by subsection (c)(2) 
     of this section)--
       (A) by striking ``paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(B) of 
     subsection (b)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(2)''; and
       (B) by striking ``, average adjusted gross farm income, or 
     average adjusted gross nonfarm income''.
       (e) Effective Period.--Subsection (e) of section 1001D of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a), as 
     redesignated by subsection (c)(2) of this section, is amended 
     by striking ``2009 through 2012'' and inserting ``2014 
     through 2018''.
       (f) Limitation on Applicability.--Section 1001(d) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``or 
     title I of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management 
     Act of 2013''.
       (g) Transition.--Section 1001D of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a), as in effect on the day before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, shall apply with respect 
     to the 2013 crop, fiscal, or program year, as appropriate, 
     for each program described in paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(B) of 
     subsection (b) of that section (as so in effect on that day).

     SEC. 1605. GEOGRAPHICALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS.

       Section 1621(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8792(d)) is amended by striking ``2012'' 
     and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 1606. PERSONAL LIABILITY OF PRODUCERS FOR DEFICIENCIES.

       Section 164 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7284) is amended by striking 
     ``and title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008'' each place it appears and inserting ``title I of the 
     Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8702 et 
     seq.), and title I of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk 
     Management Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 1607. PREVENTION OF DECEASED INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING 
                   PAYMENTS UNDER FARM COMMODITY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Reconciliation.--At least twice each year, the 
     Secretary shall reconcile social security numbers of all 
     individuals who receive payments under this title, whether 
     directly or indirectly, with the Commissioner of Social 
     Security to determined if the individuals are alive.
       (b) Preclusion.--The Secretary shall preclude the issuance 
     of payments to, and on behalf of, deceased individuals that 
     were not eligible for payments.

     SEC. 1608. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Missing Punctuation.--Section 359f(c)(1)(B) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 
     1359ff(c)(1)(B)) is amended by adding a period at the end.
       (b) Erroneous Cross Reference.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 1603(g) of the Food, Conservation, 
     and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1739) 
     is amended in paragraphs (2) through (6) and the amendments 
     made by those paragraphs by striking ``1703(a)'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``1603(a)''.
       (2) Effective date.--This subsection and the amendments 
     made by this subsection take effect as if included in the 
     Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-
     246; 122 Stat. 1651).
       (c) Continued Applicability of Appropriations General 
     Provision.--Section 767 of division A of Public Law 108-7 (7 
     U.S.C. 7911 note; 117 Stat. 48) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``sections 1101 and 1102 of Public Law 107-
     171'' and inserting ``subtitle A of title I of the Federal 
     Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013''; and
       (B) by striking ``such section 1102'' and inserting ``such 
     subtitle''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(b) This section, as amended by section 1608(c) of the 
     Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, 
     shall take effect beginning with the 2014 crop year.''.

     SEC. 1609. ASSIGNMENT OF PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The provisions of section 8(g) of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(g)), 
     relating to assignment of payments, shall apply to payments 
     made under this title.
       (b) Notice.--The producer making the assignment, or the 
     assignee, shall provide the Secretary with notice, in such 
     manner as the Secretary may require, of any assignment made 
     under this section.

     SEC. 1610. TRACKING OF BENEFITS.

       As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary may track the benefits provided, directly 
     or indirectly, to individuals and entities under titles I and 
     II and the amendments made by those titles.

     SEC. 1611. SIGNATURE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out this title and title II 
     and amendments made by those titles, if the Secretary 
     approves a document, the Secretary shall not subsequently 
     determine the document is inadequate or invalid because of 
     the lack of authority of any person signing the document on 
     behalf of the applicant or any other individual, entity, 
     general partnership, or joint venture, or the documents 
     relied upon were determined inadequate or invalid, unless the 
     person signing the program document knowingly and willfully 
     falsified the evidence of signature authority or a signature.
       (b) Affirmation.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this section prohibits the 
     Secretary from asking a proper party to affirm any document 
     that otherwise would be considered approved under subsection 
     (a).
       (2) No retroactive effect.--A denial of benefits based on a 
     lack of affirmation under paragraph (1) shall not be 
     retroactive with respect to third-party producers who were 
     not the subject of the erroneous representation of authority, 
     if the third-party producers--

[[Page 9629]]

       (A) relied on the prior approval by the Secretary of the 
     documents in good faith; and
       (B) substantively complied with all program requirements.

     SEC. 1612. IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Streamlining.--In implementing this title, the 
     Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
       (1) seek to reduce administrative burdens and costs to 
     producers by streamlining and reducing paperwork, forms, and 
     other administrative requirements;
       (2) improve coordination, information sharing, and 
     administrative work with the Risk Management Agency and the 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service; and
       (3) take advantage of new technologies to enhance 
     efficiency and effectiveness of program delivery to 
     producers.
       (b) Maintenance of Base Acres and Payment Yields.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain through 
     September 30, 2018, for each covered commodity and upland 
     cotton, base acres and payment yields on a farm established 
     under--
       (A)(i) in the case of covered commodities and upland 
     cotton, sections 1101 and 1102 of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7911, 7912); and
       (ii) in the case of peanuts, section 1302 of that Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7952); and
       (B)(i) in the case of covered commodities and upland 
     cotton, sections 1101 and 1102 of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8711, 8712); and
       (ii) in the case of peanuts, section 1302 of that Act (7 
     U.S.C. 8752).
       (2)  Special rule for long grain and medium grain rice.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain separate base 
     acres for long grain rice and medium grain rice.
       (B) Limitation.--In carrying out this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall use the same total base acres and payment 
     yields established with respect to rice under sections 1108 
     of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     8718), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment 
     of this Act, subject to any adjustment under section 1105.
       (c) Implementation.--The Secretary shall make available to 
     the Farm Service Agency to carry out this title $100,000,000.

     SEC. 1613. PROTECTION OF PRODUCER INFORMATION.

       (a) Prohibition of Public Disclosure of Protected 
     Information.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     Secretary, any officer or employee of the Department of 
     Agriculture, any contractor or cooperator of the Department, 
     and any officer or employee of another Federal agency shall 
     not disclose--
       (1) information submitted by a producer or owner of 
     agricultural land to the Federal Government pursuant to title 
     I or II of this Act; or
       (2) other information provided by a producer or owner of 
     agricultural land concerning the agricultural operation, 
     farming or conservation practices, or the land itself in 
     order to participate in programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture or other Federal agencies.
       (b) Exceptions.--Information described in subsection (a) 
     may be disclosed if--
       (1) the information is required to be made publicly 
     available under any other provision of Federal law;
       (2) the producer or owner of agricultural land who provided 
     the information has lawfully publicly disclosed the 
     information;
       (3) the producer or owner of agricultural land who provided 
     the information consents to the disclosure; or
       (4) the information is disclosed to the Attorney General, 
     to the extent necessary, to ensure compliance and law 
     enforcement.
       (c) Notice of Disclosure.--Any disclosure of information 
     pursuant to an exception provided in subsection (b) shall be 
     reported to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate within 24 hours after the 
     disclosure.
       (d) Producer Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``producer'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     1104(14) of this Act.

                         TITLE II--CONSERVATION

                Subtitle A--Conservation Reserve Program

     SEC. 2001. EXTENSION AND ENROLLMENT REQUIREMENTS OF 
                   CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension.--Section 1231(a) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(a)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.
       (b) Eligible Land.--Section 1231(b) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``the date of 
     enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008'' 
     and inserting ``the date of the enactment of the Federal 
     Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph 
     (3) as paragraph (2);
       (3) by inserting before paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) grasslands that--
       ``(A) contain forbs or shrubland (including improved 
     rangeland and pastureland) for which grazing is the 
     predominant use;
       ``(B) are located in an area historically dominated by 
     grasslands; and
       ``(C) could provide habitat for animal and plant 
     populations of significant ecological value if the land is 
     retained in its current use or restored to a natural 
     condition;'';
       (4) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ``filterstrips devoted 
     to trees or shrubs'' and inserting ``filterstrips or riparian 
     buffers devoted to trees, shrubs, or grasses''; and
       (5) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) the portion of land in a field not enrolled in the 
     conservation reserve in a case in which--
       ``(A) more than 50 percent of the land in the field is 
     enrolled as a buffer or filterstrip, or more than 75 percent 
     of the land in the field is enrolled as a conservation 
     practice other than as a buffer or filterstrip; and
       ``(B) the remainder of the field is--
       ``(i) infeasible to farm; and
       ``(ii) enrolled at regular rental rates.''.
       (c) Planting Status of Certain Land.--Section 1231(c) of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(c)) is amended 
     by striking ``if'' and all that follows through the period at 
     the end and inserting ``if, during the crop year, the land 
     was devoted to a conserving use.''.
       (d) Enrollment.--Subsection (d) of section 1231 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Enrollment.--
       ``(1) Maximum acreage enrolled.--The Secretary may maintain 
     in the conservation reserve at any one time during--
       ``(A) fiscal year 2014, no more than 27,500,000 acres;
       ``(B) fiscal year 2015, no more than 26,000,000 acres;
       ``(C) fiscal year 2016, no more than 25,000,000 acres;
       ``(D) fiscal year 2017, no more than 24,000,000 acres; and
       ``(E) fiscal year 2018, no more than 24,000,000 acres.
       ``(2) Grasslands.--
       ``(A) Limitation.--For purposes of applying the limitations 
     in paragraph (1), no more than 2,000,000 acres of the land 
     described in subsection (b)(3) may be enrolled in the program 
     at any one time during the 2014 through 2018 fiscal years.
       ``(B) Priority.--In enrolling acres under subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary may give priority to land with expiring 
     conservation reserve program contracts.
       ``(C) Method of enrollment.--In enrolling acres under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall make the program 
     available to owners or operators of eligible land on a 
     continuous enrollment basis with one or more ranking 
     periods.''.
       (e) Duration of Contract.--Section 1231(e) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(e)) is amended by 
     striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(2) Special rule for certain land.--In the case of land 
     devoted to hardwood trees, shelterbelts, windbreaks, or 
     wildlife corridors under a contract entered into under this 
     subchapter, the owner or operator of the land may, within the 
     limitations prescribed under paragraph (1), specify the 
     duration of the contract.''.
       (f) Conservation Priority Areas.--Section 1231(f) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``watershed areas of the 
     Chesapeake Bay Region, the Great Lakes Region, the Long 
     Island Sound Region, and other'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``watersheds.--
     Watersheds'' and inserting ``areas.--Areas''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a watershed's 
     designation--'' and all that follows through the period at 
     the end and inserting ``an area's designation if the 
     Secretary finds that the area no longer contains actual and 
     significant adverse water quality or habitat impacts related 
     to agricultural production activities.''.

     SEC. 2002. FARMABLE WETLAND PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension.--Section 1231B(a)(1) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831b(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''; and
       (2) by striking ``a program'' and inserting ``a farmable 
     wetland program''.
       (b) Eligible Acreage.--Section 1231B(b)(1)(B) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831b(b)(1)(B)) is amended by 
     striking ``flow from a row crop agriculture drainage system'' 
     and inserting ``surface and subsurface flow from row crop 
     agricultural production''.
       (c) Acreage Limitation.--Section 1231B(c)(1)(B) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831b(c)(1)(B)) is amended by 
     striking ``1,000,000'' and inserting ``750,000''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The heading of section 1231B of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831b) is amended to 
     read as follows: ``farmable wetland program''.

     SEC. 2003. DUTIES OF OWNERS AND OPERATORS.

       (a) Limitation on Harvesting, Grazing, or Commercial Use of 
     Forage.--Section 1232(a)(8) of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(8)) is amended by striking ``except that'' 
     and all that follows through the semicolon at the end of the 
     paragraph and inserting ``except as provided in subsection 
     (b) or (c) of section 1233;''.
       (b) Conservation Plan Requirements.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 1232 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3832) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Conservation Plans.--The plan referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall set forth--
       ``(1) the conservation measures and practices to be carried 
     out by the owner or operator during the term of the contract; 
     and
       ``(2) the commercial use, if any, to be permitted on the 
     land during the term.''.

[[Page 9630]]

       (c) Rental Payment Reduction.--Section 1232 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3832) is amended by striking 
     subsection (d).

     SEC. 2004. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       Section 1233 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3833) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1233. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       ``(a) Cost-share and Rental Payments.--In return for a 
     contract entered into by an owner or operator under the 
     conservation reserve program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) share the cost of carrying out the conservation 
     measures and practices set forth in the contract for which 
     the Secretary determines that cost sharing is appropriate and 
     in the public interest; and
       ``(2) for a period of years not in excess of the term of 
     the contract, pay an annual rental payment in an amount 
     necessary to compensate for--
       ``(A) the conversion of highly erodible cropland or other 
     eligible lands normally devoted to the production of an 
     agricultural commodity on a farm or ranch to a less intensive 
     use;
       ``(B) the retirement of any base history that the owner or 
     operator agrees to retire permanently; and
       ``(C) the development and management of grasslands for 
     multiple natural resource conservation benefits, including to 
     soil, water, air, and wildlife.
       ``(b) Specified Activities Permitted.--The Secretary shall 
     permit certain activities or commercial uses of land that is 
     subject to a contract under the conservation reserve program 
     in a manner that is consistent with a plan approved by the 
     Secretary, as follows:
       ``(1) Harvesting, grazing, or other commercial use of the 
     forage in response to a drought or other emergency created by 
     a natural disaster, without any reduction in the rental rate.
       ``(2) Consistent with the conservation of soil, water 
     quality, and wildlife habitat (including habitat during 
     nesting seasons for birds in the area), and in exchange for a 
     reduction of not less than 25 percent in the annual rental 
     rate for the acres covered by the authorized activity--
       ``(A) managed harvesting and other commercial use 
     (including the managed harvesting of biomass), except that in 
     permitting managed harvesting, the Secretary, in coordination 
     with the State technical committee--
       ``(i) shall develop appropriate vegetation management 
     requirements; and
       ``(ii) shall identify periods during which managed 
     harvesting may be conducted, such that the frequency is not 
     more than once every three years;
       ``(B) routine grazing or prescribed grazing for the control 
     of invasive species, except that in permitting such routine 
     grazing or prescribed grazing, the Secretary, in coordination 
     with the State technical committee--
       ``(i) shall develop appropriate vegetation management 
     requirements and stocking rates for the land that are 
     suitable for continued routine grazing; and
       ``(ii) shall identify the periods during which routine 
     grazing may be conducted, such that the frequency is not more 
     than once every two years, taking into consideration regional 
     differences such as--

       ``(I) climate, soil type, and natural resources;
       ``(II) the number of years that should be required between 
     routine grazing activities; and
       ``(III) how often during a year in which routine grazing is 
     permitted that routine grazing should be allowed to occur; 
     and

       ``(C) the installation of wind turbines and associated 
     access, except that in permitting the installation of wind 
     turbines, the Secretary shall determine the number and 
     location of wind turbines that may be installed, taking into 
     account--
       ``(i) the location, size, and other physical 
     characteristics of the land;
       ``(ii) the extent to which the land contains wildlife and 
     wildlife habitat; and
       ``(iii) the purposes of the conservation reserve program 
     under this subchapter.
       ``(3) The intermittent and seasonal use of vegetative 
     buffer practices incidental to agricultural production on 
     lands adjacent to the buffer such that the permitted use does 
     not destroy the permanent vegetative cover.
       ``(c) Authorized Activities on Grasslands.--For eligible 
     land described in section 1231(b)(3), the Secretary shall 
     permit the following activities:
       ``(1) Common grazing practices, including maintenance and 
     necessary cultural practices, on the land in a manner that is 
     consistent with maintaining the viability of grassland, forb, 
     and shrub species appropriate to that locality.
       ``(2) Haying, mowing, or harvesting for seed production, 
     subject to appropriate restrictions during the nesting season 
     for critical bird species in the area.
       ``(3) Fire presuppression, fire-related rehabilitation, and 
     construction of fire breaks.
       ``(4) Grazing-related activities, such as fencing and 
     livestock watering.
       ``(d) Resource Conserving Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 1 year 
     before the date of termination of a contract under the 
     program, the Secretary shall allow an owner or operator to 
     make conservation and land improvements that facilitate 
     maintaining protection of enrolled land after expiration of 
     the contract.
       ``(2) Conservation plan.--The Secretary shall require an 
     owner or operator carrying out the activities described in 
     paragraph (1) to develop and implement a conservation plan.
       ``(3) Re-enrollment prohibited.--Land improved under 
     paragraph (1) may not be re-enrolled in the conservation 
     reserve program for 5 years after the date of termination of 
     the contract.''.

     SEC. 2005. PAYMENTS.

       (a) Trees, Windbreaks, Shelterbelts, and Wildlife 
     Corridors.--Section 1234(b)(3)(A) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834(b)(3)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) by striking clause (ii); and
       (3) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
       (b) Annual Rental Payments.--Section 1234(c) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or other eligible 
     lands'' after ``highly erodible cropland'' both places it 
     appears; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(2) Methods of determination.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amounts payable to owners or 
     operators in the form of rental payments under contracts 
     entered into under this subchapter may be determined 
     through--
       ``(i) the submission of bids for such contracts by owners 
     and operators in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe; 
     or
       ``(ii) such other means as the Secretary determines are 
     appropriate.
       ``(B) Grasslands.--In the case of eligible land described 
     in section 1231(b)(3), the Secretary shall make annual 
     payments in an amount that is not more than 75 percent of the 
     grazing value of the land covered by the contract.''.
       (c) Payment Schedule.--Subsection (d) of section 1234 of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(d) Payment Schedule.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, payments under this subchapter shall be made in cash 
     in such amount and on such time schedule as is agreed on and 
     specified in the contract.
       ``(2) Advance payment.--Payments under this subchapter may 
     be made in advance of determination of performance.''.
       (d) Payment Limitation.--Section 1234(f) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, including rental 
     payments made in the form of in-kind commodities,'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).

     SEC. 2006. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Early Termination by Owner or Operator.--Section 
     1235(e) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3835(e)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``During 
     fiscal year 2014, the Secretary''; and
       (B) by striking ``before January 1, 1995,'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) Land devoted to hardwood trees.
       ``(D) Wildlife habitat, duck nesting habitat, pollinator 
     habitat, upland bird habitat buffer, wildlife food plots, 
     State acres for wildlife enhancement, shallow water areas for 
     wildlife, and rare and declining habitat.
       ``(E) Farmable wetland and restored wetland.
       ``(F) Land that contains diversions, erosion control 
     structures, flood control structures, contour grass strips, 
     living snow fences, salinity reducing vegetation, cross wind 
     trap strips, and sediment retention structures.
       ``(G) Land located within a federally-designated wellhead 
     protection area.
       ``(H) Land that is covered by an easement under the 
     conservation reserve program.
       ``(I) Land located within an average width, according to 
     the applicable Natural Resources Conservation Service field 
     office technical guide, of a perennial stream or permanent 
     water body.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``60 days after the date 
     on which the owner or operator submits the notice required 
     under paragraph (1)(C)'' and inserting ``upon approval by the 
     Secretary''.
       (b) Transition Option for Certain Farmers or Ranchers.--
     Section 1235(f) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3835(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``Duties'' and all that follows through ``a beginning 
     farmer'' and inserting ``Transition to covered farmer or 
     rancher.--In the case of a contract modification approved in 
     order to facilitate the transfer of land subject to a 
     contract from a retired farmer or rancher to a beginning 
     farmer'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ``, including 
     preparing to plant an agricultural crop'' after 
     ``improvements'';
       (C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``the farmer or 
     rancher'' and inserting ``the covered farmer or rancher''; 
     and
       (D) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``section 
     1001A(b)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``section 1001''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``requirement of section 
     1231(h)(4)(B)'' and inserting ``option pursuant to section 
     1234(c)(2)(A)(ii)''.
       (c) Final Year Contract.--Section 1235 of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3835) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsections:
       ``(g) Final Year of Contract.--The Secretary shall not 
     consider an owner or operator to be in violation of a term or 
     condition of the conservation reserve contract if--
       ``(1) during the year prior to expiration of the contract, 
     the land is enrolled in the conservation stewardship program; 
     and

[[Page 9631]]

       ``(2) the activity required under the conservation 
     stewardship program pursuant to such enrollment is consistent 
     with this subchapter.
       ``(h) Land Enrolled in Agricultural Conservation Easement 
     Program.--The Secretary may terminate or modify a contract 
     entered into under this subchapter if eligible land that is 
     subject to such contract is transferred into the agricultural 
     conservation easement program under subtitle H.''.

     SEC. 2007. CONVERSION OF LAND SUBJECT TO CONTRACT TO OTHER 
                   CONSERVING USES.

       Section 1235A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3835a) is repealed.

     SEC. 2008. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this subtitle shall 
     take effect on October 1, 2013, except the amendment made by 
     section 2001(d), which shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Effect on Existing Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this subtitle shall not affect the 
     validity or terms of any contract entered into by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3831 et seq.) before October 1, 2013, or any payments 
     required to be made in connection with the contract.
       (2) Updating of existing contracts.--The Secretary shall 
     permit an owner or operator of land subject to a contract 
     entered into under subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et 
     seq.) before October 1, 2013, to update the contract to 
     reflect the activities and uses of land under contract 
     permitted under the terms and conditions of section 1233(b) 
     of that Act (as amended by section 2004), as determined 
     appropriate by the Secretary.

              Subtitle B--Conservation Stewardship Program

     SEC. 2101. CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Revision of Current Program.--Subchapter B of chapter 2 
     of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3838d et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

            ``Subchapter B--Conservation Stewardship Program

     ``SEC. 1238D. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subchapter:
       ``(1) Agricultural operation.--The term `agricultural 
     operation' means all eligible land, whether or not 
     contiguous, that is--
       ``(A) under the effective control of a producer at the time 
     the producer enters into a contract under the program; and
       ``(B) operated with equipment, labor, management, and 
     production or cultivation practices that are substantially 
     separate from other agricultural operations, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(2) Conservation activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `conservation activities' means 
     conservation systems, practices, or management measures.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `conservation activities' 
     includes--
       ``(i) structural measures, vegetative measures, and land 
     management measures, including agriculture drainage 
     management systems, as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) planning needed to address a priority resource 
     concern.
       ``(3) Conservation stewardship plan.--The term 
     `conservation stewardship plan' means a plan that--
       ``(A) identifies and inventories priority resource 
     concerns;
       ``(B) establishes benchmark data and conservation 
     objectives;
       ``(C) describes conservation activities to be implemented, 
     managed, or improved; and
       ``(D) includes a schedule and evaluation plan for the 
     planning, installation, and management of the new and 
     existing conservation activities.
       ``(4) Eligible land.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible land' means--
       ``(i) private or tribal land on which agricultural 
     commodities, livestock, or forest-related products are 
     produced; and
       ``(ii) lands associated with the land described in clause 
     (i) on which priority resource concerns could be addressed 
     through a contract under the program.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible land' includes--
       ``(i) cropland;
       ``(ii) grassland;
       ``(iii) rangeland;
       ``(iv) pasture land;
       ``(v) nonindustrial private forest land; and
       ``(vi) other agricultural areas (including cropped 
     woodland, marshes, and agricultural land used or capable of 
     being used for the production of livestock), as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(5) Priority resource concern.--The term `priority 
     resource concern' means a natural resource concern or 
     problem, as determined by the Secretary, that--
       ``(A) is identified at the national, State, or local level 
     as a priority for a particular area of a State;
       ``(B) represents a significant concern in a State or 
     region; and
       ``(C) is likely to be addressed successfully through the 
     implementation of conservation activities under this program.
       ``(6) Program.--The term `program' means the conservation 
     stewardship program established by this subchapter.
       ``(7) Stewardship threshold.--The term `stewardship 
     threshold' means the level of management required, as 
     determined by the Secretary, to conserve and improve the 
     quality and condition of a natural resource.

     ``SEC. 1238E. CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment and Purpose.--During each of fiscal 
     years 2014 through 2018, the Secretary shall carry out a 
     conservation stewardship program to encourage producers to 
     address priority resource concerns in a comprehensive 
     manner--
       ``(1) by undertaking additional conservation activities; 
     and
       ``(2) by improving, maintaining, and managing existing 
     conservation activities.
       ``(b) Exclusions.--
       ``(1) Land enrolled in other conservation programs.--
     Subject to paragraph (2), the following land (even if covered 
     by the definition of eligible land) is not eligible for 
     enrollment in the program:
       ``(A) Land enrolled in the conservation reserve program, 
     unless--
       ``(i) the conservation reserve contract will expire at the 
     end of the fiscal year in which the land is to be enrolled in 
     the program; and
       ``(ii) conservation reserve program payments for land 
     enrolled in the program cease before the first program 
     payment is made to the applicant under this subchapter.
       ``(B) Land enrolled in a wetland easement through the 
     agricultural conservation easement program.
       ``(C) Land enrolled in the conservation security program.
       ``(2) Conversion to cropland.--Eligible land used for crop 
     production after October 1, 2013, that had not been planted, 
     considered to be planted, or devoted to crop production for 
     at least 4 of the 6 years preceding that date shall not be 
     the basis for any payment under the program, unless the land 
     does not meet the requirement because--
       ``(A) the land had previously been enrolled in the 
     conservation reserve program;
       ``(B) the land has been maintained using long-term crop 
     rotation practices, as determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(C) the land is incidental land needed for efficient 
     operation of the farm or ranch, as determined by the 
     Secretary.

     ``SEC. 1238F. STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTS.

       ``(a) Submission of Contract Offers.--To be eligible to 
     participate in the conservation stewardship program, a 
     producer shall submit to the Secretary a contract offer for 
     the agricultural operation that--
       ``(1) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
     that the producer, at the time of the contract offer, meets 
     or exceeds the stewardship threshold for at least 2 priority 
     resource concerns; and
       ``(2) would, at a minimum, meet or exceed the stewardship 
     threshold for at least 1 additional priority resource concern 
     by the end of the stewardship contract by--
       ``(A) installing and adopting additional conservation 
     activities; and
       ``(B) improving, maintaining, and managing existing 
     conservation activities across the entire agricultural 
     operation in a manner that increases or extends the 
     conservation benefits in place at the time the contract offer 
     is accepted by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Evaluation of Contract Offers.--
       ``(1) Ranking of applications.--In evaluating contract 
     offers submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     rank applications based on--
       ``(A) the level of conservation treatment on all applicable 
     priority resource concerns at the time of application;
       ``(B) the degree to which the proposed conservation 
     activities effectively increase conservation performance;
       ``(C) the number of applicable priority resource concerns 
     proposed to be treated to meet or exceed the stewardship 
     threshold by the end of the contract;
       ``(D) the extent to which other priority resource concerns 
     will be addressed to meet or exceed the stewardship threshold 
     by the end of the contract period;
       ``(E) the extent to which the actual and anticipated 
     conservation benefits from the contract are provided at the 
     least cost relative to other similarly beneficial contract 
     offers; and
       ``(F) the extent to which priority resource concerns will 
     be addressed when transitioning from the conservation reserve 
     program to agricultural production.
       ``(2) Prohibition.--The Secretary may not assign a higher 
     priority to any application because the applicant is willing 
     to accept a lower payment than the applicant would otherwise 
     be eligible to receive.
       ``(3) Additional criteria.--The Secretary may develop and 
     use such additional criteria that the Secretary determines 
     are necessary to ensure that national, State, and local 
     priority resource concerns are effectively addressed.
       ``(c) Entering Into Contracts.--After a determination that 
     a producer is eligible for the program under subsection (a), 
     and a determination that the contract offer ranks 
     sufficiently high under the evaluation criteria under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall enter into a conservation 
     stewardship contract with the producer to enroll the eligible 
     land to be covered by the contract.
       ``(d) Contract Provisions.--
       ``(1) Term.--A conservation stewardship contract shall be 
     for a term of 5 years.
       ``(2) Required provisions.--The conservation stewardship 
     contract of a producer shall--

[[Page 9632]]

       ``(A) state the amount of the payment the Secretary agrees 
     to make to the producer for each year of the conservation 
     stewardship contract under section 1238G(d);
       ``(B) require the producer--
       ``(i) to implement a conservation stewardship plan that 
     describes the program purposes to be achieved through 1 or 
     more conservation activities;
       ``(ii) to maintain and supply information as required by 
     the Secretary to determine compliance with the conservation 
     stewardship plan and any other requirements of the program; 
     and
       ``(iii) not to conduct any activities on the agricultural 
     operation that would tend to defeat the purposes of the 
     program;
       ``(C) permit all economic uses of the eligible land that--
       ``(i) maintain the agricultural nature of the land; and
       ``(ii) are consistent with the conservation purposes of the 
     conservation stewardship contract;
       ``(D) include a provision to ensure that a producer shall 
     not be considered in violation of the contract for failure to 
     comply with the contract due to circumstances beyond the 
     control of the producer, including a disaster or related 
     condition, as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(E) include provisions requiring that upon the violation 
     of a term or condition of the contract at any time the 
     producer has control of the land--
       ``(i) if the Secretary determines that the violation 
     warrants termination of the contract--

       ``(I) the producer shall forfeit all rights to receive 
     payments under the contract; and
       ``(II) the producer shall refund all or a portion of the 
     payments received by the producer under the contract, 
     including any interest on the payments, as determined by the 
     Secretary; or

       ``(ii) if the Secretary determines that the violation does 
     not warrant termination of the contract, the producer shall 
     refund or accept adjustments to the payments provided to the 
     producer, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate;
       ``(F) include provisions in accordance with paragraphs (3) 
     and (4) of this section; and
       ``(G) include any additional provisions the Secretary 
     determines are necessary to carry out the program.
       ``(3) Change of interest in land subject to a contract.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the time of application, a producer 
     shall have control of the eligible land to be enrolled in the 
     program. Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a change in 
     the interest of a producer in eligible land covered by a 
     contract under the program shall result in the termination of 
     the contract with regard to that land.
       ``(B) Transfer of duties and rights.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply if--
       ``(i) within a reasonable period of time (as determined by 
     the Secretary) after the date of the change in the interest 
     in eligible land covered by a contract under the program, the 
     transferee of the land provides written notice to the 
     Secretary that all duties and rights under the contract have 
     been transferred to, and assumed by, the transferee for the 
     portion of the land transferred;
       ``(ii) the transferee meets the eligibility requirements of 
     the program; and
       ``(iii) the Secretary approves the transfer of all duties 
     and rights under the contract.
       ``(4) Modification and termination of contracts.--
       ``(A) Voluntary modification or termination.--The Secretary 
     may modify or terminate a contract with a producer if--
       ``(i) the producer agrees to the modification or 
     termination; and
       ``(ii) the Secretary determines that the modification or 
     termination is in the public interest.
       ``(B) Involuntary termination.--The Secretary may terminate 
     a contract if the Secretary determines that the producer 
     violated the contract.
       ``(5) Repayment.--If a contract is terminated, the 
     Secretary may, consistent with the purposes of the program--
       ``(A) allow the producer to retain payments already 
     received under the contract; or
       ``(B) require repayment, in whole or in part, of payments 
     received and assess liquidated damages.
       ``(e) Contract Renewal.--At the end of the initial 5-year 
     contract period, the Secretary may allow the producer to 
     renew the contract for 1 additional 5-year period if the 
     producer--
       ``(1) demonstrates compliance with the terms of the initial 
     contract;
       ``(2) agrees to adopt and continue to integrate 
     conservation activities across the entire agricultural 
     operation, as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(3) agrees, by the end of the contract period--
       ``(A) to meet the stewardship threshold of at least two 
     additional priority resource concerns on the agricultural 
     operation; or
       ``(B) to exceed the stewardship threshold of two existing 
     priority resource concerns that are specified by the 
     Secretary in the initial contract.

     ``SEC. 1238G. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       ``(a) In General.--To achieve the conservation goals of a 
     contract under the conservation stewardship program, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(1) make the program available to eligible producers on a 
     continuous enrollment basis with 1 or more ranking periods, 
     one of which shall occur in the first quarter of each fiscal 
     year;
       ``(2) identify not less than 5 priority resource concerns 
     in a particular watershed or other appropriate region or area 
     within a State; and
       ``(3) establish a science-based stewardship threshold for 
     each priority resource concern identified under paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(b) Allocation to States.--The Secretary shall allocate 
     acres to States for enrollment, based--
       ``(1) primarily on each State's proportion of eligible land 
     to the total acreage of eligible land in all States; and
       ``(2) also on consideration of--
       ``(A) the extent and magnitude of the conservation needs 
     associated with agricultural production in each State;
       ``(B) the degree to which implementation of the program in 
     the State is, or will be, effective in helping producers 
     address those needs; and
       ``(C) other considerations to achieve equitable geographic 
     distribution of funds, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Acreage Enrollment Limitation.--During the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2013, and ending on September 30, 
     2021, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable--
       ``(1) enroll in the program an additional 8,695,000 acres 
     for each fiscal year; and
       ``(2) manage the program to achieve a national average rate 
     of $18 per acre, which shall include the costs of all 
     financial assistance, technical assistance, and any other 
     expenses associated with enrollment or participation in the 
     program.
       ``(d) Conservation Stewardship Payments.--
       ``(1) Availability of payments.--The Secretary shall 
     provide annual payments under the program to compensate the 
     producer for--
       ``(A) installing and adopting additional conservation 
     activities; and
       ``(B) improving, maintaining, and managing conservation 
     activities in place at the agricultural operation of the 
     producer at the time the contract offer is accepted by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Payment amount.--The amount of the conservation 
     stewardship annual payment shall be determined by the 
     Secretary and based, to the maximum extent practicable, on 
     the following factors:
       ``(A) Costs incurred by the producer associated with 
     planning, design, materials, installation, labor, management, 
     maintenance, or training.
       ``(B) Income forgone by the producer.
       ``(C) Expected conservation benefits.
       ``(D) The extent to which priority resource concerns will 
     be addressed through the installation and adoption of 
     conservation activities on the agricultural operation.
       ``(E) The level of stewardship in place at the time of 
     application and maintained over the term of the contract.
       ``(F) The degree to which the conservation activities will 
     be integrated across the entire agricultural operation for 
     all applicable priority resource concerns over the term of 
     the contract.
       ``(G) Such other factors as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Exclusions.--A payment to a producer under this 
     subsection shall not be provided for--
       ``(A) the design, construction, or maintenance of animal 
     waste storage or treatment facilities or associated waste 
     transport or transfer devices for animal feeding operations; 
     or
       ``(B) conservation activities for which there is no cost 
     incurred or income forgone to the producer.
       ``(4) Delivery of payments.--In making payments under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable--
       ``(A) prorate conservation performance over the term of the 
     contract so as to accommodate, to the extent practicable, 
     producers earning equal annual payments in each fiscal year; 
     and
       ``(B) make payments as soon as practicable after October 1 
     of each fiscal year for activities carried out in the 
     previous fiscal year.
       ``(e) Supplemental Payments for Resource-conserving Crop 
     Rotations.--
       ``(1) Availability of payments.--The Secretary shall 
     provide additional payments to producers that, in 
     participating in the program, agree to adopt or improve 
     resource-conserving crop rotations to achieve beneficial crop 
     rotations as appropriate for the eligible land of the 
     producers.
       ``(2) Beneficial crop rotations.--The Secretary shall 
     determine whether a resource-conserving crop rotation is a 
     beneficial crop rotation eligible for additional payments 
     under paragraph (1) based on whether the resource-conserving 
     crop rotation is designed to provide natural resource 
     conservation and production benefits.
       ``(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a payment 
     described in paragraph (1), a producer shall agree to adopt 
     and maintain beneficial resource-conserving crop rotations 
     for the term of the contract.
       ``(4) Resource-conserving crop rotation.--In this 
     subsection, the term `resource-conserving crop rotation' 
     means a crop rotation that--
       ``(A) includes at least 1 resource conserving crop (as 
     defined by the Secretary);
       ``(B) reduces erosion;
       ``(C) improves soil fertility and tilth;
       ``(D) interrupts pest cycles; and
       ``(E) in applicable areas, reduces depletion of soil 
     moisture or otherwise reduces the need for irrigation.
       ``(f) Payment Limitations.--A person or legal entity may 
     not receive, directly or indirectly, payments under the 
     program that, in the aggregate, exceed $200,000 under all 
     contracts entered into during fiscal years 2014 through 2018, 
     excluding funding arrangements with Indian tribes, regardless 
     of the number of contracts entered into under the program by 
     the person or legal entity.

[[Page 9633]]

       ``(g) Specialty Crop and Organic Producers.--The Secretary 
     shall ensure that outreach and technical assistance are 
     available, and program specifications are appropriate to 
     enable specialty crop and organic producers to participate in 
     the program.
       ``(h) Coordination With Organic Certification.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a transparent means by which 
     producers may initiate organic certification under the 
     Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) 
     while participating in a contract under the program.
       ``(i) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that--
       ``(1) prescribe such other rules as the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable 
     application of the limitations established under subsection 
     (f); and
       ``(2) otherwise enable the Secretary to carry out the 
     program.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.
       (c) Effect on Existing Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall 
     not affect the validity or terms of any contract entered into 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture under subchapter B of chapter 
     2 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3838d et seq.) before October 1, 2013, or any 
     payments required to be made in connection with the contract.
       (2) Conservation stewardship program.--Funds made available 
     under section 1241(a)(4) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3841(a)(4)) (as amended by section 2601(a) of this 
     title) may be used to administer and make payments to program 
     participants that enrolled into contracts during any of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2013.

          Subtitle C--Environmental Quality Incentives Program

     SEC. 2201. PURPOSES.

       Section 1240 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) 
     and, in such subparagraph, by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) developing and improving wildlife habitat; and'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     period; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (5).

     SEC. 2202. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 1240B of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa-2) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2014'' and inserting 
     ``2018'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Term.--A contract under the program shall have a term 
     that does not exceed 10 years.'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``, veteran farmer or rancher (as defined 
     in section 2501(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(e))),'' before ``or a 
     beginning farmer or rancher''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Advance payments.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not more than 50 percent of the amount 
     determined under subparagraph (A) may be provided in advance 
     for the purpose of purchasing materials or contracting.
       ``(ii) Return of funds.--If funds provided in advance are 
     not expended during the 90-day period beginning on the date 
     of receipt of the funds, the funds shall be returned within a 
     reasonable time frame, as determined by the Secretary.'';
       (4) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(f) Allocation of Funding.--
       ``(1) Livestock.--For each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018, at least 60 percent of the funds made available for 
     payments under the program shall be targeted at practices 
     relating to livestock production.
       ``(2) Wildlife habitat.--For each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018, 5 percent of the funds made available for 
     payments under the program shall be targeted at practices 
     benefitting wildlife habitat.'';
       (5) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Federally 
     Recognized Native American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 
     Corporations'' and inserting ``Indian Tribes'';
       (B) by striking ``federally recognized Native American 
     Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (including their 
     affiliated membership organizations)'' and inserting ``Indian 
     tribes''; and
       (C) by striking ``or Native Corporation''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Wildlife Habitat Incentive Practice.--The Secretary 
     shall provide payments to producers under the program for 
     practices, including recurring practices for the term of the 
     contract, that support the restoration, development, 
     protection, and improvement of wildlife habitat on eligible 
     land, including--
       ``(1) upland wildlife habitat;
       ``(2) wetland wildlife habitat;
       ``(3) habitat for threatened and endangered species;
       ``(4) fish habitat;
       ``(5) habitat on pivot corners and other irregular areas of 
     a field; and
       ``(6) other types of wildlife habitat, as determined 
     appropriate by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 2203. EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS.

       Section 1240C(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3839aa-3(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``environmental'' and 
     inserting ``conservation''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``purpose of the 
     environmental quality incentives program specified in section 
     1240(1)'' and inserting ``purposes of the program''.

     SEC. 2204. DUTIES OF PRODUCERS.

       Section 1240D(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3839aa-4(2)) is amended by striking ``farm, ranch, or 
     forest'' and inserting ``enrolled''.

     SEC. 2205. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.

       Section 1240G of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa-7) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1240G. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.

       ``A person or legal entity may not receive, directly or 
     indirectly, cost share or incentive payments under this 
     chapter that, in aggregate, exceed $450,000 for all contracts 
     entered into under this chapter by the person or legal entity 
     during the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2018, 
     regardless of the number of contracts entered into under this 
     chapter by the person or legal entity.''.

     SEC. 2206. CONSERVATION INNOVATION GRANTS AND PAYMENTS.

       Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa-8) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(E) facilitate on-farm conservation research and 
     demonstration activities; and
       ``(F) facilitate pilot testing of new technologies or 
     innovative conservation practices.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(b) Reporting.--Not later than December 31, 2014, and 
     every two years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the status of projects funded 
     under this section, including--
       ``(1) funding awarded;
       ``(2) project results; and
       ``(3) incorporation of project findings, such as new 
     technology and innovative approaches, into the conservation 
     efforts implemented by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 2207. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this subtitle shall 
     take effect on October 1, 2013.
       (b) Effect on Existing Contracts.--The amendments made by 
     this subtitle shall not affect the validity or terms of any 
     contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) before October 1, 2013, or 
     any payments required to be made in connection with the 
     contract.

         Subtitle D--Agricultural Conservation Easement Program

     SEC. 2301. AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--Title XII of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subtitle:

        ``Subtitle H--Agricultural Conservation Easement Program

     ``SEC. 1265. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     agricultural conservation easement program for the 
     conservation of eligible land and natural resources through 
     easements or other interests in land.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program are to--
       ``(1) combine the purposes and coordinate the functions of 
     the wetlands reserve program established under section 1237, 
     the grassland reserve program established under section 
     1238N, and the farmland protection program established under 
     section 1238I, as such sections were in effect on September 
     30, 2013;
       ``(2) restore, protect, and enhance wetlands on eligible 
     land;
       ``(3) protect the agricultural use and related conservation 
     values of eligible land by limiting nonagricultural uses of 
     that land; and
       ``(4) protect grazing uses and related conservation values 
     by restoring and conserving eligible land.

     ``SEC. 1265A. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Agricultural land easement.--The term `agricultural 
     land easement' means an easement or other interest in 
     eligible land that--
       ``(A) is conveyed for the purpose of protecting natural 
     resources and the agricultural nature of the land; and
       ``(B) permits the landowner the right to continue 
     agricultural production and related uses subject to an 
     agricultural land easement plan, as approved by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) an agency of State or local government or an Indian 
     tribe (including a farmland protection board or land resource 
     council established under State law); or

[[Page 9634]]

       ``(B) an organization that is--
       ``(i) organized for, and at all times since the formation 
     of the organization has been operated principally for, 1 or 
     more of the conservation purposes specified in clause (i), 
     (ii), (iii), or (iv) of section 170(h)(4)(A) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(ii) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of 
     that Code that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) 
     of that Code; or
       ``(iii) described in--

       ``(I) paragraph (1) or (2) of section 509(a) of that Code; 
     or
       ``(II) section 509(a)(3) of that Code and is controlled by 
     an organization described in section 509(a)(2) of that Code.

       ``(3) Eligible land.--The term `eligible land' means 
     private or tribal land that is--
       ``(A) in the case of an agricultural land easement, 
     agricultural land, including land on a farm or ranch--
       ``(i) that is subject to a pending offer for purchase of an 
     agricultural land easement from an eligible entity;
       ``(ii) that--

       ``(I) has prime, unique, or other productive soil;
       ``(II) contains historical or archaeological resources; or
       ``(III) the protection of which will further a State or 
     local policy consistent with the purposes of the program; and

       ``(iii) that is--

       ``(I) cropland;
       ``(II) rangeland;
       ``(III) grassland or land that contains forbs, or shrubland 
     for which grazing is the predominate use;
       ``(IV) pastureland; or
       ``(V) nonindustrial private forest land that contributes to 
     the economic viability of an offered parcel or serves as a 
     buffer to protect such land from development;

       ``(B) in the case of a wetland easement, a wetland or 
     related area, including--
       ``(i) farmed or converted wetlands, together with adjacent 
     land that is functionally dependent on that land, if the 
     Secretary determines it--

       ``(I) is likely to be successfully restored in a cost 
     effective manner; and
       ``(II) will maximize the wildlife benefits and wetland 
     functions and values, as determined by the Secretary in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior at the local 
     level;

       ``(ii) cropland or grassland that was used for agricultural 
     production prior to flooding from the natural overflow of--

       ``(I) a closed basin lake and adjacent land that is 
     functionally dependent upon it, if the State or other entity 
     is willing to provide 50 percent share of the cost of an 
     easement;
       ``(II) a pothole and adjacent land that is functionally 
     dependent on it;

       ``(iii) farmed wetlands and adjoining lands that--

       ``(I) are enrolled in the conservation reserve program;
       ``(II) have the highest wetland functions and values, as 
     determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(III) are likely to return to production after they leave 
     the conservation reserve program;

       ``(iv) riparian areas that link wetlands that are protected 
     by easements or some other device that achieves the same 
     purpose as an easement; or
       ``(v) other wetlands of an owner that would not otherwise 
     be eligible, if the Secretary determines that the inclusion 
     of such wetlands in a wetland easement would significantly 
     add to the functional value of the easement; or
       ``(C) in the case of either an agricultural land easement 
     or wetland easement, other land that is incidental to land 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B), if the Secretary 
     determines that it is necessary for the efficient 
     administration of the easements under this program.
       ``(4) Program.--The term `program' means the agricultural 
     conservation easement program established by this subtitle.
       ``(5) Wetland easement.--The term `wetland easement' means 
     a reserved interest in eligible land that--
       ``(A) is defined and delineated in a deed; and
       ``(B) stipulates--
       ``(i) the rights, title, and interests in land conveyed to 
     the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) the rights, title, and interests in land that are 
     reserved to the landowner.

     ``SEC. 1265B. AGRICULTURAL LAND EASEMENTS.

       ``(a) Availability of Assistance.--The Secretary shall 
     facilitate and provide funding for--
       ``(1) the purchase by eligible entities of agricultural 
     land easements and other interests in eligible land; and
       ``(2) technical assistance to provide for the conservation 
     of natural resources pursuant to an agricultural land 
     easement plan.
       ``(b) Cost-share Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall protect the 
     agricultural use, including grazing, and related conservation 
     values of eligible land through cost-share assistance to 
     eligible entities for purchasing agricultural land easements.
       ``(2) Scope of assistance available.--
       ``(A) Federal share.--An agreement described in paragraph 
     (4) shall provide for a Federal share determined by the 
     Secretary of an amount not to exceed 50 percent of the fair 
     market value of the agricultural land easement or other 
     interest in land, as determined by the Secretary using--
       ``(i) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice;
       ``(ii) an area-wide market analysis or survey; or
       ``(iii) another industry-approved method.
       ``(B) Non-federal share.--
       ``(i) In general.--Under the agreement, the eligible entity 
     shall provide a share that is at least equivalent to that 
     provided by the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Source of contribution.--An eligible entity may 
     include as part of its share a charitable donation or 
     qualified conservation contribution (as defined by section 
     170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) from the private 
     landowner if the eligible entity contributes its own cash 
     resources in an amount that is at least 50 percent of the 
     amount contributed by the Secretary.
       ``(C) Exception.--In the case of grassland of special 
     environmental significance, as determined by the Secretary, 
     the Secretary may provide an amount not to exceed 75 percent 
     of the fair market value of the agricultural land easement.
       ``(3) Evaluation and ranking of applications.--
       ``(A) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish evaluation 
     and ranking criteria to maximize the benefit of Federal 
     investment under the program.
       ``(B) Considerations.--In establishing the criteria, the 
     Secretary shall emphasize support for--
       ``(i) protecting agricultural uses and related conservation 
     values of the land; and
       ``(ii) maximizing the protection of areas devoted to 
     agricultural use.
       ``(C) Bidding down.--If the Secretary determines that 2 or 
     more applications for cost-share assistance are comparable in 
     achieving the purpose of the program, the Secretary shall not 
     assign a higher priority to any of those applications solely 
     on the basis of lesser cost to the program.
       ``(4) Agreements with eligible entities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into 
     agreements with eligible entities to stipulate the terms and 
     conditions under which the eligible entity is permitted to 
     use cost-share assistance provided under this section.
       ``(B) Length of agreements.--An agreement shall be for a 
     term that is--
       ``(i) in the case of an eligible entity certified under the 
     process described in paragraph (5), a minimum of five years; 
     and
       ``(ii) for all other eligible entities, at least three, but 
     not more than five years.
       ``(C) Minimum terms and conditions.--An eligible entity 
     shall be authorized to use its own terms and conditions for 
     agricultural land easements so long as the Secretary 
     determines such terms and conditions--
       ``(i) are consistent with the purposes of the program;
       ``(ii) permit effective enforcement of the conservation 
     purposes of such easements;
       ``(iii) include a right of enforcement for the Secretary, 
     that may be used only if the terms of the easement are not 
     enforced by the holder of the easement;
       ``(iv) subject the land in which an interest is purchased 
     to an agricultural land easement plan that--

       ``(I) describes the activities which promote the long-term 
     viability of the land to meet the purposes for which the 
     easement was acquired;
       ``(II) requires the management of grasslands according to a 
     grasslands management plan; and
       ``(III) includes a conservation plan, where appropriate, 
     and requires, at the option of the Secretary, the conversion 
     of highly erodible cropland to less intensive uses; and

       ``(v) include a limit on the impervious surfaces to be 
     allowed that is consistent with the agricultural activities 
     to be conducted.
       ``(D) Substitution of qualified projects.--An agreement 
     shall allow, upon mutual agreement of the parties, 
     substitution of qualified projects that are identified at the 
     time of the proposed substitution.
       ``(E) Effect of violation.--If a violation occurs of a term 
     or condition of an agreement under this subsection--
       ``(i) the Secretary may terminate the agreement; and
       ``(ii) the Secretary may require the eligible entity to 
     refund all or part of any payments received by the entity 
     under the program, with interest on the payments as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(5) Certification of eligible entities.--
       ``(A) Certification process.--The Secretary shall establish 
     a process under which the Secretary may--
       ``(i) directly certify eligible entities that meet 
     established criteria;
       ``(ii) enter into long-term agreements with certified 
     eligible entities; and
       ``(iii) accept proposals for cost-share assistance for the 
     purchase of agricultural land easements throughout the 
     duration of such agreements.
       ``(B) Certification criteria.--In order to be certified, an 
     eligible entity shall demonstrate to the Secretary that the 
     entity will maintain, at a minimum, for the duration of the 
     agreement--
       ``(i) a plan for administering easements that is consistent 
     with the purpose of this subtitle;
       ``(ii) the capacity and resources to monitor and enforce 
     agricultural land easements; and
       ``(iii) policies and procedures to ensure--

       ``(I) the long-term integrity of agricultural land 
     easements on eligible land;
       ``(II) timely completion of acquisitions of such easements; 
     and
       ``(III) timely and complete evaluation and reporting to the 
     Secretary on the use of funds provided under the program.

       ``(C) Review and revision.--
       ``(i) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of 
     eligible entities certified under subparagraph (A) every 
     three years to ensure that

[[Page 9635]]

     such entities are meeting the criteria established under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(ii) Revocation.--If the Secretary finds that the 
     certified eligible entity no longer meets the criteria 
     established under subparagraph (B), the Secretary may--

       ``(I) allow the certified eligible entity a specified 
     period of time, at a minimum 180 days, in which to take such 
     actions as may be necessary to meet the criteria; and
       ``(II) revoke the certification of the eligible entity, if 
     after the specified period of time, the certified eligible 
     entity does not meet such criteria.

       ``(c) Method of Enrollment.--The Secretary shall enroll 
     eligible land under this section through the use of--
       ``(1) permanent easements; or
       ``(2) easements for the maximum duration allowed under 
     applicable State laws.
       ``(d) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may provide 
     technical assistance, if requested, to assist in--
       ``(1) compliance with the terms and conditions of 
     easements; and
       ``(2) implementation of an agricultural land easement plan.

     ``SEC. 1265C. WETLAND EASEMENTS.

       ``(a) Availability of Assistance.--The Secretary shall 
     provide assistance to owners of eligible land to restore, 
     protect, and enhance wetlands through--
       ``(1) wetland easements and related wetland easement plans; 
     and
       ``(2) technical assistance.
       ``(b) Easements.--
       ``(1) Method of enrollment.--The Secretary shall enroll 
     eligible land under this section through the use of--
       ``(A) 30-year easements;
       ``(B) permanent easements;
       ``(C) easements for the maximum duration allowed under 
     applicable State laws; or
       ``(D) as an option for Indian tribes only, 30-year 
     contracts (which shall be considered to be 30-year easements 
     for the purposes of this subtitle).
       ``(2) Limitations.--
       ``(A) Ineligible land.--The Secretary may not acquire 
     easements on--
       ``(i) land established to trees under the conservation 
     reserve program, except in cases where the Secretary 
     determines it would further the purposes of the program; and
       ``(ii) farmed wetlands or converted wetlands where the 
     conversion was not commenced prior to December 23, 1985.
       ``(B) Changes in ownership.--No wetland easement shall be 
     created on land that has changed ownership during the 
     preceding 24-month period unless--
       ``(i) the new ownership was acquired by will or succession 
     as a result of the death of the previous owner;
       ``(ii)(I) the ownership change occurred because of 
     foreclosure on the land; and
       ``(II) immediately before the foreclosure, the owner of the 
     land exercises a right of redemption from the mortgage holder 
     in accordance with State law; or
       ``(iii) the Secretary determines that the land was acquired 
     under circumstances that give adequate assurances that such 
     land was not acquired for the purposes of placing it in the 
     program.
       ``(3) Evaluation and ranking of offers.--
       ``(A) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish evaluation 
     and ranking criteria to maximize the benefit of Federal 
     investment under the program.
       ``(B) Considerations.--When evaluating offers from 
     landowners, the Secretary may consider--
       ``(i) the conservation benefits of obtaining a wetland 
     easement, including the potential environmental benefits if 
     the land was removed from agricultural production;
       ``(ii) the cost-effectiveness of each wetland easement, so 
     as to maximize the environmental benefits per dollar 
     expended;
       ``(iii) whether the landowner or another person is offering 
     to contribute financially to the cost of the wetland easement 
     to leverage Federal funds; and
       ``(iv) such other factors as the Secretary determines are 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of the program.
       ``(C) Priority.--The Secretary shall place priority on 
     acquiring wetland easements based on the value of the wetland 
     easement for protecting and enhancing habitat for migratory 
     birds and other wildlife.
       ``(4) Agreement.--To be eligible to place eligible land 
     into the program through a wetland easement, the owner of 
     such land shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary 
     to--
       ``(A) grant an easement on such land to the Secretary;
       ``(B) authorize the implementation of a wetland easement 
     plan developed for the eligible land under subsection (f);
       ``(C) create and record an appropriate deed restriction in 
     accordance with applicable State law to reflect the easement 
     agreed to;
       ``(D) provide a written statement of consent to such 
     easement signed by those holding a security interest in the 
     land;
       ``(E) comply with the terms and conditions of the easement 
     and any related agreements; and
       ``(F) permanently retire any existing base history for the 
     land on which the easement has been obtained.
       ``(5) Terms and conditions of easement.--
       ``(A) In general.--A wetland easement shall include terms 
     and conditions that--
       ``(i) permit--

       ``(I) repairs, improvements, and inspections on the land 
     that are necessary to maintain existing public drainage 
     systems; and
       ``(II) owners to control public access on the easement 
     areas while identifying access routes to be used for 
     restoration activities and management and easement 
     monitoring;

       ``(ii) prohibit--

       ``(I) the alteration of wildlife habitat and other natural 
     features of such land, unless specifically authorized by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(II) the spraying of such land with chemicals or the 
     mowing of such land, except where such spraying or mowing is 
     authorized by the Secretary or is necessary--

       ``(aa) to comply with Federal or State noxious weed control 
     laws;
       ``(bb) to comply with a Federal or State emergency pest 
     treatment program; or
       ``(cc) to meet habitat needs of specific wildlife species;

       ``(III) any activities to be carried out on the owner's or 
     successor's land that is immediately adjacent to, and 
     functionally related to, the land that is subject to the 
     easement if such activities will alter, degrade, or otherwise 
     diminish the functional value of the eligible land; and
       ``(IV) the adoption of any other practice that would tend 
     to defeat the purposes of the program, as determined by the 
     Secretary;

       ``(iii) provide for the efficient and effective 
     establishment of wildlife functions and values; and
       ``(iv) include such additional provisions as the Secretary 
     determines are desirable to carry out the program or 
     facilitate the practical administration thereof.
       ``(B) Violation.--On the violation of the terms or 
     conditions of a wetland easement, the wetland easement shall 
     remain in force and the Secretary may require the owner to 
     refund all or part of any payments received by the owner 
     under the program, together with interest thereon as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(C) Compatible uses.--Land subject to a wetland easement 
     may be used for compatible economic uses, including such 
     activities as hunting and fishing, managed timber harvest, or 
     periodic haying or grazing, if such use is specifically 
     permitted by the wetland easement plan developed for the land 
     under subsection (f) and is consistent with the long-term 
     protection and enhancement of the wetland resources for which 
     the easement was established.
       ``(D) Reservation of grazing rights.--The Secretary may 
     include in the terms and conditions of a wetland easement a 
     provision under which the owner reserves grazing rights if--
       ``(i) the Secretary determines that the reservation and use 
     of the grazing rights--

       ``(I) is compatible with the land subject to the easement;
       ``(II) is consistent with the historical natural uses of 
     the land and the long-term protection and enhancement goals 
     for which the easement was established; and
       ``(III) complies with the wetland easement plan developed 
     for the land under subsection (f); and

       ``(ii) the agreement provides for a commensurate reduction 
     in the easement payment to account for the grazing value, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(6) Compensation.--
       ``(A) Determination.--
       ``(i) Permanent easements.--The Secretary shall pay as 
     compensation for a permanent wetland easement acquired under 
     the program an amount necessary to encourage enrollment in 
     the program, based on the lowest of--

       ``(I) the fair market value of the land, as determined by 
     the Secretary, using the Uniform Standards of Professional 
     Appraisal Practice or an area-wide market analysis or survey;
       ``(II) the amount corresponding to a geographical cap, as 
     determined by the Secretary in regulations; or
       ``(III) the offer made by the landowner.

       ``(ii) 30-year easements.--Compensation for a 30-year 
     wetland easement shall be not less than 50 percent, but not 
     more than 75 percent, of the compensation that would be paid 
     for a permanent wetland easement.
       ``(B) Form of payment.--Compensation for a wetland easement 
     shall be provided by the Secretary in the form of a cash 
     payment, in an amount determined under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Payment schedule.--
       ``(i) Easements valued at $500,000 or less.--For wetland 
     easements valued at $500,000 or less, the Secretary may 
     provide easement payments in not more than 10 annual 
     payments.
       ``(ii) Easements valued at more than $500,000.--For wetland 
     easements valued at more than $500,000, the Secretary may 
     provide easement payments in at least 5, but not more than 10 
     annual payments, except that, if the Secretary determines it 
     would further the purposes of the program, the Secretary may 
     make a lump sum payment for such an easement.
       ``(c) Easement Restoration.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide financial 
     assistance to owners of eligible land to carry out the 
     establishment of conservation measures and practices and 
     protect wetland functions and values, including necessary 
     maintenance activities, as set forth in a wetland easement 
     plan developed for the eligible land under subsection (f).
       ``(2) Payments.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) in the case of a permanent wetland easement, pay an 
     amount that is not less than 75 percent, but not more than 
     100 percent, of the eligible costs, as determined by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(B) in the case of a 30-year wetland easement, pay an 
     amount that is not less than 50 percent, but not more than 75 
     percent, of the eligible costs, as determined by the 
     Secretary.

[[Page 9636]]

       ``(d) Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall assist owners in 
     complying with the terms and conditions of wetland easements.
       ``(2) Contracts or agreements.--The Secretary may enter 
     into 1 or more contracts with private entities or agreements 
     with a State, non-governmental organization, or Indian tribe 
     to carry out necessary restoration, enhancement, or 
     maintenance of a wetland easement if the Secretary determines 
     that the contract or agreement will advance the purposes of 
     the program.
       ``(e) Wetland Enhancement Option.--The Secretary may enter 
     into 1 or more agreements with a State (including a political 
     subdivision or agency of a State), nongovernmental 
     organization, or Indian tribe to carry out a special wetland 
     enhancement option that the Secretary determines would 
     advance the purposes of program.
       ``(f) Administration.--
       ``(1) Wetland easement plan.--The Secretary shall develop a 
     wetland easement plan for eligible lands subject to a wetland 
     easement, which shall include practices and activities 
     necessary to restore, protect, enhance, and maintain the 
     enrolled lands.
       ``(2) Delegation of easement administration.--The Secretary 
     may delegate--
       ``(A) any of the easement management, monitoring, and 
     enforcement responsibilities of the Secretary to other 
     Federal or State agencies that have the appropriate 
     authority, expertise, and resources necessary to carry out 
     such delegated responsibilities; and
       ``(B) any of the easement management responsibilities of 
     the Secretary to other conservation organizations if the 
     Secretary determines the organization has the appropriate 
     expertise and resources.
       ``(3) Payments.--
       ``(A) Timing of payments.--The Secretary shall provide 
     payment for obligations incurred by the Secretary under this 
     section--
       ``(i) with respect to any easement restoration obligation 
     under subsection (c), as soon as possible after the 
     obligation is incurred; and
       ``(ii) with respect to any annual easement payment 
     obligation incurred by the Secretary, as soon as possible 
     after October 1 of each calendar year.
       ``(B) Payments to others.--If an owner who is entitled to a 
     payment under this section dies, becomes incompetent, is 
     otherwise unable to receive such payment, or is succeeded by 
     another person or entity who renders or completes the 
     required performance, the Secretary shall make such payment, 
     in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
     and without regard to any other provision of law, in such 
     manner as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in 
     light of all of the circumstances.

     ``SEC. 1265D. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Ineligible Land.--The Secretary may not use program 
     funds for the purposes of acquiring an easement on--
       ``(1) lands owned by an agency of the United States, other 
     than land held in trust for Indian tribes;
       ``(2) lands owned in fee title by a State, including an 
     agency or a subdivision of a State, or a unit of local 
     government;
       ``(3) land subject to an easement or deed restriction 
     which, as determined by the Secretary, provides similar 
     protection as would be provided by enrollment in the program; 
     or
       ``(4) lands where the purposes of the program would be 
     undermined due to on-site or off-site conditions, such as 
     risk of hazardous substances, proposed or existing rights of 
     way, infrastructure development, or adjacent land uses.
       ``(b) Priority.--In evaluating applications under the 
     program, the Secretary may give priority to land that is 
     currently enrolled in the conservation reserve program in a 
     contract that is set to expire within 1 year and--
       ``(1) in the case of an agricultural land easement, is 
     grassland that would benefit from protection under a long-
     term easement; and
       ``(2) in the case of a wetland easement, is a wetland or 
     related area with the highest functions and value and is 
     likely to return to production after the land leaves the 
     conservation reserve program.
       ``(c) Subordination, Exchange, Modification, and 
     Termination.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may subordinate, exchange, 
     modify, or terminate any interest in land, or portion of such 
     interest, administered by the Secretary, either directly or 
     on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation under the 
     program if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) it is in the Federal Government's interest to 
     subordinate, exchange, modify, or terminate the interest in 
     land;
       ``(B) the subordination, exchange, modification, or 
     termination action--
       ``(i) will address a compelling public need for which there 
     is no practicable alternative; or
       ``(ii) such action will further the practical 
     administration of the program; and
       ``(C) the subordination, exchange, modification, or 
     termination action will result in comparable conservation 
     value and equivalent or greater economic value to the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall work with the 
     owner, and eligible entity if applicable, to address any 
     subordination, exchange, modification, or termination of the 
     interest, or portion of such interest, in land.
       ``(3) Notice.--At least 90 days before taking any 
     termination action described in paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall provide written notice of such action to the Committee 
     on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate.
       ``(d) Land Enrolled in Conservation Reserve Program.--The 
     Secretary may terminate or modify a contract entered into 
     under section 1231(a) if eligible land that is subject to 
     such contract is transferred into the program.
       ``(e) Allocation of Funds for Agricultural Land 
     Easements.--Of the funds made available under section 1241 to 
     carry out the program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall, 
     to the extent practicable, use for agricultural land 
     easements--
       ``(1) no less than 40 percent in each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2017; and
       ``(2) no less than 50 percent in fiscal year 2018.''.
       (b) Compliance With Certain Requirements.--Before an 
     eligible entity or owner of eligible land may receive 
     assistance under subtitle H of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985, the eligible entity or person shall agree, 
     during the crop year for which the assistance is provided and 
     in exchange for the assistance--
       (1) to comply with applicable conservation requirements 
     under subtitle B of title XII of that Act (16 U.S.C. 3811 et 
     seq.); and
       (2) to comply with applicable wetland protection 
     requirements under subtitle C of title XII of that Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3821 et seq.).
       (c) Cross Reference; Calculation.--Section 1244 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3844) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B); 
     and
       (iii) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) the agricultural conservation easement program 
     established under subtitle H; and''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``programs 
     administered under subchapters B and C of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D'' and inserting ``conservation reserve program 
     established under subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D and 
     wetland easements under section 1265C''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``an easement 
     acquired under subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D'' and 
     inserting ``a wetland easement under section 1265C''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Calculation.--In calculating the percentages 
     described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include any 
     acreage that was included in calculations of percentages made 
     under such paragraph, as in effect on September 30, 2013, and 
     that remains enrolled when the calculation is made after that 
     date under paragraph (1).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

         Subtitle E--Regional Conservation Partnership Program

     SEC. 2401. REGIONAL CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     is amended by inserting after subtitle H, as added by section 
     2301, the following new subtitle:

        ``Subtitle I--Regional Conservation Partnership Program

     ``SEC. 1271. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     regional conservation partnership program to implement 
     eligible activities on eligible land through--
       ``(1) partnership agreements with eligible partners; and
       ``(2) contracts with producers.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program are as 
     follows:
       ``(1) To use covered programs to accomplish purposes and 
     functions similar to those of the following programs, as in 
     effect on September 30, 2013:
       ``(A) The agricultural water enhancement program 
     established under section 1240I.
       ``(B) The Chesapeake Bay watershed program established 
     under section 1240Q.
       ``(C) The cooperative conservation partnership initiative 
     established under section 1243.
       ``(D) The Great Lakes basin program for soil erosion and 
     sediment control established under section 1240P.
       ``(2) To further the conservation, restoration, and 
     sustainable use of soil, water, wildlife, and related natural 
     resources on eligible land on a regional or watershed scale.
       ``(3) To encourage eligible partners to cooperate with 
     producers in--
       ``(A) meeting or avoiding the need for national, State, and 
     local natural resource regulatory requirements related to 
     production on eligible land; and
       ``(B) implementing projects that will result in the 
     carrying out of eligible activities that affect multiple 
     agricultural or nonindustrial private forest operations on a 
     local, regional, State, or multi-State basis.

     ``SEC. 1271A. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Covered program.--The term `covered program' means 
     the following:
       ``(A) The agricultural conservation easement program.
       ``(B) The environmental quality incentives program.

[[Page 9637]]

       ``(C) The conservation stewardship program.
       ``(2) Eligible activity.--The term `eligible activity' 
     means any of the following conservation activities:
       ``(A) Water quality or quantity conservation, restoration, 
     or enhancement projects relating to surface water and 
     groundwater resources, including--
       ``(i) the conversion of irrigated cropland to the 
     production of less water-intensive agricultural commodities 
     or dryland farming; or
       ``(ii) irrigation system improvement and irrigation 
     efficiency enhancement.
       ``(B) Drought mitigation.
       ``(C) Flood prevention.
       ``(D) Water retention.
       ``(E) Air quality improvement.
       ``(F) Habitat conservation, restoration, and enhancement.
       ``(G) Erosion control and sediment reduction.
       ``(H) Other related activities that the Secretary 
     determines will help achieve conservation benefits.
       ``(3) Eligible land.--The term `eligible land' means land 
     on which agricultural commodities, livestock, or forest-
     related products are produced, including--
       ``(A) cropland;
       ``(B) grassland;
       ``(C) rangeland;
       ``(D) pastureland;
       ``(E) nonindustrial private forest land; and
       ``(F) other land incidental to agricultural production 
     (including wetlands and riparian buffers) on which 
     significant natural resource issues could be addressed under 
     the program.
       ``(4) Eligible partner.--The term `eligible partner' means 
     any of the following:
       ``(A) An agricultural or silvicultural producer association 
     or other group of producers.
       ``(B) A State or unit of local government.
       ``(C) An Indian tribe.
       ``(D) A farmer cooperative.
       ``(E) A water district, irrigation district, rural water 
     district or association, or other organization with specific 
     water delivery authority to producers on agricultural land.
       ``(F) An institution of higher education.
       ``(G) An organization or entity with an established history 
     of working cooperatively with producers on agricultural land, 
     as determined by the Secretary, to address--
       ``(i) local conservation priorities related to agricultural 
     production, wildlife habitat development, or nonindustrial 
     private forest land management; or
       ``(ii) critical watershed-scale soil erosion, water 
     quality, sediment reduction, or other natural resource 
     issues.
       ``(5) Partnership agreement.--The term `partnership 
     agreement' means an agreement entered into under section 
     1271B between the Secretary and an eligible partner.
       ``(6) Program.--The term `program' means the regional 
     conservation partnership program established by this 
     subtitle.

     ``SEC. 1271B. REGIONAL CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPS.

       ``(a) Partnership Agreements Authorized.--The Secretary may 
     enter into a partnership agreement with an eligible partner 
     to implement a project that will assist producers with 
     installing and maintaining an eligible activity on eligible 
     land.
       ``(b) Length.--A partnership agreement shall be for a 
     period not to exceed 5 years, except that the Secretary may 
     extend the agreement one time for up to 12 months when an 
     extension is necessary to meet the objectives of the program.
       ``(c) Duties of Partners.--
       ``(1) In general.--Under a partnership agreement, the 
     eligible partner shall--
       ``(A) define the scope of a project, including--
       ``(i) the eligible activities to be implemented;
       ``(ii) the potential agricultural or nonindustrial private 
     forest land operations affected;
       ``(iii) the local, State, multi-State, or other geographic 
     area covered; and
       ``(iv) the planning, outreach, implementation, and 
     assessment to be conducted;
       ``(B) conduct outreach to producers for potential 
     participation in the project;
       ``(C) at the request of a producer, act on behalf of a 
     producer participating in the project in applying for 
     assistance under section 1271C;
       ``(D) leverage financial or technical assistance provided 
     by the Secretary with additional funds to help achieve the 
     project objectives;
       ``(E) conduct an assessment of the project's effects; and
       ``(F) at the conclusion of the project, report to the 
     Secretary on its results and funds leveraged.
       ``(2) Contribution.--An eligible partner shall provide a 
     significant portion of the overall costs of the scope of the 
     project that is the subject of the agreement entered into 
     under subsection (a), as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Applications.--
       ``(1) Competitive process.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     competitive process to select applications for partnership 
     agreements and may assess and rank applications with similar 
     conservation purposes as a group.
       ``(2) Criteria used.--In carrying out the process described 
     in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make public the 
     criteria used in evaluating applications.
       ``(3) Content.--An application to the Secretary shall 
     include a description of--
       ``(A) the scope of the project, as described in subsection 
     (c)(1)(A);
       ``(B) the plan for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on 
     progress made towards achieving the project's objectives;
       ``(C) the program resources requested for the project, 
     including the covered programs to be used and estimated 
     funding needed from the Secretary;
       ``(D) eligible partners collaborating to achieve project 
     objectives, including their roles, responsibilities, 
     capabilities, and financial contribution; and
       ``(E) any other elements the Secretary considers necessary 
     to adequately evaluate and competitively select applications 
     for funding under the program.
       ``(4) Priority to certain applications.--The Secretary may 
     give a higher priority to applications that--
       ``(A) assist producers in meeting or avoiding the need for 
     a natural resource regulatory requirement;
       ``(B) have a high percentage of eligible producers in the 
     area to be covered by the agreement;
       ``(C) significantly leverage non-Federal financial and 
     technical resources and coordinate with other local, State, 
     or national efforts;
       ``(D) deliver high percentages of applied conservation to 
     address conservation priorities or regional, State, or 
     national conservation initiatives;
       ``(E) provide innovation in conservation methods and 
     delivery, including outcome-based performance measures and 
     methods; or
       ``(F) meet other factors that are important for achieving 
     the purposes of the program, as determined by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 1271C. ASSISTANCE TO PRODUCERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into contracts 
     with producers to provide financial and technical assistance 
     to--
       ``(1) producers participating in a project with an eligible 
     partner, as described in section 1271B; or
       ``(2) producers that fit within the scope of a project 
     described in section 1271B or a critical conservation area 
     designated under section 1271F, but who are seeking to 
     implement an eligible activity on eligible land independent 
     of a partner.
       ``(b) Terms and Conditions.--
       ``(1) Consistency with program rules.--Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall ensure that the terms 
     and conditions of a contract under this section are 
     consistent with the applicable rules of the covered programs 
     to be used as part of the project, as described in the 
     application under section 1271B(d)(3)(C).
       ``(2) Adjustments.--Except with respect to statutory 
     program requirements governing appeals, payment limitations, 
     and conservation compliance, the Secretary may adjust the 
     discretionary program rules of a covered program--
       ``(A)   to provide a simplified application and evaluation 
     process; and
       ``(B) to better reflect unique local circumstances and 
     purposes if the Secretary determines such adjustments are 
     necessary to achieve the purposes of the program.
       ``(c) Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--In accordance with statutory 
     requirements of the covered programs involved, the Secretary 
     may make payments to a producer in an amount determined by 
     the Secretary to be necessary to achieve the purposes of the 
     program.
       ``(2) Payments to producers in states with water quantity 
     concerns.--The Secretary may provide payments to producers 
     participating in a project that addresses water quantity 
     concerns for a period of five years in an amount sufficient 
     to encourage conversion from irrigated farming to dryland 
     farming.
       ``(3) Waiver authority.--To assist in the implementation of 
     the program, the Secretary may waive the applicability of the 
     limitation in section 1001D(b)(2) of this Act for 
     participating producers if the Secretary determines that the 
     waiver is necessary to fulfill the objectives of the program.

     ``SEC. 1271D. FUNDING.

       ``(a) Availability of Funds.--The Secretary shall use 
     $100,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018 to carry out the 
     program.
       ``(b) Duration of Availability.--Funds made available under 
     subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.
       ``(c) Additional Funding and Acres.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the funds made available 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall reserve 6 percent 
     of the funds and acres made available for a covered program 
     for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018 in order to ensure 
     additional resources are available to carry out this program.
       ``(2) Unused funds and acres.--Any funds or acres reserved 
     under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year from a covered program 
     that are not obligated under this program by April 1 of that 
     fiscal year shall be returned for use under the covered 
     program.
       ``(d) Allocation of Funding.--Of the funds and acres made 
     available for the program under subsections (a) and (c), the 
     Secretary shall allocate--
       ``(1) 25 percent of the funds and acres to projects based 
     on a State competitive process administered by the State 
     Conservationist, with the advice of the State technical 
     committee established under subtitle G;
       ``(2) 50 percent of the funds and acres to projects based 
     on a national competitive process to be established by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(3) 25 percent of the funds and acres to projects for the 
     critical conservation areas designated under section 1271F.
       ``(e) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--None of the 
     funds made available under the program may be used to pay for 
     the administrative expenses of eligible partners.

[[Page 9638]]



     ``SEC. 1271E. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Disclosure.--In addition to the criteria used in 
     evaluating applications as described in section 1271B(d)(2), 
     the Secretary shall make publicly available information on 
     projects selected through the competitive process described 
     in section 1271B(d)(1).
       ``(b) Reporting.--Not later than December 31, 2014, and 
     every two years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate a report on the status of projects funded under the 
     program, including--
       ``(1) the number and types of eligible partners and 
     producers participating in the partnership agreements 
     selected;
       ``(2) the number of producers receiving assistance; and
       ``(3) total funding committed to projects, including from 
     Federal and non-Federal resources.

     ``SEC. 1271F. CRITICAL CONSERVATION AREAS.

       ``(a) In General.--In administering funds under section 
     1271D(d)(3), the Secretary shall select applications for 
     partnership agreements and producer contracts within critical 
     conservation areas designated under this section.
       ``(b) Critical Conservation Area Designations.--
       ``(1) Priority.--In designating critical conservation areas 
     under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to 
     geographical areas based on the degree to which the 
     geographical area--
       ``(A) includes multiple States with significant 
     agricultural production;
       ``(B) is covered by an existing regional, State, 
     binational, or multistate agreement or plan that has 
     established objectives, goals, and work plans and is adopted 
     by a Federal, State, or regional authority;
       ``(C) would benefit from water quality improvement, 
     including through reducing erosion, promoting sediment 
     control, and addressing nutrient management activities 
     affecting large bodies of water of regional, national, or 
     international significance;
       ``(D) would benefit from water quantity improvement, 
     including improvement relating to--
       ``(i) groundwater, surface water, aquifer, or other water 
     sources; or
       ``(ii) a need to promote water retention and flood 
     prevention; or
       ``(E) contains producers that need assistance in meeting or 
     avoiding the need for a natural resource regulatory 
     requirement that could have a negative economic impact on 
     agricultural operations within the area.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary may not designate more 
     than 8 geographical areas as critical conservation areas 
     under this section.
       ``(c) Administration.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall administer any partnership agreement or 
     producer contract under this section in a manner that is 
     consistent with the terms of the program.
       ``(2) Relationship to existing activity.--The Secretary 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that 
     eligible activities carried out in critical conservation 
     areas designated under this section complement and are 
     consistent with other Federal and State programs and water 
     quality and quantity strategies.
       ``(3) Additional authority.--For a critical conservation 
     area described in subsection (b)(1)(D), the Secretary may use 
     authorities under the Watershed Protection and Flood 
     Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), other than section 
     14 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1012), to carry out projects for 
     the purposes of this section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

                Subtitle F--Other Conservation Programs

     SEC. 2501. CONSERVATION OF PRIVATE GRAZING LAND.

       Section 1240M(e) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3839bb(e)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 2502. GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 1240O(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3839bb-2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
       ``(2) Availability of funds.--In addition to funds made 
     available under paragraph (1), of the funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall use $5,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 2503. VOLUNTARY PUBLIC ACCESS AND HABITAT INCENTIVE 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Funding.--Section 1240R(f)(1) of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-5(f)(1)) is amended by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``and $30,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.
       (b) Report on Program Effectiveness.--Not later than two 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a 
     report evaluating the effectiveness of the voluntary public 
     access program established by section 1240R of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-5), including--
       (1) identifying cooperating agencies;
       (2) identifying the number of land holdings and total acres 
     enrolled by each State and tribal government;
       (3) evaluating the extent of improved access on eligible 
     lands, improved wildlife habitat, and related economic 
     benefits; and
       (4) any other relevant information and data relating to the 
     program that would be helpful to such Committees.

     SEC. 2504. AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION EXPERIENCED SERVICES 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Funding.--Subsection (c) of section 1252 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3851) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out the ACES 
     program using funds made available to carry out each program 
     under this title.
       ``(2) Exclusion.--Funds made available to carry out the 
     conservation reserve program may not be used to carry out the 
     ACES program.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2505. SMALL WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Availability of Funds.--Section 14(h)(1) of the 
     Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1012(h)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (3) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(H) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2014, to remain 
     available until expended.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 14(h)(2)(E) 
     of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1012(h)(2)(E)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 2506. AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Uses.--Section 524(b)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating 
     subparagraphs (C) through (F) as subparagraphs (B) through 
     (E), respectively; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``or 
     resource conservation practices''; and
       (B) by striking clause (i) and redesignating clauses (ii) 
     through (iv) as clauses (i) through (iii), respectively.
       (b) Commodity Credit Corporation.--
       (1) Funding.--Section 524(b)(4)(B) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)(4)(B)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) Funding.--The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make 
     available to carry out this subsection not less than 
     $10,000,000 for each fiscal year.''.
       (2) Certain uses.--Section 524(b)(4)(C) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)(4)(C)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``50'' and inserting ``30''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(A), (B), and (C)'' and inserting ``(A) 
     and (B)''; and
       (B) in clause (iii), by striking ``40'' and inserting 
     ``60''.

                 Subtitle G--Funding and Administration

     SEC. 2601. FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1241 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Annual Funding.--For each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018, the Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, 
     and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry 
     out the following programs under this title (including the 
     provision of technical assistance):
       ``(1) The conservation reserve program under subchapter B 
     of chapter 1 of subtitle D, including, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, $25,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018 to carry out section 1235(f) to facilitate the 
     transfer of land subject to contracts from retired or 
     retiring owners and operators to beginning farmers or 
     ranchers and socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.
       ``(2) The agriculture conservation easement program under 
     subtitle H, using, to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(A) $425,000,000 in fiscal year 2014;
       ``(B) $450,000,000 in fiscal year 2015;
       ``(C) $475,000,000 in fiscal year 2016;
       ``(D) $500,000,000 in fiscal year 2017; and
       ``(E) $200,000,000 in fiscal year 2018.
       ``(3) The conservation security program under subchapter A 
     of chapter 2 of subtitle D, using such sums as are necessary 
     to administer contracts entered into before September 30, 
     2008.
       ``(4) The conservation stewardship program under subchapter 
     B of chapter 2 of subtitle D.
       ``(5) The environmental quality incentives program under 
     chapter 4 of subtitle D, using, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, $1,750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018.''.
       (b) Regional Equity; Guaranteed Availability of Funds.--
     Section 1241 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3841) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (d);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts made available by 
     subsection (a) shall be used by the Secretary to carry out 
     the programs specified in such subsection for fiscal years 
     2014 through 2018 and shall remain available until expended. 
     Amounts made available for the programs specified in such 
     subsection during a fiscal year

[[Page 9639]]

     through modifications, cancellations, terminations, and other 
     related administrative actions and not obligated in that 
     fiscal year shall remain available for obligation during 
     subsequent fiscal years, but shall reduce the amount of 
     additional funds made available in the subsequent fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to the amount remaining unobligated.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2602. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 1241 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841), as redesignated by 
     section 2601(b)(2) of this Act, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) Availability of funds.--Commodity Credit Corporation 
     funds made available for a fiscal year for each of the 
     programs specified in subsection (a)--
       ``(A) shall be available for the provision of technical 
     assistance for the programs for which funds are made 
     available as necessary to implement the programs effectively; 
     and
       ``(B) shall not be available for the provision of technical 
     assistance for conservation programs specified in subsection 
     (a) other than the program for which the funds were made 
     available.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2013, the 
     Secretary shall submit (and update as necessary in subsequent 
     years) to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a report--
       ``(A) detailing the amount of technical assistance funds 
     requested and apportioned in each program specified in 
     subsection (a) during the preceding fiscal year; and
       ``(B) any other data relating to this subsection that would 
     be helpful to such Committees.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2603. RESERVATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO 
                   CERTAIN FARMERS OR RANCHERS FOR CONSERVATION 
                   ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 1241 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Preference.--In providing assistance under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall give preference to a veteran farmer 
     or rancher (as defined in section 2501(e) of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     2279(e))) that qualifies under subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2604. ANNUAL REPORT ON PROGRAM ENROLLMENTS AND 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 1241 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``wetlands reserve 
     program'' and inserting ``agricultural conservation easement 
     program'';
       (2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), 
     respectively; and
       (3) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``agricultural water enhancement program'' 
     and inserting ``regional conservation partnership program''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``1240I(g)'' and inserting ``1271C(c)(3)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2605. REVIEW OF CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARDS.

       Section 1242(h)(1)(A) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3842(h)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008'' and inserting ``the 
     Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2606. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL 
                   CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1244 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3844) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Veteran farmers or ranchers (as defined in section 
     2501(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act 
     of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(e))).'';
       (2) in subsection (d), by inserting ``, H, and I'' before 
     the period at the end;
       (3) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``country'' and 
     inserting ``county''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``subsection (c)(2)(B) or 
     (f)(4)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii) or 
     (f)(2)''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(j) Improved Administrative Efficiency and 
     Effectiveness.--In administrating a conservation program 
     under this title, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable--
       ``(1) seek to reduce administrative burdens and costs to 
     producers by streamlining conservation planning and program 
     resources; and
       ``(2) take advantage of new technologies to enhance 
     efficiency and effectiveness.
       ``(k) Relation to Other Payments.--Any payment received by 
     an owner or operator under this title, including an easement 
     payment or rental payment, shall be in addition to, and not 
     affect, the total amount of payments that the owner or 
     operator is otherwise eligible to receive under any of the 
     following:
       ``(1) This Act.
       ``(2) The Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.).
       ``(3) The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management 
     Act of 2013.
       ``(4) Any law that succeeds a law specified in paragraph 
     (1), (2), or (3).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2607. STANDARDS FOR STATE TECHNICAL COMMITTEES.

       Section 1261(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3861(b)) is amended by striking ``Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008, the Secretary shall develop'' and 
     inserting ``The Secretary shall review and update as 
     necessary''.

     SEC. 2608. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

       Subtitle E of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1246. REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement programs under this 
     title, including such regulations as the Secretary determines 
     to be necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable application 
     of the limitations established under section 1244(f).
       ``(b) Rulemaking Procedure.--The promulgation of 
     regulations and administration of programs under this title--
       ``(1) shall be carried out without regard to--
       ``(A) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary effective 
     July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to notices of 
     proposed rulemaking and public participation in rulemaking; 
     and
       ``(B) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the Paperwork Reduction Act); and
       ``(2) shall be made pursuant to section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code, including by interim rules effective on 
     publication under the authority provided in subparagraph (B) 
     of subsection (b) of such section if the Secretary determines 
     such interim rules to be needed and final rules, with an 
     opportunity for notice and comment, no later than 21 months 
     after the date of the enactment of the Federal Agriculture 
     Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.''.

 Subtitle H--Repeal of Superseded Program Authorities and Transitional 
                    Provisions; Technical Amendments

     SEC. 2701. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 1230 of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3830) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3830 et seq.) is amended to read as follows: 
     ``CONSERVATION RESERVE''.

     SEC. 2702. EMERGENCY FORESTRY CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 1231A of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3831a) is repealed.
       (b) Transitional Provisions.--
       (1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by 
     this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any 
     contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     section 1231A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3831a) before October 1, 2013, or any payments required to be 
     made in connection with the contract.
       (2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to 
     carry out the conservation reserve program under subchapter B 
     of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.) to continue to carry out 
     contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the provisions 
     of law and regulation applicable to such contracts as they 
     existed on September 30, 2013.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2703. WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837 et 
     seq.) is repealed.
       (b) Transitional Provisions.--
       (1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by 
     this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any 
     contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837 et seq.) before 
     October 1, 2013, or any payments required to be made in 
     connection with the contract.
       (2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to 
     carry out the agricultural conservation easement program 
     under subtitle H of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
     1985, as added by section 2301 of this Act, to continue to 
     carry out contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the 
     provisions of law and regulation applicable to such contracts 
     as they existed on September 30, 2013.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2704. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM AND FARM VIABILITY 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Subchapter C of chapter 2 of subtitle D of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838h 
     et seq.) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of chapter 2 of 
     subtitle D of title XII of the Food

[[Page 9640]]

     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.) is amended by 
     striking ``AND FARMLAND PROTECTION''.
       (c) Transitional Provisions.--
       (1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendments made by 
     this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any 
     contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     subchapter C of chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838h et seq.) before 
     October 1, 2013, or any payments required to be made in 
     connection with the contract.
       (2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to 
     carry out the agricultural conservation easement program 
     under subtitle H of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
     1985, as added by section 2301 of this Act, to continue to 
     carry out contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the 
     provisions of law and regulation applicable to such contracts 
     as they existed on September 30, 2013.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2705. GRASSLAND RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Subchapter D of chapter 2 of subtitle D of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838n 
     et seq.) is repealed.
       (b) Transitional Provisions.--
       (1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by 
     this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any 
     contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     subchapter D of chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838n et seq.) before 
     October 1, 2013, or any payments required to be made in 
     connection with the contract.
       (2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to 
     carry out the agricultural conservation easement program 
     under subtitle H of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
     1985, as added by section 2301 of this Act, to continue to 
     carry out contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the 
     provisions of law and regulation applicable to such contracts 
     as they existed on September 30, 2013.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2706. AGRICULTURAL WATER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 1240I of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-9) is repealed.
       (b) Transitional Provisions.--
       (1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by 
     this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any 
     contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     section 1240I of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa-9) before October 1, 2013, or any payments required to 
     be made in connection with the contract.
       (2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to 
     carry out the regional conservation partnership program under 
     subtitle I of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as 
     added by section 2401 of this Act, to continue to carry out 
     contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the provisions 
     of law and regulation applicable to such contracts as they 
     existed on September 30, 2013.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2707. WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 1240N of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-1) is repealed.
       (b) Transitional Provisions.--
       (1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by 
     this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any 
     contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     section 1240N of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839bb-1) before October 1, 2013, or any payments required to 
     be made in connection with the contract.
       (2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to 
     carry out the environmental quality incentives program under 
     chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) to continue to carry out 
     contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the provisions 
     of law and regulation applicable to such contracts as they 
     existed on September 30, 2013.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2708. GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 1240P of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-3) is repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2709. CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 1240Q of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-4) is repealed.
       (b) Transitional Provisions.--
       (1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by 
     this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any 
     contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     section 1240Q of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839bb-4) before October 1, 2013, or any payments required to 
     be made in connection with the contract.
       (2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to 
     carry out the regional conservation partnership program under 
     subtitle I of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as 
     added by section 2401 of this Act, to continue to carry out 
     contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the provisions 
     of law and regulation applicable to such contracts as they 
     existed on September 30, 2013.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2710. COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 1243 of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3843) is repealed.
       (b) Transitional Provisions.--
       (1) Effect on existing contracts.--The amendment made by 
     this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any 
     contract entered into by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     section 1243 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3843) before October 1, 2013, or any payments required to be 
     made in connection with the contract.
       (2) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds made available to 
     carry out the regional conservation partnership program under 
     subtitle I of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as 
     added by section 2401 of this Act, to continue to carry out 
     contracts referred to in paragraph (1) using the provisions 
     of law and regulation applicable to such contracts as they 
     existed on September 30, 2013.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 2711. ENVIRONMENTAL EASEMENT PROGRAM.

       Chapter 3 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839 et seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. 2712. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 1201(a) of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801(a)) is amended in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``E'' and inserting 
     ``I''.
       (b) Program Ineligibility.--Section 1211(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``predominate'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``predominant''.
       (c) Specialty Crop Producers.--Section 1242(i) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3842(i)) is amended in the 
     header by striking ``Speciality'' and inserting 
     ``Specialty''.

                            TITLE III--TRADE

                     Subtitle A--Food for Peace Act

     SEC. 3001. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

       Section 201 of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1721) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``(to be implemented by the Administrator)'' after ``under 
     this title''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (7) and the second sentence and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) build resilience to mitigate and prevent food crises 
     and reduce the future need for emergency aid.''.

     SEC. 3002. SUPPORT FOR ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH WHICH ASSISTANCE 
                   IS PROVIDED.

       Section 202(e)(1) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1722(e)(1)) is amended by striking ``13 percent'' and 
     inserting ``11 percent''.

     SEC. 3003. FOOD AID QUALITY.

       Section 202(h) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1722(h)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``The Administrator shall use funds made 
     available for fiscal year 2009'' and inserting ``In 
     consultation with the Secretary, the Administrator shall use 
     funds made available for fiscal year 2013''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``to establish a mechanism'' after ``this 
     title'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(C) to evaluate, as necessary, the use of current and new 
     agricultural commodities and products thereof in different 
     program settings and for particular recipient groups, 
     including the testing of prototypes;
       ``(D) to establish and implement appropriate protocols for 
     quality assurance of food products procured by the Secretary 
     for food aid programs; and
       ``(E) to periodically update program guidelines on the 
     recommended use of agricultural commodities and food products 
     in food aid programs to reflect findings from the 
     implementation of this subsection and other relevant 
     information.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``The Administrator'' and 
     inserting ``In consultation with the Secretary, the 
     Administrator''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 207(f)'' and 
     all that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     the following: ``section 207(f)--
       ``(A) for fiscal years 2009 through 2013, not more than 
     $4,500,000 may be used to carry out this subsection; and
       ``(B) for fiscal years 2014 through 2018, not more than 
     $1,000,000 may be used to carry out this subsection.''.

     SEC. 3004. MINIMUM LEVELS OF ASSISTANCE.

       Section 204(a) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1724(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 3005. FOOD AID CONSULTATIVE GROUP.

       (a) Membership.--Section 205(b) of the Food for Peace Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1725(b)) is amended--

[[Page 9641]]

       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) representatives from the United States agricultural 
     processing sector involved in providing agricultural 
     commodities for programs under this Act; and''.
       (b) Consultation.--Section 205(d) of the Food for Peace Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1725(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Consultation in advance of issuance of implementation 
     regulations, handbooks, and guidelines.--Not later than 45 
     days before a proposed regulation, handbook, or guideline 
     implementing this title, or a proposed significant revision 
     to a regulation, handbook, or guideline implementing this 
     title, becomes final, the Administrator shall provide the 
     proposal to the Group for review and comment.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Consultation regarding food aid quality efforts.--The 
     Administrator shall seek input from and consult with the 
     Group on the implementation of section 202(h).''.
       (c) Reauthorization.--Section 205(f) of the Food for Peace 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1725(f)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 3006. OVERSIGHT, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION.

       (a) Regulations and Guidance.--Section 207(c) of the Food 
     for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1726a(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``and 
     Guidance'' after ``Regulations'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``Not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk 
     Management Act of 2013, the Administrator shall issue all 
     regulations and revisions to agency guidance necessary to 
     implement the amendments made to this title by such Act.''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and guidance'' after 
     ``develop regulations''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 207(f) of the Food for Peace Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1726a(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
       (B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (E) 
     and inserting the period; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (F);
       (2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (4) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``2012'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting ``2013, 
     and up to $10,000,000 of such funds for each of fiscal years 
     2014 through 2018.''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.
       (c) Implementation Reports.--Not later than 270 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 
     the Agency for International Development shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate and the Committees on Agriculture and Foreign Affairs 
     of the House of Representatives a report describing--
       (1) the implementation of section 207(c) of the Food for 
     Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1726a(c));
       (2) the surveys, studies, monitoring, reporting, and audit 
     requirements for programs conducted under title II of such 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq.) by an eligible organization that 
     is a nongovernmental organization (as such term is defined in 
     section 402 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1732)); and
       (3) the surveys, studies, monitoring, reporting, and audit 
     requirements for such programs by an eligible organization 
     that is an intergovernmental organization, such as the World 
     Food Program or other multilateral organization.

     SEC. 3007. ASSISTANCE FOR STOCKPILING AND RAPID 
                   TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY, AND DISTRIBUTION OF 
                   SHELF-STABLE PREPACKAGED FOODS.

       Section 208(f) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1726b(f)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 3008. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Impact on Local Farmers and Economy.--Section 403(b) of 
     the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1733(b)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The Secretary 
     or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall seek information, 
     as part of the regular proposal and submission process, from 
     implementing agencies on the potential benefits to the local 
     economy of sales of agricultural commodities within the 
     recipient country.''.
       (b) Prevention of Price Disruptions.--Section 403(e) of the 
     Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1733(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``reasonable market 
     price'' and inserting ``fair market value''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Coordination on assessments.--The Secretary and the 
     Administrator shall coordinate in assessments to carry out 
     paragraph (1) and in the development of approaches to be used 
     by implementing agencies for determining the fair market 
     value described in paragraph (2).''.
       (c) Report on Use of Funds.--Section 403 of the Food for 
     Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1733) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(m) Report on Use of Funds.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of the Federal Agriculture 
     Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, and annually 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a 
     report--
       ``(1) specifying the amount of funds (including funds for 
     administrative costs, indirect cost recovery, and internal 
     transportation, storage and handling, and associated 
     distribution costs) provided to each eligible organization 
     that received assistance under this Act in the previous 
     fiscal year; and
       ``(2) describing how those funds were used by the eligible 
     organization.''.

     SEC. 3009. PREPOSITIONING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.

       Section 407(c)(4) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1736a(c)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''; and
       (B) by striking ``for each such fiscal year not more than 
     $10,000,000 of such funds'' and inserting ``for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2013 not more than $10,000,000 of 
     such funds and for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018 not 
     more than $15,000,000 of such funds''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Additional prepositioning sites.--The Administrator 
     may establish additional sites for prepositioning in foreign 
     countries or change the location of current sites for 
     prepositioning in foreign countries after conducting, and 
     based on the results of, assessments of need, the 
     availability of appropriate technology for long-term storage, 
     feasibility, and cost.''.

     SEC. 3010. ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING FOOD AID PROGRAMS AND 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       Section 407(f)(1) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1736a(f)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``agricultural 
     trade'' and inserting ``food aid'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting before the 
     semicolon at the end the following: ``and the total number of 
     beneficiaries of the project and the activities carried out 
     through such project''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (B)(iii)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by inserting ``, 
     and the total number of beneficiaries in,'' after 
     ``commodities made available to'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (I);
       (C) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subclause (II); and
       (D) by inserting after subclause (II) the following new 
     subclause:

       ``(III) the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 
     and Child Nutrition Program established by section 3107 of 
     the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 
     1736o-1);''.

     SEC. 3011. DEADLINE FOR AGREEMENTS TO FINANCE SALES OR TO 
                   PROVIDE OTHER ASSISTANCE.

       Section 408 of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1736b) is 
     amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 3012. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 412(a)(1) of 
     the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``for fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, $2,500,000,000'' and inserting ``$2,500,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 and $2,000,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.
       (b) Minimum Level of Nonemergency Food Assistance.--
     Paragraph (1) of section 412(e) of the Food for Peace Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1736f(e)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Funds and commodities.--For each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018, of the amounts made available to carry out 
     emergency and nonemergency food assistance programs under 
     title II, not less than $400,000,000 shall be expended for 
     nonemergency food assistance programs under such title.''.

     SEC. 3013. MICRONUTRIENT FORTIFICATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Elimination of Obsolete Reference to Study.--Section 
     415(a)(2)(B) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1736g-
     2(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``, using 
     recommendations'' and all that follows through ``quality 
     enhancements''.
       (b) Extension.--Section 415(c) of the Food for Peace Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1736g-2(c)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 3014. JOHN OGONOWSKI AND DOUG BEREUTER FARMER-TO-FARMER 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 501 of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1737) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013, and not less 
     than the greater of $15,000,000 or 0.5 percent of the amounts 
     made available for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018,''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

               Subtitle B--Agricultural Trade Act of 1978

     SEC. 3101. FUNDING FOR EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

       Section 211(b) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 5641(b)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 3102. FUNDING FOR MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.

       Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 
     (7 U.S.C. 5641(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 3103. FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM.

       Section 703(a) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 5723(a)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

[[Page 9642]]



               Subtitle C--Other Agricultural Trade Laws

     SEC. 3201. FOOD FOR PROGRESS ACT OF 1985.

       (a) Extension.--The Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1736o) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018'';
       (2) in subsection (g), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018'';
       (3) in subsection (k), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''; and
       (4) in subsection (l)(1), by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.
       (b) Repeal of Completed Project.--Subsection (f) of the 
     Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (6).

     SEC. 3202. BILL EMERSON HUMANITARIAN TRUST.

       Section 302 of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1736f-1) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2)(B)(i), by striking ``2012'' both 
     places it appears and inserting ``2018''; and
       (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``2012'' both places it 
     appears and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 3203. PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS TO EMERGING 
                   MARKETS.

       (a) Direct Credits or Export Credit Guarantees.--Section 
     1542(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act 
     of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 5622 note) is amended 
     by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
       (b) Development of Agricultural Systems.--Section 
     1542(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 5622 note) is 
     amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 3204. MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND 
                   CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM.

       (a) Reauthorization.--Section 3107(l)(2) of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-
     1(l)(2)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Section 3107(d) of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-
     1(d)) is amended by striking ``to'' in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1).

     SEC. 3205. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIALTY CROPS.

       (a) Purpose.--Section 3205(b) of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 5680(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``related barriers to trade'' and inserting 
     ``technical barriers to trade''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 3205(e)(2) of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 5680(e)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (2) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) $9,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 3206. GLOBAL CROP DIVERSITY TRUST.

       Section 3202(c) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 22 U.S.C. 2220a note) is amended 
     by striking ``section'' and all that follows through the 
     period and inserting the following: ``section--
       ``(1) $60,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2013; and
       ``(2) $50,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018.''.

     SEC. 3207. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FOREIGN 
                   AGRICULTURAL SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Department of 
     Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 is amended by 
     inserting after section 225 (7 U.S.C. 6931) the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 225A. UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR FOREIGN 
                   AGRICULTURAL SERVICES.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish in the Department the position of Under Secretary 
     of Agriculture for Foreign Agricultural Services.
       ``(b) Confirmation Required.--If the Secretary establishes 
     the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Foreign 
     Agricultural Services under subsection (a), the Under 
     Secretary shall be appointed by the President, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate.
       ``(c) Functions of Under Secretary.--
       ``(1) Principal functions.--Upon establishment, the 
     Secretary shall delegate to the Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Foreign Agricultural Services those functions 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department that are related to 
     foreign agricultural services.
       ``(2) Additional functions.--The Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Foreign Agricultural Services shall perform 
     such other functions as may be required by law or prescribed 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Succession.--Any official who is serving as Under 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
     Services on the date of the enactment of this section and who 
     was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, shall not be required to be 
     reappointed under subsection (b) or section 225(b) to the 
     successor position authorized under subsection (a) or section 
     225(a) if the Secretary establishes the position, and the 
     official occupies the new position, with 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this section (or such later date set 
     by the Secretary if litigation delays rapid succession).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 225 of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6931) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm 
     and Foreign Agricultural Services'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm 
     Services''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``and foreign 
     agricultural''.
       (c) Permanent Authority.--Section 296(b) of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7014(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6)(C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) the authority of the Secretary to establish in the 
     Department the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for 
     Foreign Agricultural Services in accordance with section 
     225A;''.

                          TITLE IV--NUTRITION

         Subtitle A--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

     SEC. 4001. PREVENTING PAYMENT OF CASH TO RECIPIENTS OF 
                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE BENEFITS FOR 
                   THE RETURN OF EMPTY BOTTLES AND CANS USED TO 
                   CONTAIN FOOD PURCHASED WITH BENEFITS PROVIDED 
                   UNDER THE PROGRAM.

       Section 3(k)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2012(k)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and hot foods'' and inserting ``hot 
     foods''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``and any deposit 
     fee in excess of amount of the State fee reimbursement (if 
     any) required to purchase any food or food product contained 
     in a returnable bottle or can, regardless of whether such fee 
     is included in the shelf price posted for such food or food 
     product,''.

     SEC. 4002. RETAILERS.

       (a) Definition of Retail Food Store.--Section 3(p)(1)(A) of 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(p)(1)(A)) 
     is amended by striking ``at least 2'' and inserting ``at 
     least 3''.
       (b) Alternative Benefit Delivery.--Section 7(f) of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Imposition of costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Secretary shall require participating retailers 
     (including restaurants participating in a State option 
     restaurant program intended to serve the elderly, disabled, 
     and homeless) to pay 100 percent of the costs of acquiring, 
     and arrange for the implementation of, electronic benefit 
     transfer point-of-sale equipment and supplies.
       ``(B) Exemptions.--The Secretary may exempt from 
     subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) farmers' markets and other direct-to-consumer 
     markets, military commissaries, nonprofit food buying 
     cooperatives, and establishments, organizations, programs, or 
     group living arrangements described in paragraphs (5), (7), 
     and (8) of section 3(k); and
       ``(ii) establishments described in paragraphs (3), (4), and 
     (9) of section 3(k), other than restaurants participating in 
     a State option restaurant program.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Termination of manual vouchers.--
       ``(A) In general.--Effective beginning on the effective 
     date of this paragraph, except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B), no State shall issue manual vouchers to a household that 
     receives supplemental nutrition assistance under this Act or 
     allow retailers to accept manual vouchers as payment, unless 
     the Secretary determines that the manual vouchers are 
     necessary, such as in the event of an electronic benefit 
     transfer system failure or a disaster situation.
       ``(B) Exemptions.--The Secretary may exempt categories of 
     retailers or individual retailers from subparagraph (A) based 
     on criteria established by the Secretary.
       ``(5) Unique identification number required.--In an effort 
     to enhance the antifraud protections of the program, the 
     Secretary shall require all parties providing electronic 
     benefit transfer services to provide for and maintain a 
     unique business identification and a unique terminal 
     identification number information through the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program electronic benefit transfer 
     transaction routing system. In developing the regulations 
     implementing this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider 
     existing commercial practices for other point-of-sale debit 
     transactions. The Secretary shall issue proposed regulations 
     implementing this paragraph not earlier than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
       (c) Electronic Benefit Transfers.--Section 7(h)(3)(B) of 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(3)(B)) 
     is amended by striking ``is operational--'' and all that 
     follows through ``(ii) in the case of other participating 
     stores,'' and inserting ``is operational''.
       (d) Approval of Retail Food Stores and Wholesale Food 
     Concerns.--Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2018) is amended--
       (1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a)(1) by striking ``; 
     and (C)'' and inserting ``; (C) whether the applicant is 
     located in an area with significantly limited access to food; 
     and (D)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) EBT Service Requirement.--An approved retail food 
     store shall provide adequate EBT service as described in 
     section 7(h)(3)(B).''.

     SEC. 4003. ENHANCING SERVICES TO ELDERLY AND DISABLED 
                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
                   PARTICIPANTS.

       (a) Enhancing Services to Elderly and Disabled Program 
     Participants.--Section 3(p) of

[[Page 9643]]

     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(p)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end,
       (2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and'', and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) a governmental or private nonprofit food purchasing 
     and delivery service that--
       ``(A) purchases food for, and delivers such food to, 
     individuals who are--
       ``(i) unable to shop for food; and
       ``(ii)(I) not less than 60 years of age; or
       ``(II) physically or mentally handicapped or otherwise 
     disabled;
       ``(B) clearly notifies the participating household at the 
     time such household places a food order--
       ``(i) of any delivery fee associated with the food purchase 
     and delivery provided to such household by such service; and
       ``(ii) that a delivery fee cannot be paid with benefits 
     provided under supplemental nutrition assistance program; and
       ``(C) sells food purchased for such household at the price 
     paid by such service for such food and without any additional 
     cost markup.''.
       (b) Implementation.--
       (1) Issuance of rules.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     issue regulations that--
       (A) establish criteria to identify a food purchasing and 
     delivery service referred to in section 3(p)(5) of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 as amended by this Act, and
       (B) establish procedures to ensure that such service--
       (i) does not charge more for a food item than the price 
     paid by the such service for such food item,
       (ii) offers food delivery service at no or low cost to 
     households under such Act,
       (iii) ensures that benefits provided under the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program are used only to purchase food, 
     as defined in section 3 of such Act,
       (iv) limits the purchase of food, and the delivery of such 
     food, to households eligible to receive services described in 
     section 3(p)(5) of such Act as so amended,
       (v) has established adequate safeguards against fraudulent 
     activities, including unauthorized use of electronic benefit 
     cards issued under such Act, and
       (vi) such other requirements as the Secretary deems to be 
     appropriate.
       (2) Limitation.--Before the issuance of rules under 
     paragraph (1) , the Secretary of Agriculture may not approve 
     more than 20 food purchasing and delivery services referred 
     to in section 3(p)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     as amended by this Act, to participate as retail food stores 
     under the supplemental nutrition assistance program.

     SEC. 4004. FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

       Section 4(b)(6)(F) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2013(b)(6)(F)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 4005. UPDATING PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014) is amended--
       (1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a) by striking 
     ``households in which each member receives benefits'' and 
     inserting ``households in which each member receives cash 
     assistance'', and
       (2) in subsection (j) by striking ``or who receives 
     benefits under a State program'' and inserting ``or who 
     receives cash assistance under a State program''.

     SEC. 4006. EXCLUSION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM EXCESS MEDICAL 
                   EXPENSE DEDUCTION.

       Section 5(e)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2014(e)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) Exclusion of medical marijuana.--The Secretary shall 
     promulgate rules to ensure that medical marijuana is not 
     treated as a medical expense for purposes of this 
     paragraph.''.

     SEC. 4007. STANDARD UTILITY ALLOWANCES BASED ON THE RECEIPT 
                   OF ENERGY ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS.

       (a) Standard Utility Allowances in the Supplemental 
     Nutrition Assistance Program.--Section 5(e)(6)(C) of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i) by inserting ``, subject to clause (iv)'' 
     after ``Secretary''; and
       (2) by striking subclause (I) of clause (iv) and inserting 
     the following:

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), if a State 
     agency elects to use a standard utility allowance that 
     reflects heating and cooling costs, the standard utility 
     allowance shall be made available to households that received 
     a payment, or on behalf of which a payment was made, under 
     the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 
     8621 et seq.) or other similar energy assistance program, if 
     in the current month or in the immediately preceding 12 
     months, the household either received such payment, or such 
     payment was made on behalf of the household, that was greater 
     than $20 annually, as determined by the Secretary.''; and

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2605(f)(2)(A) of the 
     Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 
     8624(f)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``, except that, for purposes of the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program established under 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), 
     such payments or allowances were greater than $20 annually, 
     consistent with section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of that Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I)), as determined by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture''.
       (c) Effective Date and Implementation.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this 
     section and the amendments made by this section shall take 
     effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply with respect to 
     certification periods that begin after such date.
       (2) State option to delay implementation for current 
     recipients.--A State may, at the option of the State, 
     implement a policy that eliminates or reduces the effect of 
     the amendments made by this section on households that 
     received a standard utility allowance as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, for not more than a 180-day period 
     that begins on the date on which such amendments would 
     otherwise apply to the respective household.

     SEC. 4008. ELIGIBILITY DISQUALIFICATIONS.

       Section 6(e)(3)(B) of Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2015(e)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``section;'' and 
     inserting the following: ``section, subject to the condition 
     that the course or program of study--''
       ``(i) is part of a program of career and technical 
     education (as defined in section 3 of the Carl D. Perkins 
     Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302)) 
     that may be completed in not more than 4 years at an 
     institution of higher education (as defined in section 102 of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)); or
       ``(ii) is limited to remedial courses, basic adult 
     education, literacy, or English as a second language;''.

     SEC. 4009. ENDING SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
                   BENEFITS FOR LOTTERY OR GAMBLING WINNERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(r) Ineligibility for Benefits Due to Receipt of 
     Substantial Lottery or Gambling Winnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any household in which a member receives 
     substantial lottery or gambling winnings, as determined by 
     the Secretary, shall lose eligibility for benefits 
     immediately upon receipt of the winnings.
       ``(2) Duration of ineligibility.--A household described in 
     paragraph (1) shall remain ineligible for participation until 
     the household meets the allowable financial resources and 
     income eligibility requirements under subsections (c), (d), 
     (e), (f), (g), (i), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of section 5.
       ``(3) Agreements.--As determined by the Secretary, each 
     State agency, to the maximum extent practicable, shall 
     establish agreements with entities responsible for the 
     regulation or sponsorship of gaming in the State to determine 
     whether individuals participating in the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program have received substantial 
     lottery or gambling winnings.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 5(a) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(a)) is amended in the 2d 
     sentence by striking ``sections 6(b), 6(d)(2), and 6(g)'' and 
     inserting ``subsections (b), (d)(2), (g), and (r) of section 
     6''.

     SEC. 4010. IMPROVING SECURITY OF FOOD ASSISTANCE.

       Section 7(h)(8) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2016(h)(8)) is amended--
       (1) in the heading by striking ``card fee'' and inserting 
     ``of cards'';
       (2) by striking ``A State'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Fees.--A State''; and
       (3) by adding after subparagraph (A) (as so designated by 
     paragraph (2)) the following:
       ``(B) Purposeful loss of cards.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to terms and conditions 
     established by the Secretary in accordance with clause (ii), 
     if a household makes excessive requests for replacement of 
     the electronic benefit transfer card of the household, the 
     Secretary may require a State agency to decline to issue a 
     replacement card to the household unless the household, upon 
     request of the State agency, provides an explanation for the 
     loss of the card.
       ``(ii) Requirements.--The terms and conditions established 
     by the Secretary shall provide that--

       ``(I) the household be given the opportunity to provide the 
     requested explanation and meet the requirements under this 
     paragraph promptly;
       ``(II) after an excessive number of lost cards, the head of 
     the household shall be required to review program rights and 
     responsibilities with State agency personnel authorized to 
     make determinations under section 5(a); and
       ``(III) any action taken, including actions required under 
     section 6(b)(2), other than the withholding of the electronic 
     benefit transfer card until an explanation described in 
     subclause (I) is provided, shall be consistent with the due 
     process protections under section 6(b) or 11(e)(10), as 
     appropriate.

       ``(C) Protecting vulnerable persons.--In implementing this 
     paragraph, a State agency shall act to protect homeless 
     persons, persons with disabilities, victims of crimes, and 
     other vulnerable persons who lose electronic benefit transfer 
     cards but are not intentionally committing fraud.
       ``(D) Effect on eligibility.--While a State may decline to 
     issue an electronic benefits transfer card until a household 
     satisfies the requirements under this paragraph, nothing in 
     this paragraph shall be considered a denial of, or limitation 
     on, the eligibility for benefits under section 5.''.

     SEC. 4011. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ON ACCEPTANCE OF BENEFITS 
                   OF MOBILE TRANSACTIONS.

       Section 7(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2016(h)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

[[Page 9644]]

       ``(14) Demonstration projects on acceptance of benefits of 
     mobile transactions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pilot the use of 
     mobile technologies determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate to test the feasibility and implications for 
     program integrity, by allowing retail food stores, farmers 
     markets, and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing 
     outlets to accept benefits from recipients of supplemental 
     nutrition assistance through mobile transactions.
       ``(B) Demonstration projects.--To be eligible to 
     participate in a demonstration project under subsection (a), 
     a retail food store, farmers market, or other direct 
     producer-to-consumer marketing outlet shall submit to the 
     Secretary for approval a plan that includes--
       ``(i) a description of the technology;
       ``(ii) the manner by which the retail food store, farmers 
     market or other direct producer-to-consumer marketing outlet 
     will provide proof of the transaction to households;
       ``(iii) the provision of data to the Secretary, consistent 
     with requirements established by the Secretary, in a manner 
     that allows the Secretary to evaluate the impact of the 
     demonstration on participant access, ease of use, and program 
     integrity; and
       ``(iv) such other criteria as the Secretary may require.
       ``(C) Date of completion.--The demonstration projects under 
     this paragraph shall be completed and final reports submitted 
     to the Secretary by not later than July 1, 2016.
       ``(D) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate that includes a finding, based on 
     the data provided under subparagraph (C) whether or not 
     implementation in all States is in the best interest of the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program.''.

     SEC. 4012. USE OF BENEFITS FOR PURCHASE OF COMMUNITY-
                   SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE SHARE.

       Section 10 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2019) is amended in the 1st sentence by inserting 
     ``agricultural producers who market agricultural products 
     directly to consumers shall be authorized to redeem benefits 
     for the initial cost of the purchase of a community-supported 
     agriculture share,'' after ``food so purchased,''.

     SEC. 4013. RESTAURANT MEALS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 11(e) of the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (22) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (23)(C) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) if the State elects to carry out a program to 
     contract with private establishments to offer meals at 
     concessional prices, as described in paragraphs (3), (4), and 
     (9) of section 3(k)--
       ``(A) the plans of the State agency for operating the 
     program, including--
       ``(i) documentation of a need that eligible homeless, 
     elderly, and disabled clients are underserved in a particular 
     geographic area;
       ``(ii) the manner by which the State agency will limit 
     participation to only those private establishments that the 
     State determines necessary to meet the need identified in 
     clause (i); and
       ``(iii) any other conditions the Secretary may prescribe, 
     such as the level of security necessary to ensure that only 
     eligible recipients participate in the program; and
       ``(B) a report by the State agency to the Secretary 
     annually, the schedule of which shall be established by the 
     Secretary, that includes--
       ``(i) the number of households and individual recipients 
     authorized to participate in the program, including any 
     information on whether the individual recipient is elderly, 
     disabled, or homeless; and
       ``(ii) an assessment of whether the program is meeting an 
     established need, as documented under subparagraph (A)(i).''.
       (b) Approval of Retail Food Stores and Wholesale Food 
     Concerns.--Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2018) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Private Establishments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), no private 
     establishment that contracts with a State agency to offer 
     meals at concessional prices as described in paragraphs (3), 
     (4), and (9) of section 3(k) may be authorized to accept and 
     redeem benefits unless the Secretary determines that the 
     participation of the private establishment is required to 
     meet a documented need in accordance with section 11(e)(24).
       ``(2) Existing contracts.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, on the day before the effective date 
     of this subsection, a State has entered into a contract with 
     a private establishment described in paragraph (1) and the 
     Secretary has not determined that the participation of the 
     private establishment is necessary to meet a documented need 
     in accordance with section 11(e)(24), the Secretary shall 
     allow the operation of the private establishment to continue 
     without that determination of need for a period not to exceed 
     180 days from the date on which the Secretary establishes 
     determination criteria, by regulation, under section 
     11(e)(24).
       ``(B) Justification.--If the Secretary determines to 
     terminate a contract with a private establishment that is in 
     effect on the effective date of this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall provide justification to the State in which 
     the private establishment is located for that termination.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after 
     September 30, 2014, and 90 days after the last day of each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate on the effectiveness of a program under this 
     subsection using any information received from States under 
     section 11(e)(24) as well as any other information the 
     Secretary may have relating to the manner in which benefits 
     are used.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3(k) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(k)) is amended by 
     inserting ``subject to section 9(h)'' after ``concessional 
     prices'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 4014. MANDATING STATE IMMIGRATION VERIFICATION.

       Section 11(p) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2020(p)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(p) State Verification Option.--In carrying out the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program, a State agency 
     shall be required to use an income and eligibility, or an 
     immigration status, verification system established under 
     section 1137 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7), 
     in accordance with standards set by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 4015. DATA EXCHANGE STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED 
                   INTEROPERABILITY.

       (a) Data Exchange Standardization.--Section 11 of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Data Exchange Standardization for Improved 
     Interoperability.--
       ``(1) Data exchange standards.--
       ``(A) Designation.--The Secretary, in consultation with an 
     interagency work group which shall be established by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, and considering State 
     perspectives, shall, by rule, designate a data exchange 
     standard for any category of information required to be 
     reported under this Act.
       ``(B) Data exchange standards must be nonproprietary and 
     interoperable.--The data exchange standard designated under 
     subparagraph (A) shall, to the extent practicable, be 
     nonproprietary and interoperable.
       ``(C) Other requirements.--In designating data exchange 
     standards under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the 
     extent practicable, incorporate--
       ``(i) interoperable standards developed and maintained by 
     an international voluntary consensus standards body, as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, such as the 
     International Organization for Standardization;
       ``(ii) interoperable standards developed and maintained by 
     intergovernmental partnerships, such as the National 
     Information Exchange Model; and
       ``(iii) interoperable standards developed and maintained by 
     Federal entities with authority over contracting and 
     financial assistance, such as the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulatory Council.
       ``(2) Data exchange standards for reporting.--
       ``(A) Designation.--The Secretary, in consultation with an 
     interagency work group established by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, and considering State perspectives, 
     shall, by rule, designate data exchange standards to govern 
     the data reporting required under this part.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The data exchange standards required 
     by subparagraph (A) shall, to the extent practicable--
       ``(i) incorporate a widely-accepted, nonproprietary, 
     searchable, computer-readable format;
       ``(ii) be consistent with and implement applicable 
     accounting principles; and
       ``(iii) be capable of being continually upgraded as 
     necessary.
       ``(C) Incorporation of nonproprietary standards.--In 
     designating reporting standards under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate 
     existing nonproprietary standards, such as the eXtensible 
     Markup Language.''.
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Data exchange standards.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall issue a proposed rule under section 11(v)(1) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 within 12 months after the 
     effective date of this section, and shall issue a final rule 
     under such section after public comment, within 24 months 
     after such effective date.
       (2) Data reporting standards.--The reporting standards 
     required under section 11(v)(2) of such Act shall become 
     effective with respect to reports required in the first 
     reporting period, after the effective date of the final rule 
     referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection, for which 
     the authority for data collection and reporting is 
     established or renewed under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

     SEC. 4016. PILOT PROJECTS TO IMPROVE FEDERAL-STATE 
                   COOPERATION IN IDENTIFYING AND REDUCING FRAUD 
                   IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 12 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2021) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Pilot Projects to Improve Federal-State Cooperation 
     in Identifying and Reducing Fraud in the Supplemental 
     Nutrition Assistance Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, under 
     such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, 
     pilot projects to test innovative Federal-State partnerships 
     to identify, investigate, and reduce retailer fraud in the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program, including allowing 
     States to operate retail Food Store investigation programs.
       ``(2) Selection criteria.--Pilot projects shall be selected 
     based on criteria the Secretary establishes, which shall 
     include--

[[Page 9645]]

       ``(A) enhancing existing efforts by the Secretary to reduce 
     retailer fraud;
       ``(B) requiring participant States to maintain their 
     overall level of effort at addressing recipient fraud, as 
     determined by the Secretary, prior to participation in the 
     pilot project;
       ``(C) collaborating with other law enforcement authorities 
     as necessary to carry out an effective pilot project;
       ``(D) commitment of the participant State agency to follow 
     Federal rules and procedures with respect to retailer 
     investigations; and
       ``(E) the extent to which a State has committed resources 
     to recipient fraud and the relative success of those efforts.
       ``(3) Evaluation.--
       ``(A) The Secretary shall evaluate the projects selected 
     under this subsection to measure the impact of the pilot 
     projects.
       ``(B) Such evaluation shall include--
       ``(i) each pilot project's impact on increasing the 
     Secretary's capacity to address retailer fraud;
       ``(ii) the effectiveness of the pilot projects in 
     identifying, preventing and reducing retailer fraud; and
       ``(iii) the cost effectiveness of such pilot projects.
       ``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than September 30, 
     2017, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate, a 
     report that includes a description of the results of each 
     pilot project, including an evaluation of the impact of the 
     project on retailer fraud and the costs associated with each 
     pilot project.
       ``(5) Funding.--Any costs incurred by the State to operate 
     the pilot projects in excess of the amount expended under 
     this Act for retailer fraud in the respective State in the 
     previous fiscal year shall not be eligible for Federal 
     reimbursement under this Act.''.

     SEC. 4017. PROHIBITING GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED RECRUITMENT 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Administrative Cost-sharing and Quality Control.--
     Section 16(a)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2025(a)(4)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``recruitment activities'' the following: ``designed to 
     persuade an individual to apply for program benefits or that 
     promote the program via television, radio, or billboard 
     advertisements''.
       (b) Limitation on Use of Funds Authorized to Be 
     Appropriated Under Act.--Section 18 of the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2027) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(g) Ban on Recruitment and Promotion Activities.--(1) 
     Except as provided in paragraph (2), no funds authorized to 
     be appropriated under this Act shall be used by the Secretary 
     for--
       ``(A) recruitment activities designed to persuade an 
     individual to apply for supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program benefits;
       ``(B) television, radio, or billboard advertisements that 
     are designed to promote supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program benefits and enrollment; or
       ``(C) any agreements with foreign governments designed to 
     promote supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits 
     and enrollment.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to programmatic 
     activities undertaken with respect to benefits made available 
     in response to a natural disaster.''.
       (c) Ban on Recruitment Activities by Entities That Receive 
     Funds.--Section 18 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2027) is amended by adding at the end the following :
       ``(h) Ban on Recruitment by Entities That Receive Funds.--
     The Secretary shall issue regulations that forbid entities 
     that receive funds under this Act to compensate any person 
     for conducting outreach activities relating to participation 
     in, or for recruiting individuals to apply to receive 
     benefits under, the supplemental nutrition assistance program 
     if the amount of such compensation would be based on the 
     number of individuals who apply to receive such benefits.''.

     SEC. 4018. REPEAL OF BONUS PROGRAM.

       Section 16(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2025(d)) is repealed.

     SEC. 4019. FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       Section 16(h)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``$90,000,000'' and all that follows through ``$79,000,000'', 
     and inserting ``$79,000,000 for each fiscal year''.

     SEC. 4020. MONITORING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       (a) Reporting Measures.--Section 16(h)(5) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(5)) is amended to 
     read:
       ``(5)(A) In general.--The Secretary shall monitor the 
     employment and training programs carried out by State 
     agencies under section 6(d)(4) and assess their effectiveness 
     in--
       ``(i) preparing members of households participating in the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program for employment, 
     including the acquisition of basic skills necessary for 
     employment; and
       ``(ii) increasing the numbers of household members who 
     obtain and retain employment subsequent to their 
     participation in such employment and training programs.
       ``(B) Reporting measures.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Labor, shall develop reporting measures 
     that identify improvements in the skills, training education 
     or work experience of members of households participating in 
     the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Measures shall 
     be based on common measures of performance for federal 
     workforce training programs, so long as they reflect the 
     challenges facing the types of members of households 
     participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program who participate in a specific employment and training 
     component. The Secretary shall require that each State 
     employment and training plan submitted under section 
     11(3)(19) identify appropriate reporting measures for each of 
     their proposed components that serve at least 100 people. 
     Such measures may include:
       ``(i) the percentage and number of program participants who 
     received employment and training services and are in 
     unsubsidized employment subsequent to the receipt of those 
     services;
       ``(ii) the percentage and number of program participants 
     who obtain a recognized postsecondary credential, including a 
     registered apprenticeship, or a regular secondary school 
     diploma or its recognized equivalent, while participating in 
     or within 1 year after receiving employment and training 
     services;
       ``(iii) the percentage and number of program participants 
     who are in an education or training program that is intended 
     to lead to a recognized postsecondary credential, including a 
     registered apprenticeship or on-the-job training program, a 
     regular secondary school diploma or its recognized 
     equivalent, or unsubsidized employment;
       ``(iv) subject to the terms and conditions set by the 
     Secretary, measures developed by each State agency to assess 
     the skills acquisition of employment and training program 
     participants that reflect the goals of their specific 
     employment and training program components, which may 
     include, but are not limited to--
       ``(I) the percentage and number of program participants who 
     are meeting program requirements in each component of the 
     State's education and training program; and
       ``(II) the percentage and number of program participants 
     who are gaining skills likely to lead to employment as 
     measured through testing, quantitative or qualitative 
     assessment or other method; and
       ``(v) other indicators as approved by the Secretary.
       ``(C) State report.--Each State agency shall annually 
     prepare and submit to the Secretary a report on the State's 
     employment and training program that includes the numbers of 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program participants who 
     have gained skills, training, work or experience that will 
     increase their ability to obtain regular employment using 
     measures identified in subparagraph (B).
       ``(D) Modifications to the state employment and training 
     plan.--Subject to the terms and conditions established by the 
     Secretary, if the Secretary determines that the state 
     agency's performance with respect to employment and training 
     outcomes is inadequate, the Secretary may require the State 
     agency to make modifications to their employment and training 
     plan to improve such outcomes.
       ``(E) Periodic evaluation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to terms and conditions 
     established by the Secretary, not later than October 1, 2016, 
     and not less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, 
     the Secretary shall conduct a study to review existing 
     practice and research to identify employment and training 
     program components and practices that--
       ``(I) effectively assist members of households 
     participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program in gaining skills, training, work, or experience that 
     will increase their ability to obtain regular employment, and
       ``(II) are best integrated with statewide workforce 
     development systems.
       ``(ii) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     report that describes the results of the study under clause 
     (i) to the Committee on Agriculture in the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition 
     and Forestry in the Senate.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 4(c) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(a)), the 
     Secretary shall issue interim final regulations implementing 
     the amendment made by subsection (a) no later than 18 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act. States shall include 
     such reporting measures in their employment and training 
     plans for the 1st fiscal year thereafter that begins no 
     sooner than 6 months after the date that such regulations are 
     published.

     SEC. 4021. COOPERATION WITH PROGRAM RESEARCH AND EVALUATION.

       Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2026) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Cooperation With Program Research and Evaluation.--
     States, State agencies, local agencies, institutions, 
     facilities such as data consortiums, and contractors 
     participating in programs authorized under this Act shall 
     cooperate with officials and contractors acting on behalf of 
     the Secretary in the conduct of evaluations and studies under 
     this Act and shall submit information at such time and in 
     such manner as the Secretary may require.''.

     SEC. 4022. PILOT PROJECTS TO REDUCE DEPENDENCY AND INCREASE 
                   WORK EFFORT IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2026), as amended by section 4021, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(m) Pilot Projects to Reduce Dependency and Increase Work 
     Effort in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.--

[[Page 9646]]

       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, under 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary considers to be 
     appropriate, pilot projects to identify best practices for 
     employment and training programs under this Act to raise the 
     number of work registrants who obtain unsubsidized 
     employment, increase their earned income, and reduce their 
     reliance on public assistance, including but not limited to 
     the supplemental nutrition assistance program.
       ``(2) Selection criteria.--Pilot projects shall be selected 
     based on criteria the Secretary establishes, that shall 
     include--
       ``(A) enhancing existing employment and training programs 
     in the State;
       ``(B) agreeing to participate in the evaluation described 
     in paragraph (3), including making available data on 
     participants' employment activities and post-participation 
     employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt;
       ``(C) collaborating with the State workforce board and 
     other job training programs in the State and local area;
       ``(D) the extent to which the pilot project's components 
     can be easily replicated by other States or political 
     subdivisions; and
       ``(E) such additional criteria that ensure that the pilot 
     projects--
       ``(i) target a variety of populations of work registrants, 
     including childless adults, parents, and individuals with low 
     skills or limited work experience;
       ``(ii) are selected from a range of existing employment and 
     training programs including programs that provide--

       ``(I) section 20 workfare;
       ``(II) skills development for work registrants with limited 
     employment history;
       ``(III) post-employment support services necessary for 
     maintaining employment; and
       ``(IV) education leading to a recognized postsecondary 
     credential, registered apprenticeship, or secondary school 
     diploma or its equivalent;

       ``(iii) are located in a range of geographic areas, 
     including rural, urban, and Indian reservations; and
       ``(iv) include participants who are exempt and not exempt 
     under section (6)(d)(2).
       ``(3) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall provide for an 
     independent evaluation of projects selected under this 
     subsection to measure the impact of the pilot projects on the 
     ability of each pilot project target population to find and 
     retain employment that leads to increased household income 
     and reduced dependency, compared to what would have occurred 
     in the absence of the pilot project.
       ``(4) Report to congress.--By September 30, 2017, the 
     Secretary shall submit, to the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, a report 
     that includes a description of--
       ``(A) the results of each pilot project, including an 
     evaluation of the impact of the project on the employment, 
     income, and public benefit receipt of the targeted population 
     of work registrants;
       ``(B) the Federal, State, and other costs of each pilot 
     project;
       ``(C) the planned dissemination of the reports' findings 
     with State agencies; and
       ``(D) the steps and funding necessary to incorporate 
     components of pilot projects that demonstrate increased 
     employment and earnings into State employment and training 
     programs.
       ``(5) Funding.--From amounts made available to under 
     section 18(a)(1), the Secretary shall make $10,000,000 
     available for each of the fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016 
     to carry out this subsection. Such amounts shall remain 
     available until expended.
       ``(6) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) Funds provided under this subsection for pilot 
     projects shall be used only for--
       ``(i) pilot projects that comply with the provisions of 
     this Act;
       ``(ii) the costs and administration of the pilot projects;
       ``(iii) the costs incurred in providing information and 
     data to the independent evaluation under paragraph (3); and
       ``(iv) the costs of the evaluation under paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Funds made available under this subsection may not be 
     used to supplant non-Federal funds used for existing 
     employment and training activities.''.

     SEC. 4023. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2027(a)(1)) is amended in the 1st sentence by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 4024. LIMITATION ON USE OF BLOCK GRANT TO PUERTO RICO.

       Section 19(a)(2)(B) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2028(a)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iii) Limitation on use of funds.--None of the funds made 
     available to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under this 
     subparagraph may be used to provide nutrition assistance in 
     the form of cash benefits.''.

     SEC. 4025. ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY FOOD PROJECTS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 25(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2034(a)(1)(B)(i)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subclause (II) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subclause (III) by striking ``or'' at the end and 
     inserting ``and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(IV) to provide incentives for the consumption of fruits 
     and vegetables among low-income individuals; or''.
       (b) Additional Funding.--Section 25(b) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2034) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(3) Funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer to the Secretary to carry out this section not less 
     than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter. Of the amount made available under this 
     subparagraph for each such fiscal year, $5,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out subsection (a)(1)(B)(I)(IV).
       ``(B) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be 
     entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out 
     this section, the funds transferred under subparagraph (A) 
     without further appropriation.
       ``(C) Maintenance of funding.--The funding provided under 
     subparagraph (A) shall supplement (and not supplant) other 
     Federal funding made available to the Secretary to carry out 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 4026. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Purchase of Commodities.--Section 27(a) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2036(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and 
     inserting ``2013 through 2018'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) for fiscal year 2013, $265,750,000;
       ``(B) for fiscal year 2014 the dollar amount of commodities 
     specified in subparagraph (A) adjusted by the percentage by 
     which the thrifty food plan has been adjusted under section 
     3(u)(4) between June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2013, and 
     subsequently increased by $20,000,000;''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) by striking ``2010 through 2012, the dollar amount of 
     commodities specified in'' and inserting ``2015 through 2018, 
     the total amount of commodities under''; and
       (ii) by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Funds availability.--For purposes of the funds 
     described in this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) make the funds available for 2 fiscal years; and
       ``(B) allow States to carry over unexpended balances to the 
     next fiscal year pursuant to such terms and conditions as are 
     determined by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Emergency Food Program Infrastructure Grants.--Section 
     209(d) of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 
     7511a(d)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 4027. NUTRITION EDUCATION.

       Section 28 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2036a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by inserting ``and physical 
     activity'' after ``healthy food choices''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``$401,000,000;'' and 
     inserting ``$375,000,000; and'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (E); and
       (C) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``(F) for fiscal year 
     2016'' and inserting ``(E) for fiscal year 2015''.

     SEC. 4028. RETAILER TRAFFICKING.

       The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 29. RETAILER TRAFFICKING.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     the Department of Agriculture with additional resources to 
     prevent trafficking in violation of this Act by strengthening 
     recipient and retailer program integrity. Additional funds 
     are provided to supplement the Department's payment accuracy, 
     and retailer and recipient integrity activities.
       ``(b) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer to the Secretary to carry out this section not less 
     than $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       ``(2) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be 
     entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out 
     this section the funds transferred under paragraph (1) 
     without further appropriation.
       ``(3) Maintenance of funding.--The funding provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall supplement (and not supplant) other 
     Federal funding for programs carried out under this Act.''.

     SEC. 4029. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 3 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2012) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g) by striking ``coupon,'' the last 
     place it appears and inserting ``coupon'';
       (2) in subsection (k)(7) by striking ``or are'' and 
     inserting ``and'';
       (3) by striking subsection (l);
       (4) by redesignating subsections (m) through (t) as 
     subsections (l) through (s), respectively; and
       (5) by inserting after subsection (s) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(t) `Supplemental nutritional assistance program' means 
     the program operated pursuant to this Act.''.
       (b) Section 4(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2013(a)) is amended by striking ``benefits'' the last 
     place it appears and inserting ``Benefits''.
       (c) Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2014) is amended--

[[Page 9647]]

       (1) in the last sentence of subsection (i)(2)(D) by 
     striking ``section 13(b)(2)'' and inserting ``section 
     13(b)''; and
       (2) in subsection (k)(4)(A) by striking ``paragraph 
     (2)(H)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)(G)''.
       (d) Section 6(d)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)(vii) by moving the left margin 4 
     ems to the left, and
       (2) in subparagraph (F)(iii) by moving the left margin 6 
     ems to the left.
       (e) Section 7(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2016(h)) is amended by redesignating the 2d paragraph 
     (12) as paragraph (13).
       (f) Section 12 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2021) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(3)(C) by striking ``civil money 
     penalties'' and inserting ``civil penalties''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ``(7 U.S.C. 1786)'' 
     and inserting ``(42 U.S.C. 1786)''.
       (g) Section 15(b)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2024(b)(1)) is amended in the 1st sentence by 
     striking ``an benefit'' both places it appears and inserting 
     ``a benefit''.
       (h) Section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2025(a)) is amended in the proviso following paragraph 
     (8) by striking ``, as amended.''.
       (i) Section 18(e) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2027(e)) is amended in the 1st sentence by striking 
     ``sections 7(f)'' and inserting ``section 7(f)''.
       (j) Section 22(b)(10)(B)(i) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2031(b)(10)(B)(i)) is amended in the last 
     sentence by striking ``Food benefits'' and inserting 
     ``Benefits''.
       (k) Section 26(f)(3)(C) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 2035(f)(3)(C)) is amended by striking 
     ``subsection'' and inserting ``subsections''.
       (l) Section 27(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2036(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``(Public Law 
     98-8; 7 U.S.C. 612c note)'' and inserting ``(7 U.S.C. 
     7515)''.
       (m) Section 509 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3056g) is amended in the section heading by striking 
     ``FOOD STAMP PROGRAMS'' and inserting ``SUPPLEMENTAL 
     NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM''.
       (n) Section 4115(c)(2)(H) of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1871) is 
     amended by striking ``531'' and inserting ``454''.
       (o) Section 3803(c)(2)(C)(vii) of title 31 of the United 
     States Code is amended by striking ``section 3(l)'' and 
     inserting ``section 3(s)''.
       (p) Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and 
     inserting ``section 3(s)'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and 
     inserting ``section 3(s)''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and 
     inserting ``section 3(s)''.
       (q) The Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c) is amended--
       (1) in section 4(a) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of 1977'' 
     and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
       (2) in section 5--
       (A) in subsection (i)(1) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of 
     1977'' and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
       (B) in subsection (l)(2)(B) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of 
     1977'' and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''.
       (r) The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the heading of section 453(j)(10) by striking ``food 
     stamp'' and inserting ``supplemental nutrition assistance'';
       (2) in section 1137--
       (A) in subsection (a)(5)(B) by striking ``food stamp'' and 
     inserting ``supplemental nutrition assistance''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(4) by striking ``food stamp program 
     under the Food Stamp Act of 1977'' and inserting 
     ``supplemental nutrition assistance program under the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
       (3) in the heading of section 1631(n) by striking ``Food 
     Stamp'' and inserting ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance''.

     SEC. 4030. TOLERANCE LEVEL FOR EXCLUDING SMALL ERRORS.

       The Secretary shall set the tolerance level for excluding 
     small errors for the purposes of section 16(c) of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(c))--
       (1) for fiscal year 2014 at an amount no greater than $25; 
     and
       (2) for each fiscal year thereafter, the amount specified 
     in paragraph (1) adjusted by the percentage by which the 
     thrifty food plan is adjusted under section 3(u)(4) of such 
     Act between June 30, 2012, and June 30 of the immediately 
     preceding fiscal year.

     SEC. 4031. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS PILOT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--Prior to establishing the pilot program 
     under subsection (b), the Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     be completed not later than 2 years after the effective date 
     of this section to assess--
       (A) the capabilities of the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands to operate the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program in the same manner in which the program is 
     operated in the States (as defined in section 3 of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq)); and
       (B) alternative models of the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program operation and benefit delivery that best 
     meet the nutrition assistance needs of the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (2) Scope.--The study conducted under paragraph (1)(A) will 
     assess the capability of the Commonwealth to fulfill the 
     responsibilities of a State agency, including--
       (A) extending and limiting participation to eligible 
     households, as prescribed by sections 5 and 6 of the Act;
       (B) issuing benefits through EBT cards, as prescribed by 
     section 7 of the Act;
       (C) maintaining the integrity of the program, including 
     operation of a quality control system, as prescribed by 
     section 16(c) of the Act;
       (D) implementing work requirements, including operating an 
     employment and training program, as prescribed by section 
     6(d) of the Act; and
       (E) paying a share of administrative costs with non-Federal 
     funds, as prescribed by section 16(a) of the Act.
       (b) Establishment.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     pilot program is feasible, the Secretary shall establish a 
     pilot program for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands to operate the supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program in the same manner in which the program is operated 
     in the States.
       (c) Scope.--The Secretary shall utilize the information 
     obtained from the study conducted under subsection (a) to 
     establish the scope of the pilot program established under 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2019, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a report on the pilot program 
     carried out under this section, including an analysis of the 
     feasibility of operating in the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands the supplemental nutrition assistance program 
     as it is operated in the States.
       (e) Funding.--
       (1) Study.--Of the funds made available under section 
     18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the Secretary 
     may use not more than $1,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2014 
     and 2015 to conduct the study described in subsection (a).
       (2) Pilot program.--Of the funds made available under 
     section 18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, for 
     the purposes of establishing and carrying out the pilot 
     program established under subsection (b) of this section, 
     including the Federal costs for providing technical 
     assistance to the Commonwealth, authorizing and monitoring 
     retail food stores, and assessing pilot operations, the 
     Secretary may use not more than--
       (A) $13,500,000 in fiscal year 2016; and
       (B) $8,500,000 in each of fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

     SEC. 4032. ANNUAL STATE REPORT ON VERIFICATION OF SNAP 
                   PARTICIPATION.

       (a) Annual Report.--Not later 1 year after the date 
     specified by the Secretary in the 180-period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 
     each State agency that carries out the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program shall submit to the Secretary a report 
     containing sufficient information for the Secretary to 
     determine whether the State agency has, for the then most 
     recently concluded fiscal year preceding such annual date, 
     verified that households to which such State agency provided 
     such assistance in such fiscal year--
       (1) did not obtain benefits attributable to a deceased 
     individual;
       (2) did not include an individual who was simultaneously 
     included in a household receiving such assistance in another 
     State; and
       (3) did not include, during the time benefits were 
     provided, an individual who was then disqualified from 
     receiving benefits.
       (b) Penalty for Noncompliance.--For any fiscal year for 
     which a State agency fails to comply with subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall reduce by 50 percent the amount otherwise 
     payable to such State agency under section 16(a) of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 with respect to such fiscal year.

              Subtitle B--Commodity Distribution Programs

     SEC. 4101. COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM.

       Section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act 
     of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) is amended in 
     the 1st sentence by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 4102. COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM.

       Section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 
     1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(B) of subsection (a) by 
     striking ``2012'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``2018'';
       (2) in the 1st sentence of subsection (d)(2) by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2018'';
       (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Eligibility.--Except as provided in subsection (m), 
     the States shall only provide assistance under the commodity 
     supplemental food program to low-income individuals aged 60 
     and older.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Phase-out.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an individual who receives assistance under the 
     commodity supplemental food program on the day before the 
     effective date of this subsection shall continue to receive 
     that assistance until the date on which the individual

[[Page 9648]]

     no longer qualifies for assistance under the eligibility 
     criteria for the program in effect on the day before the 
     effective date of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 4103. DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS COMMODITIES TO SPECIAL 
                   NUTRITION PROJECTS.

       Section 1114(a)(2)(A) of the Agriculture and Food Act of 
     1981 (7 U.S.C. 1431e(2)(A)) is amended in the 1st sentence by 
     striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 4104. PROCESSING OF COMMODITIES.

       (a) Section 17 of the Commodity Distribution Reform Act and 
     WIC Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended by--
       (1) striking the heading and inserting ``COMMODITY 
     DONATIONS AND PROCESSING''; and
       (2) adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Processing.--For any program included in subsection 
     (b), the Secretary may, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of State or Federal law relating to the procurement of goods 
     and services--
       ``(1) retain title to commodities delivered to a processor, 
     on behalf of a State (including a State distributing agency 
     and a recipient agency), until such time as end products 
     containing such commodities, or similar commodities as 
     approved by the Secretary, are delivered to a State 
     distributing agency or to a recipient agency; and
       ``(2) promulgate regulations to ensure accountability for 
     commodities provided to a processor for processing into end 
     products, and to facilitate processing of commodities into 
     end products for use by recipient agencies. Such regulations 
     may provide that--
       ``(A) a processor that receives commodities for processing 
     into end products, or provides a service with respect to such 
     commodities or end products, in accordance with its agreement 
     with a State distributing agency or a recipient agency, 
     provide to the Secretary a bond or other means of financial 
     assurance to protect the value of such commodities; and
       ``(B) in the event a processor fails to deliver to a State 
     distributing agency or a recipient agency an end product in 
     conformance with the processing agreement entered into under 
     this Act, the Secretary take action with respect to the bond 
     or other means of financial assurance pursuant to regulations 
     promulgated under this paragraph and distribute any proceeds 
     obtained by the Secretary to one or more State distributing 
     agencies and recipient agencies as determined appropriate by 
     the Secretary.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 18 of the Commodity Distribution 
     Reform Act and WIC Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) The term `commodities' means agricultural commodities 
     and their products that are donated by the Secretary for use 
     by recipient agencies.
       ``(2) The term `end product' means a food product that 
     contains processed commodities.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 3 of the 
     Commodity Distribution Reform Act and WIC Amendments of 1987 
     (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 100-237) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) the program established under section 4(b) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b));''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(D) by striking ``the Committee on 
     Education and Labor'' and inserting ``the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii) by striking ``section 32 of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)'' and 
     inserting ``section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c)'';
       (3) in subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii) by striking subclause (II) 
     and inserting the following:

       ``(II) the program established under section 4(b) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b));''; and

       (4) in subsection (k) by striking ``the Committee on 
     Education and Labor'' and inserting ``the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce''.

                       Subtitle C--Miscellaneous

     SEC. 4201. FARMERS' MARKET NUTRITION PROGRAM.

       Section 4402 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3007) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``SENIORS'';
       (2) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use to carry 
     out and expand the farmers market nutrition program 
     $20,600,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.
       ``(2) Additional funding.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
     subsection for each of the fiscal years specified in 
     paragraph (1).'';
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``seniors''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``, and low-income 
     families who are determined to be at nutritional risk'' after 
     ``low-income seniors'';
       (4) in subsection (c) by striking ``seniors'';
       (5) in subsection (d) by striking ``seniors'';
       (6) in subsection (e) by striking ``seniors'';
       (7) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
       (8) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) State Grants and Other Assistance.--The Secretary 
     shall carry out the Program through grants and other 
     assistance provided in accordance with agreements made with 
     States, for implementation through State agencies and local 
     agencies, that include provisions--
       ``(1) for the issuance of coupons or vouchers to 
     participating individuals;
       ``(2) establishing an appropriate annual percentage 
     limitation on the use of funds for administrative costs; and
       ``(3) specifying other terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate to encourage expanding the 
     participation of small scale farmers in Federal nutrition 
     programs.''.

     SEC. 4202. NUTRITION INFORMATION AND AWARENESS PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 4403 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3171 note; Public Law 107-171) is repealed.

     SEC. 4203. FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM.

       Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1769a) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``FRESH'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``fresh'';
       (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``fresh''; and
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking ``fresh''.

     SEC. 4204. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF FRESH FRUITS, 
                   VEGETABLES, AND OTHER SPECIALTY FOOD CROPS.

       Section 10603 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 612c-4) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Pilot Grant Program for Purchase of Fresh Fruits and 
     Vegetables.--
       ``(1) In general.--Using amounts made available to carry 
     out subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     conduct a pilot program under which the Secretary will give 
     not more than five participating States the option of 
     receiving a grant in an amount equal to the value of the 
     commodities that the participating State would otherwise 
     receive under this section for each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018.
       ``(2) Use of grant funds.--A participating State receiving 
     a grant under this subsection may use the grant funds solely 
     to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables for distribution to 
     schools and service institutions in the State that 
     participate in the food service programs under the Richard B. 
     Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) 
     and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.).
       ``(3) Selection of participating states.--The Secretary 
     shall select participating States from applications submitted 
     by the States.
       ``(4) Reporting requirements.--
       ``(A) School and service institution requirement.--Schools 
     and service institutions in a participating State shall keep 
     records of purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables made 
     using the grant funds and report such records to the State.
       ``(B) State requirement.--Each participating State shall 
     submit to the Secretary a report on the success of the pilot 
     program in the State, including information on--
       ``(i) the amount and value of each type of fresh fruit and 
     vegetable purchased by the State; and
       ``(ii) the benefit provided by such purchases in conducting 
     the school food service in the State, including meeting 
     school meal requirements.''.

     SEC. 4205. ENCOURAGING LOCALLY AND REGIONALLY GROWN AND 
                   RAISED FOOD.

       (a) Commodity Purchase Streamlining.--The Secretary may 
     permit each school food authority with a low annual commodity 
     entitlement value, as determined by the Secretary, to elect 
     to substitute locally and regionally grown and raised food 
     for the authority's allotment, in whole or in part, of 
     commodity assistance for the school meal programs under the 
     Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 
     et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 
     et seq.), if--
       (1) the election is requested by the school food authority;
       (2) the Secretary determines that the election will reduce 
     State and Federal administrative costs; and
       (3) the election will provide the school food authority 
     with greater flexibility to purchase locally and regionally 
     grown and raised foods.
       (b) Farm-to-school Demonstration Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may establish farm-to-school 
     demonstration programs under which school food authorities, 
     agricultural producers producing for local and regional 
     markets, and other farm-to-school stakeholders will 
     collaborate with the Agriculture Marketing Service to, on a 
     cost neutral basis, source food for the school meal programs 
     under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 
     U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) from local farmers and ranchers in lieu 
     of the commodity assistance provided to the school food 
     authorities for the school meal programs.
       (2) Requirements.--
       (A) In general.--Each demonstration program carried out 
     under this subsection shall--

[[Page 9649]]

       (i) facilitate and increase the purchase of unprocessed and 
     minimally processed locally and regionally grown and raised 
     agricultural products to be served under the school meal 
     programs;
       (ii) test methods to improve procurement, transportation, 
     and meal preparation processes for the school meal programs;
       (iii) assess whether administrative costs can be saved 
     through increased school food authority flexibility to source 
     locally and regionally produced foods for the school meal 
     programs; and
       (iv) undertake rigorous evaluation and share information 
     about results of the demonstration program, including cost 
     savings, with the Secretary, other school food authorities, 
     agricultural producers producing for the local and regional 
     market, and the general public.
       (B) Plans.--In order to be selected to carry out a 
     demonstration program under this subsection, a school food 
     authority shall submit to the Secretary a plan at such time 
     and in such manner as the Secretary may require, and 
     containing information with respect to the requirements 
     described in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (A).
       (3) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide 
     technical assistance to demonstration program participants to 
     assist such participants to acquire bids from potential 
     vendors in a timely and cost-effective manner.
       (4) Length.--The Secretary shall determine the appropriate 
     length of time for each demonstration program under this 
     subsection.
       (5) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate among 
     relevant agencies of the Department of Agriculture and non-
     governmental organizations with appropriate expertise to 
     facilitate the provision of training and technical assistance 
     necessary to successfully carry out demonstration programs 
     under this subsection.
       (6) Number.--Subject to the availability of funds to carry 
     out this subsection, the Secretary shall select at least 10 
     demonstration programs to be carried out under this 
     subsection.
       (7) Diversity and balance.--In selecting demonstration 
     programs to be carried out under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure--
       (A) geographical diversity;
       (B) that at least half of the demonstration programs are 
     completed in collaboration with school food authorities with 
     small annual commodity entitlements, as determined by the 
     Secretary;
       (C) that at least half of the demonstration programs are 
     completed in rural or tribal communities;
       (D) equitable treatment of school food authorities with a 
     high percentage of students eligible for free or reduced 
     price lunches, as determined by the Secretary; and
       (E) that at least one of the demonstration programs is 
     completed on a military installation as defined in section 
     2687(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code.

     SEC. 4206. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF WHITE 
                   POTATOES.

       The Secretary shall conduct a review of the economic and 
     public health benefits of white potatoes on low-income 
     families who are determined to be at nutritional risk. Not 
     later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall report the findings of this review 
     to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate.

     SEC. 4207. HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of title II of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6951 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 242. HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to enhance 
     the authorities of the Secretary to support efforts to 
     provide access to healthy food by establishing an initiative 
     to improve access to healthy foods in underserved areas, to 
     create and preserve quality jobs, and to revitalize low-
     income communities by providing loans and grants to eligible 
     fresh, healthy food retailers to overcome the higher costs 
     and initial barriers to entry in underserved areas.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Community development financial institution.--The 
     term `community development financial institution' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 103 of the Community 
     Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 
     (12 U.S.C. 4702).
       ``(2) Initiative.--The term `Initiative' means the Healthy 
     Food Financing Initiative established under subsection 
     (c)(1).
       ``(3) National fund manager.--The term `national fund 
     manager' means a community development financial institution 
     that is--
       ``(A) in existence on the date of enactment of this 
     section; and
       ``(B) certified by the Community Development Financial 
     Institution Fund of the Department of Treasury to manage the 
     Initiative for purposes of--
       ``(i) raising private capital;
       ``(ii) providing financial and technical assistance to 
     partnerships; and
       ``(iii) funding eligible projects to attract fresh, healthy 
     food retailers to underserved areas, in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(4) Partnership.--The term `partnership' means a 
     regional, State, or local public-private partnership that--
       ``(A) is organized to improve access to fresh, healthy 
     foods;
       ``(B) provides financial and technical assistance to 
     eligible projects; and
       ``(C) meets such other criteria as the Secretary may 
     establish.
       ``(5) Perishable food.--The term `perishable food' means a 
     staple food that is fresh, refrigerated, or frozen.
       ``(6) Quality job.--The term `quality job' means a job that 
     provides wages and other benefits comparable to, or better 
     than, similar positions in existing businesses of similar 
     size in similar local economies.
       ``(7) Staple food.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `staple food' means food that 
     is a basic dietary item.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `staple food' includes--
       ``(i) bread;
       ``(ii) flour;
       ``(iii) fruits;
       ``(iv) vegetables; and
       ``(v) meat.
       ``(c) Initiative.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     initiative to achieve the purpose described in subsection (a) 
     in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Implementation.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) In general.--In carrying out the Initiative, the 
     Secretary shall provide funding to entities with eligible 
     projects, as described in subparagraph (B), subject to the 
     priorities described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(ii) Use of funds.--Funds provided to an entity pursuant 
     to clause (i) shall be used--

       ``(I) to create revolving loan pools of capital or other 
     products to provide loans to finance eligible projects or 
     partnerships;
       ``(II) to provide grants for eligible projects or 
     partnerships;
       ``(III) to provide technical assistance to funded projects 
     and entities seeking Initiative funding; and
       ``(IV) to cover administrative expenses of the national 
     fund manager in an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the 
     Federal funds provided.

       ``(B) Eligible projects.--Subject to the approval of the 
     Secretary, the national fund manager shall establish 
     eligibility criteria for projects under the Initiative, which 
     shall include the existence or planned execution of 
     agreements--
       ``(i) to expand or preserve the availability of staple 
     foods in underserved areas with moderate- and low-income 
     populations by maintaining or increasing the number of retail 
     outlets that offer an assortment of perishable food and 
     staple food items, as determined by the Secretary, in those 
     areas; and
       ``(ii) to accept benefits under the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
       ``(C) Priorities.--In carrying out the Initiative, priority 
     shall be given to projects that--
       ``(i) are located in severely distressed low-income 
     communities, as defined by the Community Development 
     Financial Institutions Fund of the Department of Treasury; 
     and
       ``(ii) include 1 or more of the following characteristics:

       ``(I) The project will create or retain quality jobs for 
     low-income residents in the community.
       ``(II) The project supports regional food systems and 
     locally grown foods, to the maximum extent practicable.
       ``(III) In areas served by public transit, the project is 
     accessible by public transit.
       ``(IV) The project involves women- or minority-owned 
     businesses.
       ``(V) The project receives funding from other sources, 
     including other Federal agencies.
       ``(VI) The project otherwise advances the purpose of this 
     section, as determined by the Secretary.

       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $125,000,000, to remain available until expended.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7014(b)), 
     as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is 
     further amended, by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) the authority of the Secretary to establish and carry 
     out the Health Food Financing Initiative under section 
     242;''.

                            TITLE V--CREDIT

                    Subtitle A--Farm Ownership Loans

     SEC. 5001. ELIGIBILITY FOR FARM OWNERSHIP LOANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 302(a) of the Consolidated Farm 
     and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1922(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) In General.--The'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Eligibility requirements.--The'';
       (2) in the 1st sentence, by inserting after ``limited 
     liability companies'' the following: ``, and such other legal 
     entities as the Secretary deems appropriate,'';
       (3) in the 2nd sentence, by redesignating clauses (1) 
     through (4) as clauses (A) through (D), respectively;
       (4) in each of the 2nd and 3rd sentences, by striking ``and 
     limited liability companies'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``limited liability companies, and such other legal 
     entities'';
       (5) in the 3rd sentence, by striking ``(3)'' and ``(4)'' 
     and inserting ``(C)'' and ``(D)'', respectively; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Special deeming rules.--
       ``(A) Eligibility of certain operating-only entities.--An 
     entity that is or will become only

[[Page 9650]]

     the operator of a family farm is deemed to meet the owner-
     operator requirements of paragraph (1) if the individuals 
     that are the owners of the family farm own more than 50 
     percent (or such other percentage as the Secretary determines 
     is appropriate) of the entity.
       ``(B) Eligibility of certain embedded entities.--An entity 
     that is an owner-operator described in paragraph (1), or an 
     operator described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph that 
     is owned, in whole or in part, by other entities, is deemed 
     to meet the direct ownership requirement imposed under 
     paragraph (1) if at least 75 percent of the ownership 
     interests of each embedded entity of such entity is owned 
     directly or indirectly by the individuals that own the family 
     farm.''.
       (b) Direct Farm Ownership Experience Requirement.--Section 
     302(b)(1) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1922(b)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or has other acceptable experience for a period 
     of time, as determined by the Secretary,'' after ``3 years''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 304(c)(2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1924(c)(2)) by 
     striking ``paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 302(a)'' and 
     inserting ``clauses (A) and (B) of section 302(a)(1)''.
       (2) Section 310D of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1934) is amended--
       (A) by inserting after ``partnership'' the following: ``, 
     or such other legal entities as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate,''; and
       (B) by striking ``or partners'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``partners, or owners''.

     SEC. 5002. CONSERVATION LOAN AND LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

       (a) Eligibility.--Section 304(c) of the Consolidated Farm 
     and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1924(c)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``limited liability companies'' the 
     following: ``, or such other legal entities as the Secretary 
     deems appropriate,''.
       (b) Limitation on Loan Guarantee Amount.--Section 304(e) of 
     such Act (7 U.S.C. 1924(e)) is amended by striking ``75 
     percent'' and inserting ``90 percent''.
       (c) Extension of Program.--Section 304(h) of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1924(h)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 5003. DOWN PAYMENT LOAN PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 310E(b)(1)(C) of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1935(b)(1)(C)) is 
     amended by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$667,000''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Section 310E(b) of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1935(b)) is amended by striking the 2nd paragraph (2).

     SEC. 5004. ELIMINATION OF MINERAL RIGHTS APPRAISAL 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       Section 307 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1927) is amended by striking subsection (d) and 
     redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).

                      Subtitle B--Operating Loans

     SEC. 5101. ELIGIBILITY FOR FARM OPERATING LOANS.

       Section 311(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1941(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) In General.--The'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Eligibility requirements.--The'';
       (2) in the 1st sentence, by inserting after ``limited 
     liability companies'' the following: ``, and such other legal 
     entities as the Secretary deems appropriate,'';
       (3) in the 2nd sentence, by redesignating clauses (1) 
     through (4) as clauses (A) through (D), respectively;
       (4) in each of the 2nd and 3rd sentences, by striking ``and 
     limited liability companies'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``limited liability companies, and such other legal 
     entities'';
       (5) in the 3rd sentence, by striking ``(3)'' and ``(4)'' 
     and inserting ``(C)'' and ``(D)'', respectively; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Special deeming rule.--An entity that is an operator 
     described in paragraph (1) that is owned, in whole or in 
     part, by other entities, is deemed to meet the direct 
     ownership requirement imposed under paragraph (1) if at least 
     75 percent of the ownership interests of each embedded entity 
     of such entity is owned directly or indirectly by the 
     individuals that own the family farm.''.

     SEC. 5102. ELIMINATION OF RURAL RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR 
                   OPERATING LOANS TO YOUTH.

       Section 311(b)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1941(b)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``who are rural residents''.

     SEC. 5103. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR YOUTH 
                   LOANS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND BORROWER 
                   CONTROL.

       Section 311(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1941(b)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5) The Secretary may, on a case by case basis, waive the 
     personal liability of a borrower for a loan made under this 
     subsection if any default on the loan was due to 
     circumstances beyond the control of the borrower.''.

     SEC. 5104. MICROLOANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 313 of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1943) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(c) Microloans.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may establish a program to make or guarantee microloans.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not make or 
     guarantee a microloan under this subsection that exceeds 
     $35,000 or that would cause the total principal indebtedness 
     outstanding at any 1 time for microloans made under this 
     chapter to any 1 borrower to exceed $70,000.
       ``(3) Applications.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Secretary shall limit the administrative burdens and 
     streamline the application and approval process for 
     microloans under this subsection.
       ``(4) Cooperative lending projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary may contract with community-based and 
     nongovernmental organizations, State entities, or other 
     intermediaries, as the Secretary determines appropriate--
       ``(i) to make or guarantee a microloan under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(ii) to provide business, financial, marketing, and 
     credit management services to borrowers.
       ``(B) Requirements.--Before contracting with an entity 
     described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary--
       ``(i) shall review and approve--

       ``(I) the loan loss reserve fund for microloans established 
     by the entity; and
       ``(II) the underwriting standards for microloans of the 
     entity; and

       ``(ii) establish such other requirements for contracting 
     with the entity as the Secretary determines necessary.''.
       (b) Exceptions for Direct Loans.--Section 311(c)(2) of such 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1941(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Exceptions.--In this subsection, the term `direct 
     operating loan' shall not include--
       ``(A) a loan made to a youth under subsection (b); or
       ``(B) a microloan made to a beginning farmer or rancher or 
     a veteran farmer or rancher (as defined in section 2501(e) of 
     the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 2279(e)).''.
       (c) Section 312(a) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1942(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``(including a microloan, as defined by 
     the Secretary)'' after ``A direct loan''.
       (d) Section 316(a)(2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1946(a)(2)) is 
     amended by inserting ``a microloan to a beginning farmer or 
     rancher or veteran farmer or rancher (as defined in section 
     2501(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act 
     of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(e)) or'' after ``The interest rate 
     on''.

                      Subtitle C--Emergency Loans

     SEC. 5201. ELIGIBILITY FOR EMERGENCY LOANS.

       Section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``owner-operators (in the case of loans for 
     a purpose under subtitle A) or operators (in the case of 
     loans for a purpose under subtitle B)'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``(in the case of farm ownership loans in 
     accordance with subtitle A) owner-operators or operators, or 
     (in the case of loans for a purpose under subtitle B) 
     operators'';
       (2) by inserting after ``limited liability companies'' the 
     1st place it appears the following: ``, or such other legal 
     entities as the Secretary deems appropriate''; and
       (3) by inserting after ``limited liability companies'' the 
     2nd place it appears the following: ``, or other legal 
     entities'';
       (4) by striking ``and limited liability companies,'' and 
     inserting ``limited liability companies, and such other legal 
     entities'';
       (5) by striking ``ownership and operator'' and inserting 
     ``ownership or operator''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following: ``An entity that is 
     an owner-operator or operator described in this subsection is 
     deemed to meet the direct ownership requirement imposed under 
     this subsection if at least 75 percent of the ownership 
     interests of each embedded entity of such entity is owned 
     directly or indirectly by the individuals that own the family 
     farm.''.

                 Subtitle D--Administrative Provisions

     SEC. 5301. BEGINNING FARMER AND RANCHER INDIVIDUAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 333B(h) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983b(h)) is amended by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 5302. ELIGIBLE BEGINNING FARMERS AND RANCHERS.

       (a) Conforming Amendments Relating to Changes in 
     Eligibility Rules.--Section 343(a)(11) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1991(a)(11)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``joint operation,'' the 1st place 
     it appears the following: ``or such other legal entity as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate,'';
       (2) by striking ``or joint operators'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``joint operators, or owners''; and
       (3) by inserting after ``joint operation,'' the 2nd and 3rd 
     place it appears the following: ``or such other legal 
     entity,''.
       (b) Modification of Acreage Ownership Limitation.--Section 
     343(a)(11)(F) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(11)(F)) is 
     amended by striking ``median acreage'' and inserting 
     ``average acreage''.

     SEC. 5303. LOAN AUTHORIZATION LEVELS.

       Section 346(b)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1994(b)(1)) is amended in the 
     matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 5304. PRIORITY FOR PARTICIPATION LOANS.

       Section 346(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C.

[[Page 9651]]

     1994(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

       ``(III) Priority.--In order to maximize the number of 
     borrowers served under this clause, the Secretary--

       ``(aa) shall give priority to applicants who apply under 
     the down payment loan program under section 310E or joint 
     financing arrangements under section 307(a)(3)(D); and
       ``(bb) may offer other financing options under this 
     subtitle to applicants only if the Secretary determines that 
     down payment or other participation loan options are not a 
     viable approach for the applicants.''.

     SEC. 5305. LOAN FUND SET-ASIDES.

       Section 346(b)(2)(A)(ii)(III) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1994(b)(2)(A)(ii)(III)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''; and
       (2) by striking ``of the total amount''.

     SEC. 5306. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO BORROWER TRAINING 
                   PROVISION, RELATING TO ELIGIBILITY CHANGES.

       Section 359(c)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006a(c)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``section 302(a)(2) or 311(a)(2)'' and inserting ``section 
     302(a)(1)(B) or 311(a)(1)(B)''.

           Subtitle E--State Agricultural Mediation Programs

     SEC. 5401. STATE AGRICULTURAL MEDIATION PROGRAMS.

       Section 506 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 
     U.S.C. 5106) is amended by striking ``2015'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

      Subtitle F--Loans to Purchasers of Highly Fractionated Land

     SEC. 5501. LOANS TO PURCHASERS OF HIGHLY FRACTIONATED LAND.

       The first section of Public Law 91-229 (25 U.S.C. 488) is 
     amended in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``pursuant to 
     section 205(c) of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2204(c))'' and inserting ``or to intermediaries in 
     order to establish revolving loan funds for the purchase of 
     highly fractionated land''.

                      TITLE VI--RURAL DEVELOPMENT

        Subtitle A--Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

     SEC. 6001. WATER, WASTE DISPOSAL, AND WASTEWATER FACILITY 
                   GRANTS.

       Section 306(a)(2)(B)(vii) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2)(B)(vii)) is 
     amended by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and inserting 
     ``2014 through 2018''.

     SEC. 6002. RURAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY GRANTS.

       Section 306(a)(11)(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(11)(D)) is amended by 
     striking ``$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012'' and inserting ``$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2014 through 2018''.

     SEC. 6003. ELIMINATION OF RESERVATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES 
                   GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS.

       Section 306(a)(19) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(19)) is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (C).

     SEC. 6004. UTILIZATION OF LOAN GUARANTEES FOR COMMUNITY 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 306(a)(24) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(24)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(C) Utilization of loan guarantees for community 
     facilities.--The Secretary shall consider the benefits to 
     communities that result from using loan guarantees in the 
     Community Facilities Program and to the maximum extent 
     possible utilize guarantees to enhance community 
     involvement.''.

     SEC. 6005. RURAL WATER AND WASTEWATER CIRCUIT RIDER PROGRAM.

       Section 306(a)(22) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(22)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(22) Rural water and wastewater circuit rider program.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall continue a national 
     rural water and wastewater circuit rider program that--
       ``(i) is consistent with the activities and results of the 
     program conducted before the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) receives funding from the Secretary, acting through 
     the Rural Utilities Service.
       ``(B) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $20,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year thereafter.''.

     SEC. 6006. TRIBAL COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 306(a)(25)(C) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(25)(C)) is amended by 
     striking ``$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012'' and inserting ``$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2014 through 2018''.

     SEC. 6007. ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES TECHNICAL 
                   ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.

       Section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(19)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(26) Essential community facilities technical assistance 
     and training.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to public 
     bodies and private nonprofit corporations, such as States, 
     counties, cities, townships, and incorporated towns and 
     villages, boroughs, authorities, districts and Indian tribes 
     on Federal and State reservations which will serve rural 
     areas for the purpose of enabling them to provide to 
     associations described in this subsection technical 
     assistance and training, with respect to essential community 
     facilities programs authorized under this subsection, to--
       ``(i) assist communities in identifying and planning for 
     community facility needs;
       ``(ii) identify public and private resources to finance 
     community facilities needs;
       ``(iii) prepare reports and surveys necessary to request 
     financial assistance to develop community facilities;
       ``(iv) prepare applications for financial assistance;
       ``(v) improve the management, including financial 
     management, related to the operation of community facilities; 
     or
       ``(vi) assist with other areas of need identified by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Selection priority.--In selecting recipients of 
     grants under this paragraph, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to private, nonprofit, or public organizations that 
     have experience in providing technical assistance and 
     training to rural entities.
       ``(C) Funding.--Not less than 3 nor more than 5 percent of 
     any funds appropriated to carry out each of the essential 
     community facilities grant, loan and loan guarantee programs 
     as authorized under this subsection for any fiscal year shall 
     be reserved for grants under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 6008. EMERGENCY AND IMMINENT COMMUNITY WATER ASSISTANCE 
                   GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 306A(i)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926a(i)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``$35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' 
     and inserting ``$27,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018''.

     SEC. 6009. HOUSEHOLD WATER WELL SYSTEMS.

       Section 306E(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926e(d)) is amended by striking 
     ``$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' 
     and inserting ``$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018''.

     SEC. 6010. RURAL BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY LOAN PROGRAM.

       (a) Flexibility for the Business and Loan Program.--Section 
     310B(a)(2)(A) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting 
     ``including working capital'' after ``employment''.
       (b) Greater Flexibility for Adequate Collateral Through 
     Accounts Receivable.--Section 310B(g)(7) of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1932(g)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``In the discretion of the Secretary, if the 
     Secretary determines that the action would not create or 
     otherwise contribute to an unreasonable risk of default or 
     loss to the Federal Government, the Secretary may take 
     account receivables as security for the obligations entered 
     into in connection with loans and a borrower may use account 
     receivables as collateral to secure a loan made or guaranteed 
     under this subsection.''.
       (c) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     such regulations as are necessary to implement the amendments 
     made by this section.

     SEC. 6011. RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

       Section 310B(e)(12) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)(12)) is amended by striking 
     ``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' 
     and inserting ``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018''.

     SEC. 6012. LOCALLY OR REGIONALLY PRODUCED AGRICULTURAL FOOD 
                   PRODUCTS.

       Section 310B(g)(9)(B)(v)(I) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(g)(9)(B)(v)(I)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and not more than 7 percent'' after ``5 
     percent''.

     SEC. 6013. INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle A of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1922-1936a) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 310H. INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make loans to the 
     entities, for the purposes, and subject to the terms and 
     conditions specified in the 1st, 2nd, and last sentences of 
     section 623(a) of the Community Economic Development Act of 
     1981 (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)).
       ``(b) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--For 
     loans under subsection (a), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary not more than $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1323(b)(2) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-198; 7 U.S.C. 1932 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (C).

     SEC. 6014. RURAL COLLEGE COORDINATED STRATEGY.

       Section 331 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1981) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

[[Page 9652]]

       ``(d) Rural College Coordinated Strategy.--The Secretary 
     shall develop a coordinated strategy across the relevant 
     programs within the Rural Development mission areas to serve 
     the specific, local needs of rural communities when making 
     investments in rural community colleges and technical 
     colleges through other current authorities. During the 
     development of a coordinated strategy, the Secretary shall 
     consult with groups representing rural-serving community 
     colleges and technical colleges to coordinate critical 
     investments in rural community colleges and technical 
     colleges involved in workforce training. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to provide a priority for 
     funding within current authorities. The Secretary shall use 
     the coordinated strategy and information developed for the 
     strategy to more effectively serve rural communities with 
     respect to investments in community colleges and technical 
     colleges.''.

     SEC. 6015. RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

       Section 333 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``require'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``require'' after 
     ``(1)'';
       (3) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, require'' after 
     ``314'';
       (4) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``require'' after 
     ``loans,'';
       (5) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting ``require'' after ``(4)''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (6) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by inserting ``require'' after ``(5)''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) with respect to water and waste disposal direct and 
     guaranteed loans provided under section 306, encourage, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, private or cooperative 
     lenders to finance rural water and waste disposal facilities 
     by--
       ``(A) maximizing the use of loan guarantees to finance 
     eligible projects in rural communities where the population 
     exceeds 5,500;
       ``(B) maximizing the use of direct loans to finance 
     eligible projects in rural communities where the impact on 
     rate payers will be material when compared to financing with 
     a loan guarantee;
       ``(C) establishing and applying a materiality standard when 
     determining the difference in impact on rate payers between a 
     direct loan and a loan guarantee;
       ``(D) in the case of projects that require interim 
     financing in excess of $500,000, requiring that such projects 
     initially seek such financing from private or cooperative 
     lenders; and
       ``(E) determining if an existing direct loan borrower can 
     refinance with a private or cooperative lender, including 
     with a loan guarantee, prior to providing a new direct 
     loan.''.

     SEC. 6016. SIMPLIFIED APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 333A of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983a) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(h) Simplified Application Forms.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (g)(2) of this section, the Secretary shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, develop a simplified 
     application process, including a single page application 
     where possible, for grants and relending authorized under 
     sections 306, 306C, 306D, 306E, 310B(b), 310B(c), 310B(e), 
     310B(f), 310H, 379B, and 379E.''.
       (b) Report to the Congress.--Within 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a written report that contains an evaluation of 
     the implementation of the amendment made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 6017. GRANTS FOR NOAA WEATHER RADIO TRANSMITTERS.

       Section 379B(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008p(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.

     SEC. 6018. RURAL MICROENTREPRENEUR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 379E(d)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008s(d)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012'' 
     and inserting ``$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018''.

     SEC. 6019. DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 382M(a) of 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2009aa-12(a)) is amended by striking ``$30,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' and inserting 
     ``$12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.
       (b) Termination of Authority.--Section 382N of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2009aa-13) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 6020. NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 383N(a) of 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2009bb-12(a)) is amended by striking ``$30,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' and inserting 
     ``$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.
       (b) Termination of Authority.--Section 383O of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2009bb-13) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 6021. RURAL BUSINESS INVESTMENT PROGRAM.

       Section 384S of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2009cc-18) is amended by striking ``$50,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018''.

             Subtitle B--Rural Electrification Act of 1936

     SEC. 6101. RELENDING FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
     U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 2(a), by inserting ``(including relending 
     for this purpose as provided in section 4)'' after 
     ``efficiency'';
       (2) in section 4(a), by inserting ``(including relending to 
     ultimate consumers for this purpose by borrowers enumerated 
     in the proviso in this section)'' after ``efficiency''; and
       (3) in section 313(b)(2)(B)--
       (A) by inserting ``(acting through the Rural Utilities 
     Service)'' after ``Secretary''; and
       (B) by inserting ``energy efficiency (including relending 
     to ultimate consumers for this purpose),'' after 
     ``promoting''.
       (b) Current Authority.--The authority provided in this 
     section is in addition to any other relending authority of 
     the Secretary under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
     U.S.C. 901 et. seq.) or any other law.
       (c) Administration.--The Secretary (acting through the 
     Rural Utilities Service) shall continue to carry out section 
     313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 940c) 
     in the same manner as on the day before enactment of this Act 
     until such time as any regulations necessary to carry out the 
     amendments made by this section are fully implemented.

     SEC. 6102. FEES FOR CERTAIN LOAN GUARANTEES.

       The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et 
     seq.) is amended by inserting after section 4 the following:

     ``SEC. 5. FEES FOR CERTAIN LOAN GUARANTEES.

       ``(a) In General.--For electrification baseload generation 
     loan guarantees, the Secretary shall, at the request of the 
     borrower, charge an upfront fee to cover the costs of the 
     loan guarantee.
       ``(b) Fee.--The fee described in subsection (a) for a loan 
     guarantee shall be equal to the costs of the loan guarantee 
     (within the meaning of section 502(5)(C) of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a(5)(C))).
       ``(c) Limitation.--Funds received from a borrower to pay 
     the fee described in this section shall not be derived from a 
     loan or other debt obligation that is made or guaranteed by 
     the Federal Government.''.

     SEC. 6103. GUARANTEES FOR BONDS AND NOTES ISSUED FOR 
                   ELECTRIFICATION OR TELEPHONE PURPOSES.

       Section 313A(f) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
     U.S.C. 940c-1(f)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 6104. EXPANSION OF 911 ACCESS.

       Section 315(d) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
     U.S.C. 940e(d)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 6105. ACCESS TO BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN 
                   RURAL AREAS.

       Section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
     U.S.C. 950bb) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Priorities.--In making or guaranteeing loans under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give--
       ``(A) the highest priority to applicants that offer to 
     provide broadband service to the greatest proportion of 
     households that, prior to the provision of the broadband 
     service, had no incumbent service provider; and
       ``(B) priority to applicants that offer in their 
     applications to provide broadband service not predominantly 
     for business service, but where at least 25 percent of 
     customers in the proposed service territory are commercial 
     interests.'';
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) the amount and type of support requested; and
       ``(E) a list of the census block groups or tracts proposed 
     to be so served.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Additional process.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     process under which an incumbent service provider which, as 
     of the date of the publication of notice under paragraph (5) 
     with respect to an application submitted by the provider, is 
     providing broadband service to a remote rural area, may (but 
     shall not be required to) submit to the Secretary, not less 
     than 15 and not more than 30 days after that date, 
     information regarding the broadband services that the 
     provider offers in the proposed service territory, so that 
     the Secretary may assess whether the application meets the 
     requirements of this section with respect to eligible 
     projects.'';
       (3) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Requirement.--In considering the technology needs of 
     customers in a proposed service territory, the Secretary 
     shall take into consideration the upgrade or replacement cost 
     for the construction or acquisition of facilities and 
     equipment in the territory.''; and

[[Page 9653]]

       (4) in each of subsections (k)(1) and (l), by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

                       Subtitle C--Miscellaneous

     SEC. 6201. DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2335A of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 950aaa-5) is amended by striking ``$100,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1996 through 2012'' and inserting 
     ``$65,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1(b) of Public Law 102-
     551 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa note) is amended by striking ``2012'' 
     and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 6202. VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURAL MARKET DEVELOPMENT 
                   PROGRAM GRANTS.

       Section 231(b)(7) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act 
     of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 1632a(b)(7)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''; and
       (B) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$50,000,000''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 6203. AGRICULTURE INNOVATION CENTER DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 6402(i) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1632b(i)) is amended by striking 
     ``$6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' and 
     inserting ``$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018''.

     SEC. 6204. PROGRAM METRICS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall collect 
     data regarding economic activities created through grants and 
     loans, including any technical assistance provided as a 
     component of the grant or loan program, and measure the short 
     and long term viability of award recipients and any entities 
     to whom those recipients provide assistance using award funds 
     under section 231 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
     2000 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law 106-224), section 9007 
     of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 
     U.S.C. 8107), section 313(b)(2) of the Rural Electrification 
     Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 940c(b)(2)), or section 306(a)(11), 
     310B(c), 310B(e), 310B(g), 310H, or 379E, or subtitle E, of 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1926(a)(11), 1932(c), 1932(e), 1932(g), 2008s, or 2009 
     through 2009m).
       (b) Data.--The data collected under subsection (a) shall 
     include information collected from recipients both during the 
     award period and after the period as determined by the 
     Secretary, but not less than 2 years after the award period 
     ends.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report that contains 
     the data described in subsection (a). The report shall 
     include detailed information regarding--
       (1) actions taken by the Secretary to utilize the data;
       (2) the number of jobs, including self-employment and the 
     value of salaries and wages;
       (3) how the provision of funds from the grant or loan 
     involved affected the local economy;
       (4) any benefit, such as an increase in revenue or customer 
     base; and
       (5) such other information as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 6205. STUDY OF RURAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall publish an updated version 
     of the study described in section 6206 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (as amended by 
     subsection (b)).
       (b) Addition to Study.--Section 6206(b) of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 
     Stat. 1971) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) the sufficiency of infrastructure along waterways in 
     the United States and the impact of such infrastructure on 
     the movement of agricultural goods in terms of safety, 
     efficiency and speed, as well as the benefits derived through 
     upgrades and repairs to locks and dams.''.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     and the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the 
     Congress the updated version of the study required by 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 6206. CERTAIN FEDERAL ACTIONS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED 
                   MAJOR.

       In the case of a loan, loan guarantee, or grant program in 
     the rural development mission area of the Department of 
     Agriculture, an action of the Secretary before, on, or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act that does not involve the 
     provision by the Department of Agriculture of Federal dollars 
     or a Federal loan guarantee, including--
       (1) the approval by the Department of Agriculture of the 
     decision of a borrower to commence a privately funded 
     activity;
       (2) a lien accommodation or subordination;
       (3) a debt settlement or restructuring; or
       (4) the restructuring of a business entity by a borrower,
     shall not be considered a major Federal action.

          TITLE VII--RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND RELATED MATTERS

  Subtitle A--National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
                           Policy Act of 1977

     SEC. 7101. OPTION TO BE INCLUDED AS NON-LAND-GRANT COLLEGE OF 
                   AGRICULTURE.

       Section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) Cooperating forestry school.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `cooperating forestry school' 
     means an institution--
       ``(i) that is eligible to receive funds under the Act of 
     October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.), commonly known as 
     the McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962; and
       ``(ii) with respect to which the Secretary has not received 
     a declaration of the intent of that institution to not be 
     considered a cooperating forestry school.
       ``(B) Termination of declaration.--A declaration of the 
     intent of an institution to not be considered a cooperating 
     forestry school submitted to the Secretary shall be in effect 
     until September 30, 2018.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (10)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``that'';
       (ii) in clause (i)--

       (I) by inserting ``that'' before ``qualify''; and
       (II) by striking ``and'' at the end;

       (iii) in clause (ii)--

       (I) by inserting ``that'' before ``offer''; and
       (II) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and

       (iv) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) with respect to which the Secretary has not 
     received a statement of the declaration of the intent of a 
     college or university to not be considered a Hispanic-serving 
     agricultural college or university.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Termination of declaration of intent.--A declaration 
     of the intent of a college or university to not be considered 
     a Hispanic-serving agricultural college or university 
     submitted to the Secretary shall be in effect until September 
     30, 2018.''.

     SEC. 7102. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, 
                   EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Extension of Termination Date.--Section 1408(h) of the 
     National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123(h)) is amended by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
       (b) Duties of National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
     Education, and Economics Advisory Board.--Section 1408(c) of 
     the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) consult with industry groups on agricultural 
     research, extension, education, and economics, and make 
     recommendations to the Secretary based on that 
     consultation.''.

     SEC. 7103. SPECIALTY CROP COMMITTEE.

       Section 1408A(c) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     3123a(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Measures'' and 
     inserting ``Programs'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2);
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively; and
       (4) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``Programs that would'' and inserting ``Research, extension, 
     and teaching programs designed to improve competitiveness in 
     the specialty crop industry, including programs that would'';
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``, including 
     improving the quality and taste of processed specialty 
     crops'' before the semicolon; and
       (C) in subparagraph (G), by inserting ``the remote sensing 
     and the'' before ``mechanization''.

     SEC. 7104. VETERINARY SERVICES GRANT PROGRAM.

       The National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 is amended by inserting after section 
     1415A (7 U.S.C. 3151a) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1415B. VETERINARY SERVICES GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Qualified entity.--The term `qualified entity' 
     means--
       ``(A) a for-profit or nonprofit entity located in the 
     United States that, or an individual who, operates a 
     veterinary clinic providing veterinary services--
       ``(i) in a rural area, as defined in section 343(a) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1991(a)); and
       ``(ii) in a veterinarian shortage situation;
       ``(B) a State, national, allied, or regional veterinary 
     organization or specialty board recognized by the American 
     Veterinary Medical Association;
       ``(C) a college or school of veterinary medicine accredited 
     by the American Veterinary Medical Association;

[[Page 9654]]

       ``(D) a university research foundation or veterinary 
     medical foundation;
       ``(E) a department of veterinary science or department of 
     comparative medicine accredited by the Department of 
     Education;
       ``(F) a State agricultural experiment station; or
       ``(G) a State, local, or tribal government agency.
       ``(2) Veterinarian shortage situation.--The term 
     `veterinarian shortage situation' means a veterinarian 
     shortage situation as determined by the Secretary under 
     section 1415A.
       ``(b) Establishment.--
       ``(1) Competitive grants.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     program to make competitive grants to qualified entities that 
     carry out programs or activities described in paragraph (2) 
     for the purpose of developing, implementing, and sustaining 
     veterinary services.
       ``(2) Eligibility requirements.--A qualified entity shall 
     be eligible to receive a grant described in paragraph (1) if 
     the entity carries out programs or activities that the 
     Secretary determines will--
       ``(A) substantially relieve veterinarian shortage 
     situations;
       ``(B) support or facilitate private veterinary practices 
     engaged in public health activities; or
       ``(C) support or facilitate the practices of veterinarians 
     who are providing or have completed providing services under 
     an agreement entered into with the Secretary under section 
     1415A(a)(2).
       ``(c) Award Processes and Preferences.--
       ``(1) Application, evaluation, and input processes.--In 
     administering the grant program established under this 
     section, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) use an appropriate application and evaluation 
     process, as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) seek the input of interested persons.
       ``(2) Coordination preference.--In selecting recipients of 
     grants to be used for any of the purposes described in 
     subsection (d)(1), the Secretary shall give a preference to 
     qualified entities that provide documentation of coordination 
     with other qualified entities, with respect to any such 
     purpose.
       ``(3) Consideration of available funds.--In selecting 
     recipients of grants to be used for any of the purposes 
     described in subsection (d), the Secretary shall take into 
     consideration the amount of funds available for grants and 
     the purposes for which the grant funds will be used.
       ``(4) Nature of grants.--A grant awarded under this section 
     shall be considered to be a competitive research, extension, 
     or education grant.
       ``(d) Use of Grants To Relieve Veterinarian Shortage 
     Situations and Support Veterinary Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     qualified entity may use funds provided by a grant awarded 
     under this section to relieve veterinarian shortage 
     situations and support veterinary services for any of the 
     following purposes:
       ``(A) To promote recruitment (including for programs in 
     secondary schools), placement, and retention of 
     veterinarians, veterinary technicians, students of veterinary 
     medicine, and students of veterinary technology.
       ``(B) To allow veterinary students, veterinary interns, 
     externs, fellows, and residents, and veterinary technician 
     students to cover expenses (other than the types of expenses 
     described in section 1415A(c)(5)) to attend training programs 
     in food safety or food animal medicine.
       ``(C) To establish or expand accredited veterinary 
     education programs (including faculty recruitment and 
     retention), veterinary residency and fellowship programs, or 
     veterinary internship and externship programs carried out in 
     coordination with accredited colleges of veterinary medicine.
       ``(D) To provide continuing education and extension, 
     including veterinary telemedicine and other distance-based 
     education, for veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and 
     other health professionals needed to strengthen veterinary 
     programs and enhance food safety.
       ``(E) To provide technical assistance for the preparation 
     of applications submitted to the Secretary for designation as 
     a veterinarian shortage situation under this section or 
     section 1415A.
       ``(2) Qualified entities operating veterinary clinics.--A 
     qualified entity described in subsection (a)(1)(A) may only 
     use funds provided by a grant awarded under this section to 
     establish or expand veterinary practices, including--
       ``(A) equipping veterinary offices;
       ``(B) sharing in the reasonable overhead costs of such 
     veterinary practices, as determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(C) establishing mobile veterinary facilities in which a 
     portion of the facilities will address education or extension 
     needs.
       ``(e) Special Requirements for Certain Grants.--
       ``(1) Terms of service requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Funds provided through a grant made 
     under this section to a qualified entity described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) and used by such entity under subsection 
     (d)(2) shall be subject to an agreement between the Secretary 
     and such entity that includes a required term of service for 
     such entity (including a qualified entity operating as an 
     individual), as prospectively established by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Considerations.--In establishing a term of service 
     under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consider only--
       ``(i) the amount of the grant awarded; and
       ``(ii) the specific purpose of the grant.
       ``(2) Breach remedies.--
       ``(A) In general.--An agreement under paragraph (1) shall 
     provide remedies for any breach of the agreement by the 
     qualified entity referred to in paragraph (1)(A), including 
     repayment or partial repayment of the grant funds, with 
     interest.
       ``(B) Waiver.--The Secretary may grant a waiver of the 
     repayment obligation for breach of contract if the Secretary 
     determines that such qualified entity demonstrates extreme 
     hardship or extreme need.
       ``(C) Treatment of amounts recovered.--Funds recovered 
     under this paragraph shall--
       ``(i) be credited to the account available to carry out 
     this section; and
       ``(ii) remain available until expended without further 
     appropriation.
       ``(f) Prohibition on Use of Grant Funds for Construction.--
     Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), funds made available 
     for grants under this section may not be used--
       ``(1) to construct a new building or facility; or
       ``(2) to acquire, expand, remodel, or alter an existing 
     building or facility, including site grading and improvement 
     and architect fees.
       ``(g) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this section.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out 
     this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, to remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 7105. GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 
                   SCIENCES EDUCATION.

       Section 1417(m) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3152(m)) 
     is amended by striking ``section $60,000,000'' and all that 
     follows and inserting the following: ``section--
       ``(1) $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1990 through 
     2013; and
       ``(2) $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7106. POLICY RESEARCH CENTERS.

       Section 1419A of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3155) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``AGRICULTURAL AND 
     FOOD'' before ``POLICY'';
       (2) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) by striking ``Secretary may'' and inserting ``Secretary 
     shall, acting through the Office of the Chief Economist,'';
       (B) by striking ``make grants, competitive grants, and 
     special research grants to, and enter into cooperative 
     agreements and other contracting instruments with,'' and 
     inserting ``make competitive grants to, or enter into 
     cooperative agreements with,''; and
       (C) by inserting ``with a history of providing unbiased, 
     nonpartisan economic analysis to Congress'' after 
     ``subsection (b)'';
       (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``other research 
     institutions'' and all that follows through ``shall be 
     eligible'' and inserting ``and other public research 
     institutions and organizations shall be eligible'';
       (4) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively;
       (5) by inserting after subsection (b), the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Preference.--In awarding grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall give a preference to policy research 
     centers that have extensive databases, models, and 
     demonstrated experience in providing Congress with 
     agricultural market projections, rural development analysis, 
     agricultural policy analysis, and baseline projections at the 
     farm, multiregional, national, and international levels.''; 
     and
       (6) by striking subsection (e) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (4)) and inserting the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     1996 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7107. REPEAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION INTERVENTION AND HEALTH 
                   PROMOTION RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 1424 of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3174) is repealed.

     SEC. 7108. REPEAL OF PILOT RESEARCH PROGRAM TO COMBINE 
                   MEDICAL AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 1424A of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3174a) is repealed.

     SEC. 7109. NUTRITION EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       Section 1425(f) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3175(f)) 
     is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 7110. CONTINUING ANIMAL HEALTH AND DISEASE RESEARCH 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 1433 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3195) is 
     amended by striking the section designation and heading and 
     all that follows through subsection (a) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1433. APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONTINUING ANIMAL HEALTH AND 
                   DISEASE RESEARCH PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--

[[Page 9655]]

       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to support continuing animal health and disease research 
     programs at eligible institutions--
       ``(A) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1991 through 
     2013; and
       ``(B) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this 
     section shall be used--
       ``(A) to meet the expenses of conducting animal health and 
     disease research, publishing and disseminating the results of 
     such research, and contributing to the retirement of 
     employees subject to the Act of March 4, 1940 (7 U.S.C. 331);
       ``(B) for administrative planning and direction; and
       ``(C) to purchase equipment and supplies necessary for 
     conducting the research described in subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 7111. REPEAL OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR RESEARCH ON NATIONAL 
                   OR REGIONAL PROBLEMS.

       (a) Repeal.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 1434 of the 
     National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3196) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Matching funds.--Section 1438 of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3200) is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``, exclusive of the funds provided for research on 
     specific national or regional animal health and disease 
     problems under the provisions of section 1434 of this 
     title,''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations for existing and 
     certain new agricultural research programs.--Section 1463(c) 
     of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3311(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``sections 1433 and 1434'' and inserting ``section 
     1433''.

     SEC. 7112. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCES 
                   FACILITIES AT 1890 LAND-GRANT COLLEGES, 
                   INCLUDING TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY.

       Section 1447(b) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     3222b(b)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 7113. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCE 
                   FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT AT INSULAR AREA LAND-
                   GRANT INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) Supporting Tropical and Subtropical Agricultural 
     Research.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1447B(a) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222b-2(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Purpose.--It is the intent of Congress to assist the 
     land-grant colleges and universities in the insular areas in 
     efforts to--
       ``(1) acquire, alter, or repair facilities or relevant 
     equipment necessary for conducting agricultural research; and
       ``(2) support tropical and subtropical agricultural 
     research, including pest and disease research.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1447B of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222b-2) is amended in the heading--
       (A) by inserting ``AND SUPPORT TROPICAL AND SUBTROPICAL 
     AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH'' after ``EQUIPMENT''; and
       (B) by striking ``INSTITUTIONS'' and inserting ``COLLEGES 
     AND UNIVERSITIES''.
       (b) Extension.--Section 1447B(d) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222b-2(d)) is amended by striking ``2012'' 
     and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 7114. REPEAL OF NATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING VIRTUAL 
                   CENTERS.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 1448 of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222c) is repealed.

     SEC. 7115. HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.

       Section 1455(c) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3241(c)) 
     is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 7116. COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC 
                   AGRICULTURAL WORKERS AND YOUTH.

       Section 1456(e)(1) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     3243(e)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     competitive grants program--
       ``(A) to fund fundamental and applied research and 
     extension at Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and 
     universities in agriculture, human nutrition, food science, 
     bioenergy, and environmental science; and
       ``(B) to award competitive grants to Hispanic-serving 
     agricultural colleges and universities to provide for 
     training in the food and agricultural sciences of Hispanic 
     agricultural workers and Hispanic youth working in the food 
     and agricultural sciences.''.

     SEC. 7117. COMPETITIVE GRANTS FOR INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL 
                   SCIENCE AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       Section 1459A(c) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     3292b(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     1999 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7118. REPEAL OF RESEARCH EQUIPMENT GRANTS.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 1462A of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310a) is repealed.

     SEC. 7119. UNIVERSITY RESEARCH.

       Section 1463 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3311) is 
     amended in both of subsections (a) and (b) by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 7120. EXTENSION SERVICE.

       Section 1464 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3312) is 
     amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 7121. AUDITING, REPORTING, BOOKKEEPING, AND 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 1469 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3315) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(b) Administrative Expenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may 
     retain not more than 4 percent of amounts made available for 
     agricultural research, extension, and teaching assistance 
     programs for the administration of those programs authorized 
     under this Act or any other Act.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--The limitation on administrative 
     expenses under paragraph (1) shall not apply to peer panel 
     expenses under subsection (d) or any other provision of law 
     related to the administration of agricultural research, 
     extension, and teaching assistance programs that contains a 
     limitation on administrative expenses that is less than the 
     limitation under paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Agreements With Non-Federal Entities.--
       ``(1) Former agricultural research facilities of the 
     department.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Secretary, for purposes of supporting ongoing research and 
     information dissemination activities, including supporting 
     research and those activities through co-locating scientists 
     and other technical personnel, sharing of laboratory and 
     field equipment, and providing financial support, shall enter 
     into grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other 
     legal instruments with former Department of Agriculture 
     agricultural research facilities.
       ``(2) Agreements with agricultural research 
     organizations.--The Secretary, for purposes of receiving from 
     a non-Federal agricultural research organization support for 
     agricultural research, including staffing, laboratory and 
     field equipment, or direct financial assistance, may enter 
     into grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other 
     legal instruments with a non-Federal agricultural research 
     organization, the operation of which is consistent with the 
     research mission and programs of an agricultural research 
     facility of the Department of Agriculture.''.

     SEC. 7122. SUPPLEMENTAL AND ALTERNATIVE CROPS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations and Termination.--
     Section 1473D of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3319d) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     this section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(2) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.
       (b) Competitive Grants.--Section 1473D(c)(1) of the 
     National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3319d(c)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``use such research funding, special or competitive 
     grants, or other means, as the Secretary determines,'' and 
     inserting ``make competitive grants''.

     SEC. 7123. CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS FOR NLGCA INSTITUTIONS.

       Section 1473F(b) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     3319i(b)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 7124. AQUACULTURE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Competitive Grants.--Section 1475(b) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3322(b)) is amended in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1), by inserting ``competitive'' before 
     ``grants''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1477 of the 
     National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3324) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 1477. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this subtitle--

[[Page 9656]]

       ``(1) $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1991 through 
     2013; and
       ``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Use.--Funds made available under this 
     section may not be used to acquire or construct a 
     building.''.

     SEC. 7125. RANGELAND RESEARCH PROGRAMS.

       Section 1483(a) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3336(a)) 
     is amended by striking ``subtitle'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following: ``subtitle--
       ``(1) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1991 through 
     2013; and
       ``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7126. SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR BIOSECURITY PLANNING AND 
                   RESPONSE.

       Section 1484(a) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3351(a)) 
     is amended by striking ``response such sums as are 
     necessary'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``response--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7127. DISTANCE EDUCATION AND RESIDENT INSTRUCTION GRANTS 
                   PROGRAM FOR INSULAR AREA INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Distance Education Grants for Insular Areas.--
       (1) Competitive grants.--Section 1490(a) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3362(a)) is amended by striking ``or 
     noncompetitive''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 1490(f) of 
     the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3362(f)) is amended by striking 
     ``section'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.
       (b) Resident Instruction Grants for Insular Areas.--Section 
     1491(c) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3363(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``such sums as are necessary'' and all that follows 
     and inserting the following: ``to carry out this section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7128. MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--The National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subtitle:

                    ``Subtitle P--General Provisions

     ``SEC. 1492. MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The recipient of a competitive grant 
     that is awarded by the Secretary under a covered law shall 
     provide funds, in-kind contributions, or a combination of 
     both, from sources other than funds provided through such 
     grant in an amount at least equal to the amount of such 
     grant.
       ``(b) Exception.--The matching funds requirement under 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to grants awarded--
       ``(1) to a research agency of the Department of 
     Agriculture;
       ``(2) to an entity eligible to receive funds under a 
     capacity and infrastructure program (as defined in section 
     251(f)(1)(C) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
     Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971(f)(1)(C))), including a partner of 
     such entity.
       ``(c) Covered Law.--In this section, the term `covered law' 
     means each of the following provisions of law:
       ``(1) This title.
       ``(2) Title XVI of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.).
       ``(3) The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education 
     Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.).
       ``(4) Part III of subtitle E of title VII of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 3202 et seq.).
       ``(5) The Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research 
     Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (9) of subsection (b) 
     of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (2) in the heading, by inserting ``for equipment grants'' 
     after ``funds'';
       (3) by striking ``(A) Equipment grants.--''; and
       (4) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B), respectively, and moving the margins of such 
     subparagraphs two ems to the left.
       (c) Application to Amendments.--
       (1) New grants.--Section 1492 of the National Agricultural, 
     Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as 
     added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to grants 
     described in such section awarded after October 1, 2013, 
     unless the provision of a covered law under which such grants 
     are awarded specifically exempts such grants from the 
     matching funds requirement under such section.
       (2) Existing grants.--A matching funds requirement in 
     effect on or before October 1, 2013, under a covered law 
     shall continue to apply to a grant awarded under such 
     provision of law on or before that date.

   Subtitle B--Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990

     SEC. 7201. BEST UTILIZATION OF BIOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS.

       Section 1624 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5814) is amended in the first 
     sentence--
       (1) by striking ``$40,000,000 for each fiscal year''; and
       (2) by inserting ``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2013 through 2018'' after ``chapter''.

     SEC. 7202. INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.

       Section 1627(d) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5821(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 
     $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2018.''.

     SEC. 7203. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND 
                   TRANSFER PROGRAM.

       Section 1628(f) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5831(f)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7204. NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM.

       Section 1629(i) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5832(i)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out the National 
     Training Program $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018.''.

     SEC. 7205. NATIONAL GENETICS RESOURCES PROGRAM.

       Section 1635(b) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5844(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``such funds as may be necessary''; and
       (2) by striking ``subtitle'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following: ``subtitle--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     1991 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7206. REPEAL OF NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL WEATHER 
                   INFORMATION SYSTEM.

       Effective October 1, 2013, subtitle D of title XVI of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 5851 et seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. 7207. REPEAL OF RURAL ELECTRONIC COMMERCE EXTENSION 
                   PROGRAM.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 1670 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     5923) is repealed.

     SEC. 7208. REPEAL OF AGRICULTURAL GENOME INITIATIVE.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 1671 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     5924) is repealed.

     SEC. 7209. HIGH-PRIORITY RESEARCH AND EXTENSION INITIATIVES.

       Section 1672 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``subsections (e) through (i)'' and inserting ``subsections 
     (e) and (f)'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), in the first sentence, by 
     striking ``subsections (e) through (i)'' and inserting 
     ``subsections (e) and (f)'';
       (3) by striking subsections (e), (f), and (i);
       (4) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), and (j) as 
     subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
       (5) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (4))--
       (A) by striking ``2012'' each place it appears in 
     paragraphs (1)(B), (2)(B), and (3) and inserting ``2018''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and honey bee 
     health disorders'' after ``collapse''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, including best 
     management practices'' after ``strategies''; and
       (6) in subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph (4)), 
     by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 7210. REPEAL OF NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND 
                   EXTENSION INITIATIVE.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 1672A of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     5925a) is repealed.

     SEC. 7211. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION 
                   INITIATIVE.

       Section 1672B of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925b) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(e) Farm Business Management Encouraged.--Following the 
     completion of a peer review process for grant proposals 
     received under this section, the Secretary shall give a 
     priority to grant proposals found in the review process to be 
     scientifically meritorious using the same criteria the 
     Secretary uses to give priority to grants under section 
     1672D(b).''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)--

[[Page 9657]]

       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the heading of such paragraph, by striking ``2012'' 
     and inserting ``2018'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the heading of such paragraph, by striking ``2009 
     through 2012'' and inserting ``2014 through 2018''; and
       (ii) by striking ``2009 through 2012'' and inserting ``2014 
     through 2018''.

     SEC. 7212. REPEAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOENERGY FEEDSTOCK AND 
                   ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESEARCH AND EXTENSION 
                   INITIATIVE.

       (a) Repeal.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 1672C of 
     the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 5925e) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 251(f)(1)(D) of the 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 6971(f)(1)(D)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (xi); and
       (2) by redesignating clauses (xii) and (xiii) as clauses 
     (xi) and (xii), respectively.

     SEC. 7213. FARM BUSINESS MANAGEMENT.

       Section 1672D(d) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925f(d)) is amended by 
     striking ``such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
     section.'' and inserting the following: ``to carry out this 
     section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7214. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

       The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
     is amended by inserting after section 1672D (7 U.S.C. 5925f) 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1673. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

       ``(a) Funding Priorities.--The Secretary shall prioritize 
     centers of excellence established for specific agricultural 
     commodities for the receipt of funding for any competitive 
     research or extension program administered by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Composition.--A center of excellence is composed of 1 
     or more of the eligible entities specified in subsection 
     (b)(7) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research 
     Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(7)) that provide financial or in-
     kind support to the center of excellence.
       ``(c) Criteria for Centers of Excellence.--
       ``(1) Required efforts.--The criteria for consideration to 
     be recognized as a center of excellence shall include 
     efforts--
       ``(A) to ensure coordination and cost effectiveness by 
     reducing unnecessarily duplicative efforts regarding 
     research, teaching, and extension;
       ``(B) to leverage available resources by using public/
     private partnerships among agricultural industry groups, 
     institutions of higher education, and the Federal Government;
       ``(C) to implement teaching initiatives to increase 
     awareness and effectively disseminate solutions to target 
     audiences through extension activities; and
       ``(D) to increase the economic returns to rural communities 
     by identifying, attracting, and directing funds to high-
     priority agricultural issues.
       ``(2) Additional efforts.--Where practicable, the criteria 
     for consideration to be recognized as a center of excellence 
     shall include efforts to improve teaching capacity and 
     infrastructure at colleges and universities (including land-
     grant institutions, schools of forestry, schools of 
     veterinary medicine, and NLGCA Institutions).''.

     SEC. 7215. REPEAL OF RED MEAT SAFETY RESEARCH CENTER.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 1676 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     5929) is repealed.

     SEC. 7216. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM FOR FARMERS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES.

       Section 1680(c)(1) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5933(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``is'' and inserting ``are''; and
       (2) by striking ``section'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following: ``section--
       ``(A) $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 
     2013; and
       ``(B) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7217. NATIONAL RURAL INFORMATION CENTER CLEARINGHOUSE.

       Section 2381(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 3125b(e)) is amended by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

Subtitle C--Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act 
                                of 1998

     SEC. 7301. RELEVANCE AND MERIT OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 
                   EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION FUNDED BY THE 
                   DEPARTMENT.

       Section 103(a)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, 
     and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the heading by striking ``Merit review of 
     extension'' and inserting ``Relevance and merit review of 
     research, extension,'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by inserting ``relevance and'' before ``merit''; and
       (B) by striking ``extension or education'' and inserting 
     ``research, extension, or education''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``on a continuous 
     basis'' after ``procedures''.

     SEC. 7302. INTEGRATED RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION 
                   COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM.

       Section 406(f) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626(f)) is amended by 
     striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 7303. REPEAL OF COORDINATED PROGRAM OF RESEARCH, 
                   EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION TO IMPROVE VIABILITY 
                   OF SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZE DAIRY, LIVESTOCK, AND 
                   POULTRY OPERATIONS.

       (a) Repeal.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 407 of the 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
     1998 (7 U.S.C. 7627) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 251(f)(1)(D) of the 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 6971(f)(1)(D)), as amended by section 7212(b), is 
     further amended--
       (1) by striking clause (xi) (as redesignated by section 
     7212(b)); and
       (2) by redesignating clause (xii) (as redesignated by 
     section 7212(b)) as clause (xi).

     SEC. 7304. FUSARIUM GRAMINEARUM GRANTS.

       Section 408(e) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7628(e)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 1999 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7305. REPEAL OF BOVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE CONTROL PROGRAM.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 409 of the Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 
     U.S.C. 7629) is repealed.

     SEC. 7306. GRANTS FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 410(d) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7630(d)) is amended by 
     striking ``section such sums as are necessary'' and all that 
     follows and inserting the following: ``section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7307. SPECIALTY CROP RESEARCH INITIATIVE.

       Section 412 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7632) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and genomics'' and 
     inserting ``genomics, and other methods''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``handling and 
     processing,'' after ``production efficiency,'';
       (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) Research Projects.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall award competitive grants on the basis of--
       ``(1) an initial scientific peer review conducted by a 
     panel of subject matter experts from Federal agencies, non-
     Federal entities, and the specialty crop industry; and
       ``(2) a final funding determination made by the Secretary 
     based on a review and ranking for merit, relevance, and 
     impact conducted by a panel of specialty crop industry 
     representatives for the specific specialty crop.''; and
       (3) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``(1) Mandatory funding for 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012.--Of the funds'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) Mandatory funding.--
       ``(A) Fiscal years 2008 through 2012.--Of the funds''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Subsequent funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall make available to 
     carry out this section--
       ``(i) $50,000,000 for fiscal years 2014 and 2015;
       ``(ii) $55,000,000 for fiscal years 2016 and 2017; and
       ``(iii) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2018 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and 
     inserting ``2014 through 2018''; and
       (ii) by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and inserting ``2014 
     through 2018''.

     SEC. 7308. FOOD ANIMAL RESIDUE AVOIDANCE DATABASE PROGRAM.

       Section 604(e) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7642(e)) is amended by 
     striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 7309. REPEAL OF NATIONAL SWINE RESEARCH CENTER.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 612 of the Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public 
     Law 105-185; 112 Stat. 605) is repealed.

     SEC. 7310. OFFICE OF PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY.

       Section 614(f) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7653(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``such sums as are necessary''; and

[[Page 9658]]

       (2) by striking ``section'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following: ``section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     1999 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7311. REPEAL OF STUDIES OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 
                   EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION.

       Effective October 1, 2013, subtitle C of title VI of the 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
     1998 (7 U.S.C. 7671 et seq.) is repealed.

                         Subtitle D--Other Laws

     SEC. 7401. CRITICAL AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS ACT.

       Section 16(a) of the Critical Agricultural Materials Act (7 
     U.S.C. 178n(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``such sums as are necessary''; and
       (2) by striking ``Act'' and all that follows and inserting 
     the following: ``Act--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     1991 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7402. EQUITY IN EDUCATIONAL LAND-GRANT STATUS ACT OF 
                   1994.

       (a) Definition of 1994 Institutions.--Section 532 of the 
     Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
     301 note; Public Law 103-382) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``Memorial'';
       (2) in paragraph (26), by striking ``Community'';
       (3) by striking paragraphs (5), (10), and (27);
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), 
     (7), (8), (9), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), 
     (21), (22), (23), (24), (25), (26), (28), (29), (30), (31), 
     (32), (33), and (34) as paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), 
     (9), (5), (10), (15), (17), (18), (19), (20), (22), (23), 
     (24), (25), (32), (26), (27), (28), (29), (30), (31), (33), 
     (34), (35), and (14), respectively, and transferring the 
     paragraphs so as to appear in numerical order;
       (5) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated), 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) Aaniih Nakoda College.'';
       (6) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as so redesignated), 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) College of the Muscogee Nation.'';
       (7) by inserting after paragraph (15) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(16) Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College.''; and
       (8) by inserting after paragraph (20) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(21) Navajo Technical College.''.
       (b) Endowment for 1994 Institutions.--Section 533(b) of the 
     Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
     301 note; Public Law 103-382) is amended in the first 
     sentence by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
       (c) Institutional Capacity Building Grants.--Section 535 of 
     the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 301 note; Public Law 103-382) is amended by striking 
     ``2012'' each place it appears in subsections (b)(1) and (c) 
     and inserting ``2018''.
       (d) Research Grants.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 536(c) of the 
     Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
     301 note; Public Law 103-382) is amended in the first 
     sentence by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
       (2) Research grant requirements.--Section 536(b) of the 
     Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
     301 note; Public Law 103-382) is amended by striking ``with 
     at least 1 other land-grant college or university'' and all 
     that follows and inserting the following: ``with--
       ``(1) the Agricultural Research Service of the Department 
     of Agriculture; or
       ``(2) at least 1--
       ``(A) other land-grant college or university (exclusive of 
     another 1994 Institution);
       ``(B) non-land-grant college of agriculture (as defined in 
     section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)); 
     or
       ``(C) cooperating forestry school (as defined in that 
     section).''.

     SEC. 7403. RESEARCH FACILITIES ACT.

       Section 6(a) of the Research Facilities Act (7 U.S.C. 
     390d(a)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 7404. REPEAL OF CARBON CYCLE RESEARCH.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 221 of the Agricultural 
     Risk Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 6711) is repealed.

     SEC. 7405. COMPETITIVE, SPECIAL, AND FACILITIES RESEARCH 
                   GRANT ACT.

       (a) Extension.--Subsection (b)(11)(A) of the Competitive, 
     Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(b)(11)(A)) is amended in the matter preceding clause (i) 
     by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
       (b) Priority Areas.--Subsection (b)(2) of the Competitive, 
     Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (vii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(viii) plant-based foods that are major sources of 
     nutrients of concern (as determined by the Secretary).'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (vii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (viii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
       ``(ix) the research and development of surveillance 
     methods, vaccines, vaccination delivery systems, or 
     diagnostic tests for pests and diseases (especially zoonotic 
     diseases) in wildlife reservoirs presenting a potential 
     concern to public health or domestic livestock and pests and 
     diseases in minor species (including deer, elk, and bison); 
     and
       ``(x) the identification of animal drug needs and the 
     generation and dissemination of data for safe and effective 
     therapeutic applications of animal drugs for minor species 
     and minor uses of such drugs in major species.'';
       (3) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) in clause (ii), by inserting before the semicolon ``, 
     including the effects of plant-based foods that are major 
     sources of nutrients of concern on diet and health'';
       (B) in clause (iii), by inserting before the semicolon ``, 
     including plant-based foods that are major sources of 
     nutrients of concern'';
       (C) in clause (iv), by inserting before the semicolon ``, 
     including postharvest practices conducted with respect to 
     plant-based foods that are major sources of nutrients of 
     concern''; and
       (D) in clause (v), by inserting before the period ``, 
     including improving the functionality of plant-based foods 
     that are major sources of nutrients of concern'';
       (4) in subparagraph (D)--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (iv), (v), and (vi) as clauses 
     (v), (vi), and (vii), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after clause (iii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(iv) the effectiveness of conservation practices and 
     technologies designed to address nutrient losses and improve 
     water quality;''; and
       (5) in subparagraph (F)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting 
     ``economics,'' after ``trade,'';
       (B) by redesignating clauses (v) and (vi) as clauses (vi) 
     and (vii), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after clause (iv) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(v) the economic costs, benefits, and viability of 
     producers adopting conservation practices and technologies 
     designed to improve water quality;''.
       (c) General Administration.--Subsection (b)(4) of the 
     Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(b)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) establish procedures under which a commodity board 
     established under a commodity promotion law (as such term is 
     defined under section 501(a) of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401(a))) or a 
     State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity) may 
     directly submit to the Secretary proposals for requests for 
     applications to specifically address particular issues 
     related to the priority areas specified in paragraph (2).''.
       (d) Special Considerations.--Subsection (b)(6) of the 
     Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(b)(6)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) to eligible entities to carry out the specific 
     research proposals submitted under procedures established 
     under paragraph (4)(F).''.
       (e) Eligible Entities.--Subsection (b)(7)(G) of the 
     Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(b)(7)(G)) is amended by striking ``or 
     corporations'' and inserting ``, foundations, or 
     corporations''.
       (f) Inter-Regional Research Project Number 4.--Subsection 
     (e) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research 
     Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``minor use 
     pesticides'' and inserting ``pesticides for minor 
     agricultural use and for use on specialty crops (as defined 
     in section 3 of the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 
     2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and for use on 
     specialty crops'' after ``minor agricultural use'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(C) prioritize potential pest management technology for 
     minor agricultural use and for use on specialty crops;
       ``(D) conduct research to develop the data necessary to 
     facilitate pesticide registrations, reregistrations, and 
     associated tolerances;
       ``(E) assist in removing trade barriers caused by residues 
     of pesticides registered for minor agricultural use and for 
     use on domestically grown specialty crops;
       ``(F) assist in the registration and reregistration of pest 
     management technologies for minor agricultural use and for 
     use on specialty crops; and''.
       (g) Emphasis on Sustainable Agriculture.--The Competitive, 
     Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i) is 
     amended by striking subsection (k).

[[Page 9659]]



     SEC. 7406. RENEWABLE RESOURCES EXTENSION ACT OF 1978.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 6 of the 
     Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1675) is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018''.
       (b) Termination Date.--Section 8 of the Renewable Resources 
     Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 note; Public Law 95-
     306) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 7407. NATIONAL AQUACULTURE ACT OF 1980.

       Section 10 of the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 
     U.S.C. 2809) is amended by striking ``2012'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 7408. REPEAL OF USE OF REMOTE SENSING DATA.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 892 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     5935) is repealed.

     SEC. 7409. REPEAL OF REPORTS UNDER FARM SECURITY AND RURAL 
                   INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002.

       (a) Repeal of Report on Producers and Handlers for Organic 
     Products.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 7409 of the 
     Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 
     5925b note; Public Law 107-171) is repealed.
       (b) Repeal of Report on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected 
     Plants.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 7410 of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     171; 116 Stat. 462) is repealed.
       (c) Repeal of Study on Nutrient Banking.--Effective October 
     1, 2013, section 7411 of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 5925a note; Public Law 107-
     171) is repealed.

     SEC. 7410. BEGINNING FARMER AND RANCHER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       Section 7405 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3319f) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (A) through 
     (R) and inserting the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(A) basic livestock, forest management, and crop farming 
     practices;
       ``(B) innovative farm, ranch, and private, nonindustrial 
     forest land transfer strategies;
       ``(C) entrepreneurship and business training;
       ``(D) financial and risk management training (including the 
     acquisition and management of agricultural credit);
       ``(E) natural resource management and planning;
       ``(F) diversification and marketing strategies;
       ``(G) curriculum development;
       ``(H) mentoring, apprenticeships, and internships;
       ``(I) resources and referral;
       ``(J) farm financial benchmarking;
       ``(K) assisting beginning farmers or ranchers in acquiring 
     land from retiring farmers and ranchers;
       ``(L) agricultural rehabilitation and vocational training 
     for veterans; and
       ``(M) other similar subject areas of use to beginning 
     farmers or ranchers.'';
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and community-based 
     organizations'' and inserting ``, community-based 
     organizations, and school-based agricultural educational 
     organizations'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) Military veteran beginning farmers and ranchers.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not less than 5 percent of the funds 
     used to carry out this subsection for a fiscal year shall be 
     used to support programs and services that address the needs 
     of military veteran beginning farmers and ranchers.
       ``(B) Coordination permitted.--A recipient of a grant under 
     this section using the grant as described in subparagraph (A) 
     may coordinate with a recipient of a grant under section 1680 
     of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
     (7 U.S.C. 5933) in addressing the needs of military veteran 
     beginning farmers and ranchers with disabilities.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) Limitation on indirect costs.--A recipient of a 
     grant under this section may not use more than 10 percent of 
     the funds provided by the grant for the indirect costs of 
     carrying out the initiatives described in paragraph (1).'';
       (2) in subsection (h)(1)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2018'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018, to remain available until expended.''; and
       (3) in subsection (h)(2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``2008 through 
     2012'' and inserting ``2014 through 2018''; and
       (B) by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and inserting ``2014 
     through 2018''.

     SEC. 7411. INCLUSION OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS AS A STATE 
                   UNDER MCINTIRE-STENNIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY 
                   ACT.

       Section 8 of Public Law 87-788 (commonly known as the 
     McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act; 16 U.S.C. 582a-7) 
     is amended by striking ``and Guam'' and inserting ``Guam, and 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''.

         Subtitle E--Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

                     PART 1--AGRICULTURAL SECURITY

     SEC. 7501. AGRICULTURAL BIOSECURITY COMMUNICATION CENTER.

       Section 14112(c) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8912(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7502. ASSISTANCE TO BUILD LOCAL CAPACITY IN AGRICULTURAL 
                   BIOSECURITY PLANNING, PREPARATION, AND 
                   RESPONSE.

       Section 14113 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 8913) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``such sums as may be necessary''; and
       (B) by striking ``subsection'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following: ``subsection--
       ``(A) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2013; and
       ``(B) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this subsection'' and all that 
     follows and inserting the following: ``are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this subsection--
       ``(A) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013; and
       ``(B) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7503. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL 
                   COUNTERMEASURES.

       Section 14121(b) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8921(b)) is amended by striking ``is 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section'' and 
     all that follows and inserting the following: ``are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013; and
       ``(2) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 7504. AGRICULTURAL BIOSECURITY GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 14122(e) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8922(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``sums as are necessary''; and
       (2) by striking ``section'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following: ``section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2013, to remain available until expended; and
       ``(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018, to remain available until expended.''.

                         PART 2--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 7511. ENHANCED USE LEASE AUTHORITY PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 308 of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 3125a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(6)(A), by striking ``5 years'' and 
     inserting ``10 years''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``1, 3, and 5 years'' 
     and inserting ``6, 8, and 10 years''.

     SEC. 7512. GRAZINGLANDS RESEARCH LABORATORY.

       Section 7502 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2019) is amended by 
     striking ``5-year period'' and inserting ``10-year period''.

     SEC. 7513. BUDGET SUBMISSION AND FUNDING.

       Section 7506 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 7614c) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Covered program.--The term `covered program' means--
       ``(A) each research program carried out by the Agricultural 
     Research Service or the Economic Research Service for which 
     annual appropriations are requested in the annual budget 
     submission of the President; and
       ``(B) each competitive program carried out by the National 
     Institute of Food and Agriculture for which annual 
     appropriations are requested in the annual budget submission 
     of the President.
       ``(2) Request for awards.--The term `request for awards' 
     means a funding announcement published by the National 
     Institute of Food and Agriculture that provides detailed 
     information on funding opportunities at the Institute, 
     including the purpose, eligibility, restriction, focus areas, 
     evaluation criteria, regulatory information, and instructions 
     on how to apply for such opportunities.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(e) Additional Presidential Budget Submission 
     Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each year, the President shall submit to 
     Congress, together with the annual budget submission of the 
     President, the information described in paragraph (2) for 
     each funding request for a covered program.
       ``(2) Information described.--The information described in 
     this paragraph includes--
       ``(A) baseline information, including with respect to each 
     covered program--
       ``(i) the funding level for the program for the fiscal year 
     preceding the year the annual budget submission of the 
     President is submitted;

[[Page 9660]]

       ``(ii) the funding level requested in the annual budget 
     submission of the President, including any increase or 
     decrease in the funding level; and
       ``(iii) an explanation justifying any change from the 
     funding level specified in clause (i) to the level specified 
     in clause (ii);
       ``(B) with respect to each covered program that is carried 
     out by the Economic Research Service or the Agricultural 
     Research Service, the location and staff years of the 
     program;
       ``(C) the proposed funding levels to be allocated to, and 
     the expected publication date, scope, and allocation level 
     for, each request for awards to be published under or 
     associated with--
       ``(i) each priority area specified in subsection (b)(2) of 
     the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(2));
       ``(ii) each research and extension project carried out 
     under section 1621(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5811(a));
       ``(iii) each grant to be awarded under section 1672B(a) of 
     the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 5925b(a));
       ``(iv) each grant awarded under section 412(d) of the 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
     1998 (7 U.S.C. 7632(d)); and
       ``(v) each grant awarded under 7405(c)(1) of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 
     3319f(c)(1)); or
       ``(D) any other information the Secretary determines will 
     increase congressional oversight with respect to covered 
     programs.
       ``(3) Prohibition.--Unless the President submits the 
     information described in paragraph (2)(C) for a fiscal year, 
     the President may not carry out any program during the fiscal 
     year that is authorized under--
       ``(A) subsection (b) of the Competitive, Special, and 
     Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b));
       ``(B) section 1621 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5811);
       ``(C) section 1672B of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925b);
       ``(D) section 412 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, 
     and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7632); or
       ``(E) section 7405 of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3319f).
       ``(f) Report of the Secretary of Agriculture.--Each year on 
     a date that is not later than the date on which the President 
     submits the annual budget, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing a description of the 
     agricultural research, extension, and education activities 
     carried out by the Federal Government during the fiscal year 
     that immediately precedes the year for which the report is 
     submitted, including--
       ``(1) a review of the extent to which those activities--
       ``(A) are duplicative or overlap within the Department of 
     Agriculture; or
       ``(B) are similar to activities carried out by--
       ``(i) other Federal agencies;
       ``(ii) the States (including the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and other territories or 
     possessions of the United States);
       ``(iii) institutions of higher education (as defined in 
     section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001)); or
       ``(iv) the private sector; and
       ``(2) for each report submitted under this section on or 
     after January 1, 2013, a 5-year projection of national 
     priorities with respect to agricultural research, extension, 
     and education, taking into account domestic needs.''.

     SEC. 7514. REPEAL OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION GRANTS FOR THE 
                   STUDY OF ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT BACTERIA.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 7521 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 3202) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 7515. REPEAL OF FARM AND RANCH STRESS ASSISTANCE 
                   NETWORK.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 7522 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 5936) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 7516. REPEAL OF SEED DISTRIBUTION.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 7523 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 415-1) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 7517. NATURAL PRODUCTS RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       Section 7525(e) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 5937(e)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.

     SEC. 7518. SUN GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 7526 of the Food, Conservation, 
     and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8114) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(4)(B), by striking ``the Department 
     of Energy'' and inserting ``other appropriate Federal 
     agencies (as determined by the Secretary)'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``multistate'' and all 
     that follows through the period and inserting ``integrated, 
     multistate research, extension, and education programs on 
     technology development and technology implementation.'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C);
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``in accordance with paragraph (2)'';
       (ii) by striking ``gasification'' and inserting 
     ``bioproducts''; and
       (iii) by striking ``the Department of Energy'' and 
     inserting ``other appropriate Federal agencies'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively; and
       (4) in subsection (g), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 7526(f)(1) of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8114(f)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``subsection (c)(1)(D)(i)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (c)(1)(C)(i)''.

     SEC. 7519. REPEAL OF STUDY AND REPORT ON FOOD DESERTS.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 7527 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 
     Stat. 2039) is repealed.

     SEC. 7520. REPEAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL TRANSPORTATION 
                   RESEARCH AND EDUCATION.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 7529 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 5938) is 
     repealed.

                  Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 7601. AGREEMENTS WITH NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS FOR 
                   NATIONAL ARBORETUM.

       Section 6 of the Act of March 4, 1927 (20 U.S.C. 196), is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) negotiate agreements for the National Arboretum with 
     nonprofit scientific or educational organizations, the 
     interests of which are complementary to the mission of the 
     National Arboretum, or nonprofit organizations that support 
     the purpose of the National Arboretum, except that the net 
     proceeds of the organizations from the agreements shall be 
     used exclusively for research and educational work for the 
     benefit of the National Arboretum and the operation and 
     maintenance of the facilities of the National Arboretum, 
     including enhancements, upgrades, restoration, and 
     conservation;''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Recognition of Donors.--A non-profit organization 
     that entered into an agreement under subsection (a)(1) may 
     recognize donors if that recognition is approved in advance 
     by the Secretary. In considering whether to approve such 
     recognition, the Secretary shall broadly exercise the 
     discretion of the Secretary to the fullest extent allowed 
     under Federal law in effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this subsection.''.

     SEC. 7602. COTTON DISEASE RESEARCH REPORT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on 
     the fungus fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum race 4 
     (referred to in this section as ``FOV Race 4'') and the 
     impact of such fungus on cotton, including--
       (1) an overview of the threat FOV Race 4 poses to the 
     cotton industry in the United States;
       (2) the status and progress of Federal research initiatives 
     to detect, contain, or eradicate FOV Race 4, including 
     current FOV Race 4-specific research projects; and
       (3) a comprehensive strategy to combat FOV Race 4 that 
     establishes--
       (A) detection and identification goals;
       (B) containment goals;
       (C) eradication goals; and
       (D) a plan to partner with the cotton industry in the 
     United States to maximize resources, information sharing, and 
     research responsiveness and effectiveness.

     SEC. 7603. ACCEPTANCE OF FACILITY FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 
                   SERVICE.

       (a) Construction Authorized.--Subject to subsections (b) 
     and (c), the Secretary of Agriculture may authorize a non-
     Federal entity to construct, at no cost and without 
     obligation to the Federal Government, a facility for use by 
     the Agricultural Research Service on land owned by the 
     Agricultural Research Service and managed by the Secretary.
       (b) Acceptance of Gift.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon the 
     completion of the construction of the facility by the non-
     Federal entity under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     accept the facility as a gift in accordance with Public Law 
     95-442 (7 U.S.C. 2269).
       (2) Certification.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall 
     certify in advance that the acceptance under paragraph (1) 
     complies with the limitations specified in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of subsection (c).
       (c) Limitations.--
       (1) Value.--The Secretary may not accept a facility as a 
     gift under this section if the fair market value of the 
     facility is more than $5,000,000.
       (2) No federal cost.--The Secretary shall not enter into 
     any acquisitions, demonstrations, exchanges, grants, 
     contracts, incentives, leases, procurements, sales, or other 
     transaction authorities or arrangements that would obligate 
     future appropriations with respect to the facility 
     constructed under subsection (a).
       (d) Termination of Authority.--No facility may be accepted 
     by the Secretary for use by the Agricultural Research Service 
     under this section after September 30, 2018.

[[Page 9661]]



     SEC. 7604. MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       Sections 7408 and 7409 of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2013) are 
     both amended by striking ``Title III of the Department of 
     Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994'' and inserting 
     ``Title III of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994''.

                          TITLE VIII--FORESTRY

            Subtitle A--Repeal of Certain Forestry Programs

     SEC. 8001. FOREST LAND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 4 of the Cooperative Forestry 
     Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8002 of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     171; 16 U.S.C. 2103 note) is amended by striking subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 8002. WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 6 of the Cooperative Forestry 
     Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103b) is repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 8003. EXPIRED COOPERATIVE NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS 
                   MARKETING PROGRAM.

       Section 18 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2112) is repealed.

     SEC. 8004. HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTION AGRICULTURAL LAND 
                   NATIONAL RESOURCES LEADERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 8402 of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 (16 U.S.C. 1649a) is repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 8005. TRIBAL WATERSHED FORESTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 303 of the Healthy Forests Restoration 
     Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6542) is repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2013.

     SEC. 8006. SEPARATE FOREST SERVICE DECISIONMAKING AND APPEALS 
                   PROCESS.

       Section 322 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16 
     U.S.C. 1612 note) is repealed. Section 428 of division E of 
     the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74; 
     125 Stat. 1046; 16 U.S.C. 6515 note) shall not apply to any 
     project or activity implementing a land and resource 
     management plan developed under section 6 of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 
     1604) that is categorically excluded from documentation in an 
     environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

 Subtitle B--Reauthorization of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
                             1978 Programs

     SEC. 8101. STATE-WIDE ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGIES FOR FOREST 
                   RESOURCES.

       Section 2A(c) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101a(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) as feasible, appropriate military installations where 
     the voluntary participation and management of private or 
     State-owned or other public forestland is able to support, 
     promote, and contribute to the missions of such 
     installations; and''.

     SEC. 8102. FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM.

       Subsection (m) of section 7 of the Cooperative Forestry 
     Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103c) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(2) $55,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 8103. COMMUNITY FOREST AND OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       Subsection (g) of section 7A of the Cooperative Forestry 
     Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103d) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(2) $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

       Subtitle C--Reauthorization of Other Forestry-Related Laws

     SEC. 8201. RURAL REVITALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES.

       Section 2371(d)(2) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6601(d)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 8202. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY.

       Subsection (d) of section 2405 of the Global Climate Change 
     Prevention Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6704) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     1996 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 8203. CHANGE IN FUNDING SOURCE FOR HEALTHY FORESTS 
                   RESERVE PROGRAM.

       Section 508 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 
     (16 U.S.C. 6578) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``In General'' and 
     inserting ``Fiscal Years 2009 Through 2013'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (d); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(b) Fiscal Years 2014 Through 2018.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry 
     out this section $9,750,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018.
       ``(c) Additional Source of Funds.--In addition to funds 
     appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations 
     in subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary may use 
     such amount of the funds appropriated for that fiscal year to 
     carry out the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 590a et seq.) as the Secretary determines 
     necessary to cover the cost of technical assistance, 
     management, and enforcement responsibilities for land 
     enrolled in the healthy forests reserve program pursuant to 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 504.''.

     SEC. 8204. STEWARDSHIP END RESULT CONTRACTING PROJECT 
                   AUTHORITY.

       Section 347 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 
     101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 16 U.S.C. 2104 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
     ``2018''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(6) Contract for sale of property.--At the discretion of 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, a contract entered into by the 
     Forest Service under this section may be considered a 
     contract for the sale of property under such terms as the 
     Secretary may prescribe without regard to any other provision 
     of law.''.

           Subtitle D--National Forest Critical Area Response

     SEC. 8301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Critical area.--The term ``critical area'' means an 
     area of the National Forest System designated by the 
     Secretary under section 8302
       (2) National forest system.--The term ``National Forest 
     System'' has the meaning given that term in section 11(a) of 
     the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 
     1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 8302. DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL AREAS.

       (a) Designation Requirements.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall designate critical areas within the National Forest 
     System for the purposes of addressing--
       (1) deteriorating forest health conditions in existence as 
     of the date of the enactment of this Act due to insect 
     infestation, drought, disease, or storm damage; and
       (2) the future risk of insect infestations or disease 
     outbreaks through preventative treatments.
       (b) Designation Method.--In considering National Forest 
     System land for designation as a critical area, the Secretary 
     shall use--
       (1) for purposes of subsection (a)(1), the most recent 
     annual forest health aerial surveys of mortality and 
     defoliation; and
       (2) for purposes of subsection (a)(2), the National Insect 
     and Disease Risk Map.
       (c) Time for Initial Designations.--The first critical 
     areas shall be designated by the Secretary not later than 60 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Duration of Designation.--The designation of a critical 
     area shall expire not later than 10 years after the date of 
     the designation.

     SEC. 8303. APPLICATION OF EXPEDITED PROCEDURES AND ACTIVITIES 
                   OF THE HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003 
                   TO CRITICAL AREAS.

       (a) Applicability.--Subject to subsections (b) through (e), 
     title I of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 
     U.S.C. 6511 et seq.) (including the environmental analysis 
     requirements of section 104 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 6514), the 
     special administrative review process under section 105 of 
     that Act (16 U.S.C. 6515), and the judicial review process 
     under section 106 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 6516)), shall apply 
     to all Forest Service projects and activities carried out in 
     a critical area.
       (b) Application of Other Law.--Section 322 of Public Law 
     102-381 (16 U.S.C. 1612 note; 106 Stat. 1419) shall not apply 
     to projects conducted in accordance with this section.
       (c) Required Modifications.--In applying title I of the 
     Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511 et 
     seq.) to Forest Service projects and activities in a critical 
     area, the Secretary shall make the following modifications:
       (1) The authority shall apply to the entire critical area, 
     including land that is outside of a wildland-urban interface 
     area or that does not satisfy any of the other eligibility 
     criteria specified in section 102(a) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 
     6512(a)).
       (2) All projects and activities of the Forest Service, 
     including necessary connected actions

[[Page 9662]]

     (as described in section 1508.25(a)(1) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)), shall be 
     considered to be authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects 
     for purposes of applying the title.
       (d) Smaller Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     project conducted in a critical area in accordance with this 
     section that comprises less than 10,000 acres shall be--
       (A) considered an action categorically excluded from the 
     requirements for an environmental assessment or an 
     environmental impact statement under section 1508.4 of title 
     40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation); 
     and
       (B) exempt from the special administrative review process 
     under section 105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
     2003 (16 U.S.C. 6515).
       (2) Exclusion of certain areas.--Paragraph (1) does not 
     apply to--
       (A) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System;
       (B) any Federal land on which, by Act of Congress or 
     Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is 
     restricted or prohibited;
       (C) a congressionally designated wilderness study area; or
       (D) an area in which activities under paragraph (1) would 
     be inconsistent with the applicable land and resource 
     management plan.
       (e) Forest Management Plans.--All projects and activities 
     carried out in a critical area pursuant to this subtitle 
     shall be consistent with the land and resource management 
     plan established under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland 
     Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) for 
     the unit of the National Forest System containing the 
     critical area.

     SEC. 8304. GOOD NEIGHBOR AUTHORITY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' means a 
     State that contains National Forest System land.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (3) State forester.--The term ``State forester'' means the 
     head of a State agency with jurisdiction over State forestry 
     programs in an eligible State.
       (b) Cooperative Agreements and Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a cooperative 
     agreement or contract (including a sole source contract) with 
     a State forester to authorize the State forester to provide 
     the forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration and 
     protection services described in paragraph (2) on National 
     Forest System land in the eligible State.
       (2) Authorized services.--The forest, rangeland, and 
     watershed restoration and protection services referred to in 
     paragraph (1) include the conduct of--
       (A) activities to treat insect infected trees;
       (B) activities to reduce hazardous fuels; and
       (C) any other activities to restore or improve forest, 
     rangeland, and watershed health, including fish and wildlife 
     habitat.
       (3) State as agent.--Except as provided in paragraph (6), a 
     cooperative agreement or contract entered into under 
     paragraph (1) may authorize the State forester to serve as 
     the agent for the Secretary in providing the restoration and 
     protection services authorized under that paragraph.
       (4) Subcontracts.--In accordance with applicable contract 
     procedures for the eligible State, a State forester may enter 
     into subcontracts to provide the restoration and protection 
     services authorized under a cooperative agreement or contract 
     entered into under paragraph (1).
       (5) Timber sales.--Subsections (d) and (g) of section 14 of 
     the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) 
     shall not apply to services performed under a cooperative 
     agreement or contract entered into under paragraph (1).
       (6) Retention of nepa responsibilities.--Any decision 
     required to be made under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to any 
     restoration and protection services to be provided under this 
     section by a State forester on National Forest System land 
     shall not be delegated to a State forester or any other 
     officer or employee of the eligible State.
       (7) Applicable law.--The restoration and protection 
     services to be provided under this section shall be carried 
     out on a project-to-project basis under existing authorities 
     of the Forest Service.

                  Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 8401. REVISION OF STRATEGIC PLAN FOR FOREST INVENTORY 
                   AND ANALYSIS.

       (a) Revision Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall revise the strategic plan for forest 
     inventory and analysis initially prepared pursuant to section 
     3(e) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research 
     Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1642(e)) to address the requirements 
     imposed by subsection (b).
       (b) Elements of Revised Strategic Plan.--In revising the 
     strategic plan, the Secretary of Agriculture shall describe 
     in detail the organization, procedures, and funding needed to 
     achieve each of the following:
       (1) Complete the transition to a fully annualized forest 
     inventory program and include inventory and analysis of 
     interior Alaska.
       (2) Implement an annualized inventory of trees in urban 
     settings, including the status and trends of trees and 
     forests, and assessments of their ecosystem services, values, 
     health, and risk to pests and diseases.
       (3) Report information on renewable biomass supplies and 
     carbon stocks at the local, State, regional, and national 
     level, including by ownership type.
       (4) Engage State foresters and other users of information 
     from the forest inventory and analysis in reevaluating the 
     list of core data variables collected on forest inventory and 
     analysis plots with an emphasis on demonstrated need.
       (5) Improve the timeliness of the timber product output 
     program and accessibility of the annualized information on 
     that database.
       (6) Foster greater cooperation among the forest inventory 
     and analysis program, research station leaders, and State 
     foresters and other users of information from the forest 
     inventory and analysis.
       (7) Promote availability of and access to non-Federal 
     resources to improve information analysis and information 
     management.
       (8) Collaborate with the Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and United 
     States Geological Survey to integrate remote sensing, spatial 
     analysis techniques, and other new technologies in the forest 
     inventory and analysis program.
       (9) Understand and report on changes in land cover and use.
       (10) Expand existing programs to promote sustainable forest 
     stewardship through increased understanding, in partnership 
     with other Federal agencies, of the over 10 million family 
     forest owners, their demographics, and the barriers to forest 
     stewardship.
       (11) Implement procedures to improve the statistical 
     precision of estimates at the sub-State level.
       (c) Submission of Revised Strategic Plan.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall submit the revised strategic plan to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate.

     SEC. 8402. FOREST SERVICE PARTICIPATION IN ACES PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of 
     the Forest Service, may use funds derived from conservation-
     related programs executed on National Forest System lands to 
     utilize the Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services 
     Program established pursuant to section 1252 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3851) to provide technical 
     services for conservation-related programs and authorities 
     carried out by the Secretary on National Forest System lands.

     SEC. 8403. GREEN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER RESEARCH 
                   UNDER FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLE RESOURCES 
                   RESEARCH ACT OF 1978.

       (a) Additional Forestry and Rangeland Research and 
     Education High Priority.--Section 3(d)(2) of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     1642(d)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) Science and technology transfer, through the Forest 
     Products Laboratory, to demonstrate the beneficial 
     characteristics of wood as a green building material, 
     including investments in life cycle assessment for wood 
     products.''.
       (b) Research Facilities and Cooperation.--Section 4 of the 
     Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 
     (16 U.S.C. 1643) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate an 
     annual report describing, for the period covered by the 
     report--
       ``(1) the research conducted in furtherance of the research 
     and education priority specified in section 3(d)(2)(F);
       ``(2) the number of buildings the Forest Service has built 
     with wood as the primary structural material; and
       ``(3) the investments made by the Forest Service in green 
     building wood promotion.''.

     SEC. 8404. EXTENSION OF STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTS AUTHORITY 
                   REGARDING USE OF DESIGNATION BY PRESCRIPTION TO 
                   ALL THINNING SALES UNDER NATIONAL FOREST 
                   MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976.

       Subsection (g) of section 14 of the National Forest 
     Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(g) Designation, including but not limited to, marking 
     when necessary, designation by description, or designation by 
     prescription, and supervision of harvesting of trees, 
     portions of trees, or forest products shall be conducted by 
     persons employed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Such 
     persons shall have no personal interest in the purchase or 
     harvest of such products and shall not be directly or 
     indirectly in the employment of the purchaser thereof. 
     Designation by prescription and designation by prescription 
     shall be considered valid methods for designation, and may be 
     supervised by use of post-harvest cruise, sample weight 
     scaling, or other methods determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate.''.

     SEC. 8405. REIMBURSEMENT OF FIRE FUNDS EXPENDED BY A STATE 
                   FOR MANAGEMENT AND SUPPRESSION OF CERTAIN 
                   WILDFIRES.

       (a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term 
     ``State'' includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       (b) Reimbursement Authority.--If a State seeks 
     reimbursement for amounts expended for resources and services 
     provided to another State

[[Page 9663]]

     for the management and suppression of a wildfire, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, subject to subsections (c) and 
     (d)--
       (1) may accept the reimbursement amounts from the other 
     State; and
       (2) shall pay those amounts to the State seeking 
     reimbursement.
       (c) Mutual Assistance Agreement.--As a condition of seeking 
     and providing reimbursement under subsection (b), the State 
     seeking reimbursement and the State providing reimbursement 
     must each have a mutual assistance agreement with the Forest 
     Service or an agency of the Department of the Interior for 
     providing and receiving wildfire management and suppression 
     resources and services.
       (d) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     prescribe the terms and conditions determined to be necessary 
     to carry out subsection (b).
       (e) Effect on Prior Reimbursements.--Any acceptance of 
     funds or reimbursements made by the Secretary of Agriculture 
     before the date of enactment of this Act that otherwise would 
     have been authorized under this section shall be considered 
     to have been made in accordance with this section.

     SEC. 8406. ABILITY OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS TO MEET 
                   NEEDS OF LOCAL WOOD PRODUCING FACILITIES FOR 
                   RAW MATERIALS.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing--
       (1) an assessment of the raw material needs of wood 
     producing facilities located within the boundaries of each 
     unit of the National Forest System or located outside of the 
     unit, but within 100 miles of such boundaries;
       (2) the volume of timber which would be available if the 
     unit of the National Forest System annually sold its 
     Allowable Sale Quantity in the current Forest Plan;
       (3) the volume of timber actually sold and harvested from 
     each unit of the National Forest System for the previous 
     decade,
       (4) a comparison of the volume actually sold and harvested 
     from the previous decade to the Allowable Sale Quantity 
     calculated in that decade by preceding or current forest 
     plans; and
       (5) an assessment of the ability of each unit of National 
     Forest System to meet the needs of these facilities for raw 
     materials.

     SEC. 8407. REPORT ON THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROADS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on 
     the following:
       (1) The total mileage of National Forest System roads and 
     trails not meeting forest plan standards and guidelines.
       (2) The total amount, in dollars, of Capital Improvement & 
     Maintenance deferred maintenance needs for National Forest 
     System roads, including a five-year analysis in the trend in 
     total deferred maintenance costs.
       (3) The sources of funds used for capital improvement & 
     maintenance roads, including appropriated funds, mandatory 
     funds, and receipts from activities on National Forest System 
     lands.
       (4) The impact of road closures on recreational activities 
     and timber harvesting.
       (5) The impact on land acquisitions, whether through fee 
     acquisition, donation, or easement, on the maintenance 
     backlog.

                            TITLE IX--ENERGY

     SEC. 9001. DEFINITION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM.

       Section 9001 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8101) is amended by--
       (1) striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Biobased product.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `biobased product' means a 
     product determined by the Secretary to be a commercial or 
     industrial product (other than food or feed) that is--
       ``(i) composed, in whole or in significant part, of 
     biological products, including renewable domestic 
     agricultural materials and forestry materials; or
       ``(ii) an intermediate ingredient or feedstock.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term `biobased product', with respect 
     to forestry materials, includes forest products that meet 
     biobased content requirements, notwithstanding the market 
     share the product holds, the age of the product, or whether 
     the market for the product is new or emerging.'';
       (2) redesignating paragraphs (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), 
     and (14) as paragraphs (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), and 
     (16);
       (3) inserting after paragraph (8), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(9) Forest product.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `forest product' means a 
     product made from materials derived from the practice of 
     forestry or the management of growing timber.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `forest product' includes--
       ``(i) pulp, paper, paperboard, pellets, lumber, and other 
     wood products; and
       ``(ii) any recycled products derived from forest 
     materials.''; and
       (4) inserting after paragraph (14) (as so redesignated), 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(15) Renewable energy system.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     `renewable energy system' means a system that--
       ``(i) produces usable energy from a renewable energy 
     source; and
       ``(ii) may include distribution components necessary to 
     move energy produced by such system to the initial point of 
     sale.
       ``(B) Limitation.--A system described in subparagraph (A) 
     may not include a mechanism for dispensing energy at 
     retail.''.

     SEC. 9002. BIOBASED MARKETS PROGRAM.

       Section 9002(h) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8102(h)) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``(h) Funding.--'' and all that follows 
     through ``to carry out this section, there'' and inserting 
     ``(h) Funding.--There''; and
       (2) striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 9003. BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Program Adjustments.--Section 9003 of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8103) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``to eligible entities'' 
     and all that follows through ``guarantees for loans'' and 
     inserting ``to eligible entities guarantees for loans'';
       (2) by striking subsection (d);
       (3) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h) as 
     subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
       (4) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``subsection (c)(2)'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``subsection (c)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``subsection (h)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (g)''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 9003(g) of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002, as redesignated by subsection 
     (a)(3), is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
       (3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Discretionary funding'' 
     and inserting ``Fiscal years 2009 through 2013''; and
       (B) by striking ``In addition to any other funds made 
     available to carry out this section, there'' and inserting 
     ``There''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $75,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.

     SEC. 9004. REPOWERING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 9004(d) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8104(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
       (3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Discretionary funding'' 
     and inserting ``Fiscal years 2009 through 2013''; and
       (B) by striking ``In addition to any other funds made 
     available to carry out this section, there'' and inserting 
     ``There''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.

     SEC. 9005. BIOENERGY PROGRAM FOR ADVANCED BIOFUELS.

       Section 9005(g) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8105(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
       (3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Discretionary funding'' 
     and inserting ``Fiscal years 2009 through 2013''; and
       (B) by striking ``In addition to any other funds made 
     available to carry out this section, there'' and inserting 
     ``There''; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.

     SEC. 9006. BIODIESEL FUEL EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       Section 9006(d) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
       (3) in the heading of paragraph (1) (as so redesignated), 
     by striking ``Authorization of appropriations'' and inserting 
     ``Fiscal year 2013''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.

     SEC. 9007. RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Adjustments.--
       (1) Repeal of feasibility studies.--Section 9007(c) of the 
     Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 
     8107(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (2) Tiered application process.--Section 9007(c) of the 
     Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 
     8107(c)) is further amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Tiered application process.--In carrying out this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall establish a three-tiered 
     application, evaluation, and oversight process that varies 
     based on the

[[Page 9664]]

     cost of the proposed project with the process most simplified 
     for projects referred to in subparagraph (A), more 
     comprehensive for projects referred to in subparagraph (B), 
     and most comprehensive for projects referred to in 
     subparagraph (C). The three tiers for such process shall be 
     as follows:
       ``(A) Tier 1.--Projects for which the cost of the project 
     funded under this subsection is not more than $80,000.
       ``(B) Tier 2.--Projects for which the cost of the project 
     funded under this subsection is more than $80,000 but less 
     than $200,000.
       ``(C) Tier 3.--Projects for which the cost of the project 
     funded under this subsection is $200,000 or more.''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 9007(g) of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107(g)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (1);
       (3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Discretionary funding'' 
     and inserting ``Fiscal years 2009 through 2013''; and
       (B) by striking ``In addition to any other funds made 
     available to carry out this section, there'' and inserting 
     ``There''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $45,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.

     SEC. 9008. BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 9008(h) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8108(h)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
       (3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Discretionary funding'' 
     and inserting ``Fiscal years 2009 through 2013''; and
       (B) by striking ``In addition to any other funds made 
     available to carry out this section, there'' and inserting 
     ``There''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.

     SEC. 9009. FEEDSTOCK FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM FOR BIOENERGY 
                   PRODUCERS.

       Section 9010(b) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8110(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
     ``2018''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.

     SEC. 9010. BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 9011 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8111) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (6); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs 
     (6) and (7), respectively;
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``Program to'' and all that follows through 
     ``support the establishment'' and inserting ``Program to 
     support the establishment'';
       (B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (2);
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(B)--
       (i) in clause (viii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (ii) by redesignating clause (ix) as clause (x); and
       (iii) by inserting after clause (viii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(ix) existing project areas that have received funding 
     under this section and the continuation of funding of such 
     project areas to advance the maturity of such project areas; 
     and''; and
       (B) in paragraph (5)(C)(ii)--
       (i) by striking subclause (III); and
       (ii) by redesignating subclauses (IV) and (V) as subclauses 
     (III) and (IV), respectively;
       (4) by striking subsection (d);
       (5) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (6) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1);
       (C) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking ``Fiscal year 2013'' and all that follows 
     through ``There is authorized'' and inserting ``Fiscal year 
     2013.--There is authorized''; and
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as paragraph (3) and 
     moving the margin of such paragraph (as so redesignated) two 
     ems to the left;
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (1), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Fiscal years 2014 through 2018.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $75,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''; and
       (E) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (C)(ii) of this paragraph), by striking ``this paragraph'' 
     and inserting ``this subsection''.

     SEC. 9011. COMMUNITY WOOD ENERGY PROGRAM.

       Section 9013(e) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8113(e)) is amended by striking ``carry 
     out this section'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``carry out this section--
       ``(1) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013; and
       ``(2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 9012. REPEAL OF BIOFUELS INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY.

       Section 9002 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2095) is repealed.

     SEC. 9013. REPEAL OF RENEWABLE FERTILIZER STUDY.

       Section 9003 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2096) is repealed.

                         TITLE X--HORTICULTURE

     SEC. 10001. SPECIALTY CROPS MARKET NEWS ALLOCATION.

       Section 10107(b) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 1622b(b)) is amended by striking ``2012'' 
     and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 10002. REPEAL OF GRANT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE MOVEMENT OF 
                   SPECIALTY CROPS.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 10403 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 1622c) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 10003. FARMERS MARKET AND LOCAL FOOD PROMOTION PROGRAM.

       Section 6 of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 
     1976 (7 U.S.C. 3005) is amended--
       (1) in the heading of such section, by inserting ``AND 
     LOCAL FOOD'' after ``FARMERS' MARKET'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``and Local Food'' after ``Farmers' 
     Market'';
       (B) by striking ``farmers' markets and to promote''; and
       (C) by striking the period and inserting ``and assist in 
     the development of local food business enterprises.'';
       (3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(b) Program Purposes.--The purposes of the Program are to 
     increase domestic consumption of, and consumer access to, 
     locally and regionally produced agricultural products by 
     assisting in the development, improvement, and expansion of--
       ``(1) domestic farmers' markets, roadside stands, 
     community-supported agriculture programs, agritourism 
     activities, and other direct producer-to-consumer market 
     opportunities; and
       ``(2) local and regional food business enterprises that 
     process, distribute, aggregate, and store locally or 
     regionally produced food products.'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or other agricultural business entity'' 
     after ``cooperative''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, including a community supported 
     agriculture network or association'' after ``association'';
       (5) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f);
       (6) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Funds Requirements for Eligible Entities.--
       ``(1) Matching funds.--An entity receiving a grant under 
     this section for a project to carry out a purpose described 
     in subsection (b)(2) shall provide matching funds in the form 
     of cash or an in-kind contribution in an amount equal to 25 
     percent of the total cost of such project.
       ``(2) Limitation on use of funds.--An eligible entity may 
     not use a grant or other assistance provided under this 
     section for the purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of 
     a building or structure.''; and
       (7) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (5))--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (3) and (5);
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--Of the funds made available to carry 
     out this section for a fiscal year, 50 percent of such funds 
     shall be used for the purposes described in paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (b) and 50 percent of such funds shall be used for 
     the purposes described in paragraph (2) of such subsection.
       ``(5) Limitation on administrative expenses.--Not more than 
     3 percent of the total amount made available to carry out 
     this section for a fiscal year may be used for administrative 
     expenses.''.

     SEC. 10004. ORGANIC AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives.--
     Section 7407(d)(2) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 5925c(d)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in the heading of such paragraph, by striking ``2008 
     through 2012'' and inserting ``2014 through 2018''; and
       (2) by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and inserting ``2014 
     through 2018''.

[[Page 9665]]

       (b) Modernization and Technology Upgrade for National 
     Organic Program.--Section 2122 of the Organic Foods 
     Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6521) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Modernization and Technology Upgrade for National 
     Organic Program.--The Secretary shall modernize database and 
     technology systems of the national organic program.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations for National Organic 
     Program.--Effective October 1, 2013, section 2123(b)(6) of 
     the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     6522(b)(6)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) $11,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.
       (d) National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program.--
     Effective October 1, 2013, section 10606 of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 6523) is repealed.
       (e) Exemption of Certified Organic Products From Promotion 
     Order Assessments.--Subsection (e) of section 501 of the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 7401) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Exemption of Certified Organic Products From 
     Promotion Order Assessments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of a 
     commodity promotion law, a person that produces, handles, 
     markets, or imports organic products may be exempt from the 
     payment of an assessment under a commodity promotion law with 
     respect to any agricultural commodity that is certified as 
     `organic' or `100 percent organic' (as defined in part 205 of 
     title 7, Code of Federal Regulations or a successor 
     regulation).
       ``(2) Split operations.--The exemption described in 
     paragraph (1) shall apply to the certified `organic' or `100 
     percent organic' (as defined in part 205 of title 7 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation) 
     products of a producer, handler, or marketer regardless of 
     whether the agricultural commodity subject to the exemption 
     is produced, handled, or marketed by a person that also 
     produces, handles, or markets conventional or nonorganic 
     agricultural products, including conventional or nonorganic 
     agricultural products of the same agricultural commodity as 
     that for which the exemption is claimed.
       ``(3) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve the exemption 
     of a person under this subsection if the person maintains a 
     valid organic certificate issued under the Organic Foods 
     Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.).
       ``(4) Termination of effectiveness.--This subsection shall 
     be effective until the date on which the Secretary issues an 
     organic commodity promotion order in accordance with 
     subsection (f).
       ``(5) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations concerning eligibility and compliance for an 
     exemption under paragraph (1).''.
       (f) Organic Commodity Promotion Order.--Section 501 of the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 7401) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(f) Organic Commodity Promotion Order.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Certified organic farm.--The term `certified organic 
     farm' has the meaning given the term in section 2103 of the 
     Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6502).
       ``(B) Covered person.--The term `covered person' means a 
     producer, handler, marketer, or importer of an organic 
     agricultural commodity.
       ``(C) Dual-covered agricultural commodity.--The term `dual-
     covered agricultural commodity' means an agricultural 
     commodity that--
       ``(i) is produced on a certified organic farm; and
       ``(ii) is covered under both--

       ``(I) an organic commodity promotion order issued pursuant 
     to paragraph (2); and
       ``(II) any other agricultural commodity promotion order 
     issued under section 514.

       ``(2) Authorization.--The Secretary may issue an organic 
     commodity promotion order under section 514 that includes any 
     agricultural commodity that--
       ``(A) is produced or handled (as defined in section 2103 of 
     the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6502)) and 
     that is certified to be sold or labeled as `organic' or `100 
     percent organic' (as defined in part 205 of title 7, Code of 
     Federal Regulations or a successor regulation)); or
       ``(B) is imported with a valid organic certificate (as 
     defined in such part).
       ``(3) Election.--If the Secretary issues an organic 
     commodity promotion order described in paragraph (2), a 
     covered person may elect, for applicable dual-covered 
     agricultural commodities and in the sole discretion of the 
     covered person, whether to be assessed under the organic 
     commodity promotion order or another applicable agricultural 
     commodity promotion order.
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations concerning eligibility and compliance for an 
     exemption under paragraph (1).''.
       (g) Definition of Agricultural Commodity.--Section 513(1) 
     of the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 
     1996 (7 U.S.C. 7412(1)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) products, as a class, that are produced on a 
     certified organic farm (as defined in section 2103 of the 
     Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6502)) and 
     that are certified to be sold or labeled as `organic' or `100 
     percent organic' (as defined in part 205 of title 7, Code of 
     Federal Regulations or a successor regulation));''.

     SEC. 10005. INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORGANIC 
                   FOODS PRODUCTION ACT OF 1990.

       The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 is amended by 
     inserting after section 2122 (7 U.S.C. 6521) the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 2122A. INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT.

       ``(a) Expedited Administrative Hearing.--The Secretary 
     shall establish an expedited administrative hearing procedure 
     under which the Secretary may suspend or revoke the organic 
     certification of a producer or handler or the accreditation 
     of a certifying agent in accordance with subsection (d). Such 
     a hearing may be conducted in addition to a hearing conducted 
     pursuant to section 2120.
       ``(b) Investigation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may take such 
     investigative actions as the Secretary considers to be 
     necessary to carry out this title--
       ``(A) to verify the accuracy of any information reported or 
     made available under this title; and
       ``(B) to determine, with regard to actions, practices, or 
     information required under this title, whether a person 
     covered by this title has committed a violation of this 
     title.
       ``(2) Investigative powers.--The Secretary may administer 
     oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel attendance 
     of witnesses, take evidence, and require the production of 
     any records required to be maintained under section 2112(d) 
     or 2116(c) that are relevant to the investigation.
       ``(c) Unlawful Act.--It shall be unlawful and a violation 
     of this title for any person covered by this title--
       ``(1) to refuse to provide information required by the 
     Secretary under this title; or
       ``(2) to violate--
       ``(A) a suspension or revocation of the organic 
     certification of a producer or handler; or
       ``(B) a suspension or revocation of the accreditation of a 
     certifying agent.
       ``(d) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Suspension.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for an expedited administrative hearing, suspend 
     the organic certification of a producer, handler or the 
     accreditation of a certifying agent if--
       ``(i) the Secretary, during such expedited administrative 
     hearing, proved that--

       ``(I) in the case of a producer or handler, the producer or 
     handler--

       ``(aa) has recklessly committed a violation of a term, 
     condition, or requirement of the organic plan to which the 
     producer or handler is subject; or
       ``(bb) has recklessly committed, or is recklessly 
     committing, a violation of this title; or

       ``(II) in the case of a certifying agent, the agent has 
     recklessly committed, or is recklessly committing, a 
     violation of this title; or

       ``(ii) the producer, handler, or certifying agent has 
     waived such expedited administrative hearing.
       ``(B) Issuance of suspension.--A suspension issued under 
     this paragraph shall be issued not later than five days after 
     the date on which--
       ``(i) the expedited administrative hearing referred to in 
     clause (i) of subparagraph (A) concludes; or
       ``(ii) the Secretary receives notice of the waiver referred 
     to in clause (ii) of such subparagraph.
       ``(C) Duration of suspension.--The period of a suspension 
     issued under this paragraph shall be not more than 90 days, 
     beginning on the date on which the Secretary issues the 
     suspension.
       ``(D) Curing of violations.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may not issue a suspension 
     of a certification or accreditation under this paragraph if 
     the producer, handler, or certifying agent subject to such 
     suspension--

       ``(I) before the date on which the suspension would 
     otherwise have been issued, cures, or corrects the deficiency 
     giving rise to, the violation for which the certification or 
     accreditation would have been suspended; or
       ``(II) within a reasonable timeframe (as determined by the 
     Secretary), enters into a settlement with the Secretary 
     regarding a deficiency referred to in subclause (I).

       ``(ii) During suspension.--The Secretary shall terminate 
     the suspension of an organic certification or accreditation 
     issued under this paragraph if the producer, handler, or 
     certifying agent subject to such suspension cures the 
     violation for which the certification or accreditation was 
     suspended under this paragraph before the date on which the 
     period of the suspension ends.
       ``(2) Revocation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for an expedited administrative hearing under 
     this section and an expedited administrative appeal under 
     section 2121, revoke the organic certification of a producer 
     or handler, or the accreditation of a certifying agent if--
       ``(i) the Secretary, during such hearing, proved that--

       ``(I) in the case of a producer or handler, the producer or 
     handler--

       ``(aa) has knowingly committed an egregious violation of a 
     term, condition, or requirement of

[[Page 9666]]

     the organic plan to which the producer or handler is subject; 
     or
       ``(bb) has knowingly committed, or is knowingly committing, 
     an egregious violation of this title; or

       ``(II) in the case of a certifying agent, the agent has 
     knowingly committed, or is knowingly committing, an egregious 
     violation of this title; or

       ``(ii) the producer, handler, or certifying agent has 
     waived such expedited administrative hearing and such an 
     expedited administrative appeal.
       ``(B) Initiation of revocation proceedings.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Secretary finds, during an 
     investigation or during the period of a suspension under 
     paragraph (1), that a producer, handler, or certifying agent 
     has knowingly committed an egregious violation of this title, 
     the Secretary shall initiate revocation proceedings with 
     respect to such violation not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which the producer, handler, or certifying agent 
     receives notice of such finding in accordance with clause 
     (ii). The Secretary may not initiate revocation proceedings 
     with respect to such violation after the date on which that 
     30-day period ends.
       ``(ii) Notice.--Not later than five days after the date on 
     which the Secretary makes the finding described in clause 
     (i), the Secretary shall provide to the producer, handler, or 
     certifying agent notice of such finding.
       ``(e) Appeal.--
       ``(1) Suspensions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The suspension of a certification or 
     accreditation under subsection (d)(1) by the Secretary may be 
     appealed to a United States district court in accordance with 
     section 2121(b) not later than 30 business days after the 
     date on which the person subject to such suspension receives 
     notice of the suspension.
       ``(B) Suspension final and conclusive.--A suspension of a 
     certification or accreditation under subsection (d)(1) by the 
     Secretary shall be final and conclusive--
       ``(i) in the case of a suspension that is appealed under 
     subparagraph (A) within the 30-day period specified in such 
     subparagraph, on the date on which judicial review of such 
     suspension is complete; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a suspension that is not so appealed, 
     the date on which such 30-day period ends.
       ``(2) Revocations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The revocation of a certification or an 
     accreditation under subsection (d)(2) by the Secretary may be 
     appealed to a United States district court in accordance with 
     section 2121(b) not later than 30 business days after the 
     date on which the person subject to such revocation receives 
     notice of the revocation.
       ``(B) Revocation final and conclusive.--A revocation of a 
     certification or an accreditation under subsection (d)(2) by 
     the Secretary shall be final and conclusive--
       ``(i) in the case of a revocation that is appealed under 
     subparagraph (A) within the 30-day period specified in such 
     subparagraph, on the date on which judicial review of such 
     revocation is complete; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a revocation that is not so appealed, 
     the date on which such 30-day period ends.
       ``(3) Standards for review of suspensions and 
     revocations.--A suspension or revocation of a certification 
     or an accreditation under subsection (d) shall be reviewed in 
     accordance with the standards of review specified in section 
     706(2) of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(f) Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a person covered by this title fails 
     to obey a revocation of a certification or an accreditation 
     under subsection (d)(2) after such revocation has become 
     final and conclusive or after the appropriate United States 
     district court has entered a final judgment in favor of the 
     Secretary, the United States may apply to the appropriate 
     United States district court for enforcement of such 
     revocation.
       ``(2) Enforcement.--If the court determines that the 
     revocation was lawfully made and duly served and that the 
     person violated the revocation, the court shall enforce the 
     revocation.
       ``(3) Civil penalty.--If the court finds that the person 
     violated the revocation of a certification or an 
     accreditation under subsection (d)(2), the person shall be 
     subject to one or more of the penalties provided in 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 2120.
       ``(g) Violation of This Title Defined.--In this section, 
     the term `violation of this title' means a violation 
     specified in section 2120.''.

     SEC. 10006. FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION INITIATIVES.

       Section 10105(c) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7655a(c)) is amended by striking ``2012'' 
     and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 10007. SPECIALTY CROP BLOCK GRANTS.

       Section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 
     2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law 108-465) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``subsection (j)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (l)''; and
       (B) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(b) Grants Based on Value and Acreage.--Subject to 
     subsection (c), for each State whose application for a grant 
     for a fiscal year that is accepted by the Secretary under 
     subsection (f), the amount of the grant for such fiscal year 
     to the State under this section shall bear the same ratio to 
     the total amount made available under subsection (l)(1) for 
     such fiscal year as--
       ``(1) the average of the most recent available value of 
     specialty crop production in the State and the acreage of 
     specialty crop production in the State, as demonstrated in 
     the most recent Census of Agriculture data; bears to
       ``(2) the average of the most recent available value of 
     specialty crop production in all States and the acreage of 
     specialty crop production in all States, as demonstrated in 
     the most recent Census of Agriculture data.'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) an assurance that any grant funds received under this 
     section that are used for equipment or capital-related 
     research costs determined to enhance the competitiveness of 
     specialty crops--
       ``(A) shall be supplemented by the expenditure of State 
     funds in an amount that is not less than 50 percent of such 
     costs during the fiscal year in which such costs were 
     incurred; and
       ``(B) shall be completely replaced by State funds on the 
     day after the date on which such fiscal year ends.'';
       (4) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (l);
       (5) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(j) Multistate Projects.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the effective date of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk 
     Management Act of 2013, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     issue guidance for the purpose of making grants to multistate 
     projects under this section for projects involving--
       ``(1) food safety;
       ``(2) plant pests and disease;
       ``(3) research;
       ``(4) crop-specific projects addressing common issues; and
       ``(5) any other area that furthers the purposes of this 
     section, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(k) Administration.--
       ``(1) Department.--The Secretary of Agriculture may not use 
     more than 3 percent of the funds made available to carry out 
     this section for a fiscal year for administrative expenses.
       ``(2) States.--A State receiving a grant under this section 
     may not use more than 8 percent of the funds received under 
     the grant for a fiscal year for administrative expenses.''; 
     and
       (6) in subsection (l) (as redesignated by paragraph (4))--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and moving the 
     margins of such subparagraphs two ems to the right;
       (B) by striking ``Of the funds'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Of the funds'';
       (C) in paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B) (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (A)), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (A)), by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(D) $72,500,000 for fiscal years 2014 through 2017; and
       ``(E) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Multistate projects.--Of the funds made available 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary may use to carry out 
     subsection (j), to remain available until expended--
       ``(A) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2014;
       ``(B) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2015;
       ``(C) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2016;
       ``(D) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2017; and
       ``(E) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.''.

     SEC. 10008. REPORT ON HONEY.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     consultation with persons affected by the potential 
     establishment of a Federal standard for the identity of 
     honey, shall submit to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs a 
     report describing how an appropriate Federal standard for the 
     identity of honey would be in the interest of consumers, the 
     honey industry, and United States agriculture.
       (b) Considerations.--In preparing the report required under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall take into consideration 
     the March 2006, Standard of Identity citizens petition filed 
     with the Food and Drug Administration, including any current 
     industry amendments or clarifications necessary to update 
     such petition.

     SEC. 10009. BULK SHIPMENTS OF APPLES TO CANADA.

       (a) Bulk Shipment of Apples to Canada.--Section 4 of the 
     Export Apple Act (7 U.S.C. 584) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Apples in'' and inserting ``(a) Apples 
     in''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Apples may be shipped to Canada in bulk bins without 
     complying with the provisions of this Act.''.
       (b) Definition of Bulk Bin.--Section 9 of the Export Apple 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 589) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) The term `bulk bin' means a bin that contains a 
     quantity of apples weighing more than 100 pounds.''.

[[Page 9667]]

       (c) Regulations.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     issue regulations to carry out the amendments made by this 
     section.

     SEC. 10010. INCLUSION OF OLIVE OIL IN IMPORT CONTROLS UNDER 
                   THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.

       Section 8e(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
     608e-1(a)) is amended by inserting ``olive oil,'' after 
     ``olives (other than Spanish-style green olives),''.

     SEC. 10011. CONSOLIDATION OF PLANT PEST AND DISEASE 
                   MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Relocation of Legislative Language Relating to National 
     Clean Plant Network.--Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 7721) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) National Clean Plant Network.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     to be known as the `National Clean Plant Network' (referred 
     to in this subsection as the `Program').
       ``(2) Requirements.--Under the Program, the Secretary shall 
     establish a network of clean plant centers for diagnostic and 
     pathogen elimination services--
       ``(A) to produce clean propagative plant material; and
       ``(B) to maintain blocks of pathogen-tested plant material 
     in sites located throughout the United States.
       ``(3) Availability of clean plant source material.--Clean 
     plant source material may be made available to--
       ``(A) a State for a certified plant program of the State; 
     and
       ``(B) private nurseries and producers.
       ``(4) Consultation and collaboration.--In carrying out the 
     Program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) consult with--
       ``(i) State departments of agriculture; and
       ``(ii) land-grant colleges and universities and NLGCA 
     Institutions (as those terms are defined in section 1404 of 
     the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)); and
       ``(B) to the extent practicable and with input from the 
     appropriate State officials and industry representatives, use 
     existing Federal or State facilities to serve as clean plant 
     centers.
       ``(5) Funding for fiscal year 2013.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out the Program $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2013.''.
       (b) Funding.--Subsection (f) of section 420 of the Plant 
     Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721) (as so redesignated) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.'' and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(5) $62,500,000 for fiscal years 2014 through 2017; and
       ``(6) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.''.
       (c) Repeal of Existing Provision.--Section 10202 of the 
     Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7761) is 
     repealed.
       (d) Clarification of Use of Funds for Technical 
     Assistance.--Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7721), as amended by subsection (a), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Relationship to Other Law.--The use of Commodity 
     Credit Corporation funds under this section to provide 
     technical assistance shall not be considered an allotment or 
     fund transfer from the Commodity Credit Corporation for 
     purposes of the limit on expenditures for technical 
     assistance imposed by section 11 of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i).''.
       (e) Use of Funds for Clean Plant Network.--Section 420 of 
     the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7721), as amended by 
     subsections (a) and (d), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) Use of Funds for Clean Plant Network.--Of the funds 
     made available under subsection (f) to carry out this section 
     for a fiscal year, not less than $5,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out the national clean plant network under 
     subsection (e).''.

     SEC. 10012. MODIFICATION, CANCELLATION, OR SUSPENSION ON 
                   BASIS OF A BIOLOGICAL OPINION.

       (a) In General.--Except in the case of a voluntary request 
     from a pesticide registrant to amend a registration under 
     section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a), a registration of a 
     pesticide may be modified, canceled, or suspended on the 
     basis of the implementation of a Biological Opinion issued by 
     the National Marine Fisheries Service or the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the date of completion of 
     the study referred to in subsection (b), or January 1, 2015, 
     whichever is earlier, only if--
       (1) the modification, cancellation, or suspension is 
     undertaken pursuant to section 6 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 136d); 
     and
       (2) the Biological Opinion complies with the 
     recommendations contained in the study referred to in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) National Academy of Sciences Study.--The study 
     commissioned by the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency on March 10, 2011, shall include, at a 
     minimum, each of the following:
       (1) A formal, independent, and external peer review, 
     consistent with Office of Management and Budget policies, of 
     each Biological Opinion described in subsection (a).
       (2) Assessment of economic impacts of measures or 
     alternatives recommended in each such Biological Opinion.
       (3) An examination of the specific scientific and 
     procedural questions and issues pertaining to economic 
     feasibility contained in the June 23, 2011, letter sent to 
     the Administrator (and other Federal officials) by the 
     Chairmen of the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources, and the Subcommittee on Interior, 
     Environment, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 10013. USE AND DISCHARGES OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013''.
       (b) Use of Authorized Pesticides.--Section 3(f) of the 
     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 
     136a(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Use of authorized pesticides.--Except as provided in 
     section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
     the Administrator or a State may not require a permit under 
     such Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable 
     waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or 
     use under this Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, 
     resulting from the application of such pesticide.''.
       (c) Discharges of Pesticides.--Section 402 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Discharges of Pesticides.--
       ``(1) No permit requirement.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the 
     Administrator or a State under this Act for a discharge from 
     a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide 
     authorized for sale, distribution, or use under the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or the residue 
     of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such 
     pesticide.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the 
     following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide residue:
       ``(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a 
     pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that is relevant 
     to protecting water quality, if--
       ``(i) the discharge would not have occurred but for the 
     violation; or
       ``(ii) the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue in the 
     discharge is greater than would have occurred without the 
     violation.
       ``(B) Stormwater discharges subject to regulation under 
     subsection (p).
       ``(C) The following discharges subject to regulation under 
     this section:
       ``(i) Manufacturing or industrial effluent.
       ``(ii) Treatment works effluent.
       ``(iii) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
     vessel, including a discharge resulting from ballasting 
     operations or vessel biofouling prevention.''.

     SEC. 10014. SEED NOT PESTICIDE OR DEVICE FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   IMPORTATION.

       Section 17(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136o(c)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new sentences: ``Solely for purposes of 
     notifications of arrival upon importation, for purposes of 
     this subsection, seed, including treated seed, shall not be 
     considered a pesticide or device. Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed as precluding or limiting the authority of 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the importation 
     or movement of plants, plant products, or seeds, under the 
     Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) or the Federal 
     Seed Act (7 U.S.C. 1551 et seq.).''.

     SEC. 10015. STAY OF REGULATIONS RELATED TO CHRISTMAS TREE 
                   PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION ORDER.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall lift the 
     administrative stay that was imposed by the rule entitled 
     ``Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order; 
     Stay of Regulations'' and published by the Department of 
     Agriculture on November 17, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 71241), on the 
     regulations in subpart A of part 214 of title 7, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, establishing an industry-funded 
     promotion, research, and information program for fresh cut 
     Christmas trees.

     SEC. 10016. STUDY ON PROPOSED ORDER PERTAINING TO SULFURYL 
                   FLUORIDE.

       Not later than two years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, in conjunction with the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the potential economic and public 
     health effects that would result from finalization of the 
     proposed order published in the January 19, 2011, Federal 
     Register (76 Fed. Reg. 3422) pertaining to the pesticide 
     sulfuryl fluoride, including the anticipated impacts of such 
     finalization on the production of an adequate, wholesome, and 
     economical food supply and on farmers and related 
     agricultural sectors.

     SEC. 10017. STUDY ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL FOOD PRODUCTION AND 
                   PROGRAM EVALUATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
       (1) collect data on the production and marketing of locally 
     or regionally produced agricultural food products;

[[Page 9668]]

       (2) facilitate interagency collaboration and data sharing 
     on programs related to local and regional food systems; and
       (3) monitor the effectiveness of programs designed to 
     expand or facilitate local food systems.
       (b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) collect and distribute comprehensive reporting of 
     prices of locally or regionally produced agricultural food 
     products;
       (2) conduct surveys and analysis and publish reports 
     relating to the production, handling, distribution, and 
     retail sales of, and trend studies (including consumer 
     purchasing patterns) on, locally or regionally produced 
     agricultural food products;
       (3) evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs in 
     growing local and regional food systems, including--
       (A) the impact of local food systems on job creation and 
     economic development;
       (B) the level of participation in the Farmers' Market and 
     Local Food Promotion Program established under section 6 of 
     the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 (7 U.S.C. 
     3005), including the percentage of projects funded in 
     comparison to applicants and the types of eligible entities 
     receiving funds;
       (C) the ability for participants to leverage private 
     capital and a synopsis of the places from which non-Federal 
     funds are derived; and
       (D) any additional resources required to aid in the 
     development or expansion of local and regional food systems;
       (4) expand the Agricultural Resource Management Survey to 
     include questions on locally or regionally produced 
     agricultural food products; and
       (5) seek to establish or expand private-public partnerships 
     to facilitate, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     collection of data on locally or regionally produced 
     agricultural food products, including the development of a 
     nationally coordinated and regionally balanced evaluation of 
     the redevelopment of locally or regionally produced food 
     systems.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until 
     September 30, 2018, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate a report describing the progress that has been made in 
     implementing this section and identifying any additional 
     needs related to developing local and regional food systems.

                        TITLE XI--CROP INSURANCE

     SEC. 11001. INFORMATION SHARING.

       Section 502(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1502(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Information.--
       ``(A) Request.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Farm 
     Service Agency shall, in a timely manner, provide to an agent 
     or an approved insurance provider authorized by the producer 
     any information (including Farm Service Agency Form 578s (or 
     any successor form) or maps (or any corrections to those 
     forms or maps) that may assist the agent or approved 
     insurance provider in insuring the producer under a policy or 
     plan of insurance under this subtitle.
       ``(B) Privacy.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), an 
     agent or approved insurance provider that receives the 
     information of a producer pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall 
     treat the information in accordance with paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Sharing.--Nothing in this section prohibits the 
     sharing of the information of a producer pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) between the agent and the approved insurance 
     provider of the producer.''.

     SEC. 11002. PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ON VIOLATIONS OF 
                   PROHIBITION ON PREMIUM ADJUSTMENTS.

       Section 508(a)(9) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(a)(9)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Publication of violations.--
       ``(i) Publication required.--Subject to clause (ii), the 
     Corporation shall publish in a timely manner on the website 
     of the Risk Management Agency information regarding each 
     violation of this paragraph, including any sanctions imposed 
     in response to the violation, in sufficient detail so that 
     the information may serve as effective guidance to approved 
     insurance providers, agents, and producers.
       ``(ii) Protection of privacy.--In providing information 
     under clause (i) regarding violations of this paragraph, the 
     Corporation shall redact the identity of the persons and 
     entities committing the violations in order to protect their 
     privacy.''.

     SEC. 11003. SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OPTION.

       (a) Availability of Supplemental Coverage Option.--
     Paragraph (3) of section 508(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Yield and loss basis options.--A producer shall have 
     the option of purchasing additional coverage based on--
       ``(A)(i) an individual yield and loss basis; or
       ``(ii) an area yield and loss basis;
       ``(B) an individual yield and loss basis, supplemented with 
     coverage based on an area yield and loss basis to cover a 
     part of the deductible under the individual yield and loss 
     policy, as described in paragraph (4)(C); or
       ``(C) a margin basis alone or in combination with the 
     coverages available in subparagraph (A) or (B).''.
       (b) Level of Coverage.--Paragraph (4) of section 508(c) of 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(c)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(4) Level of coverage.--
       ``(A) Dollar denomination and percentage of yield.--Except 
     as provided in subparagraph (C), the level of coverage--
       ``(i) shall be dollar denominated; and
       ``(ii) may be purchased at any level not to exceed 85 
     percent of the individual yield or 95 percent of the area 
     yield (as determined by the Corporation).
       ``(B) Information.--The Corporation shall provide producers 
     with information on catastrophic risk and additional coverage 
     in terms of dollar coverage (within the allowable limits of 
     coverage provided in this paragraph).
       ``(C) Supplemental coverage option.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the 
     case of the supplemental coverage option described in 
     paragraph (3)(B), the Corporation shall offer producers the 
     opportunity to purchase coverage in combination with a policy 
     or plan of insurance offered under this subtitle that would 
     allow indemnities to be paid to a producer equal to a part of 
     the deductible under the policy or plan of insurance--

       ``(I) at a county-wide level to the fullest extent 
     practicable; or
       ``(II) in counties that lack sufficient data, on the basis 
     of such larger geographical area as the Corporation 
     determines to provide sufficient data for purposes of 
     providing the coverage.

       ``(ii) Trigger.--Coverage offered under paragraph (3)(B) 
     and clause (i) shall be triggered only if the losses in the 
     area exceed 10 percent of normal levels (as determined by the 
     Corporation).
       ``(iii) Coverage.--Subject to the trigger described in 
     clause (ii), coverage offered under paragraph (3)(B) and 
     clause (i) shall not exceed the difference between--

       ``(I) 90 percent; and
       ``(II) the coverage level selected by the producer for the 
     underlying policy or plan of insurance.

       ``(iv) Ineligible crops and acres.--Crops for which the 
     producer has elected under section 1107(c)(1) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 to receive 
     revenue loss coverage and acres that are enrolled in the 
     stacked income protection plan under section 508B shall not 
     be eligible for supplemental coverage under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(v) Calculation of premium.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (d), the premium for coverage offered under paragraph (3)(B) 
     and clause (i) shall--

       ``(I) be sufficient to cover anticipated losses and a 
     reasonable reserve; and
       ``(II) include an amount for operating and administrative 
     expenses established in accordance with subsection 
     (k)(4)(F).''.

       (c) Payment of Portion of Premium by Corporation.--Section 
     508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(e)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(H) In the case of the supplemental coverage option 
     authorized in subsection (c)(4)(C), the amount shall be equal 
     to the sum of--
       ``(i) 65 percent of the additional premium associated with 
     the coverage; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection 
     (c)(4)(C)(vi)(II), subject to subsection (k)(4)(F), for the 
     coverage to cover operating and administrative expenses.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 
     shall begin to provide additional coverage based on an 
     individual yield and loss basis, supplemented with coverage 
     based on an area yield and loss basis, not later than for the 
     2014 crop year.

     SEC. 11004. PREMIUM AMOUNTS FOR CATASTROPHIC RISK PROTECTION.

       Subparagraph (A) of section 508(d)(2) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(d)(2)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In the case of catastrophic risk protection, the 
     amount of the premium established by the Corporation for each 
     crop for which catastrophic risk protection is available 
     shall be reduced by the percentage equal to the difference 
     between the average loss ratio for the crop and 100 percent, 
     plus a reasonable reserve.''.

     SEC. 11005. REPEAL OF PERFORMANCE-BASED DISCOUNT.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 508(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 508(a)(9)(B) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(a)(9)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (2) by striking clause (ii); and
       (3) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).

     SEC. 11006. PERMANENT ENTERPRISE UNIT SUBSIDY.

       Subparagraph (A) of section 508(e)(5) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)(5)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In general.--The Corporation may pay a portion of the 
     premiums for plans or policies of insurance for which the 
     insurable unit is defined on a whole farm or enterprise unit 
     basis that is higher than would otherwise be paid in 
     accordance with paragraph (2).''.

     SEC. 11007. ENTERPRISE UNITS FOR IRRIGATED AND NONIRRIGATED 
                   CROPS.

       Section 508(e)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(e)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Nonirrigated crops.--Beginning with the 2014 crop 
     year, the Corporation shall make

[[Page 9669]]

     available separate enterprise units for irrigated and 
     nonirrigated acreage of crops in counties.''.

     SEC. 11008. DATA COLLECTION.

       Section 508(g)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(g)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Sources of yield data.--To determine yields under 
     this paragraph, the Corporation--
       ``(i) shall use county data collected by the Risk 
     Management Agency or the National Agricultural Statistics 
     Service, or both; or
       ``(ii) if sufficient county data is not available, may use 
     other data considered appropriate by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 11009. ADJUSTMENT IN ACTUAL PRODUCTION HISTORY TO 
                   ESTABLISH INSURABLE YIELDS.

       Section 508(g)(4)(B) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(g)(4)(B)) is amended by striking ``60'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``70''.

     SEC. 11010. SUBMISSION AND REVIEW OF POLICIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 508(h) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
       (B) by striking ``(1) In general.--In addition'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Authority to submit.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Review and submission by corporation.--The 
     Corporation shall review any policy developed under section 
     522(c) or any pilot program developed under section 523 and 
     submit the policy or program to the Board under this 
     subsection if the Corporation, at the sole discretion of the 
     Corporation, finds that the policy or program--
       ``(i) will likely result in a viable and marketable policy 
     consistent with this subsection;
       ``(ii) would provide crop insurance coverage in a 
     significantly improved form; and
       ``(iii) adequately protects the interests of producers.''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``A policy'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--A policy''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Specified review and approval priorities.--In 
     reviewing policies and other materials submitted to the Board 
     under this subsection for approval, the Board--
       ``(i) shall make the development and approval of a revenue 
     policy for peanut producers a priority so that a revenue 
     policy is available to peanut producers in time for the 2014 
     crop year;
       ``(ii) shall make the development and approval of a margin 
     coverage policy for rice producers a priority so that a 
     margin coverage policy is available to rice producers in time 
     for the 2014 crop year; and
       ``(iii) may approve a submission that is made pursuant to 
     this subsection that would, beginning with the 2014 crop 
     year, allow producers that purchase policies in accordance 
     with subsection (e)(5)(A) to separate enterprise units by 
     risk rating for acreage of crops in counties.''.
       (b) Advance Payments.--Section 522(b)(2)(E) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(b)(2)(E)) is amended by 
     striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``75 percent''.

     SEC. 11011. EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR SPECIALTY CROP POLICIES.

       Section 508(k)(8)(E) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 
     1938 (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(8)(E)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new clause:
       ``(iii) Equitable relief for specialty crop policies.--

       ``(I) In general.--For each of the 2011 through 2015 
     reinsurance years, in addition to the total amount of funding 
     for reimbursement of administrative and operating costs that 
     is otherwise required to be made available in each such 
     reinsurance year pursuant to an agreement entered into by the 
     Corporation, the Corporation shall use $41,000,000 to provide 
     additional reimbursement with respect to eligible insurance 
     contracts for any agricultural commodity that is not eligible 
     for a benefit under subtitles A, B or C of title I of the 
     Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.
       ``(II) Treatment.--Additional reimbursements made under 
     this clause shall be included as part of the base level of 
     administrative and operating expense reimbursement to which 
     any limit on compensation to persons involved in the direct 
     sale and service of any eligible crop insurance contract 
     required under an agreement entered into by the Corporation 
     is applied.
       ``(III) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this clause shall 
     be construed as statutory assent to the limit described in 
     subclause (II).''.

     SEC. 11012. BUDGET LIMITATIONS ON RENEGOTIATION OF THE 
                   STANDARD REINSURANCE AGREEMENT.

       Section 508(k)(8) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1938 
     (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(8)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) Budget.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Board shall ensure that any Standard 
     Reinsurance Agreement negotiated under subparagraph (A)(ii), 
     as compared to the previous Standard Reinsurance Agreement--

       ``(I) to the maximum extent practicable, shall be budget 
     neutral; and
       ``(II) in no event, may significantly depart from budget 
     neutrality.

       ``(ii) Use of savings.--To the extent that any budget 
     savings is realized in the renegotiation of a Standard 
     Reinsurance Agreement under subparagraph (A)(ii), and the 
     savings are determined not to be a significant departure from 
     budget neutrality under clause (i), the savings shall be used 
     to increase the obligations of the Corporation under 
     subsections (e)(2) or (k)(4) or section 523.''.

     SEC. 11013. CROP PRODUCTION ON NATIVE SOD.

       (a) Federal Crop Insurance.--Section 508(o) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(o)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``, or the producer 
     cannot substantiate that the ground has ever been tilled,'' 
     after ``tilled'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Ineligibility 
     for'' and inserting ``Reduction in''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``for benefits under--
     '' and all that follows through the period at the end and 
     inserting ``for--
       ``(i) a portion of crop insurance premium subsidies under 
     this subtitle in accordance with paragraph (3);
       ``(ii) benefits under section 196 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7333); and
       ``(iii) payments described in subsection (b) or (c) of 
     section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308).''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(3) Administration.--
       ``(A) In general.--During the first 4 crop years of 
     planting on native sod acreage by a producer described in 
     paragraph (2)--
       ``(i) paragraph (2) shall apply to 65 percent of the 
     transitional yield of the producer; and
       ``(ii) the crop insurance premium subsidy provided for the 
     producer under this subtitle shall be 50 percentage points 
     less than the premium subsidy that would otherwise apply.
       ``(B) Yield substitution.--During the period native sod 
     acreage is covered by this subsection, a producer may not 
     substitute yields for the native sod acreage.
       ``(4) Application.--This subsection shall only apply to 
     native sod in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area.''.
       (b) Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance.--Section 196(a)(4) 
     of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (7 U.S.C. 7333(a)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``ineligibility'' 
     and inserting ``benefit reduction'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by inserting ``, or the 
     producer cannot substantiate that the ground has ever been 
     tilled,'' after ``tilled'';
       (3) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in the subparagraph heading, by striking 
     ``Ineligibility'' and inserting ``Reduction in''; and
       (B) in clause (i), by striking ``for benefits under--'' and 
     all that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     ``for--

       ``(I) benefits under this section;
       ``(II) a portion of crop insurance premium subsidies under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) in 
     accordance with subparagraph (C); and
       ``(III) payments described in subsection (b) or (c) of 
     section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308).''; and

       (4) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) Administration.--
       ``(i) In general.--During the first 4 crop years of 
     planting on native sod acreage by a producer described in 
     subparagraph (B)--

       ``(I) subparagraph (B) shall apply to 65 percent of the 
     transitional yield of the producer; and
       ``(II) the crop insurance premium subsidy provided for the 
     producer under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 
     et seq.) shall be 50 percentage points less than the premium 
     subsidy that would otherwise apply.

       ``(ii) Yield substitution.--During the period native sod 
     acreage is covered by this paragraph, a producer may not 
     substitute yields for the native sod acreage.
       ``(D) Application.--This paragraph shall only apply to 
     native sod in the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area.''.
       (c) Cropland Report.--
       (1) Baseline.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a report that describes the 
     cropland acreage in each applicable county and State, and the 
     change in cropland acreage from the preceding year in each 
     applicable county and State, beginning with calendar year 
     2000 and including that information for the most recent year 
     for which that information is available.
       (2) Annual updates.--Not later than January 1, 2015, and 
     each January 1 thereafter through January 1, 2018, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a 
     report that describes--
       (A) the cropland acreage in each applicable county and 
     State as of the date of submission of the report; and
       (B) the change in cropland acreage from the preceding year 
     in each applicable county and State.

[[Page 9670]]



     SEC. 11014. COVERAGE LEVELS BY PRACTICE.

       Section 508 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1938 (7 
     U.S.C. 1508) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(p) Coverage Levels by Practice.--Beginning with the 2015 
     crop year, a producer that produces an agricultural commodity 
     on both dry land and irrigated land may elect a different 
     coverage level for each production practice.''.

     SEC. 11015. BEGINNING FARMER AND RANCHER PROVISIONS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 502(b) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (9) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (10), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Beginning farmer or rancher.--The term `beginning 
     farmer or rancher' means a farmer or rancher who has not 
     actively operated and managed a farm or ranch with a bona 
     fide insurable interest in a crop or livestock as an owner-
     operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper for more than 5 
     crop years, as determined by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Premium Adjustments.--Section 508 of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(5)(E), by inserting ``and beginning 
     farmers or ranchers'' after ``limited resource farmers'';
       (2) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) Premium for beginning farmers or ranchers.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection 
     regarding payment of a portion of premiums, a beginning 
     farmer or rancher shall receive premium assistance that is 10 
     percentage points greater than premium assistance that would 
     otherwise be available under paragraphs (2) (except for 
     subparagraph (A) of that paragraph), (5), (6), and (7) for 
     the applicable policy, plan of insurance, and coverage level 
     selected by the beginning farmer or rancher.''; and
       (3) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(B)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (ii) in clause (ii)(III), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) if the producer is a beginning farmer or rancher 
     who was previously involved in a farming or ranching 
     operation, including involvement in the decisionmaking or 
     physical involvement in the production of the crop or 
     livestock on the farm, for any acreage obtained by the 
     beginning farmer or rancher, a yield that is the higher of--

       ``(I) the actual production history of the previous 
     producer of the crop or livestock on the acreage determined 
     under subparagraph (A); or
       ``(II) a yield of the producer, as determined in clause 
     (i).''; and

       (B) in paragraph (4)(B)(ii) (as amended by section 11009)--
       (i) by inserting ``(I)'' after ``(ii)'';
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(II) in the case of beginning farmers or ranchers, 
     replace each excluded yield with a yield equal to 80 percent 
     of the applicable transitional yield.''.

     SEC. 11016. STACKED INCOME PROTECTION PLAN FOR PRODUCERS OF 
                   UPLAND COTTON.

       (a) Availability of Stacked Income Protection Plan for 
     Producers of Upland Cotton.--The Federal Crop Insurance Act 
     is amended by inserting after section 508A (7 U.S.C. 1508a) 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 508B. STACKED INCOME PROTECTION PLAN FOR PRODUCERS OF 
                   UPLAND COTTON.

       ``(a) Availability.--Beginning not later than the 2014 crop 
     of upland cotton, the Corporation shall make available to 
     producers of upland cotton an additional policy (to be known 
     as the `Stacked Income Protection Plan'), which shall provide 
     coverage consistent with the Group Risk Income Protection 
     Plan (and the associated Harvest Revenue Option Endorsement) 
     offered by the Corporation for the 2011 crop year.
       ``(b) Required Terms.--The Corporation may modify the 
     Stacked Income Protection Plan on a program-wide basis, 
     except that the Stacked Income Protection Plan shall comply 
     with the following requirements:
       ``(1) Provide coverage for revenue loss of not less than 10 
     percent and not more than 30 percent of expected county 
     revenue, specified in increments of 5 percent. The deductible 
     is the minimum percent of revenue loss at which indemnities 
     are triggered under the plan, not to be less than 10 percent 
     of the expected county revenue.
       ``(2) Be offered to producers of upland cotton in all 
     counties with upland cotton production--
       ``(A) at a county-wide level to the fullest extent 
     practicable; or
       ``(B) in counties that lack sufficient data, on the basis 
     of such larger geographical area as the Corporation 
     determines to provide sufficient data for purposes of 
     providing the coverage.
       ``(3) Be purchased in addition to any other individual or 
     area coverage in effect on the producer's acreage or as a 
     stand-alone policy, except that if a producer has an 
     individual or area coverage for the same acreage, the maximum 
     coverage available under the Stacked Income Protection Plan 
     shall not exceed the deductible for the individual or area 
     coverage.
       ``(4) Establish coverage based on--
       ``(A) the expected price established under existing Group 
     Risk Income Protection or area wide policy offered by the 
     Corporation for the applicable county (or area) and crop 
     year; and
       ``(B) an expected county yield that is the higher of--
       ``(i) the expected county yield established for the 
     existing area-wide plans offered by the Corporation for the 
     applicable county (or area) and crop year (or, in geographic 
     areas where area-wide plans are not offered, an expected 
     yield determined in a manner consistent with those of area-
     wide plans); or
       ``(ii) the average of the applicable yield data for the 
     county (or area) for the most recent 5 years, excluding the 
     highest and lowest observations, from the Risk Management 
     Agency or the National Agricultural Statistics Service (or 
     both) or, if sufficient county data is not available, such 
     other data considered appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(5) Use a multiplier factor to establish maximum 
     protection per acre (referred to as a `protection factor') of 
     not less than the higher of the level established on a 
     program wide basis or 120 percent.
       ``(6) Pay an indemnity based on the amount that the 
     expected county revenue exceeds the actual county revenue, as 
     applied to the individual coverage of the producer. 
     Indemnities under the Stacked Income Protection Plan shall 
     not include or overlap the amount of the deductible selected 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(7) In all counties for which data are available, 
     establish separate coverage levels for irrigated and non-
     irrigated practices.
       ``(c) Premium.--Notwithstanding section 508(d), the premium 
     for the Stacked Income Protection Plan shall--
       ``(1) be sufficient to cover anticipated losses and a 
     reasonable reserve; and
       ``(2) include an amount for operating and administrative 
     expenses established in accordance with section 508(k)(4)(F).
       ``(d) Payment of Portion of Premium by Corporation.--
     Subject to section 508(e)(4), the amount of premium paid by 
     the Corporation for all qualifying coverage levels of the 
     Stacked Income Protection Plan shall be--
       ``(1) 80 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (c) for the coverage level selected; and
       ``(2) the amount determined under subsection (c)(2), 
     subject to section 508(k)(4)(F), for the coverage to cover 
     administrative and operating expenses.
       ``(e) Relation to Other Coverages.--The Stacked Income 
     Protection Plan is in addition to all other coverages 
     available to producers of upland cotton.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 508(k)(4)(F) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)(F)) is 
     amended by inserting ``or authorized under subsection 
     (c)(4)(C) or section 508B'' after ``of this subparagraph''.

     SEC. 11017. PEANUT REVENUE CROP INSURANCE.

       The Federal Crop Insurance Act is amended by inserting 
     after section 508B, as added by the previous section, the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 508C. PEANUT REVENUE CROP INSURANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--Effective beginning with the 2014 crop 
     year, the Risk Management Agency and the Corporation shall 
     make available to producers of peanuts a revenue crop 
     insurance program for peanuts.
       ``(b) Effective Price.--Subject to subsection (c), for 
     purposes of the revenue crop insurance program and the 
     multiperil crop insurance program under this Act, the 
     effective price for peanuts shall be equal to the Rotterdam 
     price index for peanuts, as adjusted to reflect the farmer 
     stock price of peanuts in the United States.
       ``(c) Adjustments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The effective price for peanuts 
     established under subsection (b) may be adjusted by the Risk 
     Management Agency and the Corporation to correct distortions.
       ``(2) Administration.--If an adjustment is made under 
     paragraph (1), the Risk Management Agency and the Corporation 
     shall--
       ``(A) make the adjustment in an open and transparent 
     manner; and
       ``(B) submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report that describes 
     the reasons for the adjustment.''.

     SEC. 11018. AUTHORITY TO CORRECT ERRORS.

       Section 515(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1515(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Beginning with'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Frequency.--Beginning with''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Corrections.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to the corrections permitted 
     by the Corporation as of the date of enactment of the Federal 
     Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, the 
     Corporation shall allow an agent or an approved insurance 
     provider, subject to subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) within a reasonable amount of time following the 
     applicable sales closing date, to correct unintentional 
     errors in information that is provided by a producer for the 
     purpose of obtaining coverage under any policy or plan of 
     insurance made available under this subtitle to ensure that 
     the eligibility information is correct;
       ``(ii) within a reasonable amount of time following--

       ``(I) the acreage reporting date, to correct unintentional 
     errors in factual information that is provided by a producer 
     after the sales closing

[[Page 9671]]

     date to reconcile the information with the information 
     reported by the producer to the Farm Service Agency; or
       ``(II) the date of any subsequent correction of data by the 
     Farm Service Agency made as a result of the verification of 
     information; and

       ``(iii) at any time, to correct unintentional errors that 
     were made by the Farm Service Agency or an agent or approved 
     insurance provider in transmitting the information provided 
     by the producer to the approved insurance provider or the 
     Corporation.
       ``(B) Limitation.--In accordance with the procedures of the 
     Corporation, correction to the information described in 
     clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) may only be made if 
     the corrections do not allow the producer--
       ``(i) to avoid ineligibility requirements for insurance;
       ``(ii) to obtain, enhance, or increase an insurance 
     guarantee or indemnity, or avoid premium owed, if a cause of 
     loss exists or has occurred before any correction has been 
     made; or
       ``(iii) to avoid an obligation or requirement under any 
     Federal or State law.
       ``(C) Exception to late filing sanctions.--Any corrections 
     made pursuant to this paragraph shall not be subject to any 
     late filing sanctions authorized in the reinsurance agreement 
     with the Corporation.''.

     SEC. 11019. IMPLEMENTATION.

       Section 515 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1515) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (j), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) Systems maintenance and upgrades.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain and upgrade 
     the information management systems of the Corporation used in 
     the administration and enforcement of this subtitle.
       ``(B) Requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--In maintaining and upgrading the 
     systems, the Secretary shall ensure that new hardware and 
     software are compatible with the hardware and software used 
     by other agencies of the Department to maximize data sharing 
     and promote the purposes of this section.
       ``(ii) Acreage report streamlining initiative project.--As 
     soon as practicable, the Secretary shall develop and 
     implement an acreage report streamlining initiative project 
     to allow producers to report acreage and other information 
     directly to the Department.''; and
       (2) in subsection (k), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) Information technology.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (j)(1), the 
     Corporation may use, from amounts made available from the 
     insurance fund established under section 516(c), not more 
     than--
       ``(i)(I) for fiscal year 2014, $25,000,000; and
       ``(II) for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2018, 
     $10,000,000; or
       ``(ii) if the Acreage Crop Reporting Streamlining 
     Initiative (ACRSI) project is substantially completed by 
     September 30, 2015, not more than $15,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2015 through 2018.
       ``(B) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate of the substantial completion of the Acreage Crop 
     Reporting Streamlining Initiative (ACRSI) project not later 
     than July 1, 2015.''.

     SEC. 11020. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES.

       (a) Authority to Conduct Research and Development, 
     Priorities.--Section 522(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1522(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Contracting'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by striking ``may enter into contracts to carry out 
     research and development to'' and inserting ``may conduct 
     activities or enter into contracts to carry out research and 
     development to maintain or improve existing policies or 
     develop new policies to'';
       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``conduct research 
     and development or'' after ``The Corporation may''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``conducting research 
     and development or'' after ``Before'';
       (4) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``after expert review in 
     accordance with section 505(e)'' after ``approved by the 
     Board''; and
       (5) in paragraph (6), by striking ``a pasture, range, and 
     forage program'' and inserting ``policies that increase 
     participation by producers of underserved agricultural 
     commodities, including sweet sorghum, biomass sorghum, rice, 
     peanuts, sugarcane, alfalfa, and specialty crops''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 522(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``(A) Authority.--'' and inserting ``(A) 
     Conducting and contracting for research and development.--'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``conduct research 
     and development and'' after ``the Corporation may use to''; 
     and
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``conduct research 
     and development and'' after ``for the fiscal year to'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``to provide either 
     reimbursement payments or contract payments''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (4).

     SEC. 11021. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 522(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1522(c)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (17) as paragraph (24); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (16), the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(17) Margin coverage for catfish.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall offer to enter 
     into a contract with a qualified entity to conduct research 
     and development regarding a policy to insure producers 
     against reduction in the margin between the market value of 
     catfish and selected costs incurred in the production of 
     catfish.
       ``(B) Eligibility.--Eligibility for the policy described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be limited to freshwater species of 
     catfish that are propagated and reared in controlled or 
     selected environments.
       ``(C) Implementation.--The Board shall review the policy 
     described in subparagraph (B) under subsection 508(h) and 
     approve the policy if the Board finds that the policy--
       ``(i) will likely result in a viable and marketable policy 
     consistent with this subsection;
       ``(ii) would provide crop insurance coverage in a 
     significantly improved form;
       ``(iii) adequately protects the interests of producers; and
       ``(iv) the proposed policy meets other requirements of this 
     subtitle determined appropriate by the Board.
       ``(18) Biomass and sweet sorghum energy crop insurance 
     policies.--
       ``(A) Authority.--The Corporation shall offer to enter into 
     1 or more contracts with qualified entities to carry out 
     research and development regarding--
       ``(i) a policy to insure biomass sorghum that is grown 
     expressly for the purpose of producing a feedstock for 
     renewable biofuel, renewable electricity, or biobased 
     products; and
       ``(ii) a policy to insure sweet sorghum that is grown for a 
     purpose described in clause (i).
       ``(B) Research and development.--Research and development 
     with respect to each of the policies required in subparagraph 
     (A) shall evaluate the effectiveness of risk management tools 
     for the production of biomass sorghum or sweet sorghum, 
     including policies and plans of insurance that--
       ``(i) are based on market prices and yields;
       ``(ii) to the extent that insufficient data exist to 
     develop a policy based on market prices and yields, evaluate 
     the policies and plans of insurance based on the use of 
     weather indices, including excessive or inadequate rainfall, 
     to protect the interest of crop producers; and
       ``(iii) provide protection for production or revenue 
     losses, or both.
       ``(19) Study on swine catastrophic disease program.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall contract with a 
     qualified person to conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of insuring swine producers for a catastrophic 
     event.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a report that describes the results of the study 
     conducted under subparagraph (A).
       ``(20) Whole farm diversified risk management insurance 
     plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall conduct activities 
     or enter into contracts to carry out research and development 
     to develop a whole farm risk management insurance plan, with 
     a liability limitation of $1,250,000, that allows a 
     diversified crop or livestock producer the option to qualify 
     for an indemnity if actual gross farm revenue is below 85 
     percent of the average gross farm revenue or the expected 
     gross farm revenue that can reasonably be expected of the 
     producer, as determined by the Corporation.
       ``(B) Eligible producers.--The Corporation shall permit 
     producers (including direct-to-consumer marketers and 
     producers servicing local and regional and farm identity-
     preserved markets) who produce multiple agricultural 
     commodities, including specialty crops, industrial crops, 
     livestock, and aquaculture products, to participate in the 
     plan in lieu of any other plan under this subtitle.
       ``(C) Diversification.--The Corporation may provide 
     diversification-based additional coverage payment rates, 
     premium discounts, or other enhanced benefits in recognition 
     of the risk management benefits of crop and livestock 
     diversification strategies for producers that grow multiple 
     crops or that may have income from the production of 
     livestock that uses a crop grown on the farm.
       ``(D) Market readiness.--The Corporation may include 
     coverage for the value of any packing, packaging, or any 
     other similar on-farm activity the Corporation determines to 
     be the minimum required in order to remove the commodity from 
     the field.
       ``(E) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a report that describes the results and 
     feasibility of the research and development conducted under 
     this paragraph, including an analysis of potential adverse 
     market distortions.
       ``(21) Study on poultry catastrophic disease program.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall contract with a 
     qualified person to conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of insuring poultry producers for a catastrophic 
     event.

[[Page 9672]]

       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a report that describes the results of the study 
     conducted under subparagraph (A).
       ``(22) Poultry business interruption insurance policy.--
       ``(A) Authority.--The Corporation shall offer to enter into 
     a contract or cooperative agreement with a university or 
     other legal entity to carry out research and development 
     regarding a policy to insure the commercial production of 
     poultry against business interruptions caused by integrator 
     bankruptcy.
       ``(B) Research and development.--As part of the research 
     and development conducted pursuant to a contract or 
     cooperative agreement entered into under subparagraph (A), 
     the entity shall--
       ``(i) evaluate the market place for business interruption 
     insurance that is available to poultry growers;
       ``(ii) determine what statutory authority would be 
     necessary to implement a business interruption insurance 
     through the Corporation;
       ``(iii) assess the feasibility of a policy or plan of 
     insurance offered under this subtitle to insure against 
     losses due to the bankruptcy of an business integrator; and
       ``(iv) analyze the costs to the Federal Government of a 
     Federal business interruption insurance program for poultry 
     growers.
       ``(C) Definitions.--In this paragraph, the terms `poultry' 
     and `poultry grower' have the meanings given those terms in 
     section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 
     U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(D) Deadline for contract or cooperative agreement.--Not 
     later than six months after the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph, the Corporation shall enter into the contract or 
     cooperative agreement required by subparagraph (A).
       ``(E) Deadline for completion of research and 
     development.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a report that describes the results of the 
     research and development conducted pursuant to the contract 
     or cooperative agreement entered into under subparagraph (A).
       ``(23) Study of food safety insurance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall offer to enter 
     into a contract with 1 or more qualified entities to conduct 
     a study to determine whether offering policies that provide 
     coverage for specialty crops from food safety and 
     contamination issues would benefit agricultural producers.
       ``(B) Subject.--The study described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall evaluate policies and plans of insurance coverage that 
     provide protection for production or revenue impacted by food 
     safety concerns including, at a minimum, government, retail, 
     or national consumer group announcements of a health 
     advisory, removal, or recall related to a contamination 
     concern.
       ``(C) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a report that describes the results of the study 
     conducted under subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 11022. PROGRAM COMPLIANCE PARTNERSHIPS.

       Paragraph (1) of section 522(d) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Purpose.--The purpose of this subsection is to 
     authorize the Corporation to enter into partnerships with 
     public and private entities for the purpose of either--
       ``(A) increasing the availability of loss mitigation, 
     financial, and other risk management tools for producers, 
     with a priority given to risk management tools for producers 
     of agricultural commodities covered by section 196 of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7333), specialty 
     crops, and underserved agricultural commodities; or
       ``(B) improving analysis tools and technology regarding 
     compliance or identifying and using innovative compliance 
     strategies.''.

     SEC. 11023. PILOT PROGRAMS.

       Section 523(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1523(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, at the sole 
     discretion of the Corporation,'' after ``may''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (5).

     SEC. 11024. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Eligibility for Department Programs.--Section 508(b) of 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (7); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (7) through (10), respectively.
       (b) Exclusions to Assistance for Losses Due to Drought 
     Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 531(d)(3)(A) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1531(d)(3)(A)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(A) Eligible losses.--'' and all that 
     follows through ``An eligible'' in clause (i) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(A) Eligible losses.--An eligible'';
       (B) by striking clause (ii); and
       (C) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses (i) 
     and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 901(d)(3)(A) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2497(d)(3)(A)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(A) Eligible losses.--'' and all that 
     follows through ``An eligible'' in clause (i) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(A) Eligible losses.--An eligible'';
       (B) by striking clause (ii); and
       (C) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses (i) 
     and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately.

                        TITLE XII--MISCELLANEOUS

                         Subtitle A--Livestock

     SEC. 12101. NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT CENTER.

       Section 375(e)(6)(C) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008j(e)(6)(C)) is amended by 
     striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 12102. REPEAL OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS UNDER THE PACKERS 
                   AND STOCKYARDS ACT, 1921.

       (a) Repeal of Certain Regulation Requirement.--Section 
     11006 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
     (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2120) is repealed.
       (b) Repeal of Certain Existing Regulation.--Subsection (n) 
     of section 201.2 of title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, is 
     repealed.
       (c) Prohibition on Enforcement of Certain Regulations or 
     Issuance of Similar Regulations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall not--
       (1) enforce subsection (n) of section 201.2 of title 9, 
     Code of Federal Regulations;
       (2) finalize or implement sections 201.2(l), 201.2(t), 
     201.2(u), 201.3(c), 201.210, 201.211, 201.213, and 201.214 of 
     title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be added 
     by the proposed rule entitled ``Implementation of Regulations 
     Required Under Title XI of the Food, Conservation and Energy 
     Act of 2008; Conduct in Violation of the Act'' published by 
     the Department of Agriculture on June 22, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 
     35338); or
       (3) issue regulations or adopt a policy similar to the 
     provisions--
       (A) referred to in paragraph (1) or (2); or
       (B) rescinded by the Secretary pursuant to section 742 of 
     the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 
     2013 (Public Law 113-6).

     SEC. 12103. TRICHINAE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Alternative Certification Process.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall amend the rule made under paragraph (2) of 
     section 11010(a) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 8304(a)) to implement the voluntary trichinae 
     certification program established under paragraph (1) of such 
     section, to include a requirement to establish an alternative 
     trichinae certification process based on surveillance or 
     other methods consistent with international standards for 
     categorizing compartments as having negligible risk for 
     trichinae.
       (b) Final Regulations.--Not later than one year after the 
     date on which the international standards referred to in 
     subsection (a) are adopted, the Secretary shall finalize the 
     rule amended under such subsection.
       (c) Reauthorization.--Section 10405(d)(1) of the Animal 
     Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8304(d)(1)) is amended in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) by striking ``2012'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 12104. NATIONAL AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH PLAN.

       Section 11013(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8322(d)) is amended by striking ``2012'' 
     and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 12105. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     acting through the Office of the Chief Economist, shall 
     conduct an economic analysis of the proposed rule entitled 
     ``Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, 
     Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild and Farm-raised Fish and Shellfish, 
     Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng 
     and Macadamia Nuts'' published by the Department of 
     Agriculture on March 12, 2013 (76 Fed. Reg. 15645).
       (b) Contents.--The economic analysis described in 
     subsection (a) shall include, with respect to the labeling of 
     beef, pork, and chicken, an analysis of the impact on 
     consumers, producers, and packers in the United States of--
       (1) the implementation of subtitle D of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.); and
       (2) the proposed rule referred to in subsection (a).

     SEC. 12106. NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORY NETWORK.

       Subtitle E of title X of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 is amended by inserting after section 
     10409 (7 U.S.C. 8308) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 10409A. NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORY NETWORK.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into 
     contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or other legal 
     instruments with eligible laboratories for any of the 
     following purposes:
       ``(1) To enhance the capability of the Secretary to detect, 
     and respond in a timely manner to, emerging or existing 
     threats to animal health and to support the protection of 
     public health, the environment, and the agricultural economy 
     of the United States.
       ``(2) To provide the capacity and capability for 
     standardized--

[[Page 9673]]

       ``(A) test procedures, reference materials, and equipment;
       ``(B) laboratory biosafety and biosecurity levels;
       ``(C) quality management system requirements;
       ``(D) interconnected electronic reporting and transmission 
     of data; and
       ``(E) evaluation for emergency preparedness.
       ``(3) To coordinate the development, implementation, and 
     enhancement of national veterinary diagnostic laboratory 
     capabilities, with special emphasis on surveillance planning 
     and vulnerability analysis, technology development and 
     validation, training, and outreach.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--An eligible laboratory under this 
     section is a diagnostic laboratory meeting specific criteria 
     developed by the Secretary, in consultation with State animal 
     health officials and State and university veterinary 
     diagnostic laboratories.
       ``(c) Priority.--To the extent practicable and to the 
     extent capacity and specialized expertise may be necessary, 
     the Secretary shall give priority to existing Federal, State, 
     and university facilities.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''.

     SEC. 12107. REPEAL OF DUPLICATIVE CATFISH INSPECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Effective on the date of the enactment of 
     the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 
     et seq.), section 11016 of such Act (Public Law 110-246; 122 
     Stat. 2130) and the amendments made by such section are 
     repealed.
       (b) Application.--The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) and the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 601 et seq.) shall be applied and administered as if 
     section 11016 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2130) of the 
     Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et 
     seq.) and the amendments made by such section had not been 
     enacted.

     SEC. 12108. NATIONAL POULTRY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall ensure that the 
     Department of Agriculture continues to administer the 
     diagnostic surveillance program for H5/H7 low pathogenic 
     avian influenza with respect to commercial poultry under 
     section 146.14 of title 9, Code of Federal Regulations (or a 
     successor regulation) without amending the regulations in 
     section 147.43 of title 9, Code of Federal Regulations (or a 
     successor regulation) with respect to the governance of the 
     General Conference Committee established under such section. 
     The Secretary of Agriculture shall maintain--
       (1) the operations of the General Conference Committee--
       (A) in the physical location at which the Committee was 
     located on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) with the organizational structure within the Department 
     of Agriculture in effect as of such date; and
       (2) the funding levels for the National Poultry Improvement 
     Plan for Commercial Poultry (established under part 146 of 
     title 9, Code of Federal Regulations or a successor 
     regulation) at the fiscal year 2013 funding levels for the 
     Plan.

     SEC. 12109. REPORT ON BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN TEXAS.

       Not later than December 31, 2014, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report 
     on the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle in Texas. 
     The report shall cover the period beginning on January 1, 
     1997, and ending on December 31, 2013.

   Subtitle B--Socially Disadvantaged Producers and Limited Resource 
                               Producers

     SEC. 12201. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE FOR SOCIALLY 
                   DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS AND VETERAN 
                   FARMERS AND RANCHERS.

       (a) Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged 
     Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers.--
     Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND VETERAN 
     FARMERS AND RANCHERS'' after ``RANCHERS'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and veteran farmers or 
     ranchers'' after ``ranchers'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(B)(i), by inserting ``and veteran 
     farmers or ranchers'' after ``ranchers''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in the heading of such subparagraph, by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2018'';
       (II) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (III) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (IV) by adding at the end the following new clause:

       ``(iii) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``or veteran farmers 
     and ranchers'' after ``socially disadvantaged farmers and 
     ranchers'';
       (4) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``veteran farmers or 
     ranchers and'' before ``members''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``veteran farmers or 
     ranchers and'' before ``members''; and
       (5) in subsection (e)(5)(A)--
       (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``and veteran farmers or 
     ranchers'' after ``ranchers''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and veteran farmers or 
     ranchers'' after ``ranchers''.
       (b) Definition of Veteran Farmer or Rancher.--Section 
     2501(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act 
     of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(e)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Veteran farmer or rancher.--The term `veteran farmer 
     or rancher' means a farmer or rancher who served in the 
     active military, naval, or air service, and who was 
     discharged or released from the service under conditions 
     other than dishonorable.''.

     SEC. 12202. OFFICE OF ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH.

       Paragraph (3) of section 226B(f) of the Department of 
     Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6934(f)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
       ``(A) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2009 through 2013; and
       ``(B) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 12203. SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS 
                   POLICY RESEARCH CENTER.

       Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279), as amended by section 
     12201, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Policy 
     Research Center.--The Secretary shall award a grant to a 
     college or university eligible to receive funds under the Act 
     of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including Tuskegee 
     University, to establish a policy research center to be known 
     as the `Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Policy 
     Research Center' for the purpose of developing policy 
     recommendations for the protection and promotion of the 
     interests of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.''.

               Subtitle C--Other Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 12302. GRANTS TO IMPROVE SUPPLY, STABILITY, SAFETY, AND 
                   TRAINING OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR FORCE.

       Subsection (d) of section 14204 of the Food, Conservation, 
     and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2008q-1) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2013; and
       ``(2) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
     2018.''.

     SEC. 12303. PROGRAM BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY STATUS FOR 
                   PARTICIPANTS IN HIGH PLAINS WATER STUDY.

       Section 2901 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1818) is amended by 
     striking ``this Act or an amendment made by this Act'' and 
     inserting ``this Act, an amendment made by this Act, the 
     Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, 
     or an amendment made by the Federal Agriculture Reform and 
     Risk Management Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 12304. OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 
     1994 is amended by adding after section 308 (7 U.S.C. 3125a 
     note; Public Law 103-354) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 309. OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS.

       ``The Secretary shall establish in the Office of the 
     Secretary an Office of Tribal Relations to advise the 
     Secretary on policies related to Indian tribes.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7014(b)) 
     is amended by inserting after paragraph (9), as added by 
     section 4207, the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) the authority of the Secretary to establish in the 
     Office of the Secretary the Office of Tribal Relations in 
     accordance with section 309; and''.

     SEC. 12305. MILITARY VETERANS AGRICULTURAL LIAISON.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle A of the Department of 
     Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 is amended by 
     inserting after section 218 (7 U.S.C. 6918) the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 219. MILITARY VETERANS AGRICULTURAL LIAISON.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary shall establish in the 
     Department the position of Military Veterans Agricultural 
     Liaison.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Military Veterans Agricultural Liaison 
     shall--
       ``(1) provide information to returning veterans about, and 
     connect returning veterans with, beginning farmer training 
     and agricultural vocational and rehabilitation programs 
     appropriate to the needs and interests of returning veterans, 
     including assisting veterans in using Federal veterans 
     educational benefits for purposes relating to beginning a 
     farming or ranching career;
       ``(2) provide information to veterans concerning the 
     availability of and eligibility requirements for 
     participation in agricultural programs, with particular 
     emphasis on beginning farmer and rancher programs;

[[Page 9674]]

       ``(3) serve as a resource for assisting veteran farmers and 
     ranchers, and potential farmers and ranchers, in applying for 
     participation in agricultural programs; and
       ``(4) advocate on behalf of veterans in interactions with 
     employees of the Department.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7014(b)) 
     is amended by inserting after paragraph (10), as added by 
     section 12304, the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) the authority of the Secretary to establish in the 
     Department the position of Military Veterans Agricultural 
     Liaison in accordance with section 219.''.

     SEC. 12306. PROHIBITION ON KEEPING GSA LEASED CARS OVERNIGHT.

       Effective immediately, a Federal employee of a State office 
     of the Farm Service Agency in the field and non-Federal 
     employees of county and area committees established under 
     section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5)) shall keep leased 
     interagency motor pool vehicles at a location listed on the 
     General Services Administration inventory of owned and leased 
     properties or a location owned or leased by the Department of 
     Agriculture overnight unless the employee assigned the 
     vehicle is on overnight, approved travel status involving per 
     diem.

     SEC. 12307. NONINSURED CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333), as amended by section 
     11013(b), is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Coverages.--In the case of an eligible crop described 
     in paragraph (2), the Secretary of Agriculture shall operate 
     a noninsured crop disaster assistance program to provide 
     coverages based on individual yields (other than for value-
     loss crops) equivalent to--
       ``(i) catastrophic risk protection available under section 
     508(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)); 
     or
       ``(ii) additional coverage available under subsections (c) 
     and (h) of section 508 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) that does 
     not exceed 65 percent.
       ``(B) Administration.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section through the Farm Service Agency (referred to in this 
     section as the `Agency').''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon 
     at the end;
       (II) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
       (III) by inserting after clause (i) the following new 
     clause:

       ``(ii) for which additional coverage under subsections (c) 
     and (h) of section 508 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) is not 
     available; and''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``sweet sorghum, 
     biomass sorghum,'' before ``and industrial crops'';
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to subsection (l), the Secretary''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Payment Equivalent to Additional Coverage.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make available to a 
     producer eligible for noninsured assistance under this 
     section a payment equivalent to an indemnity for additional 
     coverage under subsections (c) and (h) of section 508 of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) that does not 
     exceed 65 percent of the established yield for the eligible 
     crop on the farm, computed by multiplying--
       ``(A) the quantity that is not greater than 65 percent of 
     the established yield for the crop, as determined by the 
     Secretary, specified in increments of 5 percent;
       ``(B) 100 percent of the average market price for the crop, 
     as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(C) a payment rate for the type of crop, as determined by 
     the Secretary, that reflects--
       ``(i) in the case of a crop that is produced with a 
     significant and variable harvesting expense, the decreasing 
     cost incurred in the production cycle for the crop that is, 
     as applicable--

       ``(I) harvested;
       ``(II) planted but not harvested; or
       ``(III) prevented from being planted because of drought, 
     flood, or other natural disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary; or

       ``(ii) in the case of a crop that is produced without a 
     significant and variable harvesting expense, such rate as 
     shall be determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Premium.--To be eligible to receive a payment under 
     this subsection, a producer shall pay--
       ``(A) the service fee required by subsection (k); and
       ``(B) a premium for the applicable crop year that is equal 
     to the product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(i) the number of acres devoted to the eligible crop;
       ``(ii) the established yield for the eligible crop, as 
     determined by the Secretary under subsection (e);
       ``(iii) the coverage level elected by the producer;
       ``(iv) the average market price, as determined by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(v) .0525.
       ``(3) Limited resource, beginning, and socially 
     disadvantaged farmers.--The additional coverage made 
     available under this subsection shall be available to limited 
     resource, beginning, and socially disadvantaged producers, as 
     determined by the Secretary, in exchange for a premium that 
     is 50 percent of the premium determined for a producer under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Premium payment and application deadline.--
       ``(A) Premium payment.--A producer electing additional 
     coverage under this subsection shall pay the premium amount 
     owed for the additional coverage by September 30 of the crop 
     year for which the additional coverage is purchased.
       ``(B) Application deadline.--The latest date on which 
     additional coverage under this subsection may be elected 
     shall be the application closing date described in subsection 
     (b)(1).
       ``(5) Effective date.--Additional coverage under this 
     subsection shall be available beginning with the 2015 
     crop.''.

     SEC. 12308. ENSURING HIGH STANDARDS FOR AGENCY USE OF 
                   SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.

       (a) Requirement for Final Guidelines.--Not later than 
     January 1, 2014, each Federal agency shall have in effect 
     guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, 
     objectivity, utility, and integrity of scientific information 
     relied upon by such agency.
       (b) Content of Guidelines.--The guidelines described in 
     subsection (a), with respect to a Federal agency, shall 
     ensure that--
       (1) when scientific information is considered by the agency 
     in policy decisions--
       (A) the information is subject to well-established 
     scientific processes, including peer review where 
     appropriate;
       (B) the agency appropriately applies the scientific 
     information to the policy decision;
       (C) except for information that is protected from 
     disclosure by law or administrative practice, the agency 
     makes available to the public the scientific information 
     considered by the agency;
       (D) the agency gives greatest weight to information that is 
     based on experimental, empirical, quantifiable, and 
     reproducible data that is developed in accordance with well-
     established scientific processes; and
       (E) with respect to any proposed rule issued by the agency, 
     such agency follows procedures that include, to the extent 
     feasible and permitted by law, an opportunity for public 
     comment on all relevant scientific findings;
       (2) the agency has procedures in place to make policy 
     decisions only on the basis of the best reasonably obtainable 
     scientific, technical, economic, and other evidence and 
     information concerning the need for, consequences of, and 
     alternatives to the decision; and
       (3) the agency has in place procedures to identify and 
     address instances in which the integrity of scientific 
     information considered by the agency may have been 
     compromised, including instances in which such information 
     may have been the product of a scientific process that was 
     compromised.
       (c) Approval Needed for Policy Decisions To Take Effect.--
     No policy decision issued after January 1, 2014, by an agency 
     subject to this section may take effect prior to such date 
     that the agency has in effect guidelines under subsection (a) 
     that have been approved by the Director of the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy.
       (d) Policy Decisions Not in Compliance.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a policy 
     decision of an agency that does not comply with guidelines 
     approved under subsection (c) shall be deemed to be 
     arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise 
     not in accordance with law.
       (2) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply to policy 
     decisions that are deemed to be necessary because of an 
     imminent threat to health or safety or because of another 
     emergency.
       (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Policy decision.--The term ``policy decision'' means, 
     with respect to an agency, an agency action as defined in 
     section 551(13) of title 5, United States Code, (other than 
     an adjudication, as defined in section 551(7) of such title), 
     and includes--
       (A) the listing, labeling, or other identification of a 
     substance, product, or activity as hazardous or creating risk 
     to human health, safety, or the environment; and
       (B) agency guidance.
       (3) Agency guidance.--The term ``agency guidance'' means an 
     agency statement of general applicability and future effect, 
     other than a regulatory action, that sets forth a policy on a 
     statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or on an 
     interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.

     SEC. 12309. EVALUATION REQUIRED FOR PURPOSES OF PROHIBITION 
                   ON CLOSURE OR RELOCATION OF COUNTY OFFICES FOR 
                   THE FARM SERVICE AGENCY.

       (a) Prohibition on Closure or Relocation of Offices With 
     High Workload Volume.--Section 14212 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 6932a) is 
     amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(a) Prohibition on Closure or Relocation of Offices With 
     High Workload Volume.--The Secretary of Agriculture may not 
     close or relocate a county or field office of the Farm 
     Service Agency in a State if the Secretary determines, after 
     conducting the evaluation required

[[Page 9675]]

     under subsection (b)(1)(B), that the office has a high 
     workload volume compared with other county offices in the 
     State.''.
       (b) Workload Evaluation.--Section 14212(b)(1) of such Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 6932a(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively, and moving the margins of such 
     clauses two ems to the right;
       (2) by striking ``the Farm Service Agency, to the maximum 
     extent practicable'' and inserting ``the Farm Service 
     Agency--
       ``(A) to the maximum extent practicable'';
       (3) in clause (ii) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
       (A) by inserting ``as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act'' after ``employees''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) conduct and complete an evaluation of all workload 
     assessments for Farm Service Agency county offices that were 
     open and operational as of January 1, 2012, during the period 
     that begins on a date that is not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Reform 
     and Risk Management Act of 2013 and ends on the date that is 
     18 months after such date of enactment.''.
       (c) Notice Required.--Section 14212(b)(2) of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 6932a(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``After the period referred to in subsection (a)(1), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may not close a county or field 
     office of the Farm Service Agency unless--'' and inserting 
     ``After carrying out each of the activities required under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary of Agriculture shall, before 
     closing a county or field office of the Farm Service Agency--
     '';
       (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the Secretary 
     holds'' and inserting ``hold''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Secretary 
     notifies'' and inserting ``notify''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 14212(b)(1) of such Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 6932a(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``After the 
     period referred to in subsection (a)(1), the Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``The Secretary''.

     SEC. 12310. ACER ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     make competitive grants to States, tribal governments, and 
     research institutions to support the efforts of such States, 
     tribal governments, and research institutions to promote the 
     domestic maple syrup industry through the following 
     activities:
       (1) Promotion of research and education related to maple 
     syrup production.
       (2) Promotion of natural resource sustainability in the 
     maple syrup industry.
       (3) Market promotion for maple syrup and maple-sap 
     products.
       (4) Encouragement of owners and operators of privately-held 
     land containing species of trees in the genus Acer--
       (A) to initiate or expand maple-sugaring activities on the 
     land; or
       (B) to voluntarily make the land available, including by 
     lease or other means, for access by the public for maple-
     sugaring activities.
       (b) Application.--In submitting an application for a 
     competitive grant under this section, a State, tribal 
     government, or research institution shall include--
       (1) a description of the activities to be supported using 
     the grant funds;
       (2) a description of the benefits that the State, tribal 
     government, or research institution intends to achieve as a 
     result of engaging in such activities; and
       (3) an estimate of the increase in maple-sugaring 
     activities or maple syrup production that the State, tribal 
     government, or research institution anticipates will occur as 
     a result of engaging in such activities.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed so as to preempt a State or tribal government law, 
     including a State or tribal government liability law.
       (d) Definition of Maple-sugaring.--In this section, the 
     term ``maple-sugaring'' means the collection of sap from any 
     species of tree in the genus Acer for the purpose of boiling 
     to produce food.
       (e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

     SEC. 12311. REGULATORY REVIEW BY THE SECRETARY OF 
                   AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Review of Regulatory Agenda.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall review publications that may give notice 
     that the Environmental Protection Agency is preparing or 
     plans to prepare any guidance, policy, memorandum, 
     regulation, or statement of general applicability and future 
     effect that may have a significant impact on a substantial 
     number of agricultural entities, including--
       (1) any regulatory agenda of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency published pursuant to section 602 of title 5, United 
     States Code;
       (2) any regulatory plan or agenda published by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency or the Office of Management 
     and Budget pursuant to an Executive order, including 
     Executive Order 12866; and
       (3) any other publication issued by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or the Office of Management and Budget that 
     may reasonably be foreseen to contain notice of plans by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to prepare any guidance, 
     policy, memorandum, regulation, or statement of general 
     applicability and future effect that may have a significant 
     impact on a substantial number of agricultural entities.
       (b) Information Gathering.--For a publication item reviewed 
     under subsection (a) that the Secretary determines may have a 
     significant impact on a substantial number of agricultural 
     entities, the Secretary shall--
       (1) solicit from the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency any information the Administrator may 
     provide to facilitate a review of the publication item;
       (2) utilize the Chief Economist of the Department of 
     Agriculture to produce an economic impact statement for the 
     publication item that contains a detailed estimate of 
     potential costs to agricultural entities;
       (3) identify individuals representative of potentially 
     affected agricultural entities for the purpose of obtaining 
     advice and recommendations from such individuals about the 
     potential impacts of the publication item; and
       (4) convene a review panel for analysis of the publication 
     item that includes the Secretary, any full-time Federal 
     employee of the Department of Agriculture appointed to the 
     panel by the Secretary, and any employee of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget that 
     accepts an invitation from the Secretary to participate in 
     the panel.
       (c) Duties of the Review Panel.--A review panel convened 
     for a publication item under subsection (b)(4) shall--
       (1) review any information or material obtained by the 
     Secretary and prepared in connection with the publication 
     item, including any draft proposed guidance, policy, 
     memorandum, regulation, or statement of general applicability 
     and future effect;
       (2) collect advice and recommendations from agricultural 
     entity representatives identified by the Administrator after 
     consultation with the Secretary;
       (3) compile and analyze such advice and recommendations; 
     and
       (4) make recommendations to the Secretary based on the 
     information gathered by the review panel or provided by 
     agricultural entity representatives.
       (d) Comments.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date the 
     Secretary convenes a review panel pursuant to subsection 
     (b)(4), the Secretary shall submit to the Administrator 
     comments on the planned or proposed guidance, policy, 
     memorandum, regulation, or statement of general applicability 
     and future effect for consideration and inclusion in any 
     related administrative record, including--
       (A) a report by the Secretary on the concerns of 
     agricultural entities;
       (B) the findings of the review panel;
       (C) the findings of the Secretary, including any adopted 
     findings of the review panel; and
       (D) recommendations of the Secretary.
       (2) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish the comments 
     in the Federal Register and make the comments available to 
     the public on the public Internet website of the Department 
     of Agriculture.
       (e) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive initiation of the 
     review panel under subsection (b)(4) as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate.
       (f) Definition of Agricultural Entity.--In this section, 
     the term ``agricultural entity'' means any entity involved in 
     or related to agricultural enterprise, including enterprises 
     that are engaged in the business of production of food and 
     fiber, ranching and raising of livestock, aquaculture, and 
     all other farming and agricultural related industries.

     SEC. 12312. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY DEFINITION.

       Section 513(1) of the Commodity Promotion, Research, and 
     Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7412(1)), as amended by 
     section 10004(g), is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) (as 
     added or redesignated by such section 10004(g), as the case 
     may be) as subparagraphs (F), (G), and (H), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) the products of natural stone;''.

     SEC. 12313. PROHIBITION ON ATTENDING AN ANIMAL FIGHTING 
                   VENTURE OR CAUSING A MINOR TO ATTEND AN ANIMAL 
                   FIGHTING VENTURE.

       Section 26(a)(1) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2156(a)(1)) is amended by striking the period and inserting 
     ``or to knowingly attend or knowingly cause a minor to attend 
     an animal fighting venture.''.

     SEC. 12314. PROHIBITION AGAINST INTERFERENCE BY STATE AND 
                   LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH PRODUCTION OR 
                   MANUFACTURE OF ITEMS IN OTHER STATES.

       (a) In General.--Consistent with Article I, section 8, 
     clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, the 
     government of a State or locality therein shall not impose a 
     standard or condition on the production or manufacture of any 
     agricultural product sold or offered for sale in interstate 
     commerce if--
       (1) such production or manufacture occurs in another State; 
     and
       (2) the standard or condition is in addition to the 
     standards and conditions applicable to such production or 
     manufacture pursuant to--
       (A) Federal law; and

[[Page 9676]]

       (B) the laws of the State and locality in which such 
     production or manufacture occurs.
       (b) Agricultural Product Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``agricultural product'' has the meaning given such term 
     in section 207 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1626).

     SEC. 12315. INCREASED PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS 
                   IN THE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Record runoff occurred in the Missouri River basin 
     during 2011 as a result of historic rainfall over portions of 
     the upper basin coupled with heavy plains and mountain 
     snowpack.
       (2) Runoff above Sioux City, Iowa, during the 5-month 
     period of March through July totaled an estimated 48.4 
     million acre-feet (referred to in this section as ``MAF''). 
     This runoff volume was more than 20 percent greater than the 
     design storm for the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System 
     (referred to in this section as the ``System''), which was 
     based on the 1881 runoff of 40.0 MAF during the same 5-month 
     period.
       (3) During the 2011 runoff season, nearly 61 million acre-
     feet of water entered the Missouri River system, far 
     surpassing the previous record of 49 MAF in runoff that was 
     set during the flood of 1997.
       (4) Given the incredible amount of water entering the 
     System, the summer months were spent working to evacuate as 
     much water from the System as possible, ultimately leading to 
     record high water releases from Gavins Point Dam of 160,000 
     cubic feet per second, a rate that more than doubled the 
     previous release record of 70,000 cubic feet per second set 
     in 1997.
       (5) For nearly four months, those extremely high releases 
     from Gavins Point were maintained, resulting in severe and 
     sustained flooding, with much of western Iowa and eastern 
     Nebraska as well as portions of South Dakota, Kansas, and 
     Missouri inundated by a flooding river three to five feet 
     deep, up to 11 miles wide, and flowing at a rate of 4 to 11 
     miles per hour.
       (6) Thousands of homes and businesses were damaged or 
     destroyed and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage was 
     done to roads and other public infrastructure.
       (7) In addition to the homes, businesses, and 
     infrastructure impacted by the flooding, hundreds of 
     thousands of acres of cropland were affected.
       (8) The Department of Agriculture has estimated that 
     400,000 to 500,000 acres of some of the most productive crop 
     land in the world was flooded in 2011.
       (9) Local Farm Services Agency representatives have 
     estimated that $82,100,000 was lost in 2011 alone due to 
     damaged or lost crops and unplanted acres.
       (10) Not only did the flooding eliminate the 2011 crop, but 
     it is highly unlikely that many farmers will be able to put 
     that land back into production at any point in the near 
     future.
       (11) Producers will have to contend with large piles of 
     sand, silt, and other debris that have been deposited in 
     their fields, meaning the impact of the 2011 flood will be 
     felt in the agricultural communities up and down the Missouri 
     River for many years to come.
       (12) Currently, the amount of storage capacity in the 
     System that is set aside for flood control is based upon the 
     vacated space required to control the 1881 flood, because 
     prior to the 2011 flood, the 1881 flood was seen as the 
     ``high water mark''.
       (13) Given the historic flooding that took place in 2011, 
     it is clear that that year's flooding now represents a new 
     ``high water mark'', surpassing the flooding of even the 1881 
     flood.
       (14) It is important that the flood control related 
     functions of the System management be adjusted to reflect the 
     reality of the 2011 flood as the new ``worst case scenario'' 
     for flooding along the Missouri River.
       (15) System management may begin to be adjusted to account 
     for the 2011 flood through a recalculation of the amount of 
     storage space within the System that is allocated to flood 
     control, using the model not of the 1881 flood, but of the 
     greatest flood experienced--the flood of 2011.
       (16) As a result of the flooding in 2011, many States 
     received disaster declarations from the Department of 
     Agriculture to help farmers and producers recover from the 
     damage done by the high water.
       (17) Though helpful, even the assistance provided by the 
     Department of Agriculture will not provide many in the 
     agriculture community with the resources to put their land 
     back into production any time soon.
       (18) Without the protection that will come from a 
     fundamental change in the System's flood control storage 
     allocations, farmers, producers, and other agricultural 
     interests who may be in a position to restart their 
     operations will find it difficult to justify doing so, given 
     the fact that they will not be protected from similar 
     flooding in the future.
       (b) Updated Management of the Missouri River To Protect 
     Agricultural Interests.--In order to strengthen the 
     agricultural economy, revitalize the rural communities, and 
     conserve the natural resources of the Missouri River basin, 
     the Congress directs that the Secretary of Agriculture take 
     action to promote immediate increased flood protection to 
     farmers, producers, and other agricultural interests in the 
     Missouri River basin by working within its jurisdiction to 
     support efforts--
       (1) to recalculate the amount of space within the System 
     that is allocated to flood control storage using the 2011 
     flood as the model; and
       (2) to increase the Missouri River's channel capacity 
     between the reservoirs and below Gavins Point.

     SEC. 12316. INCREASED PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS 
                   IN THE BLACK DIRT REGION.

       In order to strengthen the agricultural economy, revitalize 
     the rural communities, and conserve the natural resources of 
     the Black Dirt region, the Congress directs that the 
     Secretary of Agriculture take action to promote immediate 
     increased flood protection to farmers, producers, and other 
     agricultural interests around the Wallkill River and in the 
     Black Dirt region.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute made in order as original text shall be in order except 
those printed in part B of House Report 113-117 and amendments en bloc 
described in section 3 of House Resolution 271.
  Except as specified in the order of the House of today, each 
amendment printed in part B of House Report 113-117 shall be considered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by its 
proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on 
Agriculture or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of 
amendments printed in part B of House Report 113-117 not earlier 
disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture or their 
designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question. The original proponent of an 
amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in 
the Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of the 
amendments en bloc.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 1101(c), 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, and 1109.
       In section 1501(f), add the following new paragraph:
       (4) Delay in initial payments.--Payments required under 
     this section for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 shall not 
     be distributed before October 1, 2014.
       Strike sections 4005, 4007, 4018, and 4027.
       Strike section 11003.
       In section 11016(a), strike ``2014'' after ``Beginning not 
     later than the'' and insert ``2015''.
       In section 11016(d)(1), strike ``80 percent'' and insert 
     ``65 percent''.
       In section 11017, strike ``2014'' after ``Effective 
     beginning with the'' and insert ``2015''.
       At the end of title XI, add the following new section:

     SEC. 11025. CAP ON OVERALL RATE OF RETURN FOR CROP INSURANCE 
                   PROVIDERS AND ON REIMBURSEMENTS FOR 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING EXPENSES.

       (a) Cap on Overall Rate of Return.--Section 508(k)(3) of 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act 26 (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by designating paragraph (3) as subparagraph (A) and, 
     before such subparagraph, by inserting ``(3) Risk.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Cap on overall rate of return.--The target rate of 
     return for all the companies combined for the 2013 and 
     subsequent reinsurance years shall be 12 percent of retained 
     premium.''.
       (b) Additional Cap on Reimbursements.--Section 508(k)(4) of 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) Additional cap on reimbursements.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraphs (A) through (F), total reimbursements for 
     administrative and operating costs for the 2013 insurance 
     year for all types of policies and plans of insurance shall 
     not exceed $900,000,000. For each subsequent insurance year, 
     the dollar amount in effect pursuant to the preceding 
     sentence shall be increased by the same inflation factor as 
     established for the administrative and operating costs cap in 
     the 2011 Standard Reinsurance Agreement.''.


[[Page 9677]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma will be recognized.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a list of 
cosponsors to McGovern amendment No. 1.

                               Cosponsors

       DeLauro, Negrete McLeod, Jackson Lee, Moore, Connolly, 
     Grijalva, Schakowsky, Delaney, Wilson, Grayson, Meeks, Chu, 
     Lee, Conyers, Wasserman Schultz, Deutch, Esty, Capuano, 
     Tsongas, Fudge, Cardenas.
       Langevin, Doggett, Ellison, Welch, DelBene, Cicilline, 
     Doyle, Bonamici, Gallego, Blumenauer, Holt, Kennedy, 
     Horsford, DeGette, Courtney, Pallone, Serrano, Tonko, Kilmer, 
     Pingree, Hastings.
       Edwards, DeFazio, Cohen, Sires, McDermott, Brown (FL), 
     Clarke, Tierney, Veasey, Gene Green, Johnson (GA), Norton, 
     Frankel, Titus, Pocan, Sarbanes, Danny Davis (IL), Roybal-
     Allard, Brady (PA), Lowenthal, Ben Ray Lujan.
       Crowley, Matsui, Beatty, Meng, Waters, Honda, Al Green, 
     Himes, Bera, Huffman, Engel, Kuster, O'Rourke, Jeffries, 
     Rush, Loebsack, Castor, Smith (WA), Markey, Payne Jr.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program and in opposition to some of the arguments we have heard 
against the program.
  First, I want to point out that the average SNAP recipient receives 
assistance for less than one year. And, more importantly, the people 
who do depend on assistance for a longer period of time are populations 
such as the elderly, children, or the disabled: people who can't work 
their way out of poverty as easily.
  The SNAP program faces a great deal of criticism, but I believe much 
of it is undeserved. The program is not perfect, but a few bad actors 
should not give us reason to push millions out of the system. The 
simple fact is, SNAP is not an isolate acronym. It represents real 
children and hardworking families who are just trying to make ends 
meet.
  About 1 in 10 Minnesota residents receive SNAP benefits. That might 
be below the national average, but for those Minnesotans who do receive 
benefits, they are absolutely critical. In my state, more than 68 
percent of all SNAP participants are in families with children. More 
than \1/4\ of all SNAP participants are in families with elderly or 
disabled members. And finally, 44 percent of all SNAP participants in 
Minnesota are in working families.
  Now is not the time to rip assistance away from those who need it 
most. I will join Congressman McGovern in voting to restore funding for 
SNAP.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, cuts to SNAP will devastate the most vulnerable in our 
communities.
  550,000 Minnesotans rely on SNAP to put food on their tables.
  Cuts to SNAP take away benefits for 32,000 Minnesotans.
  While the FARRM Bill gives hundreds of billions of dollars to 
producers and processors at the very top, it balances these benefits on 
the backs of America's poorest citizens.
  These cuts are not just statistics. They are the stories of real 
people in my District.
  Jessica, a single mother whose SNAP benefits are essential in keeping 
her children clothed, fed, and in school while she takes online classes 
towards a degree, and works as a housekeeper. She would be living on 
$47 a month without the help of SNAP.
  Justina and her husband, a homeless couple in Minneapolis, are both 
unable to work due to disability and are expecting a child. Justina 
relies on SNAP to stay healthy and strong throughout her pregnancy, and 
could not afford adequate nutrition without the help. Justina's life 
and the life of her baby depend on this program.
  Lashonda, a mother of three who works hard at a minimum wage job and 
still lives below the poverty line. Without SNAP, she would have to 
choose between food, heat, and electricity. She depends on the SNAP 
program to keep the lights and heat on in her small apartment, and 
without it she could not provide for her family.
  SNAP is good policy. SNAP works. SNAP saves lives. Do not cut funding 
for this program.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  This is a debate about values and priorities.
  This amendment would restore the $20.5 billion in cuts to the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as 
``food stamps.'' It would restore those cuts by eliminating or reducing 
some of the wasteful, excessive subsidies to the highly profitable big 
agribusiness. Not only that, the amendment would actually reduce the 
deficit by $12 billion beyond the base bill.
  At a time when millions of Americans are struggling with 
unemployment, with poverty and with hunger, the FARRM Bill before us 
today would cause 2 million of our neighbors to lose their SNAP 
benefits. It would kick 210,000 kids off of the free school breakfast 
and lunch program. That's a rotten thing to do.
  Mr. Lucas and others will argue that these SNAP cuts will only force 
poor people to fill out a few more forms, to jump through a few more 
hoops to get the assistance that they need to qualify for.
  Let's think about that for a minute.
  Aren't we a country that reaches out to those in need? When Americans 
see their neighbors having a hard time, don't we show up to help 
without being asked? Our churches and our food banks are doing 
extraordinary work, but they are already stretched to the limits.
  Values and priorities.
  Critics of the SNAP program talk about waste, fraud and abuse, but 
SNAP is one of the most efficiently run government programs we have, 
and some of the errors in SNAP are as a result of people getting less 
help than they qualify for. The base bill would cut $2 billion per year 
from a program that helps struggling families put food on the table--$2 
billion.

                              {time}  1500

  I would remind my colleagues that we spend more than $2 billion every 
single week propping up a corrupt Karzai government in Afghanistan. 
Some people who have no problem with nation-building in Afghanistan, 
turn their backs on nation building here at home.
  Values and priorities.
  Fifty million Americans struggle with hunger; 17 million of those are 
our children. Hunger costs our Nation dearly. There is over $100 
billion a year in avoidable health care costs, lost productivity, and 
hungry kids who can't learn in school. SNAP is one tool to address 
hunger in America. Like every other human endeavor, it is not perfect. 
It can be improved. But it would be shortsighted and cruel to make 
hunger worse in America, which is exactly what this bill would do.
  If we want to reduce spending on SNAP, the best way to do that is to 
strengthen our economy, to invest in putting people back to work.
  Values and priorities.
  Mr. Chair, let us stay true to our values of compassion and decency 
and justice. Let us give priority to those among us who are struggling 
in these hard times, to the least of these.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee 
chairman of primary jurisdiction from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee for yielding, and I want to also thank him for 
his leadership on this bill.
  This is a carefully balanced bill that we have, and I don't challenge 
the convictions of the gentleman from Massachusetts. We've had enough 
exchanges on this topic to know that we have a difference of opinion 
without a difference in disagreeable personalities by any means.
  However, when I came to this Congress a little more than a decade 
ago, I

[[Page 9678]]

was looking already at this growth in, then, food stamps. The number 
that I memorized at the time was that there were 19 million people on 
food stamps. That was a lot of people. Our population hasn't grown so 
much that it ought to grow to 48 million people. But when we see the 
expansion of the dependency class in America and you add this to the 79 
other means-tested welfare programs that we have in the United States 
and each time you add another brick to that wall, it's a barrier to 
people that might go out and succeed.
  We're of the same heart here. We don't want people who need them and 
people who deserve them to go without SNAP benefits. On the other hand, 
we don't want to hand these out to people that are gaming the system, 
so to speak. So we've tightened the qualifications down on SNAP, and 
we've done so for a number of reasons. One of them is reports of a neon 
sign up on a tattoo parlor that says, ``We take EBT cards.'' You also 
have the report of an individual who bailed himself out of jail with an 
EBT card. I don't think that we want to borrow money from the Chinese 
to fund such a thing. I think those people can figure out how to bail 
themselves out and how to pay for their own tattoos.
  Instead, we tighten this down, and it's a savings of $20.5 billion. 
It was a tough enough negotiation to get to that point. I don't know 
what the gentleman from Massachusetts would say is enough, and maybe I 
don't know what I would say is too little. Someplace in between his 
opinion and mine is where we've settled today on this $20.5 billion 
that came out of this top line that is roughly 80 percent of the 
overall benefits that are in this bill.
  It's carefully balanced. It's carefully negotiated. It's something 
that has had the cooperation with the ranking member, as well. And I 
think it's an important thing for us to understand that you can't 
simply be spending advertising dollars out there to sign more people up 
on food stamps. That's what our Secretary of Agriculture has been 
doing. In this bill, we eliminate the advertising to sign people up on 
food stamps. That's a good thing. If people need it, they're going to 
figure out how to sign up without somebody knocking on their door and 
advertising in the newspaper, on the radio, or on the TV.
  So we tighten up the system. We keep the resources for the people 
that need them, and we reduce this to say it's a 2.5 percent reduction 
in this massive growth from 19 million to 48 million. That's not too 
much to ask.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me again remind my colleagues that the reason why we've seen an 
uptick in the number of people registered for SNAP is because we are 
coming out of this recession, the worst economy we've had since the 
Great Depression.
  The gentleman from Iowa says it's a carefully negotiated, carefully 
studied compromise. We didn't have a single hearing on it, not in his 
subcommittee and not in the full committee. And the people we're 
talking about here are people who are good, honorable, decent Americans 
who are going to lose their benefit.
  The Congressional Budget Office says 2 million people will lose their 
benefits. These aren't targeted at people who somehow abuse the system. 
These are just 2 million people who lose their benefits, 200,000 kids 
off the free breakfast and lunch. That's wrong.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Lucas for yielding.
  SNAP is an incredibly important program in the United States. I don't 
think there's anybody that I've met on my side of the aisle or on 
theirs--and I particularly appreciate Mr. McGovern's position on the 
fact that we need to make sure that hungry children in this country get 
food to eat. We want them to have good, healthy meals.
  On behalf of the taxpayer, however, the data doesn't support that we 
continue to increase funding for SNAP. In fact, if you follow the red 
line here, that's unemployment in America. You see during the recession 
unemployment went up, as did SNAP spending. It was almost exactly at 
the same ratio. And as the economy began to recover and unemployment 
went down, as did poverty go down, SNAP funding continued to go up. In 
fact, from 2008 to 2011, SNAP funding went up 119 percent while poverty 
went up only 16 percent. Between 2010 and 2011, poverty actually went 
down while SNAP spending went up.
  It's not just an either/or, Mr. Chairman, that we can either provide 
food for the poor or charge the taxpayer money. We need to do both. But 
as fiduciaries of the taxpayers' dollars, we must do it reasonably.
  We don't want any child to go without food, but we recognize that the 
economy has begun to recover since 2009, where we were spending only 
$53 billion on SNAP. ``Only'' is the appropriate word. Today we're 
going to be spending $82 billion on SNAP. Unemployment went from 10.2 
percent in 2009 down to 7.6 percent today. Under this basis, I wonder 
at what point could we ever have SNAP go down.
  Here's the reality. We keep talking about $20 billion. In fact, next 
year, with a $2 billion cut annually, we won't even roll SNAP back 
effectively 1 year.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. 
Schrader.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that we've got a 
deficit problem. I think most Americans agree with that. But I don't 
think most Americans would agree that we balance our deficit on the 
backs of the most vulnerable people out there, particularly the 
children. As was alluded to a moment ago by my good friend from 
Wisconsin, half the people on food stamps are children. They didn't get 
a job. They're still hungry.
  The other point I think that is well-known by Americans is that while 
unemployment may have gone down, there's a lot of underemployed people 
and there are a lot of people that have given up searching for work 
because the recession lingers.
  The real world is that the SNAP program is a lagging indicator. 
People struggle. They try and keep their job, they go into savings, 
they rely on friends; and then after several years, they lose their 
house, maybe they've already lost their job, and then they need food 
stamps.
  I think it's egregious that we would deny them that.
  There may be some inefficiencies in the program. We've been working 
on that for years. There's an error rate in my home State of Oregon 
that we're proud to say we've driven down. We were guilty of not 
overseeing the program. That's been driven down. We should be rewarding 
good behavior, not penalizing it at the end of the day.
  I still have over 20 percent of my folks in Oregon that are on food 
stamps, and that has not changed. That's not because they're glad to be 
on food stamps. My folks want a job. They want to be able to feed their 
own families. But the real world is this was a horrible recession, the 
worst recession since the Great Depression, and you don't balance that 
budget on the backs of these kids.
  If we had had a chance to vote on another food stamp bill that may 
have gotten down to the Senate levels of reductions, I think you 
wouldn't see some folks here worried about it. But this is the only 
game in town in trying to protect vulnerable Americans.
  There's other ways to cut the program. The direct payments that we 
did in the Agriculture Committee, that's the way to go about it, not 
with the most vulnerable population.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa).

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, the changes made to SNAP are directed at 
reducing fraud, not at those in true need. And affecting inefficiencies 
that we've been dealing with for years, we have a chance to affect 
those inefficiencies right now in this year's farm bill, not 5 years 
from now.
  Without the changes proposed by the committee, and made with 
bipartisan support, Congress tells the American

[[Page 9679]]

people that taxpayers should support fraudulent payments. Are we 
seriously debating a 2 percent reduction that centers on fraud 
elimination and ensuring that those we help actually qualify?
  This farm bill eliminates advertising for food stamps, eliminates 
recruitment bonuses and payments to lottery winners, all of which 
divert funds away from the program's actual goal. Any individual can 
apply or reapply by simply meeting the income and asset requirements. 
These are simple, commonsense reforms that save taxpayers billions and 
continue to protect those truly in need. I ask my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I insert in the Record CBO's statement that shows the 
number of people on SNAP going from 47 million to 34 million over the 
next 10 years.

                                                         CBO'S FEBRUARY 2013 BASELINE FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
                                                                            [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2013         2014         2015         2016         2017         2018         2019         2020         2021         2022         2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            BASELINE
 
Budget Authority.................................       82,563       79,574       79,075       79,107       77,774       76,323       75,086       74,093       73,361       72,914       72,776
Outlays..........................................       82,472       79,672       79,091       79,106       77,816       76,368       75,125       74,124       73,384       72,928       72,780
 
                                                                              PROGRAM COMPONENTS (budget authority)
 
Total Benefits...................................       76,370       73,198       72,663       72,551       71,066       69,455       68,058       66,898       65,994       65,371       65,052
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico and AS......        2,009        2,009        1,966        2,005        2,045        2,086        2,128        2,171        2,214        2,258        2,303
Administrative Costs/Other.......................        4,185        4,368        4,446        4,551        4,663        4,782        4,900        5,025        5,153        5,285        5,420
 
                                                                                        MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS
 
Average monthly benefits (dollars per person)....       133.42       128.15       130.22       133.46       136.77       140.14       143.58       147.09       150.67       154.32       158.05
Average monthly, participation (millions of               47.7         47.6         46.5         45.3         43.3         41.3         39.5         37.9         36.5         35.3         34.3
 people).........................................
Thrifty Food Plan estimated change June/June            102.6%       102.5%       101.6%       102.0%       102.0%       102.0%       102.0%       102.0%       102.0%       102.0%       102.0%
 preceding year lagged\a\........................
Unemployment rate fiscal year average............         7.9%         7.9%         7.3%         6.5%         5.7%         5.5%         5.5%         5.4%         5.4%         5.3%         5.3%
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
AS = American Samoa
\a\The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) raised the maximum benefit to 113.6% of the Thrifty Food Plan in FY 2009 and froze it at that level until regular inflation
  adjustments exceed it. Subsequent legislation sunsets that increase after October 31, 2013. FY 2014 number below includes the full year effect for Puerto Rico block grant.
    Estimated spending from ARRA (in millions)    $6,113    374.


                                         DETAIL OF SNAP BUDGET AUTHORITY OTHER THAN BENEFITS AND NUTRITION ASSISTANCE FOR PUERTO RICO AND AMERICAN SAMOA
                                                                            [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2013         2014         2015         2016         2017         2018         2019         2020         2021         2022         2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Administration Other Than E&T..............        3,068        3,123        3,182        3,261        3,347        3,438        3,527        3,623        3,721        3,821        3,925
Employment and Training (E&T)....................          323          327          331          336          342          349          355          362          368          376          383
Other Program Costs..............................          124          123          125          128          131          135          138          142          145          149          153
Nutrition Education..............................          285          401          407          416          425          434          444          454          464          475          486
Northern Mariana Islands.........................           12           12           12           12           12           12           12           12           12           12           12
Community Food Projects..........................            5            5            5            5            5            5            5            5            5            5            5
Program Access Grants............................            5            5            5            5            5            5            5            5            5            5            5
Emergency Food Assistance Commodities............          267          274          278          284          289          295          301          307          313          320          326
Food Donations on Indian Reservations............           96           99          101          104          107          109          112          115          119          122          125
    Total........................................        4,185        4,368        4,446        4,551        4,663        4,782        4,900        5,025        5,153        5,285        5,420
 
                                                                    DETAIL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING FUNDS, BUDGET AUTHORITY
 
100 Percent Federal Funds........................           99           99           99           99           99           99           99           99           99           99           99
50 Percent Federal Funds.........................          224          228          232          237          243          250          256          263          269          277          284
    Total Budget Authority.......................          323          327          331          336          342          349          355          362          368          376          383
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.

  I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; but 
more importantly, I thank him for his outstanding leadership for 
helping us live the Bible here in the Congress. He has been a 
relentless, dissatisfied, persistent champion for feeding the hungry in 
America and throughout the world. He is the living example, 
personification of the Gospel of Matthew, and I appreciate the 
statements you made earlier about priorities and the least of our 
brethren.
  I thank you, Mr. McGovern, for your leadership day in and day out of 
the task force on hunger and working with Congresswoman DeLauro, an 
appropriator, who shares your value on this subject. You both have been 
magnificent.
  And I thank you as a mom, because we all have our motivation for 
going into politics or deciding that we're going to run for office, and 
my motivation can be described in three words: the children, the 
children, the children. As a mother of five myself and as a 
grandmother, I know how children thrive when they have the attention, 
the love, the food, and the care that they need.
  It is always a wonderment to me that in this, the greatest country 
that ever existed in the history of the world, that one in four or one 
in five children goes to sleep hungry at night. So it is another 
wonderment to me why we should even have to have this conversation on 
the floor of the House as to whether we, as a nation, are prepared to 
feed our children.
  We are all familiar with the comment, ``from the mouths of babes.'' 
From the mouth of babes. It's sometimes followed by ``come gems.'' In 
this case, ``from the mouths of babes comes food.'' Food to live, to be 
sustained, to be healthy, food to study and do well in school, food to 
have respect in their family and their friends and all the rest.
  What's really interesting about it, though, for all the sentiment 
that is involved about feeding the children of our country, it makes 
economic sense to do so as well. The CBO, the Congressional Budget 
Office, says that rate increases of SNAP benefits is one of the two 
best options to boost growth and jobs in a weak economy. For every $1 
invested in the SNAP program, for every $1 invested in that initiative, 
$1.70 is injected into the economy for economic activity. This 
purchasing power given to families who will spend it immediately 
because this is a necessity, this purchasing, injects demand into the 
economy, creating jobs. Don't take it from me. The Congressional Budget 
Office says this is one of the two best ways to boost growth.
  Another economic aspect of this is that, as has been said over and 
over again, nearly 20 million children--20 million children--are the 
beneficiaries of food stamps.
  Why do those families need food stamps? Well, some of them are 
families that are making the minimum wage. In fact, if you're a family 
of four and you have two wage earners, Mr. Chairman, the income you 
make from two wage earners making the minimum wage still has you below 
the poverty line and eligible for food stamps. Two wage earners making 
the minimum wage cannot afford to put food on the table; hence, they 
qualify for food stamps.

[[Page 9680]]

  These food stamps in some ways are subsidizing a too low minimum wage 
in our country. So, speaking of the children, the children, the 
children, I hope that one of the other things that we will do here is 
to raise minimum wage, because that is the decent thing to do.
  But many of the same people who want to cut food stamps--in fact, 2 
million families out of food stamps--are the same people who are 
opposed to increasing the minimum wage. So it's a question of fairness. 
It's a question of decency. It's a question of respect for all of God's 
children. It's also a question of doing the right thing not only for 
the children but for our economy--$1.70 of economic growth injected for 
every $1 spent on food stamps.
  Now, to cut food stamps and, therefore, reduce that economic growth 
might be considered one of the least smart ideas that you will hear 
here, but there is so much competition for that designation that it 
just fits comfortably among initiatives to suppress the wages and to 
cut food stamps. It's all part of a package, and it is not a pretty 
sight.
  That's why, Mr. McGovern, your relentless, persistent, dissatisfied 
advocacy is such a beautiful thing in this arena where people take very 
lightly cutting 2 million people off of food stamps.
  I urge our colleagues to support the McGovern amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Ag Committee has worked diligently in a bipartisan manner to 
craft these reforms to the food stamp program that this amendment would 
strip out totally. The argument that somehow we can food stamp our way 
into a great economy is a bit false in the sense that it doesn't 
reflect that we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we are 
putting into the program.
  The families that the previous speaker referenced will still remain 
on food stamps. If you qualify on the income and asset side, you'll 
stay on the program. If you make too much money to qualify directly for 
food stamps, those are the folks who will be getting out as part of the 
$20 billion that we'll save in this program. It's a 2 percent 
reduction. I'm hard pressed to understand how we could have a near 5 
percent reduction in the beneficiaries by cutting only 2 percent of the 
spending. We'll trim it from $80 billion a year to $78 billion a year.
  Much of the conversation you'll hear and justification for not going 
along with these reforms sounds like we're gutting and destroying the 
entire program. We are not. These are modest reforms that we believe 
are appropriate at this time, and I urge my colleagues to vote against 
the McGovern amendment and support what the bipartisan Committee on 
Agriculture did.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) who has been a champion on this issue, and I'm proud that 
she's here.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank Congressman McGovern for yielding 
and also for your tremendous leadership, not only in preserving our 
safety net, but your tireless work to eliminate hunger, which really 
should be an oxymoron in America.
  I'm a proud cosponsor and rise in strong support of this amendment to 
safeguard hungry children and families across America.
  Mr. Chairman, this farm bill would make heartless and harmful cuts to 
our Nation's frontline defense against hunger, the SNAP program. 
Oftentimes, people need a safety net, a bridge over troubled waters to 
help them through difficult economic times.

                              {time}  1520

  And yet these huge cuts come, even while they preserve wasteful 
subsidies for huge agribusiness, that really don't need corporate 
subsidies to continue with their huge profits.
  Taking away food from hungry children hurts their health, their 
educational outcome, and restricts their economic prospects for their 
entire adult lives. And the Federal Government will end up paying more 
for their health care and their education, and get less revenue from 
their taxes.
  As a former food stamp recipient, I know for a fact no one wants to 
be on food stamps. People want to work.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Dr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to Mr. McGovern's amendment 
because the amount removed from the food stamp program will not remove 
one calorie off anyone's plate that deserves it or requires this 
assistance.
  And I know the importance, personally, of having to go on food 
stamps. When my wife and I first got married, we were 19\1/2\. The 
interest rates in the economy went to 20 percent, and we had to get on 
food stamps for a short period of time. So I understand the need for 
those.
  But yet let's look at the facts here. Out of the whole bill, of $940 
billion being spent over 10 years we're looking at here, 80 percent of 
that goes to the food stamp program, which is approximately $752 
billion. Eighty percent of the farm bill is going to that. Only 20 
percent is actually going to the farmers, and we've cut that 
drastically over the last couple of years.
  And so this is just a commonsense approach of reducing the amount of 
money that we're spending in this country. And I stand in opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let me just say to my colleague a few minutes ago who 
was up on this floor and talking against the food stamp program and 
against the McGovern amendment, I think it's important to note this is 
not my making this up, but this is an individual who has received 
almost $4.7 million in farm subsidies since 1995, including nearly $1.2 
million in direct payments.
  Now, I don't know whether that is a program that is means tested, 
that's asset tested, and that has a cap on it. No, this is free money 
for people who serve in this body. And these are the same folks who 
want to cut the food stamp program.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment to replace those deep cuts 
to the food stamp program, which is our Nation's most important anti-
hunger program. All across the country, cities, suburbs, rural 
communities, from the coast to the heartland, nearly 50 million 
Americans are struggling with hunger, and almost 20 million of them are 
our children. No part of the country is immune.
  We should not destroy what has been a longstanding, bipartisan 
tradition to give crucial nutrition assistance. This is what this farm 
bill does. It cuts out the nutrition program for 2 million people, a 
million of whom are children.
  And the research has shown us that the food stamp program is the most 
effective program pushing against the steep rise in poverty. Ninety-
nine percent of recipients live under the poverty line. They're not 
getting $4.7 million in subsidies from the Federal Government.
  By the way, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk 
about waste, fraud and abuse, this is a program with a 3.8 percent 
error rate. I defy you to go to any other agency of the Federal 
Government and find that they have as low an error rate.
  You want to talk about a program that really ought to be challenged 
in this farm bill?
  Let's take a look at the crop insurance program. Look at the crop 
insurance program.
  Support the McGovern amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire about how much time remains on 
both sides on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. LUCAS. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it's worth noting that, when the Ag Committee 
put

[[Page 9681]]

this bill together, a bill which had bipartisan support, overwhelming 
support from both sides of the aisle in the process, we understood that 
reform had to be achieved across the board.
  We have reforms in the commodity title. The direct payment program 
goes away. We have reforms in the conservation program, $6 billion 
worth of savings through reforms. And, yes, we address the nutrition 
title.
  We tried, in good faith, to pick programs that would not, in the eyes 
of the committee as a whole, create huge hardship on citizens.
  How did we do that?
  Well, categorical eligibility. If you receive some other Federal 
welfare benefit, under present law, you automatically get food stamps. 
We simply say, you have to apply. Demonstrate your income, demonstrate 
your assets. If you qualify, we help you. But you've got to prove you 
qualify.
  Now, some may argue about what those assets and income levels are, 
but that's not the debate today. It's automatic food stamps.
  Something called LIHEAP, where a number of States use the flexibility 
of the '96 law to say we'll help you with your home heating, and then 
you can automatically qualify for food stamps. There are actually some 
States that send out a dollar to qualify for a free month's worth of 
automatic food stamps.
  We simply say in the bill, States, if you want to do this, power to 
you. But put $20 a month out. Buy more than just a cup or a pint of 
home heating oil. Actually put something up. That saves about $8 
billion.
  We tried very hard to come up with ways that would not deny the needy 
the help they need but, by the same token, make sure those who 
qualified got the help. That's only fair to the recipients who need 
help. It's only fair to their fellow citizens who pay for that help.
  We tried, in the best way we could, to achieve reform and to help 
those who need the help.
  Now, will these CBO numbers be in fruition when it's all calculated?
  I suspect a number of people who receive automatic food stamps will 
be eligible. They'll fill out the paperwork, they'll demonstrate the 
need, they'll qualify.
  But I can only work with the CBO numbers that are given to me under 
the rules of the House. And the rules say these two changes save $20.5 
billion, half of the approximate $40 billion we save out of the overall 
FARRM Bill.
  It's tough economic times. It's a challenging Federal budget. We're 
trying to do the right thing. We're trying to do it in the most 
difficult of circumstances.
  I respect my friends, my colleagues. We just happen to disagree about 
how the policy will work. I sincerely believe the perspective I've 
offered is accurate. If my friends are accurate and I'm wrong, then 
we'll address this issue sometime in the very near future. If I'm 
right, then the people who need help will continue to get help. The 
Treasury will have $20-some billion of a $40 billion package to spend 
in other places.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, because of prior cuts in the program already, even if 
we do nothing in terms of this farm bill, in terms of reducing SNAP, a 
family of three, on average, would lose about $30 a month in SNAP 
benefits. That's if we do nothing. They're already going to receive a 
reduction come November.
  Then, on top of that is what we have in this farm bill. The CBO says 
that 2 million people will be thrown off the benefit. They say that 
over 200,000 kids will lose their free breakfast and lunch at school.
  I have great respect for Chairman Lucas. I wanted very much to 
support a bill that he put together; but, to me, this cut is too big 
and is too harsh and is going to hurt too many people.
  All of us came here to help people. We all came here to help our 
constituents, rich and poor alike. But this here will hurt people, and 
that is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  This cut is too big. It is too harsh. We don't need to do this. The 
price for a farm bill should not be to result in more hunger in 
America. We can do so much better. Our country is better than this.
  So I urge all my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to come 
together and support this amendment. Let's not make hunger worse in 
America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment, 
which I am proud to cosponsor, and I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue of vital importance to 
my constituents and to struggling families across the country.
   It has been nearly six months since we voted on an eight month Farm 
Bill extension, and in that time I have spoken with people across 
Oregon's First Congressional District about their priorities. In those 
conversations, three central goals emerged for reauthorization. Provide 
certainty to the agriculture community through a five year extension, 
support specialty crop producers in Oregon, and fully fund the 
nutrition programs that provide a safety net for our friends and 
neighbors who are still trying to bounce back from the hard times of 
the latest economic recession.
   The bill before us today accomplishes two of these goals, but on the 
third, it falls absolutely flat. To remove more than $20 billion from 
the SNAP program at a time when economic conditions mean that even more 
families are becoming eligible, is irresponsible and unfair.
   Our economy continues to recover, but millions of American children 
and families remain in poverty. According to the Oregon Food Bank, the 
SNAP cuts in this year's farm bill will cause about 90,000 Oregonians 
to lose the assistance they rely on to put food on the table. If we're 
really concerned about the cost of this program, we should focus 
addressing the root cause. Let's cut poverty, not nutrition assistance.
   For this reason I have joined the gentleman from Massachussetts, Mr. 
McGovern, in cosponsoring this amendment that will restore funding for 
the SNAP program in the bill. I urge compassion for those families who 
are still struggling and ask that my colleagues vote in favor of the 
amendment.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Chair, the proposed SNAP cuts in this bill will be 
devastating to our most vulnerable populations.
  Many of the poorest Americans depend on SNAP as their only means of 
assistance to feed their families.
  We should not turn our backs on low-income families, children, 
seniors and disabled.
  Today, I was told a story about one of my constituents--a mother who 
receives a very small amount of food stamp assistance.
  She said that if SNAP is cut, her kids will starve. Period.
  This is the reality that so many families face, including the 2 
million this bill would leave to face hunger if this amendment is not 
adopted.
  In Franklin County, Ohio alone, there are an estimated 59,450 kids 
who live daily with the threat of hunger.
  Without inclusion of this amendment, the current farm bill will 
destroy our efforts to relieve hunger within our districts and will 
dramatically increase the number of children, families, and older 
adults who are already struggling and push them to below the poverty 
level.
  This is a commonsense amendment.
  It will restore the $20.5 billion cuts in SNAP by offsetting the Farm 
Risk Management Election Program and the Supplemental Coverage Option.
  We cannot leave our most vulnerable children and families without 
basic access to food.
  If we do, I think we violate a core American value.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to save SNAP by supporting the McGovern 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.

                              {time}  1530


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gibbs

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.

[[Page 9682]]


  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 18, beginning on line 21, strike ``total acres planted 
     for the year'' and insert ``base acres''.
       Page 21, strike lines 1 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       (16) Reference price.--The term ``reference price'', with 
     respect to a covered commodity for a crop year, means the 
     product obtained by multiplying--
       (A) 55 percent; by
       (B) the average of the national marketing year average 
     price for the five most recent crop years, excluding each of 
     the crop years with the highest and lowest prices.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the Gibbs-Kind 
amendment to title I of the FARRM Bill that sets the target price for 
all crops at 55 percent of the 5-year rolling Olympic average and 
changes the acreage available for target price support to 85 percent of 
the farmer's base acres.
  At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GIBBS. At this time, I yield 90 seconds to Representative Kind 
from the great State of Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me 
this time.
  I thought his summary was very accurate on what our amendment would 
do. What Mr. Gibbs didn't point out, though, is this would also save 
$12 billion over 10 years by a more fiscally responsible approach, one 
that we feel is market-based, and one that we think is economically 
feasible, one that also maintains an important safety net for farmers 
if commodity prices do drop.
  But, listen, the supporters of the Price Loss Coverage program, as 
currently drafted, will claim the program is necessary to ensure 
farmers have a safety net for when the market collapses. But, instead, 
the program in the FARRM Bill before us sets target prices so high that 
some commodities are guaranteed an 8 percent profit. We don't guarantee 
any other business in the country that type of a profit margin other 
than crop insurance companies that are guaranteed a 14 percent profit 
under this bill.
  By setting the target prices for programs at this historically high 
level, it will all but ensure a much higher likelihood of government 
payouts in the future.
  In fact, implementation of the Price Loss Coverage program will 
already require government payouts for the five top commodity crops. 
Rice alone would pay out $14 per hundred while the current price is at 
$10.50 today. So it's outrageous that while we're cutting over $20 
billion in the nutrition title of the FARRM Bill, we're adding on this 
additional high target price with additional taxpayer subsidies in an 
area where it's not economically needed or feasible.
  And since farmers receive these payouts on their planted acres, we 
are encouraging them to overplant and to plant marginal lands that 
probably wouldn't be brought into production anyway because their 
losses would be covered and the profit margin would be assured.
  Also, given the fact that we're still trying to work our way out of 
the WTO complaint from Brazil on the cotton subsidy program, this 
program sets up another potential WTO trade case against us.
  I encourage our colleagues to keep working with us to improve the 
program.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm going to talk a little bit. Back in the 1995 farm 
bill, Congress made a decision to move the programs to be more market-
oriented, where farmers would plant towards the market and not towards 
the program.
  As past-State Farm Bureau president and also a farmer, when I talk to 
my farmer colleagues, they want the check to come from the market and 
not the government. And my fear is, my concern is that the House-marked 
bill will distort the market prices by setting the target prices, as 
Representative Kind said, too high.
  Let's take corn, for example. We had a drought. We saw the prices 
scoot up to very high levels. Well, we're seeing some rainfall, the 
weather kind of moderates over and averages out over a several-year 
period, and it's possible we could see the prices of corn, for example, 
come down and drop below these very high-set target rates, and farmers 
could still be profitable, still be making some money on a per-bushel 
basis, depending on their yield--yield has to be a factor. And when you 
have price loss coverage, yield is not factored in, where they could 
actually still be making some money on a per-bushel basis per acre and 
still get a government payout. That's market distortion.
  It's interesting to note that the organizations that support my 
amendment, the National Corn Growers, the Soybean Association, many 
national organizations and State organizations that represent thousands 
of farmers out there strongly support my amendment, which, as 
Representative Kind said, cuts $12 billion from the committee-marked 
bill.
  You find that kind of odd. The reason is they don't want to go back 
to the previous policies of 1995 where we have market distortions and 
farmers are planting for the program and the market is not dictating 
it, and they never get out of that rut.
  Another concern I have is WTO concerns. When we change this to 
planted acres, direct benefits paid to planted acres, that's ripe for a 
WTO complaint and for a trade war. And this will increase, I believe, 
overplanting and farmers reacting for the wrong reasons and not the 
market reasons.
  So, on that basis, Mr. Chairman, with the strong support of many of 
the national commodity organizations that represent thousands of 
farmers and strongly do not want this, we can save taxpayers $12 
billion and keep a market-oriented bill and not risk exposure to 
taxpayers if the markets collapse to more historical levels.
  Mr. KIND. Will the gentleman yield an additional 30 seconds?
  Mr. GIBBS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this 
issue. As the former past Farm Bureau president in the State of Ohio 
and someone who is intimately familiar with these commodity programs, 
his lead has been crucial. He knows how the market works. And I think 
this program is setting up a lot of market distortions, unnecessary 
taxpayer subsidies that aren't economically justifiable. Our Amendment 
is a way of providing a safety net in a fiscally responsible manner. I 
hope we can continue working with the leadership of this committee to 
make this right.
  Mr. GIBBS. I think it is very important that we do have a safety net. 
But the safety net can't be at a level where prices are set at or close 
or even above the cost of production. That distorts markets. But we 
need a safety net to protect our American farmers and our rural 
communities and continue to ensure that we have the safest and most 
affordable food supply in the world.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I my consume.
  If Mr. Gibbs is willing, I'd like to request that he withdraw his 
amendment with my commitment that we would continue to work on these 
issues as we move forward to produce an equitable and market-oriented 
farm bill.
  I yield to the gentleman for any response he might have.
  Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that commitment, I will 
respectfully withdraw my amendment from consideration, and I look 
forward to working with you and the rest of the committee, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. I appreciate the gentleman's time, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.

[[Page 9683]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


            Amendment No. 55 Offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 55 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 123__. SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.

       Section 402(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Silvicultural activities.--
       ``(A) NPDES permit requirements for silvicultural 
     activities.--The Administrator shall not require a permit or 
     otherwise promulgate regulations under this section or 
     directly or indirectly require any State to require a permit 
     under this section for a discharge of stormwater runoff 
     resulting from the conduct of the following silviculture 
     activities: nursery operations, site preparation, 
     reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, 
     prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting 
     operations, surface drainage, and road use, construction, and 
     maintenance.
       ``(B) Permits for dredged or fill material.--Nothing in 
     this paragraph exempts a silvicultural activity resulting in 
     the discharge of dredged or fill material from any permitting 
     requirement under section 404.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I'm here today to join in the 
effort to promote this farm bill and request that my amendment be added 
to it.
  I'm here to protect millions of jobs across the country, millions--
110,000 in my home State of Washington alone--by doing something we 
don't hear much of in this Chamber, particularly on this side of the 
aisle. I'm here to say that I agree with the EPA. With respect to 
treating forest roads, the EPA has it right and has had it right now 
for nearly 40 years.
  This bipartisan amendment that I'm very proud to offer with my 
colleague, Kurt Schrader, simply codifies the EPA's silviculture rule 
that says mud and rock runoff from forest roads should not be 
categorized the same as industrial parking lots or factories. It makes 
no changes to the Clean Water Act, nor does it restrict the EPA from 
enforcing current law.
  In a recent Ninth Circuit Court decision, a judge--not the EPA--
decided this rule needed to be changed and directed the EPA to require 
NPDES permits for all forest roads on public or private land. This 
ruling would have cost private, Federal, and State and tribal 
landowners billions of dollars, and it would have helped kill thousands 
of jobs across the country.
  Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overturned this 
outrageous ruling and also believes the EPA treatment of forest roads 
is the correct approach.

                              {time}  1540

  However, extremist lawsuits continue to roll in, and all of them are 
threatening the viability of forests by potentially costing private and 
public landowners millions in unnecessary, unscientifically proven 
expenses.
  Mr. Chairman, unless Congress acts, our forests will remain under the 
attack of baseless lawsuits that simply serve no purpose in protecting 
our rivers, streams, and waterways but are highly effective in killing 
real jobs. We're talking about jobs in wood product manufacturing: 
pulp, paper, forest harvesting, forest management, and the list goes 
on.
  This provision enjoys a wide range of bipartisan support in both the 
House and the Senate. I urge my colleagues to stand with private 
landowners, job creators, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the 
administration, and the Supreme Court in supporting this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although 
I am in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that's long overdue. I join in support 
of my colleague and friend from Washington State to lend a little 
rationality to the discussion about how we operate in our forests.
  This legislation hopefully would not be necessary. As the gentlewoman 
alluded to, we've had a Supreme Court decision that would seem to 
indicate that the EPA rule for the last 37 years has been a good rule. 
Indeed, agriculture and forestry aren't classically nonpoint source 
polluters. They are not a factory; they are not a municipality's sewer 
system. They are nonpoint source emitters, if you will. I think that's 
the way to look at this. When you have a decision by the Supreme Court, 
I think it's time to hopefully verify that decision.
  The concern I have and the reason why this legislation is necessary 
is that, while it agreed that the rule should stand, it did not really 
rule on the merits of the issue. We're already facing additional 
lawsuits from different organizations that have a misguided view of 
what actually goes on in the forest system.
  And I find it particularly egregious that when there is a great 
concern about forest runoff, agricultural runoff into our streams and 
our rivers, that when the industry steps up and does the right thing by 
pushing culverts, making the roads safer and cleaner, dumping that 
stuff onto the forest floor, not in the river, that they get sued and 
asked to come up with additional permits that would cost jobs and not 
help us get out of this Great Recession.
  So I am a strong proponent of this amendment--I think it will get 
overwhelming support in this great, august body--and look forward to 
bringing it forward.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. I thank my colleagues from Oregon and Washington for 
their work on this amendment, bringing it forward. Look, this is 
extraordinarily important to men and women who work in the woods in the 
Northwest and across the United States.
  As you've heard, for nearly four decades the Environmental Protection 
Agency said that driving down a forest road was not the same as pumping 
raw sewage into a river. They're much different activities. This 
amendment would prevent the Federal Government from subjecting forested 
communities and businesses to further costly permits for everyday 
activities like driving down a road.
  Rural forested communities in the Northwest have been hurting for a 
very long time. Those who live there, we know about all the high 
unemployment rate, we know about the high poverty rate, we know about 
the percentage of kids on free and reduced lunch because of burdensome 
Federal regulations that have shut down activity on our Federal 
forests. Now lawsuits threaten to do this on our private forests as 
well. The last thing we need is more costly and lawsuit-prone 
regulations that will further impact rural communities and the good 
people who live there that simply want the opportunity to work in the 
woods, raise their families, and grow in the communities.
  Passing this bipartisan amendment will provide some certainty moving 
forward for rural forested communities, forest managers, and the people 
who work in the woods. So I urge my colleagues to stand for jobs, stand 
for rural America, and vote for this bipartisan amendment.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentlelady and simply want to note for the 
record that I support this amendment, this bipartisan amendment. We 
should all vote for it.

[[Page 9684]]


  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. With that, I urge my colleagues to join in this 
bipartisan, bicameral effort to protect jobs and protect our forest 
health.
  I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  amendment no. 3 offered by ms. foxx

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Ms. FOXX. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 1107, add the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Cap on Total Obligations and Expenditures.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the 
     total amount of price loss coverage payments and revenue loss 
     coverage payments made under this section during the period 
     of fiscal years 2014 through 2020 shall not exceed 
     $16,956,500. Producer agreements required by section 1108 
     shall specifically state that payments made under this 
     section shall be reduced as necessary to comply with this 
     subsection.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one I've taken to calling 
the ``Spending Safeguard'' amendment, because it will protect taxpayers 
in the event CBO predictions relating to the Farm Risk Management 
Election program are horribly wrong.
  This particular program is basically an expansion of overly generous 
crop insurance subsidies for producers, and it's predicted to cost 
about $23 billion over 10 years. But it could potentially cost more--
much more. That's because the program's costs are linked to high target 
price estimates that well exceed historical averages. If prices fall, 
taxpayers will be forced to make up the difference.
  As many of us are aware, the 2008 farm bill cost taxpayers 51 percent 
more than its drafters predicted. None of us, from Members of Congress 
to the budget wizards at CBO, can predict the future. That is why we 
must put a safeguard in place to prevent unappropriated spending from 
eating taxpayers alive.
  My amendment will cap spending on this program at 110 percent of CBO 
predicted levels for the first 5 years in which payments are 
dispersed--fiscal years 2016 through 2020. If CBO predictions are 
reasonably accurate, nothing will happen; but if the predictions are 
horribly wrong, this amendment ensures taxpayers won't be forced to pay 
for another costly Washington mistake.
  This is a simple amendment, but one that I hope will set an important 
precedent. If Congress creates new mandatory spending programs, it must 
put a mechanism in place to make sure costs don't spiral out of 
control.
  As our national debt approaches $17 trillion, we simply can't afford 
to create new, open-ended, mandatory spending programs and set them on 
autopilot.
  When I talk to constituents about the Federal budget, nearly all are 
puzzled by the concept of mandatory spending. Virtually no one of any 
political stripe can understand the idea of creating a law one year 
that imposes an unlimited, unchecked, unaccountable lien on the 
Treasury for all time.
  Even with all the handwringing over the discretionary spending 
reductions called for in sequestration, we all know that, in the end, 
budgetary problems on the spending side of the ledger will never be 
resolved until we confront mandatory spending.
  My amendment quells all of the uncertainties created by mandatory 
spending with one beautifully simple proposal that, for the first time 
in the memory of everyone we've talked to, puts a finite number on an 
otherwise infinite liability.
  To be clear, this amendment applies only to one single provision--the 
Farm Risk Management Election program. It does not apply to SNAP and 
will not affect food stamp benefits or other mandatory spending 
programs in any way.
  My amendment will safeguard taxpayers if the Farm Risk Management 
Election program ends up costing significantly more than advertised, 
prevent automatic and unappropriated spending under this program from 
skyrocketing, and set a striking new precedent for fiscal 
responsibility.
  This amendment should pass with broad, bipartisan support, Mr. 
Chairman. Over the past few days, I've noticed that many of my 
Democratic colleagues share my concern about the uncertain budgetary 
impacts of this program. Republicans and Democrats alike should rally 
around this idea, which simultaneously protects taxpayers and ensures 
the fiscal viability of this program.
  The time has come to put an end to reckless, unchecked, mandatory 
spending programs in the farm bill. This amendment may make those 
unaccustomed to the way things are done uncomfortable, but the simple 
truth is that the way things are done just doesn't work anymore--in 
fact, it never has.
  Congresses of old had no problem creating obligations for future 
generations to fulfill. Today we have an opportunity to change course, 
to set things right, to take the first step toward reining in out-of-
control mandatory spending. I urge my colleagues to take this step with 
me and support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and ask my colleagues 
to join me in rejecting it.
  I appreciate the intent of the gentlelady's amendment, which is 
obviously to restrain Federal spending, but being fiscally responsible 
has been my focus from the very beginning.

                              {time}  1550

  That is why we brought forth a bill that cuts traditional farm 
spending by $23 billion. That's 36 percent.
  Over the last 17 years, farmers have received substantial fixed 
payments with 100 percent certainty. We eliminated those payments and 
replaced them with a risk management framework that provides support 
only when farmers face significant losses. Under this amendment, 
farmers would go from 100 percent guaranteed direct loans to a 100 
percent guarantee that the safety net would fall short when they need 
it the most.
  I urge my colleagues to consider a few key points:
  Number one, we built restraint into the new farm policies. The 
reference prices are all below cost of production estimates. Farmers 
are only paid 80 on 85 percent of their acres. In the case of the PLC, 
they are only paid on 90 percent of their yield. Total payments on a 
farm are kept at total historic program acres. Ensuring that no new 
acres are added to the program, we have very binding payment 
limitations and reduced AGI limits. And if that weren't enough, the 
formulas that established assistance levels are constrained themselves.
  Second, the programs are designed to only turn on when they're 
needed. The assistance is provided directly in proportion to need. We 
are no longer making payments for the sake of making payments. Even 
though it is incredibly unlikely that spending levels were ever to 
reach 110 percent of CBO's projected spending levels, it would be so 
because there has been a catastrophic drop in the market.
  And the third and final point on this amendment--and I say this 
respectfully to my dear friend--it would be an absolute nightmare to 
administer. Some would say administering it is the administration's 
problem; but unlike a lot of legislation that flows through this town, 
every provision of this bill

[[Page 9685]]

has undergone extensive technical review to ensure its ability to be 
implemented. Every crop is on its own marketing year and every State 
has a slightly different growing season. Administering an overall 
program cap on a risk management tool that is designed to respond to 
unique risk management challenges is an incredibly challenging problem. 
It will tie USDA in knots.
  I argue that there's a great discussion to have when we debate the 
technical merits of the Budget Act, but let's use the newly reformed 
farm safety net as a testing ground for--let's just not do that. Let's 
just not use it for this experiment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I am really disappointed in the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee's response to this amendment. This is a really good amendment 
that will help us be able to predict in the future how much money is 
going to be spent. It will hold the CBO accountable.
  If the numbers presented to us are accurate, this will never hit. I 
believe the chairman did not dispute my comments that the last farm 
bill went over budget 51 percent. We are constantly hearing that the 
CBO predicted something and comes in with a totally different number.
  If by any chance the CBO is wrong here, then the chairman will do 
good work in getting us to understand why more money needs to be 
appropriated for these programs.
  I applaud the chairman for what he has done, identifying problems and 
appropriate solutions, but this is a good amendment. It deserves to be 
passed, it has bipartisan support, and it will take us in the right 
direction.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 2\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I also rise respectfully in opposition to 
the gentlelady's amendment.
  My district located in the Mississippi Delta region grows nearly half 
all rice produced in the United States. This amendment jeopardizes the 
safety net row crop producers in my district depend on to manage risk 
and stay in business.
  Given the fact that price volatility is the primary risk mid-South 
farmers face, and the cost of production is extremely high, the Price 
Loss Coverage program is the only viable option to provide producers 
adequate protection. Leading experts and ag economists at Texas A&M 
University show the average cost of production for rice is $14.92 per 
hundredweight. The $14 per hundredweight reference price established in 
the FARRM Bill is realistic and will not kick in unless the producer 
experiences a loss.
  What is more, CBO projections already take into account the 
probability of price movements that can impact the overall cost 
productions of the PLC policy, and U.S. farm policy has come in well 
under budget projections for at least the last 7 years. This amendment 
is unnecessary and will do nothing but create more uncertainty for 
agriculture producers.
  The House Agriculture Committee has made a good-faith bipartisan 
effort to craft a farm bill that reflects a farmer's risk across all 
regions of the country. This amendment is a step backwards.
  With all due respect, I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentlelady's 
amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 1107(b), add the following new 
     paragraph:
       (8) Report required.--Not later than three years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     complete a study reviewing the climate impacts of the 
     availability of price loss coverage, including (but not 
     limited to) the impact from increased crop production, land 
     use change, farm equipment use, and increased input of 
     agricultural chemicals.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would simply 
ask us to learn more. It would ask us to know more than we know now 
about an important subject affecting our society and, indeed, our whole 
world.
  In fact, my amendment would simply require a study to review climate 
impacts of the Price Loss Coverage program. I can't understand why we 
wouldn't want to know the effects of such a program. I think learning 
more so that we can do better is a good idea.
  Climate change is a defining issue of this century. It is negatively 
impacting our economy, our health, and security. There is an 
international consensus that climate change is real, is caused and 
influenced by mankind, and is affecting our world in a negative way.
  Decisions Congress makes on this day, Mr. Chairman, in this farm 
bill, in fact, will have a direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions in 
the United States; and, of course, this world doesn't know the borders 
that these nations do, so it will affect the entire globe.
  Agriculture does contribute to climate change. In fact, 8 percent of 
all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Agriculture 
also brings great gains to humanity as well.
  We need to understand what greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture 
mean so that we can formulate better policy and utilize better 
technology. The emissions from agriculture result from fertilizer 
application, livestock, land use, soil management, farm equipment, and 
rice production.
  The new Price Loss Coverage program provides farmers raising major 
crops with subsidies if the crop prices drop below current historic 
levels. Farmers are already plowing up marginal lands and native 
grasslands in response to record crop prices and crop insurance 
subsidies; 23 million acres of natural land were plowed up between 2008 
and 2011. Almost 20 million of these were corn, soybeans, and wheat 
alone.
  The Price Loss Coverage program will further incentivize increased 
crop production.
  Converting land to cropland releases millions of tons of 
CO2 in the United States every year. Converting more land to 
agriculture will increase greenhouse gas emissions. But, Mr. Chairman, 
we don't know how much, we don't know the extent, we don't know the 
effects. It is important that we do know so that we can incentivize 
more green-friendly agriculture production methods so that we can know 
the impact in our world, and we can know why it is important to take 
action now in this farm bill today.
  A study shouldn't harm anybody, and I urge support for this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from Oklahoma is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 9686]]


  Mr. LUCAS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I have the greatest respect for 
my good colleague from Minnesota, but at the present time and in the 
present set of circumstances, I must, in good faith, oppose his 
amendment. I believe he is very sincere in his efforts, but, again, I 
must oppose his amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The amendment was rejected.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of part II of subtitle D of title I, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1487. REPEAL OF PERMANENT PRICE SUPPORT AUTHORITY FOR 
                   MILK.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 201 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 
     U.S.C. 1446) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``milk,''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (c) and (d).
       (b) Exclusion From Price Support for Other Nonbasic 
     Agricultural Commodities.--Section 301 of the Agricultural 
     Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1447) is amended by inserting ``(other 
     than milk)'' after ``agricultural commodity''.
       Page 144, lines 19 and 20, strike ``during the period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through 
     December 31, 2018''.
       Page 145, lines 8, 9, and 10, strike ``during the period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through 
     December 31, 2018''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply repeal 
the outdated and expensive dairy price support law enacted as part of 
the Agriculture Act of 1949.
  This provision created a commodity support policy for dairy 
production that, though suspended upon the enactment of each farm bill 
that has been reauthorized, it still remains on the books as permanent 
law. That this old law is still technically in effect is a problem for 
two reasons:
  First, the price support calculations essentially establish a 
``floor'' for milk prices, which is set at twice the current market 
price. This means that the Federal Government would be required to step 
in and purchase surplus milk at double the current purchase price, 
which would drive up costs for taxpayers but would also result in a 
higher cost at the grocery store, potentially making a typical gallon 
of milk cost $7. This will hurt the most vulnerable in our society--
poor children and seniors on a limited income.
  This potential and likely unintended consequence is troubling, but 
more troubling is that this old law threatens to rear its ugly head 
every time the farm bill expires before it is reauthorized. In fact, we 
faced this very issue at the beginning of this year, though it was 
buried in the larger ``fiscal cliff'' deal that passed on January 1.
  Mr. Chairman, in this time of congressional gridlock, we've seen 
bailouts, failed stimulus bills, near-government shutdowns, and panic 
about sequestration and tax hikes. The last thing we need is one more 
``cliff'' for Americans to fall off of.
  This law is outdated, it is unused and is ultimately a nuisance which 
requires a patch every time Congress fails to renew the larger farm 
bill, which, unfortunately, is a frequent occurrence.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON. I thank the chairman.
  When I was chairman and did the last farm bill, we maintained the 
permanent law, and we did it for a reason, which is that it is very 
hard to get these farm bills done, and sometimes you need some 
motivation to get people to move. That's the main reason we left it 
there.
  I have a question of the author of the amendment if he would be 
willing to engage me in a discussion.
  I guess I was curious as to why you are only repealing the dairy 
provision of the permanent law and not the entire permanent law. Is 
there some reason for that?
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman from Oklahoma yield?
  Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. The reason is that the milk price support is 
actually a ``floor'' for the cost at which the government buys surplus 
milk. What that will do is raise the cost that the government is going 
to have to pay for this surplus milk, which is just going to cost the 
taxpayers more money.
  Mr. PETERSON. What it does is it sets the price of dairy at 85 
percent of parity, and that would have been about 39 bucks. It also 
sets the price of wheat and corn and soybeans at anywhere from--I don't 
know. It's 80 to 95 percent of parity. Those prices are just as 
problematic. You know what happened last December. The law expired on 
September 30, but nothing actually happens until that current year's 
crop is harvested. Wheat does not harvest until May, and corn doesn't 
harvest until October or November, but milk is harvested every day. 
That's why it became an issue.
  So I am against getting rid of the permanent law, but I was just 
curious as to why you picked on just dairy. I mean, I see your point 
that you're going to raise costs to the government, but if you want to 
really raise costs to the government, support the Goodlatte-Scott 
amendment because that's really going to stick it to the government.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
  I thank my colleagues for having a good faith discussion. I do 
appreciate the point that the ranking member brings. If we're going to 
address one part of the '49 Act, we probably should address all of it. 
There have been ongoing discussions as long as I've been here about how 
to do that.
  Many provisions of Federal law have an underlying base law. We do 
laws then that build off of that, and when they expire you revert to 
permanent law. That's the case of the '49 law. Maybe the 2013 farm bill 
should become the permanent law to give us at least a realistic, modern 
thing to come from, but that's probably a discussion for a different 
amendment.
  I would say, quite simply, that I respect my colleague but that I, 
too, cannot vote to undo things by piecemeal. I've got to have a 
systematic way about it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. From the comments my good friend from Minnesota 
and my good friend from Oklahoma stated, maybe we should repeal the 
whole '49 law. I would be all in favor of working with both gentlemen 
to try to find some way to do that. I'm sure both gentlemen would be 
very eager to not have the incentive to go back to that law as a 
piecemeal way of trying to deal with these problems.
  My friend from Minnesota is exactly right. I used to farm. I've been 
a dairy farmer. I had Holstein cows. I was a true farmer--I've raised 
feeder steers; I've hay-farmed; I've truck-farmed; and I've row-
cropped. I know agriculture. I wasn't a gentleman farmer. I'd climb in 
the back of the combine between stops and change the air drum. So I 
know agriculture.
  I know the biggest problem agriculture faces today is the regulation, 
particularly from EPA. I'd like to see those regulations rolled back 
because

[[Page 9687]]

that would help our agriculture more than any other thing that we could 
do, and I would be all in favor of doing that.
  The reason I brought the milk part of the old law forward was exactly 
the reason my good friend from Minnesota stated, in that you have to 
milk cows not once a day but at least twice a day, sometimes three. The 
milk support price that is guaranteed in this underlying law will raise 
costs if we go back to that and it stays in place. If we don't have the 
farm bill suspended or reauthorized, then what happens is the Federal 
Government is going to pay much higher prices for milk, and that's 
going to increase the cost in the grocery store for all Americans, and 
it's going to hurt the poor people, particularly poor children and 
senior citizens.
  Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 20 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. PETERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON. Just a point. I understand what you're saying, but you 
need to look at the Goodlatte-Scott amendment. What it does is allow 
them to buy insurance at $18 a hundredweight, and if the price goes to 
$11 like it did in 2009, the taxpayers are on the hook. So you've got 
the same problem going on with what Goodlatte and Scott are trying to 
do in this bill.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Enyart

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. ENYART. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle E of title I, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 1502. NATIONAL DROUGHT COUNCIL AND NATIONAL DROUGHT 
                   POLICY ACTION PLAN.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the National 
     Drought Council established by this section.
       (2) Drought.--The term ``drought'' means a natural disaster 
     that is caused by a deficiency in precipitation--
       (A) that may lead to a deficiency in surface and subsurface 
     water supplies (including rivers, streams, wetlands, ground 
     water, soil moisture, reservoir supplies, lake levels, and 
     snow pack); and
       (B) that causes or may cause--
       (i) substantial economic or social impacts; or
       (ii) physical damage or injury to individuals, property, or 
     the environment.
       (3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (4) Member.--The term ``member'', with respect to the 
     National Drought Council, means a member of the Council 
     specified or appointed under this section or, in the absence 
     of the member, the member's designee.
       (5) Mitigation.--The term ``mitigation'' means a short- or 
     long-term action, program, or policy that is implemented in 
     advance of or during a drought to minimize any risks and 
     impacts of drought.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' "means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means the several States, 
     the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin 
     Islands.
       (8) Trigger.--The term ``trigger'' means the thresholds or 
     criteria that must be satisfied before mitigation or 
     emergency assistance may be provided to an area--
       (A) in which drought is emerging; or
       (B) that is experiencing a drought.
       (9) Watershed.--The term ``watershed'' means a region or 
     area with common hydrology, an area drained by a waterway 
     that drains into a lake or reservoir, the total area above a 
     given point on a stream that contributes water to the flow at 
     that point, or the topographic dividing line from which 
     surface streams flow in two different directions. In no case 
     shall a watershed be larger than a river basin.
       (10) Watershed group.--The term ``watershed group'' means a 
     group of individuals, formally recognized by the appropriate 
     State or States, who represent the broad scope of relevant 
     interests within a watershed and who work together in a 
     collaborative manner to jointly plan the management of the 
     natural resources contained within the watershed.
       (b) Effect of Section.--This section does not affect--
       (1) the authority of a State to allocate quantities of 
     water under the jurisdiction of the State; or
       (2) any State water rights established as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) National Drought Council.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Office of 
     the Secretary of Agriculture a council to be known as the 
     ``National Drought Council''.
       (2) Membership.--
       (A) Composition.--The Council shall be composed of--
       (i) the Secretary (or the designee of the Secretary);
       (ii) the Secretary of Commerce (or the designee of the 
     Secretary of Commerce);
       (iii) the Secretary of the Army (or the designee of the 
     Secretary of the Army);
       (iv) the Secretary of the Interior (or the designee of the 
     Secretary of the Interior);
       (v) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     (or the designee of the Director);
       (vi) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (or the designee of the Administrator);
       (vii) 4 members appointed by the Secretary, in coordination 
     with the National Governors Association, each of whom shall 
     be the Governor of a State (or the designee of the Governor) 
     and who collectively shall represent the geographic diversity 
     of the Nation;
       (viii) 1 member appointed by the Secretary, in coordination 
     with the National Association of Counties;
       (ix) 1 member appointed by the Secretary, in coordination 
     with the United States Conference of Mayors;
       (x) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     coordination with Indian tribes, to represent the interests 
     of tribal governments; and
       (xi) 1 member appointed by the Secretary, in coordination 
     with the National Association of Conservation Districts, to 
     represent local soil and water conservation districts.
       (B) Date of appointment.--The appointment of each member of 
     the Council shall be made not later than 120 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Term; vacancies.--
       (A) Term.--A non-Federal member of the Council appointed 
     under paragraph (2) shall be appointed for a term of two 
     years.
       (B) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Council--
       (i) shall not affect the powers of the Council; and
       (ii) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment was made.
       (C) Terms of members filling vacancies.--Any member 
     appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration 
     of the term for which the member's predecessor was appointed 
     shall be appointed only for the remainder of that term.
       (4) Meetings.--
       (A) In general.--The Council shall meet at the call of the 
     co-chairs.
       (B) Frequency.--The Council shall meet at least 
     semiannually.
       (5) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Council shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings or 
     conduct other business.
       (6) Council leadership.--
       (A) In general.--There shall be a Federal co-chair and non-
     Federal co-chair of the Council.
       (B) Appointment.--
       (i) Federal co-chair.--The Secretary shall be Federal co-
     chair.
       (ii) Non-federal co-chair.--The non-Federal members of the 
     Council shall elect, on a biannual basis, a non-Federal co-
     chair of the Council from among the members appointed under 
     paragraph (2).
       (d) Duties of the Council.--
       (1) In general.--The Council shall-- (A) not later than one 
     year after the date of the first meeting of the Council, 
     develop a comprehensive National Drought Policy Action Plan 
     that--
       (i)(I) delineates and integrates responsibilities for 
     activities relating to drought (including drought 
     preparedness, mitigation, research, risk management, 
     training, and emergency relief) among Federal agencies; and
       (II) ensures that those activities are coordinated with the 
     activities of the States, local governments, Indian tribes, 
     and neighboring countries;

[[Page 9688]]

       (ii) is consistent with--

       (I) this Act and other applicable Federal laws; and
       (II) the laws and policies of the States for water 
     management;

       (iii) is integrated with drought management programs of the 
     States, Indian tribes, local governments, watershed groups, 
     and private entities; and
       (iv) avoids duplicating Federal, State, tribal, local, 
     watershed, and private drought preparedness and monitoring 
     programs in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) evaluate Federal drought-related programs in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act and make recommendations 
     to Congress and the President on means of eliminating--
       (i) discrepancies between the goals of the programs and 
     actual service delivery;
       (ii) duplication among programs; and
       (iii) any other circumstances that interfere with the 
     effective operation of the programs;
       (C) make recommendations to the President, Congress, and 
     appropriate Federal Agencies on--
       (i) the establishment of common interagency triggers for 
     authorizing Federal drought mitigation programs; and
       (ii) improving the consistency and fairness of assistance 
     among Federal drought relief programs;
       (D) encourage and facilitate the development of drought 
     preparedness plans under subtitle C, including establishing 
     the guidelines under this section;
       (E) based on a review of drought preparedness plans, 
     develop and make available to the public drought planning 
     models to reduce water resource conflicts relating to water 
     conservation and droughts;
       (F) develop and coordinate public awareness activities to 
     provide the public with access to understandable and 
     informative materials on drought, including--
       (i) explanations of the causes of drought, the impacts of 
     drought, and the damages from drought;
       (ii) descriptions of the value and benefits of land 
     stewardship to reduce the impacts of drought and to protect 
     the environment;
       (iii) clear instructions for appropriate responses to 
     drought, including water conservation, water reuse, and 
     detection and elimination of water leaks;
       (iv) information on State and local laws applicable to 
     drought; and
       (v) opportunities for assistance to resource-dependent 
     businesses and industries in times of drought; and
       (G) establish operating procedures for the Council.
       (2) Consultation.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Council shall consult with groups affected by drought 
     emergencies.
       (3) Reports to congress.--
       (A) Annual report.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the first meeting of the Council, and annually thereafter, 
     the Council shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     activities carried out under this section.
       (ii) Inclusions.--

       (I) In general.--The annual report shall include a summary 
     of drought preparedness plans.
       (II) Initial report.--The initial report submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include any recommendations of the 
     Council.

       (B) Final report.--Not later than seven years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Council shall submit to 
     Congress a report that recommends--
       (i) amendments to this section; and
       (ii) whether the Council should continue.
       (e) Powers of the Council.--
       (1) Hearings.--The Council may hold hearings, meet and act 
     at any time and place, take any testimony and receive any 
     evidence that the Council considers advisable to carry out 
     this section.
       (2) Information from federal agencies.--
       (A) In general.--The Council may obtain directly from any 
     Federal agency any information that the Council considers 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       (B) Provision of information.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), on 
     request of the Secretary or the non-Federal co-chair of the 
     Council, the head of a Federal agency may provide information 
     to the Council.
       (ii) Limitation.--The head of a Federal agency shall not 
     provide any information to the Council that the Federal 
     agency head determines the disclosure of which may cause harm 
     to national security interests.
       (3) Postal services.--The Council may use the United States 
     mail in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     other agencies of the Federal Government.
       (4) Gifts.--The Council may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (f) Council Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Compensation of members.--
       (A) Non-federal employees.--A member of the Council who is 
     not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall 
     serve without compensation.
       (B) Federal employees.--A member of the Council who is an 
     officer or employee of the United States shall serve without 
     compensation in addition to the compensation received for 
     services of the member as an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government.
       (2) Travel expenses.--A member of the Council shall be 
     allowed travel expenses at rates authorized for an employee 
     of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, 
     United States Code, while away from the home or regular place 
     of business of the member in the performance of the duties of 
     the Council.
       (g) Termination of Council.--The Council shall terminate at 
     the end of the eighth fiscal year beginning on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Enyart) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ENYART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment to this bill to help 
agriculture in southern Illinois, my State of Illinois and, indeed, in 
the entire Nation the next time drought strikes.
  After Hurricane Sandy, the drought of 2012 was the second most costly 
natural disaster in the world. The drought cost upwards of $35 billion 
in total losses. It devastated southern Illinois crops and crops 
throughout the Midwest. The fact that there is no national response or 
preparedness plan for drought increases these costs by at least 25 
percent. Indeed, FEMA is not even authorized to address drought even 
when areas are declared natural disasters due to drought.
  In the 110th Congress, my colleague from Florida, Congressman Alcee 
Hastings, offered legislation to establish a national drought council. 
I applaud his foresight and his work, which was included in the House 
version of the farm bill. Unfortunately, House and Senate conferees 
failed to include it in the final bill. Had it been included, perhaps 
the Federal response to last year's drought would have been streamlined 
and devastating losses mitigated.
  My amendment, which is based on Congressman Hastings' work, would 
give the Secretary of Agriculture an important tool to help our farmers 
more quickly. The council would be tasked to develop a comprehensive 
national drought action plan that defines responsibilities for drought 
preparedness, mitigation, research, risk management, training, and 
emergency relief programs. The plan provides guidance to Federal 
agencies to ensure their activities are coordinated with the activities 
of States, local governments, Indian tribes, and neighboring countries.
  Through an annual report to Congress, the council will make 
recommendations to eliminate duplication and to establish common 
interagency triggers to authorize Federal drought programs.
  Based on a review of drought preparedness plans, the council will 
develop and make available to the public drought planning models. What 
this appointed council would not do is draw a paycheck, establish a new 
office, or increase the Federal bureaucracy.
  It's not a question of will a drought strike; it's a question of 
when. When it does, we need to be better prepared.
  I urge adoption of this amendment and ask the support of my 
colleagues.
  Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENYART. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman.
  I simply want to note, as being an Oklahoman, I have an appreciation 
for drought issues, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
important topic to our attention. I think we should all vote for the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ENYART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            amendment no. 7 offered by mr. graves of georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page 9689]]

       At the end of section 1603, add the following new 
     subsection:
       (d) Effect of Corn Sales to Ethanol Production 
     Facilities.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     producer on a farm that sells corn, directly or through a 
     third party, to an ethanol production facility is ineligible 
     to receive any payment or benefit described in section 
     1001D(b)(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-
     3a(b)(2)) for that corn.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I bring amendment No. 7 to the 
consideration of the House here as we debate this very important issue.
  When I think about the issue that's before us--I know there are a lot 
of good Members on both sides of it, for and against, and there's going 
to be a lot great debate about whether or not this bill should move 
forward in any fashion or another.
  There's one particular portion that I really wanted to discuss today, 
and it deals with the incentives and the benefits that go to corn 
producers for the production of corn that goes to ethanol. To me, I 
don't believe that is something that should be provided to these 
producers whatsoever, these incentives or benefits.
  In fact, when the bill was originally crafted many years ago back in 
1933, I have to ask: Did the original architects of the farm bill ever 
imagine that what they were creating at that time would go to benefit 
the producers of corn that would go to fuel and not food?
  So my amendment is rather simple. It just eliminates the opportunity 
for any producer to benefit from producing corn that would go to fuel. 
Instead, it focuses back on what the original intent of the legislation 
was, and that was to exclusively be for food production or feed 
production.
  So as we debate this bill, folks are going to be on all different 
sides of all these amendments. I think it's really important to get 
back to the original intent. If you're going to support the bill, get 
back to the original intent of what was intended back in 1933 and the 
years since then.
  But let me just remind the House of why this is so important. 
Estimates tell us that more than one-third of all our corn in the 
United States is used for feed livestock; another 13 percent is 
exported, mostly for feed livestock; but another 40 percent of all corn 
produced in this Nation is for ethanol. And of all of that, nearly half 
of all corn in our Nation that is produced, those producers receive 
those same benefits that those that were intending to create corn for 
food and feed would benefit from, as well.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is rather simple. I would urge the House's 
consideration of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would note to my colleague that I appreciate his issue of concern. 
I appreciate what I think he is trying to do. But in the nature of the 
FARRM Bill and the nature of the debate we're at right now, this is not 
really the environment, and I would ask him to consider withdrawing his 
amendment in good faith for a discussion sometime in the near future.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the chairman. I thank you for your 
good work on this. I know we've all had a lot of discussions, and I'll 
take you for your word that we can continue this conversation, because 
I think it's a very important topic.
  With your intent that I know to be true, that we can continue this, I 
would be willing to withdraw the amendment and continue the debate at a 
further time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my intention would be to 
withdraw the amendment. But let me just close with this and say that, 
as we debate the various policies within this bill, it is very 
important to note that there are areas such as this in which I hear the 
other side talk about the importance of food being provided for our 
citizens all across the country. I don't disagree with them at all. I 
think that's very important.
  So, therefore, why would we, as a House, stand to incentivize those 
who are producing nearly half of the corn that could be going to the 
food supply of our great Nation, but incentivize half the corn, almost, 
in our Nation rather for fuel instead of food?
  I look forward to continuing this debate, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 
the balance of my time and withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

                              {time}  1620


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 162, line 14, strike the closed quotation mark and the 
     final period.
       Page 162, after line 14, insert the following:
       ``(3) Reservation.--Effective beginning in fiscal year 
     2015, the Secretary, to the maximum extent feasible, shall 
     manage the conservation reserve to ensure that, on an annual 
     basis, not less than 20.5 percent of land maintained in the 
     program shall be--
       ``(A) described in subparagraphs (B) through (E) of 
     subsection (b)(4); and
       ``(B) enrolled under--
       ``(i) the special conservation reserve enhancement program 
     authority under section 1234(f)(4); or
       ``(ii) the pilot program for the enrollment of wetland and 
     buffer acreage under section 1231B.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Conservation Reserve Program has 
sparked major improvements in water quality, wildlife habitat and 
wetlands. However, high crop and land prices are spurring landowners to 
once again pull millions of vulnerable acres back under the plow as 
their CRP leases expire.
  In the last 10 years, we've seen a number of acres equal to the area 
of the State of Indiana taken out of the Conservation Reserve Program 
and put back into production. This means that the CRP's environmental 
benefits are not well leveraged, and taxpayer dollars don't earn the 
return they should because they've spent 5 years protecting land simply 
to have it disappear at the end of the easement period.
  This amendment makes a set of simple revenue-neutral changes to the 
CRP to provide more lasting protection of water, wildlife, and soil, 
and to make sure that we are fully leveraging Federal spending. It 
requires, to the extent possible, 20 percent of the funds dedicated to 
the Conservation Reserve Program to be used in the Continuous 
Conservation Reserve Program, the CCRP, and the Conservation Reserve 
Enhancement Program, CREP. These programs are a subset of the 
Conservation Reserve Program and help leverage State matching funds to 
produce even greater conservation benefits.
  In particular, the CREP program gives States flexibility to target 
high-priority conservation and environmentally sensitive areas, which 
helps coordinate Federal and local priorities and spending and ensures 
that any spending is targeted to produce the best results.
  The Continuous Conservation Reserve Program is a program that is 
consistently oversubscribed that helps farmers re-enroll in the program 
continuously, rather than just once a year. Adding acreage to this 
program gives

[[Page 9690]]

farmers more flexibility. It also protects the long-term conservation 
benefits of the CRP program so that taxpayers get what they pay for. 
These small changes are revenue neutral and will help CRP produce 
better outcomes for the environment and for taxpayers, leverage State 
matching funds, and provide long-term stability for farmers.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 1947 will step down the acreage cap of the CRP program from 32 
million acres to 24 million acres. Designating in law the required 
amount of acres for subprograms of CRP will reduce the FSA's 
flexibility in administering the program. I do understand that the set-
aside in the amendment is consistent with how FSA currently runs the 
program. However, when crafting the conservation title, we tried to 
leave as much flexibility as possible. I fear the set-aside could limit 
future general sign-ups or tie FSA's hands in future targeted 
initiatives.
  I will work with the gentleman to ensure that CRP targets the most 
environmentally sensitive lands, but I must urge my colleagues to 
oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure Mr. Blumenauer that the 
chairman and I share his concerns and philosophy. But in my judgment, 
this is not an amendment that is necessary because there has never been 
a situation that I'm aware of where the continuous sign-up has been 
limited by anything going on. In fact, they can't get enough continuous 
acres signed up to meet the goals that they've had. The same thing with 
the CREP acres.
  So the Department has administratively always made room for any 
continuous and any CREP requests that are out there. There's never been 
a limitation. There's never been a backlog. There's never been any 
impediment to signing up these acres.
  The issue we have now with CRP is these high land prices and high 
commodity prices. You're right about that. And we are seeing acres come 
out all over the country, and that concerns me. I've been the biggest 
champion of CRP, and I reluctantly agreed to lower these acres to 24 
million acres because that's what's going to happen anyway. These acres 
are going to be reduced. But it's not going to be continuous, and it's 
not going to be in CREP. It's going to be in the regular CRP program. 
And if I could figure out how to stop that, I would. But you'd have to 
literally triple or quadruple the amount of money that's paid for the 
general sign-up in order to get those acres back into the program, 
given my understanding of what's going on.
  So, you know, I just don't see why we need to have this in there. We 
have always accommodated this. If we're going to do anything in CRP, 
what we should be doing is figuring out how we can raise the rental 
rates to get the general CRP sign-up back up to where it needs to be. 
I'm very concerned about losing this big tract CRP because this is what 
has brought wildlife around the country back, and we're losing it.
  Anyway, there is not an impediment to continuous or CREP, and there 
won't be in the future. If there is anything left over that isn't up to 
the 24 million acres, it's going to be out of the general sign-up. It 
isn't going to be out of CREP or continuous. So I oppose the amendment. 
I don't think there is any reason to do this because the Department has 
been taking care of it.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon as 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to help 
focus on more long-lasting protection for the water, wildlife, and 
soil. I appreciate what the ranking member said in terms of issues for 
additional funding for wildlife habitat, and I have another amendment 
coming forward which I think helps address that.
  In the meantime, having an opportunity here to--and I mentioned in 
the amendment ``to the extent possible,'' the 20 percent is dedicated 
for the Continuous Reserve Program and the Conservation Reserve 
Enhancement Program. Being able to focus and leverage the local funds 
seems to me to provide long-term stability and leveraging the State 
matching. I see my colleague from Virginia is here, but he wants to 
speak to the next amendment.
  I respectfully request that Members join with me in an amendment that 
is supported by the Environmental Working Group, the National 
Sustainable Agricultural Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Trust, 
Organic Trade Association, Slow Food, Food Democracy Now, Organic 
Consumers Union, and Union of Concerned Scientists. Allowing us to be 
able to move forward in this regard, I think, would be a positive. I 
didn't hear any compelling reasons from my friends other than they 
thought it would be taken care of. I think this amendment will ensure 
that it will move forward and respectfully ask that it be approved.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1630


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 197, strike line 18 and all that follows 
     through page 198, line 10 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2201. PURPOSES.

       Section 1240 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1240. PURPOSES.

       ``The purpose of the environmental quality incentives 
     program established by this chapter is to assist producers in 
     implementing conservation systems, practices, and activities 
     on their operations in order to--
       ``(1) improve water quality, with special emphasis on 
     reducing nutrient pollution and protecting sources of 
     drinking water;
       ``(2) avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, the need 
     for resource and regulatory programs by assisting producers 
     in protecting soil, water, air, and related natural resources 
     and meeting environmental quality criteria established by 
     Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies;
       ``(3) conserve ground and surface water to sustain or 
     improve in-stream flows;
       ``(4) enhance soil quality;
       ``(5) control invasive species;
       ``(6) enhance critical aquatic and terrestrial wildlife 
     habitat for at-risk species;
       ``(7) reduce the amount and toxicity of pesticides and 
     other agricultural chemicals found on food and in water or 
     the air;
       ``(8) reduce the nontherapeutic use of medically important 
     antibiotics in food-producing animals in order to preserve 
     the effectiveness of antibiotics used in the treatment of 
     human and animal disease;
       ``(9) help producers adapt to a changing and unpredictable 
     climate and increase resiliency to climate change impacts, 
     including rising temperatures and extreme weather events, 
     while reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and
       ``(10) address additional priority resource concerns, as 
     determined by the Secretary.''.
       Page 198, line 19, strike ``10 years'' and insert ``5 
     years''.
       Page 198, after line 19, insert the following:
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:

[[Page 9691]]

       ``(c) Priority.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     environmental values of two or more applications for payments 
     are comparable, the Secretary shall assign a higher priority 
     to a program application which will achieve the environment 
     and conservation values using practices and systems the 
     assessed cost of which is lower.'';
       (4) by amending subsection (d)(3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) Increased payments for certain practices.--The 
     Secretary shall provide supplemental payments and enhanced 
     technical assistance to producers implementing land 
     management and vegetative practices at a level that, as 
     determined by the Secretary, results in highly cost-effective 
     treatment of priority resource concerns, including--
       ``(A) residue and tillage management;
       ``(B) contour farming;
       ``(C) cover cropping;
       ``(D) integrated pest management;
       ``(E) nutrient management;
       ``(F) stream corridor improvement;
       ``(G) invasive plant species control;
       ``(H) contour buffer strips;
       ``(I) riparian herbaceous and forest buffers;
       ``(J) filterstrips;
       ``(K) stream habitat improvement and management;
       ``(L) grassed waterways;
       ``(M) wetland restoration and enhancement;
       ``(N) pollinator habitat; or
       ``(O) conservation crop rotation.'';
       Page 199, after line 16, insert the following:
       (4) by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) Limitation on payments for certain practices.--A 
     producer who owns or operates a large confined animal feeding 
     operation (as defined by the Secretary) shall not be eligible 
     for payments under this chapter to construct an animal waste 
     management facility or any associated waste transport or 
     transfer device.''.
       Page 199, line 21, strike ``60 percent'' and insert ``50 
     percent''.
       Page 200, line 2, strike ``5 percent'' and insert ``not 
     less than 10 percent''.
       Page 200, line 17, strike ``and'' and insert the following:
       (6) by amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
       ``(h) Water Conservation or Irrigation Efficiency 
     Practice.--
       ``(1) Availability of payments.--The Secretary may provide 
     payments under this subsection to a producer for a water 
     conservation or irrigation practice that promotes ground and 
     surface water conservation on the agricultural operation of 
     the producer by--
       ``(A) improvements to irrigation systems;
       ``(B) enhancement of irrigation efficiencies;
       ``(C) conversion of the agricultural operation to--
       ``(i) the production of less water-intensive agricultural 
     commodities; or
       ``(ii) dryland farming;
       ``(D) improvement of the storage and conservation of water 
     through measures such as water banking and groundwater 
     recharge;
       ``(E) enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat associated 
     with irrigation systems including pivot corners and areas 
     with irregular boundaries;
       ``(F) enhancement of in-stream flows in associated rivers 
     and streams; or
       ``(G) establishment of other measures, as determined by the 
     Secretary, that improve groundwater and surface water 
     conservation in agricultural operations.
       ``(2) Priority.--In providing payments to a producer for a 
     water conservation or irrigation practice, the Secretary 
     shall give priority to applications in which--
       ``(A) consistent with the law of the State in which the 
     eligible land of the producer is located, there is a 
     reduction in water use in the operation of the producer; and
       ``(B) the practice reduces the amount of water consumed in 
     a producer's operation or reduces the amount of water 
     diverted without increasing the water consumed.
       ``(3) Duty of producers.--The Secretary may not provide 
     payments to a producer for a water conservation or irrigation 
     practice under this chapter unless the producer agrees not to 
     use any associated water savings to bring new land, other 
     than incidental land needed for efficient operations, under 
     irrigated production, unless the producer is participating in 
     a watershed-wide project that will effectively conserve 
     water, as determined by the Secretary.'';
       (7) in subsection (i)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsection'' and 
     inserting ``chapter'';
       (B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Eligibility requirements.--As a condition for 
     receiving payments under this chapter, a producer shall agree 
     to develop and implement conservation practices for certified 
     organic production that are consistent with the regulations 
     promulgated under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) and the purposes of this chapter.'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(3) Coordination with organic certification.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a transparent means by which 
     producers may initiate organic certification under the 
     Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) 
     while participating in a contract under this chapter.
       ``(4) Planning.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide planning 
     assistance to producers transitioning to certified organic 
     production consistent with the requirements of the Organic 
     Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) and the 
     purposes of this chapter.
       ``(B) Avoidance of duplication.--The Secretary shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, eliminate duplication of 
     planning activities for a producer participating in a 
     contract under this chapter and initiating or maintaining 
     organic certification consistent with the Organic Foods 
     Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.).''; and
       Page 201, line 8, strike the closed quotation mark and the 
     final period.
       Page 201, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(k) Payments for Conservation Practices Related to 
     Antibiotic Use.--
       ``(1) Payments authorized.--The Secretary shall provide 
     payments under this chapter to livestock producers for three 
     years, to assist in a transition to modified animal 
     management and production systems, for practices leading to 
     the reduction in the need for antibiotics, including 
     modification of systems and spaces to--
       ``(A) improve sanitation;
       ``(B) improve ventilation; or
       ``(C) support the implementation of improved animal 
     management techniques at the operation.
       ``(2) Duty of producer.--The Secretary shall not make 
     payments under this chapter for practices related to 
     antibiotic use unless the producer agrees to provide 
     information to the Secretary documenting the resulting 
     reduction in antibiotic use in the operation of the producer.
       ``(l) Comprehensive Conservation Planning.--The Secretary 
     shall provide technical and financial assistance to producers 
     under the program to develop a comprehensive conservation 
     plan for the agricultural operation of the producer.''.
       Page 201, strike lines 9 through 17 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 2203. EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Evaluation Criteria.--Section 1240C(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``, national, State, and local conservation 
     priorities'' and inserting ``priority resource concerns 
     identified under subsection (d)''.
       (b) Prioritization of Applications.--Section 1240C(b) of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``achieving the 
     anticipated environmental benefits of the project'' and 
     inserting ``priority resource concerns identified under 
     subsection (d)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``designated resource 
     concern or resource concerns'' and inserting ``priority 
     resource concerns identified under subsection (d), including, 
     in the case of applications from nutrient-impacted 
     watersheds, the degree to which nutrient loadings would be 
     reduced as a result of the proposed project''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``purpose of the 
     environmental quality incentives program specified in section 
     1240(1)'' and inserting ``purposes of the program''.
       (c) Grouping of Applications.--Section 1240C(c) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``for evaluation purposes or otherwise evaluate 
     applications relative to other applications for similar 
     farming operations'' and inserting ``proposing to address the 
     same priority resource concerns for evaluation purposes''.
       (d) Priority Resource Concerns.--Section 1240C of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-3) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Priority Resource Concerns.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the Secretary shall identify priority resource 
     concerns in a particular watershed or other appropriate 
     region or area within a State.''.
       Beginning on page 201, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through page 202, line 8 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2205. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM PLAN.

       (a) Plan of Operations.--Section 1240E(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-5(a)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) Plan of Operations.--To be eligible to receive 
     payments under the program, a producer shall submit to the 
     Secretary for approval a plan of operations that--
       ``(1) specifies the priority resource concerns to be 
     addressed;
       ``(2) specifies the type, number, and sequencing of 
     conservation systems, practices, or activities to be 
     implemented to address the priority resource concerns;
       ``(3) includes such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers necessary to carry out the program, including a 
     description of the purposes to be met by the implementation 
     of the plan and a statement of how the plan will achieve or 
     take significant steps toward achieving the relevant resource 
     management system quality criteria;
       ``(4) in the case of a confined livestock feeding 
     operation, provides for development

[[Page 9692]]

     and implementation of a comprehensive nutrient management 
     plan, if applicable;
       ``(5) in the case of a producer located within a nutrient-
     impacted watershed, identifies methods by which the producer 
     will limit nutrient loss; and
       ``(6) in the case of forest land, is consistent with the 
     provisions of a forest management plan that is approved by 
     the Secretary, which may include--
       ``(A) a forest stewardship plan described in section 5 of 
     the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2103a);
       ``(B) another practice plan approved by the State forester; 
     or
       ``(C) another plan determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Avoidance of Duplication.--Section 1240E(b)(1) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-5(b)(1))) is 
     amended by striking ``plan of operations'' and inserting 
     ``resource management system plan''.

     SEC. 2206. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       Section 1240F(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3839aa-6(2)) is amended by striking ``information'' 
     and inserting ``technical assistance, information,''.

     SEC. 2207. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.

       Section 1240G of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa-7) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1240G. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) Limitation on Total Payments.--Subject to subsection 
     (b), a person or legal entity may not receive, directly or 
     indirectly, cost-share or incentive payments under this 
     chapter, in the aggregate, for all contracts entered into 
     under this chapter by the person or entity (excluding funding 
     arrangements with federally recognized Native American Indian 
     Tribes or Alaska Native Corporations under section 1240B(h)), 
     regardless of the number of contracts entered into under this 
     chapter by the person or entity, that--
       ``(1) during any fiscal year exceed $30,000; and
       ``(2) during any five-year period exceed $150,000.
       ``(b) Waiver Authority.--In the case of contracts under 
     this chapter for projects of special environmental 
     significance, as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary 
     may waive the limitation otherwise applicable under 
     subsection (a)(1).
       ``(c) Prevention of Duplication.--The Secretary shall not 
     approve a contract or provide payments to any individual for 
     a practice that has already been paid for as part of a 
     previously approved and completed contract for any particular 
     parcel of land.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  I appreciate the Rules Committee having made this amendment in order. 
It makes important revenue-neutral changes to the EQIP program to 
protect the original intent of the program, to use tax dollars better 
to help more farmers, and to produce better results for the taxpayers.
  In difficult budget times, we must prioritize maximizing value and 
saving money. This amendment makes several changes to the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program to restore the 1996 language. It implements 
stricter payment limits to make sure we're not spending too much money 
on any one project. And at a time when demand for conservation funding 
is as much as four times greater than the supply, we can't afford to 
let a few huge projects crowd out available funding.
  This amendment also reinstates the original 1996 EQIP language which 
eliminated spending for factory farms. That language was included in 
1996 because Members were nervous that too much of the EQIP would end 
up going to just a few family farm projects, and they were right.
  The legislation also provides additional support for farmers who want 
to transition to production techniques that use fewer pesticides or 
antibiotics. As the United States doctors and scientists become 
increasingly concerned about the use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in 
meat production, we should be doing everything we can to make it easier 
for farmers and ranchers to reduce their dependence on antibiotics.
  Finally, it clarifies that EQIP is intended to be used as a short-
term program and protects the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program set-
aside, which has been in place since the program began.
  The opposition comes from those who are using conservation dollars 
for purposes that most Americans would not consider to be conservation 
related. Recent data shows that one in four EQIP dollars in the last 10 
years has been spent on large structural projects that produce limited 
conservation benefits and are extremely expensive. I noted in the press 
this last week one project, almost $2 million, yet the average is about 
$13,500.
  I appreciate the opportunity to start this discussion and think about 
how best to spend limited conservation dollars for maximum conservation 
benefits. I respectfully suggest that that's to be found with this 
amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might 
consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  The conservation title has gone through many reforms by combining and 
eliminating duplicative programs. The result, I believe, is a fair, 
balanced, and flexible conservation title that addresses the natural 
resource concerns of farmers, ranchers, and landowners. However, the 
gentleman's amendment seeks to undo this balance by stripping the EQIP 
program of the authorities that make it unique.
  The EQIP program is arguably the most successful conservation program 
administered by the NRCS. Through cost share assistance, these programs 
help farmers and ranchers meet and exceed national, State, and local 
environmental regulations.
  Known as the bricks and mortar of the program, farmers and ranchers 
depend on EQIP for assistance to build waste storage facilities, 
eliminate nutrient runoff, and purchase equipment like methane 
digesters.
  The gentleman's amendment would fundamentally change EQIP with 
arbitrary limits that would reduce livestock producers' participation 
and restrict the types of conservation programs that could be 
implemented. With EPA and environmental groups targeting livestock 
operations, we should not diminish the program's current authorities.
  The amendment would make EQIP no different than any other working 
lands program and eliminate an essential tool that farmers and ranchers 
depend on to meet increasing environmental regulations.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 75 seconds to my friend from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because 
it would improve the Environmental Quality Incentives Program by 
targeting support for the smaller and midsize farms where the 
investment will buy a bigger bang for the buck.
  Just 1 percent of agribusinesses get more than 20 percent of EQIP 
payments, and about 70 percent of that funding is used to build 
structures to store manure and lay irrigation pipeline, purchase 
sprinkler systems and other equipment.
  This amendment doesn't do anything to prohibit or restrict large 
farming operations. In fact, the limits in this amendment would have 
impacted less than half a percent of all EQIP contracts between 1997 
and 2010, where we have statistics.
  Our limited Federal funding, I think, would be better targeted by 
helping small and midsize farms engage in more sustainable practices, 
such as transitioning to farming methods that use fewer antibiotics and 
pesticides.
  I think it makes sense to target where we can get the biggest bang 
for the buck because more intensive production practices, if not 
properly managed and mitigated, contaminate our drinking water, pollute 
the air, and diminish the quality of the soil, placing future 
production yields at risk.
  And it seems to me in austere budget times we ought not cut or do 
away with conservation incentives but, instead, make them more 
efficient. And that's what the gentleman's amendment would do, so I 
rise in support of

[[Page 9693]]

it. I think it's a good amendment. It helps small and medium-sized 
farms.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the 
House Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment, not that I disagree with the 
intent here, and I think that if you look at the EQIP program, you will 
see that it has primarily been utilized by smaller producers around the 
country. But I just want to give you an example of the real world here 
of how this works in my district.
  We have the Sauk River in my district, which is a beautiful river 
that has probably 100 dairy farms located alongside this river. These 
dairy farms have been there for 75, 100 years. You know, these have 
been in the family. A lot of these farms are 50 cows, 75 cows, probably 
100 cows would be the largest one. So these are small family farms. 
They've been in their families for generations.
  The problem is that the barns and the pastures and the barnyards were 
located next to the river, all along this river. That's just how they 
did things 75 years ago. And so what happened is that river got 
polluted from the manure running off, and the Sauk Lake, which is a 
beautiful lake, became overfertilized and it grew up with weeds and so 
forth. And you've seen that in the Chesapeake Bay and so forth.
  Well, what we did is we went in there with EQIP money and moved these 
barnyards and moved these cattle out away from the river. We didn't 
build any huge structures or anything. We built some to try to dam up 
things and so forth.
  But the point is that, even with the limitations that we had on that 
of the $300,000, we still had to--this was not a cheap thing to do on 
these farms, and these weren't big farms. So it took us 2, 3, 4 years 
to move each of these operations, and to move 100 of them, you know, 
took us, I don't know, 20, 25 years. But we have basically accomplished 
that, and we've cleaned up the river, cleaned up the lake.
  And if you had this amendment, we'd never be able to get that done. 
We wouldn't have--$30,000 a year would not get us anywhere near what we 
needed to do to get that accomplished in that area. And that's just one 
example.
  So the NRCS people and the FSA people that are involved in this, you 
know, they monitor these things. They're kind of prioritizing where 
they go. And you can see, when you look at the statistics, they've been 
focusing on the smaller projects. But there are times when you have to 
deal with things that have been put out there, not because of anybody 
doing anything with any ill intent, it's just what they did 100 years 
ago, and we're trying to clean it up.
  So I would caution the Members to be careful about putting any 
limitations on these programs because a lot of times it can have a 
consequence that wasn't intended. So I oppose this amendment and would 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1640

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 1/\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I support this amendment. We've seen natural disasters 
from droughts to heat waves to floods affecting farmers from coast to 
coast because of the climate change issue. We spend billions of dollars 
on crop insurance subsidies to cover the cost of these climate 
disasters.
  This amendment expands and improves the USDA Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program to bring support to farmers to adjust to a changing 
climate. It adds climate mitigation as an eligible EQIP program 
expense. I think it makes sense, and I would urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate my friend's joining me. The crux of this 
issue is, who's going to get the benefit? There were over 300,000 
contracts, and 92 projects took 20 percent of the money. This amendment 
would target it for those far greater number. Most of the large, 
confined animal feedlot operations manage on their own--the rest of 
them can. Focus it for people who need it the most, not have a bunch of 
the money sucked up by large, industrial agricultural activities.
  Provide more benefit for more farmers and ranchers. Approve this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.


      Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 201, line 8, strike the closed quotation mark and the 
     final period.
       Page 201, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(k) Funding for Community Irrigation Associations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into an 
     alternative funding arrangement with an eligible irrigation 
     association if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) the purposes of the program will be met by such an 
     arrangement; and
       ``(B) statutory limitations regarding contracts with 
     individual producers will not be exceeded by any member of 
     the irrigation association.
       ``(2) Eligible irrigation associations.--In this 
     subsection, the term `eligible irrigation association' means 
     an irrigation association that is--
       ``(A) comprised of producers; and
       ``(B) a local government entity, but does not have the 
     authority to impose taxes or levies.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 
For many years, local farmers in New Mexico have been asking for an 
amendment that would allow local acequia and community ditch 
associations to access EQIP funds. An ``acequia'' is a centuries-old 
irrigation structure that is still in use today in primarily Hispanic 
communities across New Mexico, and it is governed by a small board made 
up of private landowners.
  The board of private landowners, also called the acequia and 
community ditch association, is in charge of administering maintenance 
of the irrigation infrastructure, which often requires work on sections 
of infrastructure residing on private land. Because of current EQIP 
rules, individual producers can apply for assistance under the program 
but are not allowed to include the community ditch association to help 
with the work, even though the community ditch association is charged 
with maintaining the infrastructure for all water users.
  Mr. Chairman, you can see the dilemma that we're facing in New 
Mexico.
  This translates into burdensome roadblocks to improve conservation 
practices or manage scarce water resources.
  Mr. Chairman, in New Mexico, we are seeing one of the worst droughts 
in our history, and improving water use and conservation practices are 
key to keeping our agricultural communities alive.
  The Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, charged with 
administering the EQIP program, has indicated this language in my 
amendment would create the administrative efficiency needed when 
working with

[[Page 9694]]

small producers in New Mexico who irrigate their crops via acequia and 
community ditches.
  This amendment does not open up the program to large irrigation 
districts or government entities but simply affords local Hispanic 
farmers in rural New Mexico equal eligibility to compete for funding. 
Acequia community ditch associations, which are comprised solely of 
private landowners, do not have the authority to impose taxes or 
levees, and are in need of this clarifying language.
  Mr. Chairman, these programs are put together State by State and 
funded State by State, and it's my hope that through the work with the 
committee staff--and, Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank the minority 
staff and the majority staff because they really took the time with my 
team to take a look at this, and I think everyone understands the need, 
although there still may be some questions.
  Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. The chair would just note to the gentleman that I think 
he's got a very interesting concept here. Clearly, we need to talk more 
about this as we go along. But if my ranking member would nod his head 
over there, I certainly would be willing to accept this amendment.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I thank everyone for their help on this.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Gardner

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition to offer an amendment 
at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 256, after line 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 2507. EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 403 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 
     U.S.C. 2203) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``In evaluating requests for assistance under 
     this section, the Secretary shall give priority consideration 
     to projects that address runoff retardation and soil-erosion 
     preventive measures needed to mitigate the risks and 
     remediate the effects of catastrophic wildfire on land that 
     is the source of drinking water for landowners and land 
     users.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for 
the opportunity to be here and for his leadership on this amendment, 
and also Congressman Jared Polis from Colorado. We worked together on 
this Emergency Watershed Protection Program.
  Over the past couple of years, we've seen incredible wildfires ravage 
the West in New Mexico, in Colorado, in Wyoming, in Montana, and the 
Northwest. Millions of acres have been lost. Just this past month 
alone, over 500 homes have been lost in Colorado in the Black Forest 
fire.
  We know one thing occurs as a result of wildfires, and it's not just 
the event that occurs during the fire, and it's not just the impact of 
the burning itself of the fire to the homes, but it's what happens in 
the days, months and years following a forest fire that leads to 
millions of dollars worth of damage from a single incident.
  In the case of the Hyde Park fire last year, in the case of the Waldo 
Canyon fire last year and indeed in the case of the Black Forest fire 
coming up in the coming weeks, we know that when there's moisture, when 
there's rain and when there's snow, erosion will occur. I'm holding a 
vial of sediment from a river. It looks like dirt. It's black. But it 
actually came from a river after a forest fire in Colorado. Millions of 
dollars of damage has been done to the ecosystem as a result of a fire 
making runoff destroy transportation systems, clog culverts and impact 
drinking water systems.
  The Emergency Watershed Protection Program has been a critical 
program that helps communities prepare for and mitigate damage from 
natural disaster. As wildfires continue to hit the Western United 
States, this program will continue to do great good.
  Last year was an unusually devastating year for wildfires in the 
United States. Across the country, 67,000 wildfires burned over 9 
million acres. Significant wildfires occurred in almost every State of 
the Nation.
  Our amendment today is simple. It requires the Secretary of 
Agriculture to give priority consideration for the use of the Emergency 
Watershed Protection funding for projects that prevent and mitigate the 
impacts of catastrophic wildfires. It does not prevent Emergency 
Watershed Program funding from being used for other types of disasters, 
but the EWP program has aided countless communities to protect public 
safety in the wake of the West's most destructive wildfires.
  Before a wildfire, the Emergency Watershed Protection Program helps 
communities mitigate future wildfire damage by protecting critical 
watersheds. After a wildfire, EWP helps communities stabilize burned 
slopes to protect drinking water and infrastructure, prevent erosion 
and minimize potential hazards that cause immediate threats to people 
and property.
  The amendment is supported by the entire Colorado House delegation, 
and I thank Congressman Polis for his support and work on this 
amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield 4\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson).

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. While I'm not in opposition to the 
proposed amendment, I do have an amendment that I had planned to offer. 
However, the process is going so fast and I was not here in time, but 
it speaks to the Wetlands Reserve Program at USDA, commonly referred to 
as the WRP program.
  To date, WRP has restored over 2.5 million acres with over 12,000 
private landowners. WRP benefits private landowners by restoring land 
that should have never been cleared for agriculture. The public 
benefits from the reduced financial demand for disaster assistance and/
or crop insurance funds from lands that experience repeated losses; 
significant long-term conservation benefits obtained from the 
protection of wildlife habitat; the improvement of water quality; the 
increase of flood storage; and the reduction of soil erosion.
  The House farm bill we are considering today consolidates into a new 
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. This new program will 
consist of agricultural easements and wetlands easements.
  The components of the amendment that I have offered today are simple. 
First, it makes the ownership eligibility requirement for wetland 
easements equal to the other conservation programs by returning to the 
pre-2008 farm bill requirements of 1-year ownership instead of 7 years.
  My amendment's last change excludes the wettest soils from the county 
enrollment caps. Soils in these classes frequently flood and retain 
moisture at levels that severely impair or prevent farming. By allowing 
the lands that are the least economical to farm to be enrolled in a 
wetland easement, we will save in potential publicly funded disaster 
assistance and reduce the overall cost of crop insurance.
  Mr. Chairman, all of these changes have been adopted in the Senate 
farm

[[Page 9695]]

bill. The WRP is reshaping how wetland conservation is carried out on 
private lands and is doing so in a cost-effective manner.
  Had I had the opportunity, I would have offered this amendment. 
However, after consultation with the chair and ranking member, there is 
agreement that I will withdraw the amendment, and we will ensure that 
these important changes are considered in conference.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the chairman, and at this point I yield 2 
minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis). Congressman Polis 
and I have worked closely together over the past couple of years as 
wildfires have affected our districts. His district currently has a 
wildfire burning as we enter this debate right now.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) is 
recognized for the remainder of the time, 2 minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  There is a new fire near Bailey, Colorado. In addition, just in this 
last week, the Black Forest fire has already destroyed 500 homes and 
killed two Coloradans. Last year was an unusually devastating year for 
wildfires, where there were 67,000 wildfires across the country.
  Look, this Emergency Watershed Protection Program is absolutely 
critical for communities that are impacted by fires. That's why our 
entire delegation from Colorado--Democrats, Republicans--led by Mr. 
Gardner and I are all cosponsors of this amendment.
  I'm proud to offer this commonsense amendment which would simply 
require that the Secretary of Agriculture give priority consideration 
to emergency watershed project funding for projects that prevent and 
mitigate the impacts of catastrophic wildfires. It simply establishes 
that as a priority.
  For those of us who come from communities that have been impacted, we 
see firsthand the need for these funds to help protect drinking water, 
to help prevent erosion, to minimize potential hazards that can cause 
additional threats to people and property long after the fires have 
been extinguished. Now, we know we can't stop wildfires, but we can 
take measures to reduce their impacts on our communities both before 
and after the wildfire.
  To be clear, this amendment doesn't prevent emergency watershed 
protection funding from being used for other types of disasters--and it 
will. It just stipulates that in the wake of severe fire emergencies, 
the Secretary of Agriculture will give priority to considering 
emergency watershed projects that impact these areas.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Gardner-Polis-
Lamborn-Coffman-Perlmutter-DeGette-Tipton amendment--I don't think I've 
ever said all of our names before. I say to the gentleman from 
Colorado, our entire delegation is standing strong behind this 
amendment. I hope that we adopt amendment 119, the Emergency Watershed 
Protection amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate the endeavor of the delegation from Colorado. I 
understand they're dealing with very challenging circumstances out 
there. I'm not necessarily sure this is the final form this language 
should be in, but I would suggest to my colleagues that we support them 
and that we pass this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk as the 
designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 260, line 11, strike the closed quotation mark and the 
     final period.
       Page 260, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(3) Priority.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the delivery of technical assistance 
     under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 
     U.S.C. 590a et seq.), the Secretary shall give priority to 
     producers who request technical assistance from the Secretary 
     in order to comply for the first time with the requirements 
     of subtitle B and subtitle C of this title as a result of the 
     amendments made by section 2801 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk 
     Management Act of 2013, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate a report regarding the extent to which the 
     conservation compliance requirements contained in the 
     amendments made by section 2801 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 apply to and impact 
     specialty crop growers, including national analysis and 
     surveys to determine the extent of specialty crop acreage on 
     highly erodible land and wetlands.''.
       Page 274, after line 18, insert the following:

  Subtitle H--Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation for Crop 
                               Insurance

     SEC. 2801. HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND AND WETLAND CONSERVATION FOR 
                   CROP INSURANCE.

       (a) Highly Erodible Land Program Ineligibility.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1211(a)(1) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) any portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), on 
     the condition that if a person is determined to have 
     committed a violation under this subsection during a crop 
     year, ineligibility under this subparagraph shall--
       ``(i) only apply to reinsurance years subsequent to the 
     date of final determination of a violation, including all 
     administrative appeals; and
       ``(ii) not apply to the existing reinsurance year or any 
     reinsurance year prior to the date of final determination.''.
       (2) Exemptions.--Section 1212(a)(2) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3812(a)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``(2) If,'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Eligibility based on compliance with conservation 
     plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--If,'';
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``In carrying'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) Minimization of documentation.--In carrying''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Crop insurance.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding section 1211(a)--

       ``(I) in the case of a person that is subject to section 
     1211 for the first time after May 1, 2013, due to the 
     amendment made by section 2801(a) of the Federal Agriculture 
     Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, any person who 
     produces an agricultural commodity on the land that is the 
     basis of the payments described in section 1211(a)(1)(E) 
     shall have 5 reinsurance years after the date on which such 
     payments become subject to section 1211 to develop and comply 
     with an approved conservation plan so as to maintain 
     eligibility for such payments; and
       ``(II) in the case of a person that the Secretary 
     determines would have been in violation of section 1211(a) if 
     the person had continued participation in the programs 
     requiring compliance at any time after the date of enactment 
     of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     8701 et seq.) and is currently in violation of section 
     1211(a), the person shall have 2 reinsurance years after the 
     date on which the payments described in section 1211(a)(1)(E) 
     become subject to section 1211 to develop and comply with an 
     approved conservation plan, as determined by the Secretary, 
     so as to maintain eligibility for such payments.

       ``(ii) Certification.--

       ``(I) In general.--Beginning with the first full 
     reinsurance year immediately following the date of enactment 
     of this subparagraph, all persons seeking eligibility for the 
     payment of a portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) shall 
     provide certification of compliance with section 1211(a), as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(II) Timely evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate the 
     certification in a timely manner and--

       ``(aa) a person who has properly complied with 
     certification shall be held harmless with regard to 
     eligibility during the period of evaluation; and

[[Page 9696]]

       ``(bb) if the Secretary fails to evaluate the certification 
     in a timely manner and the person is subsequently found to be 
     in violation of section 1211(a), ineligibility shall not 
     apply to the person for that violation.

       ``(III) Equitable contribution.--

       ``(aa) In general.--If a person fails to provide 
     certification of compliance to the Secretary as required and 
     is subsequently found in violation of section 1211(a), the 
     Secretary shall determine the amount of an equitable 
     contribution to conservation in accordance with section 
     1241(e) by the person for the violation.
       ``(bb) Limitation.--The contribution shall not exceed the 
     total of the portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance for 
     all years the person is determined to have been in violation 
     subsequent to the date on which certification was first 
     required under this clause.''.
       (b) Wetland Conservation Program Ineligibility.--Section 
     1221 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Crop insurance.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in this paragraph, a 
     person subject to a final determination, including all 
     administrative appeals, of a violation of subsection (c) 
     shall have 1 reinsurance year to initiate a conservation plan 
     to remedy the violation, as determined by the Secretary, 
     before becoming ineligible under that subsection in the 
     following reinsurance year to receive any payment of any 
     portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance under the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       ``(B) Applicability.--In the case of a person that is 
     subject to this subsection or subsection (d) for the first 
     time due to the amendment made by section 2801(b) of the 
     Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, 
     the person shall have 2 reinsurance years after the date of 
     final determination, including all administrative appeals, to 
     take such steps as the Secretary determines appropriate to 
     remedy or mitigate the violation in accordance with 
     subsection (c).
       ``(C) Good faith.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     person subject to a final determination, including all 
     administrative appeals, of a violation of subsection (c) 
     acted in good faith and without intent to violate this 
     section as described in section 1222(h), the Secretary shall 
     give the person 1 reinsurance year to begin mitigation, 
     restoration, or such other steps as are determined necessary 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(D) Tenant relief.--
       ``(i) In general.--If a tenant is determined to be 
     ineligible for payments and other benefits under this 
     section, the Secretary may limit the ineligibility only to 
     the farm that is the basis for the ineligibility 
     determination if the tenant has established, to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that--

       ``(I) the tenant has made a good faith effort to meet the 
     requirements of this section, including enlisting the 
     assistance of the Secretary to obtain a reasonable 
     conservation plan for restoration or mitigation for the farm;
       ``(II) the landlord on the farm refuses to comply with the 
     plan on the farm; and
       ``(III) the Secretary determines that the lack of 
     compliance is not a part of a scheme or device to avoid the 
     compliance.

       ``(ii) Report.--The Secretary shall provide an annual 
     report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate concerning the ineligibility 
     determinations limited during the previous 12-month period 
     under this subparagraph.
       ``(E) Certification.--
       ``(i) In general.--Beginning with the first full 
     reinsurance year immediately following the date of enactment 
     of this paragraph, all persons seeking eligibility for the 
     payment of a portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) shall 
     provide certification of compliance with this section as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Timely evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate the 
     certification in a timely manner and--

       ``(I) a person who has properly complied with certification 
     shall be held harmless with regard to eligibility during the 
     period of evaluation; and
       ``(II) if the Secretary fails to evaluate the certification 
     in a timely manner and the person is subsequently found to be 
     in violation of subsection (c), ineligibility shall not apply 
     to the person for that violation.

       ``(iii) Equitable contribution.--

       ``(I) In general.--If a person fails to provide 
     certification of compliance to the Secretary as required and 
     is subsequently found in violation of subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall determine the amount of an equitable 
     contribution to conservation in accordance with section 
     1241(e) by the person for the violation.
       ``(II) Limitation.--The contribution shall not exceed the 
     total of the portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance for 
     all years the person is determined to have been in violation 
     subsequent to the date on which certification was first 
     required under this subparagraph.'';

       (2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Ineligibility for Crop Insurance Premium 
     Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a person is determined to have 
     committed a violation under subsection (a) or (d) during a 
     crop year, the person shall be ineligible to receive any 
     payment of any portion of the premium paid by the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Corporation for a policy or plan of insurance 
     under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       ``(2) Applicability.--Ineligibility under this subsection 
     shall--
       ``(A) only apply to reinsurance years subsequent to the 
     date of final determination of a violation, including all 
     administrative appeals; and
       ``(B) not apply to--
       ``(i) the existing reinsurance year; or
       ``(ii) any reinsurance year prior to the date of final 
     determination.
       ``(3) Date of conversion.--Notwithstanding subsection (d), 
     ineligibility for crop insurance premium assistance shall 
     apply as follows:
       ``(A) In the case of wetland that the Secretary determines 
     was converted after the date of enactment of the Food, 
     Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.) 
     but on or before May 1, 2013, and continues to be in 
     violation, the person shall have 2 reinsurance years after 
     the date on which this subsection applies, to begin the 
     mitigation process, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(B) In the case of wetland that the Secretary determines 
     was converted after May 1, 2013--
       ``(i) subject to clause (ii), the person shall be 
     ineligible to receive crop insurance premium subsidies in 
     subsequent reinsurance years unless section 1222(b) applies; 
     and
       ``(ii) for any violation that the Secretary determines 
     impacts less than 5 acres of the entire farm, the person may 
     pay a contribution in accordance with section 1241(e) in an 
     amount equal to 150 percent of the cost of mitigation, as 
     determined by the Secretary, for wetland restoration in lieu 
     of ineligibility to receive crop insurance premium 
     assistance.
       ``(C) In the case of a wetland that the Secretary 
     determines was converted prior to the date of enactment of 
     the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 
     et seq.), ineligibility under this subsection shall not 
     apply.
       ``(D) In the case of an agricultural commodity for which an 
     individual policy or plan of insurance is available for the 
     first time to the person after the date of enactment of the 
     Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013--
       ``(i) ineligibility shall apply only to conversions that 
     take place after the date on which the policy or plan of 
     insurance first becomes available to the person; and
       ``(ii) the person shall take such steps as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate to mitigate any prior conversion in a 
     timely manner but not to exceed 2 calendar years.
       ``(4) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--In enforcing eligibility under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall use existing processes and 
     procedures for certifying compliance.
       ``(B) Responsibility.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     agencies of the Department of Agriculture, shall be solely 
     responsible for determining whether a producer is eligible to 
     receive crop insurance premium subsidies in accordance with 
     this subsection.
       ``(C) Limitation.--The Secretary shall ensure that no 
     agent, approved insurance provider, or employee or contractor 
     of an agency or approved insurance provider, bears 
     responsibility or liability for the eligibility of an insured 
     producer under this subsection, other than in cases of 
     misrepresentation, fraud, or a scheme or device to avoid 
     compliance.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I've been pleased to work with 
Congressman Thompson in providing this commonsense amendment to enhance 
the conservation goals in our country.
  Our farmers and ranchers are the first stewards of the land. This 
amendment would simply continue the practice of conservation planning 
on our most fragile lands to ensure that we meet important land and 
stewardship goals. The concept is widely upheld as an important 
conservation initiative by many in the agricultural and environmental 
communities.
  The amendment does call upon farmers and ranchers to develop unique 
conservation plans when seeking to receive Federal crop insurance 
subsidies

[[Page 9697]]

on highly erodible lands. I believe this to be a reasonable measure 
that is consistent with our current conservation policies.
  It is also important to emphasize that this is not a new idea. In 
fact, this approach has a long track record of proven results. 
Conservation compliance was linked with crop insurance in the 1985 farm 
bill and has been tied to direct payments since 1996.
  According to a report by the USDA's Economic Research Service:

       An estimated 295 million tons of erosion reduction per year 
     could be directly attributed to implementation of 
     conservation compliance policy.

  In addition, conservation compliance has resulted in a significant 
reduction in the annual loss of wetlands. I believe this is a strategy 
that has worked.
  Given some late-hour complications that have arisen, I'm going to ask 
that the amendment be withdrawn; but I hope that we can look forward to 
continuing dialogue with the chairman, particularly since this is in 
the underlying Senate bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

                              {time}  1700


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The ACTING CHAIR. Is the gentlewoman a designee of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, I am the designee of the gentleman from Florida.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 263, line 3, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 263, after line 3, insert after paragraph (3) the 
     following new paragraph:
       (4) in subsection (h)(2), by inserting ``, including, to 
     the extent practicable, practices that maximize benefits for 
     honey bees'' after ``pollinators''; and
       At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12___. PROTECTION OF HONEY BEES AND OTHER POLLINATORS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, shall carry out such 
     activities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to 
     protect and ensure the long-term viability of populations of 
     honey bees, wild bees, and other beneficial insects of 
     agricultural crops, horticultural plants, wild plants, and 
     other plants, including--
       (1) providing technical expertise relating to proposed 
     agency actions that may threaten pollinator health or 
     jeopardize the long-term viability of populations of 
     pollinators;
       (2) providing formal guidance on national policies relating 
     to--
       (A) permitting managed honey bees to forage on National 
     Forest Service lands where compatible with other natural 
     resource management priorities; and
       (B) planting and maintaining managed honey bee and native 
     pollinator forage on National Forest Service lands where 
     compatible with other natural resource management priorities;
       (3) making use of the best available peer-reviewed science 
     regarding environmental and chemical stressors on pollinator 
     health; and
       (4) regularly monitoring and reporting on the health and 
     population status of managed and native pollinators including 
     bees, birds, bats, and other species.
       (b) Task Force on Bee Health and Commercial Beekeeping.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a task 
     force--
       (A) to coordinate Federal efforts carried out on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act to address the serious 
     worldwide decline in bee health, especially honey bees and 
     declining native bees; and
       (B) to assess Federal efforts to mitigate pollinator losses 
     and threats to the United States commercial beekeeping 
     industry.
       (2) Agency consultation.--The task force established under 
     this subsection shall seek ongoing consultation from any 
     Federal agency carrying out activities important to bee 
     health and commercial beekeeping, including officials from--
       (A) the Department of Agriculture;
       (B) the Department of the Interior;
       (C) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (D) the Food and Drug Administration;
       (E) the Department of Commerce; and
       (F) U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
       (3) Stakeholder consultation.--The task force established 
     under this subsection shall consult with beekeeper, 
     conservation, scientist, and agricultural stakeholders.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the task force established 
     under subsection (b) shall submit to Congress a report that--
       (1) summarizes Federal activities carried out pursuant to 
     section 1672(h) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925(h)) or any other provision 
     of law (including regulations) to address bee decline;
       (2) summarizes international efforts to address the decline 
     of managed honey bees and native pollinators; and
       (3) provides recommendations to Congress regarding how to 
     better coordinate Federal agency efforts to address the 
     decline of managed honey bees and native pollinators.
       (d) Pollinator Research Lab Feasibility Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service, may 
     conduct feasibility studies regarding--
       (A) re-locating existing honey bee and native pollinator 
     research from Federal laboratories to a cooperator-run 
     facility in a location most geographically appropriate for 
     pollinator research; and
       (B) modernizing existing honey bee research laboratories 
     identified by the Agricultural Research Service in the 
     capital investment strategy document dated 2012.
       (2) Consultation.--In conducting the feasibility studies 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (A) beekeeper, native bee, agricultural, research 
     institution, and bee conservation stakeholders regarding new 
     research laboratory needs under paragraph (1)(A); and
       (B) commercial beekeepers regarding modernizing existing 
     honey bee laboratories under paragraph (1)(B).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I would like to offer my highest commendation to Congressman 
Hastings for his work on this vital issue.
  Let me begin with the words of Congressman Hastings: ``No bees, no 
food.''
  The amendment being offered today will help coordinate the Federal 
response to the sudden, massive, and frightening decline in our 
Nation's bee population. Specifically, the amendment would allow the 
Secretary of Agriculture to work with the Secretary of Interior and 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure the 
long-term viability of our bee population.
  The amendment would allow the establishment of a task force on bee 
health and commercial beekeeping to coordinate Federal efforts in 
addressing the significant bee population decline.
  Preliminary results from a survey by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture show that over nearly a third of managed honeybee colonies 
in our country were lost during the 2012-2013 winter. That is an 
increase of 42 percent in honeybee losses. On average, U.S. beekeepers 
lost nearly half of their colonies during this past winter. This was an 
increase nationally of over 78 percent from the previous winter. 
Traditionally, the average loss had only been about 10 to 15 percent, 
and there have been significant honeybee losses in 22 different States.
  This amendment will help coordinate the Federal response to the 
sudden massive decline of our Nation's bee population. Since 2006, we 
have lost 10 million beehives, costing beekeepers more than $2 billion. 
No one knows what is causing these dramatic losses, which was formally 
referred to as ``colony collapse disorder.'' We don't know if it is a 
natural phenomenon, we don't know if it is the result of changes in the 
environment, we don't know if it is due to interactions with 
genetically modified crops, we don't know if it is due to pesticides.
  I can tell you one thing it is due to, because I've seen it myself in 
Ohio. It is due to mites that were shipped in to our nation from 
foreign countries in imported material. The critters got into these 
hives as they intermingled with our native hives. The mites came from 
foreign countries--from China, and from South Africa by way of Brazil--
varroa mites among them--

[[Page 9698]]

these mites are just crippling these colonies that have pollinated our 
orchards and our fields for generations.
  We need to take this seriously because the massive decline in these 
populations threatens us all. Without sufficient bee pollination we 
will not be able to meet the demands of U.S. agricultural crops that 
require pollination to grow. It isn't by magic that all this happens. 
Not every plant is a self-pollinator.
  That means if we do not have proper bee pollination, we will not be 
able to grow the food we need to feed our country. We are already 
importing too much food, food that could be grown here at home. China, 
but the way, is now shipping a product they call honey into our 
country. But it is not honey. It is corn syrup diluted with water. We 
need better honey labeling.
  The decline in the bee population has been occurring over a period of 
time. But listen to these losses. In 1947, when America only had about 
146 million people, we had 6 million bee colonies. In 1970, that number 
dropped to 4 million. And in 1990, the number fell to 3 million. Today, 
there are only 2.5 million bee colonies in our country. We have a 
population of 310 million, and it is projected by 2050 we will have a 
population of 500 million people. These numbers are not moving in the 
right direction.
  Bee health is vitally important for our food system, as bee 
pollination helps produce about a third of what we eat--one-third. This 
adds $125 billion in global agricultural production value and 20 to $30 
billion in United States agricultural production value.
  Of the 100 crops that provide 90 percent of the world's food, over 70 
percent are pollinated by bees. Are we listening? Of the 100 crops that 
provide 90 percent of the world's food, over 70 are pollinated by bees. 
That's 70%.
  In North America, honeybees pollinate nearly 95 different kinds of 
fruits, including many specialty crops like almonds, avocados, 
cranberries, oranges, raspberries and apples, and so much more. The 
current Federal response to this problem is entirely inadequate. People 
are somnambulant. They think this is nonexistent because the bee is so 
small it can fly right by you and you don't even see it. In fact, most 
people don't know the difference between a honeybee and a bumblebee. 
Well, let me tell you, there is a big difference.
  It is so bad that one professor was quoted as saying:
  ``We are one poor weather event or high winter bee loss away from a 
pollination disaster.''
  Why have we let it get to this point where one bad storm could 
essentially wipe out our bee population? It is clear what we are doing 
is not working.
  The amendment is supported by: American Honey Producers Association, 
American Beekeeping Federation, Pollinator Partnership, American Farm 
Bureau, Florida Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, Blue Diamond 
Growers, Center for Food Safety, National Wildlife Federation.
  In closing, I hope we can come together on a bipartisan basis to help 
stem the decline in our Nation's bee populations.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentlelady's very sincere interest, and of course 
our colleague Congressman Hastings' work and concern about pollinator 
health. He has been a champion on these issues for quite some time.
  While we are all aware of the need for Federal cooperation in 
addressing the issues related to pollinators, I believe this amendment 
is costly and duplicative.
  I am likewise concerned with the broad nature of the authority 
granted to the Secretary to implement new policies without the 
necessary statutory structure to direct the Secretary's agenda.
  I am aware that several constituent groups have raised concerns since 
this language first surfaced last month as a proposed Boxer amendment 
to the Senate farm bill, but as yet, few, if any, have had a chance to 
clearly evaluate it, and none have had a chance to be heard in a 
hearing process to evaluate their concerns.
  I, therefore, must respectfully oppose the amendment and urge my 
colleagues otherwise. I would like to work with the both the lady and 
the distinguished gentleman to see if we can come up with a mutually 
desirable outcome to address this. When I say ``I'm concerned about the 
authority given to the Secretary,'' in the language it says:
  The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and 
the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall carry 
out such activities as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to 
protect and ensure long-term viability of populations.
  ``Determine.'' I just have concerns about the nature of this 
language. Therefore, I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, my amendment today is simple: No 
bees, no food. The amendment improves federal coordination in 
addressing the documented decline of managed and native pollinators, as 
well as promotes the long-term viability of honey bees, wild bees, and 
other beneficial insects in agriculture.
  Beekeepers and their honey bees are vitally important partners in 
American agriculture.
  They provide essential pollination services to a diverse array of 
important agricultural commodities. Bee pollinated crops represent an 
estimated $20 billion in value annually.
  Furthermore, one in three bites of food that we eat directly or 
indirectly comes from pollinators.
  Unfortunately, our honey bees, native bees and other pollinating 
partners are showing signs of decline.
  Colony collapse Disorder (CCD), multiple pests and diseases continue 
to plague beekeepers and their honey bees, as well as affect 
agriculture producers who depend on their pollination services.
  This means that our food and job security, and healthy ecosystems are 
also at risk.
  A recent study released by the National Academy of Sciences on the 
status of pollinators in North America, highlighted the lack of 
research and coordination in the federal government when it comes to 
pollinator health and protection.
  In 2008, I offered an amendment to the Farm Bill aimed at protecting 
pollinators through additional research at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA).
  Those provisions went a long way in highlighting the seriousness of 
pollinator health decline and Colony Collapse Disorder.
  I am pleased to see those provisions preserved and extended in this 
year's Farm Bill. While progress has been made, we still have a long 
way to go. My amendment will help address these issues.
  Bee health is affected by the activities of a number of federal 
agencies who are dedicated to finding a solution.
  But this is a complex problem and it requires a sophisticated and 
multi-agency response.
  For example, USDA activities alone include the Agricultural Research 
Service (ARS), the National Institutes of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), 
the Farm Services Agency (FSA), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS), and the U.S. Forest Service.
  Forage area for bees can be enhanced through federal programs on 
conservation and public lands that are managed by the U.S. Departments 
of Interior and Transportation.
  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for 
striking the delicate balance between pollinator health and the ability 
of our nation's growers to produce strong crop yields.
  And, of course, agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA), the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), as well as the U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection Agency all have a role in ensuring a safe 
food supply and level playing field capable of supporting our nation's 
commercial beekeepers.
  Specifically, my amendment: promotes cooperation between federal 
agencies to support the long-term viability and health of pollinator 
populations including to share guidance and technical expertise, 
establishes a task force on bee health and commercial beekeeping to 
coordinate federal efforts; requires the production of a report on the 
United States' and international efforts to address the decline; 
requests regular monitoring and reporting on health and population 
status of pollinators (including bees, birds, bats, and other species);

[[Page 9699]]

encourages agencies to utilize the best available peer-reviewed science 
on environmental and chemical stressors to pollinators, including 
giving consideration to international efforts addressing pollinator 
declines; as well as encourages the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct 
feasibility studies for the creation of a new bee lab at ARS, and the 
modernization of current facilities.
  Mr. Chair, I thank you for the time and urge the Committee to make my 
amendment in order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Royce

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 275, line 1, strike ``paragraph (1), by'' and insert 
     the following: ``paragraph (1)--''
       Page 275, after line 3, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       (B) by striking ``agricultural commodities'' and inserting 
     ``assistance, including agricultural commodities,''; and
       Page 275, after line 8, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 30_. PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE.

       Section 202 of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1722) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``AGRICULTURAL 
     COMMODITIES'' and inserting ``ASSISTANCE'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``agricultural 
     commodities'' and inserting ``assistance, including 
     agricultural commodities,'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``agricultural 
     commodities'' and inserting ``assistance, including 
     agricultural commodities,''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Limitation.--Of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this title, not more than 45 
     percent shall be used for assistance other than agricultural 
     commodities and associated costs under subsections (a) and 
     (b).''.
       Page 277, after line 10, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 30_. MINIMUM LEVEL OF LOCAL SALES.

       Section 203(b) of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1723(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''; and
       (2) by striking ``equal to not less than'' and inserting 
     ``up to''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. ROYCE. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Before beginning, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel) be permitted to control 5 minutes of the debate time 
allocated to me.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the very hard work of Chairman 
Lucas, but there is one program in glaring need of reform. This 
bipartisan amendment will make our well-intentioned, but grossly 
outdated, international food aid programs more flexible, more 
efficient, and far more effective.
  Under the current system, which was designed 60 years ago, all of our 
food aid must be purchased in the U.S., and at least 50 percent has to 
be shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels. Yet, today, 60 years later, food 
prices and U.S. agricultural exports have reached historic highs, and 
this makes this program of negligible value to the U.S. farm economy. 
Food aid purchases now account for less than half a percent of net farm 
income. Businesses at the ports are booming, and there are only a 
handful of U.S.-flagged ships.
  When asked how the proposed reforms would impact American farmers, 
the Secretary of Agriculture stated:

       Far from ending a partnership between our Nation's 
     humanitarian and development mission and our world-class 
     agricultural and food system, we are recommitting to the role 
     that American agriculture plays in food security and tapping 
     into the ingenuity of American farmers and the powers of 
     science and innovation to avoid future shortages and global 
     hunger.

  Mr. Chairman, these subsidies can no longer be justified. They only 
add to the cost of the program, and they delay by months the time that 
it takes for food aid to reach desperate disaster victims. The Royce-
Engel amendment would enact two commonsense reforms:
  First, the amendment would allow up to 45 percent food aid to be 
purchased closer to the crisis. This change will yield an estimated 
$215 million in efficiency savings; it's going to reduce mandatory 
spending by $150 million over the bill's life; and it's going to allow 
us to reach 4 million more disaster victims.
  Second, the amendment curtails a process called ``monetization,'' 
which the Government Accountability Office found is inefficient and 
disrupts local markets. In other words, it wastes money; it slows 
economic growth; and it harms those we are trying to help. In recent 
years, it has wasted $215 million.
  There are real-life consequences to clinging to an inflexible, 
inefficient program that puts the interests of the few over those of 
the taxpayers, not to mention over those of the millions in desperate 
need of humanitarian aid globally. With this reform, by investing in 
local markets, we help nations become more food secure; we develop more 
U.S. trade partners; we break the cycle of aid dependency.
  This amendment enjoys wide bipartisan support. Both administrations--
this one and the last--have sought these changes. The amendment is 
supported by a long list of relief organizations. Mr. Chairman, the 
question is not: Why should we reform food aid? It is: Why have we 
waited so long?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time.
  I respectfully disagree with my good colleagues, both of whom are 
sincere in their efforts.
  I believe this amendment is wrong-headed. If it had been enacted last 
year, it would have placed $928 million in cash assistance into largely 
unstable regions of the world and with no clear guidelines on how the 
money should be spent or tracked. We saw a rampant waste of cash in 
Iraq when we tried to use cash to further our means there. It's a whole 
lot harder to steal a sack of rice with ``USA'' written on the side of 
it than it is to steal a sack of currency. This program is meant to 
help folks in need of food. There is no better producer and no cheaper 
producer than the American farmer.
  I respectfully disagree with my colleagues, and I would urge a ``no'' 
vote on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Royce-Engel 
amendment to H.R. 1947.
  Let me say that I am pleased to stand with the chairman of our 
Foreign Affairs Committee in a bipartisan amendment which is common 
sense.
  Since 1954, the Food for Peace program has fed more than a billion 
people around the world and has saved countless lives. This program 
embodies the compassion and generosity of the American people, and it's 
something of which we can all be proud. However, the world has changed 
in the 59 years since Food for Peace was enacted, and our food aid 
should be reformed to reflect the new realities.
  The biggest problem with our current food aid is that it takes too 
long to deliver. Food grown in the U.S., which

[[Page 9700]]

makes up the vast majority of our assistance, takes an average of 130 
days to deliver. By purchasing food closer to the recipient countries, 
we can cut the delivery time in half and, in the process, get food to 
starving people before it's too late.
  Food aid is also too expensive. Shipping and transportation costs 
account for half of the food aid budget. By purchasing food locally or 
providing vouchers, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars, which 
can be used to feed more needy people. By passing our amendment, we can 
reach 4 million more people without spending an extra dime.
  Mr. Chairman, the easy thing to do is to do nothing on the issue of 
food aid reform, but the right thing to do is to enact sensible reforms 
that save taxpayer money and, most importantly, save lives.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman.
  I would just like to respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment would dismantle one of the most effective 
diplomatic tools available to the United States. Food for Peace 
promotes the good will of the American people by providing American-
grown food supplies to the poorest and most vulnerable populations in 
the world. This program has been in place for nearly 60 years and is 
the cornerstone of the United States' diplomatic and humanitarian 
efforts.
  If there are any inefficiencies, as the sponsors of this amendment 
suggest, then USDA and USAID must be held accountable for them because 
they coordinate the program's implementation. I reject the idea that 
direct cash assistance from the Local and Regional Purchase Program, or 
LRP, is a better way to go because it will simply provide food vouchers 
used to buy foreign-sourced food. This sounds less like reform and more 
like a proposal to provide food stamps to the world.
  Instead of giving USAID free rein to spend cash however they see fit, 
Congress must recognize that Food for Peace allows our farmers to serve 
as ambassadors. As you can see on the sign beside me, the first thing 
starving people see when they receive a bag of rice--and it likely came 
from Arkansas--is the stamp of the American flag. We are concerned 
about what the contents of that bag are. That American flag means 
something, and we don't want to diminish the brand and the quality of 
the product contained in that bag.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. ROYCE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues from California and New 
York are sincere, and like, I think, all 435 of us, they possess a deep 
sense of humanity and the necessity for America to reach out in our 
best spirit to help those in need.
  This is the reality: this is a picture that my wife took in Eritrea a 
few years back. That's the American Food for Peace program. It is not 
broken. The American Food for Peace program is really about 
humanitarian, economic, and national security. It is extremely 
important. My wife and I have spent many years and many days in the 
famine camps around the world.
  This is the statement of America. It's not a check and it's not cash, 
and it's not a credit card or a debit card. It's the delivery of food. 
The Food for Peace program really does work. It's not broken. It is not 
broken at all. Prepositioning food overseas does work. When the great 
flood occurred in Pakistan just a couple of years ago, it was this 
program--the delivery of American food in sacks--that actually arrived 
before there was any local food that was purchased.

                              {time}  1720

  The Food for Peace program is not broken.
  I agree about the need for flexibility and we actually have it. We 
have the International Disaster Assistance program which is in place 
and can be used, and it can be cash purchases.
  You don't need to change the Food for Peace program to deal with it. 
You preposition food. You send American products, American food 
overseas. It is the very best way that we can help. And it turns out 
that in the Pakistan disaster, this program, the Food for Peace 
program, delivered food faster and better than the local programs 
because the local programs had totally broken down. And that will 
happen over and over.
  We don't need to destroy something that's worked for 50 years.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  While I support efforts to make our foreign food aid programs as 
efficient and effective as possible, I cannot support the amendment by 
the gentlemen from California and New York, Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel. 
However well-intentioned the sponsors might be, the effect of this 
amendment would be to undermine the integrity of the U.S. merchant 
marine and U.S. flag fleet, which serve our Nation in times of war and 
peace.
  The effect of this amendment would be to reduce the volume of U.S. 
Government-impelled cargoes shipped overseas under the Food for Peace 
program. No one disputes that fact. However, many of the militarily 
useful vessels that provide this needed sealift capacity for our 
military also participate in the food aid programs under cargo 
preference.
  For example, all 19 vessels owned by Maersk Line, Limited and 
enrolled in the Maritime Security Program also carry foreign food aid. 
And for that matter, the U.S. mariners that serve on these vessels come 
from the same common pool that serves both needs. You cannot cut one 
without also harming the other. And once these jobs are gone, they're 
gone forever.
  Plain and simple, this amendment will mean fewer voyages for U.S. 
carriers and fewer jobs for our U.S. merchant seafarers at a time when 
our military is reducing the sealift demand as it draws down from its 
deployment in Afghanistan.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, as an American, I am proud that for six 
decades our great Nation has been a leader in the global effort to 
fight hunger and malnutrition. I have seen for myself what we have been 
able to do, helping Haiti, Pakistan, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, Botswana, and 
so many more nations, yet we can do better. We can reach millions more. 
We can enable local and regional producers to do more, and we can 
alleviate hunger while at the same time promoting agriculture 
development that is so desperately needed in many low-income and high-
risk developing nations.
  I've seen how much more we can do if we enable in-country producers 
with local procurement and technical assistance. Millions more can be 
reached more efficiently and effectively and we can better empower 
nations and their people with the ability to self-sustain.
  Food reform makes sense. If our goal is to help as many people as 
possible with funds that are dedicated to fighting hunger, why not 
reach millions more for what we are spending today? I want it to be the 
case that we have reached many. When I go on future trips, I want to 
know that there is progress for recipient nations on how many we have 
reached. But I also want the capacity of those to have increased to 
help themselves.
  Support and vote for the Royce-Engel amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I deeply respect the authors of this 
amendment and respect their effort to try to balance competing 
concerns, but I respectfully believe that they've struck the wrong 
balance.

[[Page 9701]]

  One concern that I have here is that money is fungible and food is 
not. The possibility of corruption occurring--not because of the good-
faith NGOs, but because of some of the forces at work in the countries 
we're talking about--is a problem. At the same time, I believe the 
effect of this amendment would be to undercut our merchant marine 
activities, our agricultural exporters, and ultimately undercut support 
within this country for a robust program of food aid to the rest of the 
world.
  The present structure of the program is inclusive; it builds support. 
I respectfully think this amendment would detract from that support. 
For that reason, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  I've always been a strong supporter of America's global food aid 
programs, and I've made it a point to visit these programs in the field 
in Africa and Latin America.
  After seeing firsthand these emergency response and development 
programs, one thing is clear to me: we need to do whatever works best 
for each situation. One size does not fit all.
  We should provide U.S. commodities and pre-position them in the 
field, cash for local purchase, vouchers and fortified foods for 
children, and we need grants for projects that address chronic hunger. 
That's exactly what the Royce-Engel amendment does. It provides 
flexibility. It expands U.S. options in responding to crises. It 
reaches more people for the same amount of dollars, and it continues 
the engagement of U.S. producers and shippers in alleviating global 
hunger.
  Our food aid programs are designed to end hunger. We can do better. 
It's not all one way or the other. We should do what works. This 
amendment provides the flexibility.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Royce-Engel amendment on food aid 
reform.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Royce-Engel 
amendment.
  For nearly six decades, the Food for Peace program has used U.S. 
taxpayer funding to benefit those in need around the world, as well as 
U.S. agriculture and the United States Merchant Marines.
  This amendment would gut the program by allowing 45 percent of its 
funding to be sent as cash payments to foreign nations. As a former 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard, I can assure you this 
would be devastating to the U.S. Merchant Marine and to the domestic 
sealift capacity that moves 90 percent of the cargo supporting our 
military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Let me paint a picture. In 2012, just over 9,000 ships visited U.S. 
ports. Approximately only 100 of those vessels sailed under the United 
States flag. I emphasize that these 100 vessels include militarily 
useful vessels that carry food aid. Policies such as the one embodied 
in this amendment would drive more vessels from the U.S. flag fleet, 
which exceeded 850 ships as recently as 1975.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. ENGEL. I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, 
the ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, Ms. Bass.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment modernizes and makes critical 
reforms to the U.S. Food for Peace program.
  While this amendment will feed millions more people, it importantly 
ends policies that have depressed local markets and, in some instances, 
hurt, rather than helped, those in need.
  In Africa, where we see food emergencies in the Sahel and the Horn of 
Africa, creating greater flexibility to purchase food commodities from 
local and regional farmers will strengthen local markets and ensure 
African nations are less reliant on U.S. foreign aid.
  Too often, we Americans see Africa as a land of crisis. This 
amendment shifts this outlook and will show that Africans, themselves, 
can and will play a critical role in addressing hunger and 
malnutrition. This amendment saves money and assists countries to be 
self-sufficient.
  Let's put an end to backward policies that are harmful to local 
markets and allow the continent of Africa and many other nations--
Africa, with six of the fastest growing economies in the world--to help 
solve local food emergencies.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Fincher).
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment favors our foreign competitors over American-grown 
products, American-grown industries, and jobs filled by Americans.
  Unlike foreign aid programs, the Food for Peace program is American-
made through and through, and it's tied to approximately 44,000 
American jobs in the agriculture, transportation, and maritime 
industries.
  An American is employed at every step in this process of the Food for 
Peace program. Americans grow the crops. The commodities are processed 
and packaged in the United States. Those packages are carried by our 
railroads and barges to American seaports and finally delivered to the 
receiving nations by U.S.-flagged vessels.

                              {time}  1730

  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and support 
American farmers, American workers, and American taxpayers.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of this amendment. Look, the way the program works 
now, it's the most expensive food in the world. This keeps the buying 
of American food, shipping it on American flagships. It preserves all 
of the American jobs. But it also frees up money to allow countries to 
learn how to fish, how to be able to go out and buy food and also 
develop the markets.
  As a return Peace Corps volunteer, this is a really smart investment. 
And for those fiscal conservatives here, this is a much better 
amendment than keeping the status quo. I urge its support.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 1\3/4\ minutes to Mr. 
Green of Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my good friends, Congressmen Royce and Engel. This amendment 
would cripple the Food for Peace Program, our Nation's premier foreign 
aid program, and endanger tens of thousands of jobs in agriculture and 
the maritime industry.
  Since 1954, Food for Peace has enabled the United States to play a 
leading role in responding to international food assistance needs and 
ensuring global food security, reaching more than 3 billion people in 
150 countries.
  In 2012 alone, the Food for Peace Program shipped million of tons of 
American food aid abroad aboard dozens of U.S.-flagged and crewed 
ships.
  Food for Peace also helps maintain our domestic merchant marine by 
ensuring a steady flow of American cargo shipped by Americans on U.S.-
flagged ships. Unfortunately, many benefits from the Food for Peace 
Program are being threatened by this amendment, which would redirect 45 
percent of the program's budget to send direct cash payments overseas 
with little accountability, scant transparency, and no benefit to U.S. 
farmers and merchant marines.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has expressed concern about 
accountability. With all due respect, allow me to dispel a myth. We are 
not

[[Page 9702]]

talking about sending bags of cash to foreign governments so they can 
spend it on whatever they want. No matter the form, U.S. food 
assistance is now and will continue to be subject to multiple levels of 
scrutiny and monitoring and evaluation. The Food for Peace Program 
maintains strong accountability for funds. Food aid will continue to be 
branded with U.S. aid logos, prominently displayed on all program-
related materials regardless of whether the food is purchased in the 
United States or in the affected region. That is the way this program 
works.
  And according to the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Department 
supports the President's proposed reform, supports this reform of the 
food aid program, and the Defense Department has assessed that it will 
not affect U.S. maritime readiness or national security obviously in 
any way since these are non-militarily useful ships under foreign 
ownership anyway, for the most part.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about fixing a broken system. Our food aid 
takes too long to arrive and costs too much to get there. A former top 
aid official told our committee last week that in fast-onset famines 
such as Somalia and wars involving mass population displacements, such 
as Darfur: ``I watched people die waiting for food aid to arrive.'' He 
wants a change so that the aid can be purchased right there, and during 
that first month when they are waiting for the ship to arrive, to feed 
those people before they starve to death. That's what's driving this 
amendment.
  In Syria, a shipment of U.S. food just arrived, yes it did, 2 years 
after the onset of this--2 years afterwards. It would have been helpful 
if we'd had a little ability in the program to handle this on the 
ground. U.S. interests are being undermined here by archaic food aid 
programs, and I urge adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 3102, relating to extension of funding for 
     the market access program.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the rationale behind this amendment is 
simple: hardworking taxpayers should not have to subsidize the world's 
most successful companies and trade groups for their business and 
advertising overseas, yet that's exactly what the Market Access Program 
does. Every year, the Federal Government takes millions from taxpayers 
and hands it to multimillion-dollar corporations. These funds end up 
financing lavish international travel and marketing expenses for 
corporations that could most certainly afford to do it themselves. In 
my view, this is corporate cronyism for the well-connected, and with a 
$17 trillion debt, almost, it's time to end this misuse of tax dollars.
  Just a few of the more egregious examples of waste include a 
taxpayer-funded Japanese Tweet While You Eat campaign to promote U.S. 
beef; an animated series in Spain promoting walnuts that chronicles the 
adventures of a squirrel named Super Twiggy and his nemesis the 
Colesterator; educational wine tastings in London, Denmark, Dublin, and 
Mexico; American whiskey tastings in Hong Kong; an elaborate outdoor 
dinner party in New Delhi, India, so that food critics could discuss 
prunes.
  The list goes on and on, and the trend is disturbing. Billion-dollar-
industries are padding their bottom line with American tax dollars. 
They ought to do these things, but they ought to do them on their own 
dime, not on the backs of the American taxpayers.
  Take, for example, Blue Diamond Almonds, which despite their billion-
dollar year in 2012, still received $3.3 million from the Market Access 
Program.
  Or the U.S. Meat Export Federation which received $19 million from 
MAP last year, even though the value of pork and beef exports was at 
the highest level in history.
  Or Sunkist Growers, Inc., which recorded its third consecutive 
billion-dollar year, but still received $2.2 million from American 
taxpayers.
  So we have billion-dollar enterprises and million-dollar recipients 
of aid from the American taxpayer.
  The bottom line is Congress should not spend hard-earned tax dollars 
this way. Republicans don't believe in it; Democrats don't believe in 
it. So let's stop doing it. Don't get me wrong, these businesses ought 
to be doing this. They ought to be advertising their own products, but 
they shouldn't do it on the backs of the American taxpayers. For the 
sake of the taxpayers, who are earning the money that we're spending 
here, I urge passage of this amendment.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
rise in strong support of the amendment.
  This is one of the most indefensible programs in the entire Federal 
Government. As Mr. Chabot said, it pays to market U.S. agricultural 
products in foreign countries, which invites the question of why should 
American taxpayers pay the advertising costs of some of the biggest 
corporations in the world?
  Who are we talking about here--plucky little startup companies like 
Archer Daniels Midland, Dole, Del Monte, Sunkist. Companies that are 
big enough to export produce overseas are certainly big enough to 
advertise that produce without picking the pockets of every small 
shopkeeper and worker in America.

                              {time}  1740

  This amendment, thankfully, ends this program. It would save 
taxpayers about $2 billion over the next 10 years.
  And as the gentleman said, these expenditures are completely out of 
the realm of reason:
  Two million dollars to the California Prune Board for an evening 
dining experience for food critics in New Delhi to discuss prunes. Two 
million dollars, that must have been quite an evening;
  $18.9 million going to the Cotton Council so it could advertise on 
India's reality TV show, ``Let's Design,'' now in its fifth season, by 
the way. This advertising isn't even being done in America. It is being 
done overseas, and it is being done to supplement the advertising 
budgets of giant corporations.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican majority was supposed to end this kind 
of nonsense, not perpetuate it. I support this amendment, and I believe 
that it is a test of the determination and sincerity of the House 
majority in meeting its mandate to stop wasting people's money.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
  Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I represent one of the most 
diverse agricultural areas of the country. Farmers in the 12th District 
of Georgia grow almost everything you can imagine, fruits and 
vegetables, including one of the largest blueberry crops in the Nation 
and the world-famous Vidalia onion, commodities like cotton and corn, 
pecans and peanuts, chickens and cows.

[[Page 9703]]

  Georgia is also home to one of the largest container ports in the 
country. One of the real bright spots of the American economy is that, 
thanks in large part to the Market Access Program, farmers have been 
able to expand their exports to foreign markets and ship their crops 
through the Port of Savannah to thriving markets overseas. These are 
opportunities that these small businesses probably would not have if it 
were not for the MAP connections they had.
  The people I represent, farmers and nonfarmers alike, understand that 
growing markets add tremendous value to what farmers grow. The Market 
Access Program expands our access into larger world markets, and access 
to these markets is what helps our farmers compete in the global 
economy. I think that's worth preserving, so I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of the subcommittee chairmen.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I most respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chair, the MAP program has been a critical tool for producers in 
my district to access foreign markets. The program forms a private-
public partnership that shares the cost of overseas marketing and 
promotional activities.
  The current agriculture export forecast for FY13 is estimated to be 
nearly $140 billion, which smashes our export records. For a country 
that operates under a net trade deficit, agriculture has been a bright 
spot and generates a surplus.
  Independent studies show that the MAP program is directly responsible 
for $6.1 billion of these exports. This is a 35 to 1 return on 
investment.
  How many other Federal programs have this type of economic benefit? 
Not many.
  With our trade forecast expected to increase this year, this 
reinforces the need for valuable programs such as the Market Access 
Program. I urge my colleagues most respectfully to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa), a State with the most amazingly diverse 
agriculture.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Market Access Program provides matching grants. These are 
matching grants for technical assistance and other activities that help 
our family farmers expand their market access overseas.
  Let's face it. We are in a global market, and our farmers are not 
always facing a level playing field. Since the creation of this 
extremely successful agricultural export program, it has increased 
America's export by over 500 percent. That is a success story by any 
measure.
  The USDA's commissioned study conducted in 2010 found that, for every 
dollar that MAP spent, it generates, as was noted just a moment ago, 
$35 in additional exports. This creates an additional $6.1 billion in 
economic activity annually.
  Billions and billions of dollars have been achieved as increased 
exports as a result of this program and thousands and thousands of 
jobs. That includes safeguards to the taxpayers.
  The statements by the proponents of this measure, I believe, are 
overreaching because they ignore the fact that it is a matching grant. 
And the particular statements they make ignore the fact that these were 
personal expenditures by these organizations, not the money of the 
Market Access Program.
  So I would urge you to defeat this amendment. The processors have 
matched over 100 percent of the funds that we have provided in this 
program. It's been a success by any measure, and I would urge the 
defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Royce/Engel amendment 
to make U.S. International food aid programs more efficient. The United 
States is a generous nation and since the 1950s has fed billions of 
people around the world through the Food for Peace program. However, 
nearly sixty years later, the world has changed and the program needs 
to change with it. The status quo is no longer an option. We must act 
now to change with the times.
  The United States does not have the surpluses it did decades ago and 
it is now forced to purchase food on the commercial markets. Near 
record-high farm prices have meant our food aid dollars do not go as 
far. According to independent analyses, the number of direct recipients 
of our food aid has dropped from 74 million in 2006 to an average of 30 
million more recently. Research has shown that famine and hunger are 
not necessarily caused by the lack of food, but frequently by the lack 
of access to available food, and quite often driven by conflict. 
According to a 2009 report by GAO, this locally-available food is a 
quarter to a third less expensive than in-kind food aid.
  Another important benefit of the increased flexibility this amendment 
provides is that U.S. assistance could be used to purchase the nutrient 
dense foods that are critical to pregnant mothers and their young 
children. By providing the right inputs at the right time, our 
assistance will not just alleviate hunger, but ensure that recipients 
have healthy and productive futures.
  Our constituents demand that we take a critical and judicious look at 
each and every government program to determine whether it is efficient 
and effective in reaching its objective. With the lack of agricultural 
surpluses in our country, the sole remaining objective of our food aid 
programs should be to serve the maximum number of people in need in the 
most cost effective way possible. While this amendment is a good start, 
I think we need to do more. I wish we could adopt the Administration's 
proposal--reforms that could feed an additional 10 million people.
  The crisis in the Horn of Africa, the current devastation of the 
communities in Syria, and the fragile nature of chronically hungry 
places like the Sahel region of Africa call us to be responsible 
stewards of resources, both for United States taxpayers and the people 
around the world who depend on our assistance. These reforms are 
proven. For example, monetization programs in the Democratic Republic 
of the Congo are only earning $0.51 for every dollar of commodities 
provided. The only responsible action is to find a better way to serve 
the mothers and young children that depend on these programs.
  Reducing the enormous suffering associated with hunger and famine is 
a goal rooted in the fundamental generosity of the American people and 
is the right thing to do.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Titus

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 3102, and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3102. FUNDING FOR MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.

       Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 
     (7 U.S.C. 5641(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``and 
     $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012'' and 
     inserting ``$200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2013, $185,000,000 for fiscal year 2014, $180,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2017, and $175,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2018''.
       At the end of subtitle C of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 4208. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES.

        Section 4405 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 7517) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 4405. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--In this section:
       ``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) a nonprofit organization (including an emergency 
     feeding organization);
       ``(B) an agricultural cooperative;
       ``(C) a producer network or association;
       ``(D) a community health organization;
       ``(E) a public benefit corporation;
       ``(F) an economic development corporation;
       ``(G) a farmers' market;

[[Page 9704]]

       ``(H) a community-supported agriculture program;
       ``(I) a buying club;
       ``(J) a retail food store participating in the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program;
       ``(K) a State, local, or tribal agency; and
       ``(L) any other entity the Secretary designates.
       ``(2) Emergency feeding organization.--The term `emergency 
     feeding organization' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 
     U.S.C. 7501).
       ``(3) Supplemental nutrition assistance program.--The term 
     `supplemental nutrition assistance program' means the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program established under 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
       ``(b) Hunger-free Communities Incentive Grants.--
       ``(1) Authorization.--
       ``(A) In general.--In each of the years specified in 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall make grants to eligible 
     entities in accordance with paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out an activity under this subsection shall not 
     exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the activity.
       ``(C) Non-federal share.--
       ``(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of an 
     activity under this subsection may be provided--

       ``(I) in cash or in-kind contributions as determined by the 
     Secretary, including facilities, equipment, or services; and
       ``(II) by a State or local government or a private source.

       ``(ii) Limitation.--In the case of a for-profit entity, the 
     non-Federal share described in clause (i) shall not include 
     services of an employee, including salaries paid or expenses 
     covered by the employer.
       ``(2) Criteria.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, an 
     eligible entity is a governmental agency or nonprofit 
     organization that--
       ``(i) meets the application criteria set forth by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(ii) proposes a project that, at a minimum--

       ``(I) has the support of the State agency;
       ``(II) would increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables 
     by low-income consumers participating in the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program by providing incentives at the 
     point of purchase;
       ``(III) agrees to participate in the evaluation described 
     in paragraph (4);
       ``(IV) ensures that the same terms and conditions apply to 
     purchases made by individuals with benefits issued under this 
     Act and incentives provided for in this subsection as apply 
     to purchases made by individuals who are not members of 
     households receiving benefits, such as provided for in 
     section 278.2(b) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (or 
     a successor regulation); and
       ``(V) includes effective and efficient technologies for 
     benefit redemption systems that may be replicated in other 
     for States and communities.

       ``(B) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to projects that--
       ``(i) maximize the share of funds used for direct 
     incentives to participants;
       ``(ii) use direct-to-consumer sales marketing;
       ``(iii) demonstrate a track record of designing and 
     implementing successful nutrition incentive programs that 
     connect low-income consumers and agricultural producers;
       ``(iv) provide locally or regionally produced fruits and 
     vegetables;
       ``(v) are located in underserved communities; or
       ``(vi) address other criteria as established by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Applicability.--
       ``(A) In general.--The value of any benefit provided to a 
     participant in any activity funded under this subsection 
     shall not be considered income or resources for any purpose 
     under any Federal, State, or local law.
       ``(B) Prohibition on collection of sales taxes.--Each State 
     shall ensure that no State or local tax is collected on a 
     purchase of food under this subsection.
       ``(C) No limitation on benefits.--A grant made available 
     under this subsection shall not be used to carry out any 
     project that limits the use of benefits under the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) or any other 
     Federal nutrition law.
       ``(D) Household allotment.--Assistance provided under this 
     subsection to households receiving benefits under the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program shall not--
       ``(i) be considered part of the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program benefits of the household; or
       ``(ii) be used in the collection or disposition of claims 
     under section 13 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2022).
       ``(4) Evaluation.--
       ``(A) Independent evaluation.--The Secretary shall provide 
     for an independent evaluation of projects selected under this 
     subsection that measures the impact of each project on--
       ``(i) improving the nutrition and health status of 
     participating households receiving incentives under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(ii) increasing fruit and vegetable purchases in 
     participating households.
       ``(B) Requirement.--The independent evaluation under 
     subparagraph (A) shall use rigorous methodologies capable of 
     producing scientifically valid information regarding the 
     effectiveness of a project.
       ``(C) Costs.--The Secretary may use funds not to exceed 10 
     percent of the funding provided to carry out this section to 
     pay costs associated with administering, monitoring, and 
     evaluating each project.
       ``(c) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.
       ``(2) Mandatory funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall use to carry out 
     subsection (b)--
       ``(A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2014;
       ``(B) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2015 through 
     2017; and
       ``(C) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Titus) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the leadership of the Rules and 
Agriculture Committees for making this amendment in order.
  Right here in the United States, the richest country in the world, 
one in four children is at risk of going hungry. Last year, 50.1 
million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 16.7 
million children. In my home State of Nevada, one in six households 
struggles with food security, and 170,000 schoolchildren in southern 
Nevada go to school hungry, leaving them unprepared to learn.
  So you can see, hunger is not some crisis that is just happening in 
remote, faraway lands. It's happening right here, all across our own 
country, and we must address it.
  That's why I've offered this important amendment that would restore 
funding to USDA's Hunger-Free Communities Grant program. This program 
has received wide bipartisan support and is included, or was included, 
without dissent in the Senate farm bill.
  The amendment is a commonsense proposal to ensure that children and 
their families have access to the nutritious food they need to survive 
and to thrive. It continues a grant program that includes assistance 
with food distribution, community outreach, and initiatives that 
improve access to food.
  The Hunger-Free Communities Grant program has helped facilitate 
public-private partnerships across the country, from New York City to 
Ajo, Arizona. The grants enable local communities to root out the 
causes of hunger and build strategies to eliminate food insecurity.
  With the proposed cuts of $20.5 billion to the SNAP benefits, which I 
oppose, this amendment becomes even more important.
  It's morally unacceptable to allow children to go hungry in the 
wealthiest country in the world, so I would encourage my colleagues to 
support this amendment to ensure that our communities have the 
resources they need to tackle hunger at the local level and create 
healthy, hunger-free communities.
  Again, I thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for their 
consideration of this amendment.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and claim the time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, we all have deep concerns about hunger in 
America and hunger around the world, and every effort to abate that is 
worthy; however, I must oppose this amendment.
  One of our efforts at the committee, over the last several years, is 
to look for duplicative processes, duplicative programs to eliminate. 
Reducing this duplication in these agencies has been a major priority 
for the committee over the last 2\1/2\ years, and we've held audits for 
implementing agencies, field hearings across the countryside and 
hearings here in Washington to receive stakeholder input on the 
effectiveness and, more importantly, the inefficiencies of programs 
within our jurisdiction.

[[Page 9705]]



                              {time}  1750

  While I support providing access to healthy foods for low-income 
communities, I believe that our base bill makes significant strides in 
addressing these concerns, both the inefficiencies as well as the 
effectiveness of the programs.
  What is even more concerning than authorizing this duplicative 
program is the offset that is used to pay for more government 
redundancy. Exports are vital to the U.S. agricultural economy. Nearly 
one-third of our agricultural sales come from exports. In the last 25 
years, the Market Access Program has proven to be highly successful in 
helping to boost U.S. agricultural exports, expanding jobs and 
increasing rural income.
  The amount of money sought is about $20 million a year over the 5-
year program for a total of $100 million. We must look at programs that 
are effective on a big enough scale to have a really big impact; and 
this is a program that, while perhaps impactful on a few very small 
communities and small issues, it will not affect hunger widely across 
this country.
  I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. TITUS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of 
the committee, Mr. Peterson.
  Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I, too, must reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment. The Hunger-
Free Community Program is in the Senate bill, and I think there's wide 
support for this.
  The problem is what's happening here with this amendment is we're 
taking mandatory money from the Market Access Program, which is an 
important program for a lot of different reasons that were discussed 
just in the last amendment, and we're taking money from that program, 
which is in title III, and moving it to this hunger-free community 
program which is in title IV. And I just don't think that we want to be 
taking mandatory money and moving it between titles.
  So I think this is something we can consider when we get to 
conference. It's in the Senate bill. I encourage people to oppose this 
amendment at this time.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just urge that my colleagues support 
this important amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
113-117 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 14 by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Royce of California.
  Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 234, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 256]

                               AYES--188

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--234

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster

[[Page 9706]]


     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cleaver
     Duckworth
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Rogers (KY)

                              {time}  1818

  Mrs. BLACK and Messrs. MEEHAN and DUFFY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RANGEL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 256 on June 19, 
2013, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yes.''


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 267, 
noes 156, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 257]

                               AYES--267

     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--156

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Capps
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Clyburn
     Collins (NY)
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DelBene
     Denham
     Deutch
     Duckworth
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Owens
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Rogers (KY)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1823

  Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CICILLINE, KEATING, LATTA, and BACHUS changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112, 
noes 309, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 258]

                               AYES--112

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Cook
     Cotton
     Culberson
     Daines
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith (VA)

[[Page 9707]]


     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Smith (WA)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Weber (TX)
     Westmoreland
     Woodall
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--309

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Rogers (KY)
     Slaughter
     Vela


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1828

  Mr. CARDENAS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. VELA. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 258 on the Brown (GA) 
amendment H.R. 1947, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 242, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 259]

                               AYES--179

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rooney
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--242

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa

[[Page 9708]]


     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Rogers (KY)
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1832

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 266, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 260]

                               AYES--157

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--266

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cleaver
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Rogers (KY)
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1836

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 9709]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 273, 
noes 149, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               AYES--273

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--149

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Daines
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     Kingston
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cleaver
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Rogers (KY)
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. WOODALL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Royce

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Royce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203, 
noes 220, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--203

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barr
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Cohen
     Collins (GA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanna
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Jordan
     Kennedy
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Nugent
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rangel
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--220

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (NY)

[[Page 9710]]


     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis, Rodney
     DelBene
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hudson
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walz
     Webster (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cleaver
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Rogers (KY)
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. COFFMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. OLSON, GUTIERREZ, and LARSON of Connecticut changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98, 
noes 322, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                                AYES--98

     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Black
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cohen
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     Doggett
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Van Hollen
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Wenstrup
     Wilson (SC)
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--322

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bass
     Cleaver
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Rogers (KY)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Waters


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1851

  Messrs. WESTMORELAND, WOODALL, COLLINS of Georgia and GINGREY of 
Georgia changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 9711]]




           Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Brooks of Alabama

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 18 printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 3203, relating to promotion of agricultural 
     exports to emerging markets, strike subsection (b) and insert 
     the following new subsection:
       (b) Termination of Program to Develop Agricultural Markets 
     in Emerging Markets.--Section 1542(d) of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 
     101-624; 7 U.S.C. 5622 note) is amended by striking paragraph 
     (1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Brooks) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose 
would eliminate the funding for the Emerging Markets Program.
  For those of you who are not familiar, the Emerging Markets Program 
assists United States private and public organizations with agriculture 
marketing in low- to middle-income countries in Africa, the Caribbean, 
Central and South America, Eurasia and the Middle East.
  The Emerging Markets Program funding is $10 million per year in this 
food stamp and farm bill. Over the 5-year life of this legislation, 
funding is $50 million.
  The Emerging Markets Program duplicates and overlaps the Federal 
Government's much larger Marketing Agricultural Program. By way of 
example, in 2010, at least 27 of the 82 projects funded by the Emerging 
Markets Program went to entities that also received funding from the 
Federal Government's Marketing Agricultural Program.
  Emerging Markets Program expenditures are quite informative:
  $30,000 was spent on ``Brazil Craft Beer School Seminars for the 
Brewers Association.''
  $468,000 in hard-earned taxpayers' money was spent studying food 
consumption in China's second-tier cities, the new frontier for U.S. 
agricultural export opportunities.
  $212,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned money was spent concerning, 
``Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Sector Development for the United 
States Department of Agriculture/Foreign Services/Chengdu, China.''
  $174,431 was spent on a ``Global Food Safety Forum China Exchange for 
the GIC Group.''
  $35,000 was spent on ``China Beer Distributors Education Program for 
the Brewers Association.''
  $142,356 was spent on a ``Central American Microbiological Standards 
Program for USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.'' And the list goes on 
and on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, since, first, the Emerging Markets Program overlaps and 
duplicates America's Marketing Agricultural Program, and since, second, 
the private sector's ability to do this work without Federal Government 
intervention or assistance, and since, third, America's out-of-control 
deficit and debt situation slowly but surely increased America's risk 
of a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy, and since, finally, 
America's financial condition forces us to borrow every penny of the 
$50 million being spent on the Emerging Markets Program, I urge this 
body to be financially responsible by adopting my amendment to 
eliminate funding for the Emerging Markets Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  The Emerging Markets Program, EMP, provides funding for technical 
assistance to aid public and private agricultural organizations in 
their efforts to improve market opportunities in low- and middle-income 
nations that offer viable markets for our U.S. commodities.

                              {time}  1900

  This program truly focuses on promoting U.S. products to build repeat 
customers in markets where incomes are growing to the point that they 
can import high-quality products. Program resources may only be used to 
broadly support export of U.S. commodities and products, and promoting 
a company's own branded product is strictly prohibited.
  The Emerging Markets Program requires the participating entities to 
commit a portion of their own resources to seek export opportunities in 
emerging markets, and a priority is given to the applications which 
bring the greatest amount of cost-share funds to the project.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of studies about the amount of 
dollars that this generates in U.S. agricultural exports. It's one of 
those things that helps us move into markets that have the potential 
and the growing potential to buy our products. I believe it is a good 
use of resources, and it's subject, of course, to the oversight of the 
appropriators.
  I would ask my colleagues to reject the amendment rather 
respectfully; and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma's 
response--and he's a good friend of mine--is reflective, unfortunately, 
of the financial irresponsibility that jeopardizes America's future 
solvency. Let's keep in mind that we're in a triage situation. We've 
had four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits. We are looking at 
blowing through the $17 billion total accumulated debt mark. If we 
cannot eliminate a program of this magnitude--only $10 million per 
year--a program that is duplicative of other Federal Government 
programs, well, I would submit to this body that that suggests and 
reflects, in a very strong way, the financial irresponsibility that has 
put America into the position we are in where we are at risk long term 
of a debilitating financial insolvency and bankruptcy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 32_. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall seek to ensure that 
     Department of Agriculture certificates of origin are accepted 
     by any country with respect to which the United States has 
     entered into a free trade agreement providing for 
     preferential duty treatment.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment that addresses a problem relating to the American citrus 
industry and implementation of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congress approved the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade

[[Page 9712]]

Agreement, and it was signed by the President in 2011. The agreement 
has increased opportunities for U.S. businesses, farmers, and workers 
through an important access to a vital foreign market.
  Under this agreement, over 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer 
and industrial products will become duty-free within 5 years of the 
date of the agreement. For American agricultural products, the U.S.-
Korea agreement immediately phases out tariffs and quotas on a broad 
range of products.
  The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that annual U.S. 
agricultural exports to South Korea will increase by a minimum of $1.9 
billion upon full implementation. In particular, the free trade 
agreement eliminated South Korea's 54 percent tariff on frozen 
concentrated orange juice, and it phases out the tariffs on fresh 
grapefruit and freshly squeezed orange juice over 5 years.
  The negotiated removal of such tariffs will allow the American citrus 
industry to grow and expand. It will create jobs in America, including 
jobs related to citrus growers, maritime businesses and ports such as 
my home port, the Port of Tampa. This is great news for my home State 
of Florida and other States across the U.S. where they grow citrus. 
It's vital to our economy and local communities.
  But we have hit a little bit of a stumbling block with South Korea 
during the implementation of the free trade agreement. South Korea is 
resisting the USDA's country-of-origin certification for U.S. citrus.
  My amendment, the Castor amendment, seeks to correct this problem by 
directing the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure that the Department's 
certificates of origin are accepted by any country with respect to 
which the United States has entered into a free trade agreement 
providing for preferential duty treatment.
  Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office says there's no new cost 
for this amendment. I would like to thank my colleagues from Florida, 
Congressman Webster and Congressman Hastings on the Rules Committee, 
for their support in getting this amendment made in order. I'd like to 
thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for their fair 
consideration.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Castor amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. I would just note to the gentlelady I think by the 
expression on my ranking member's face we both agree this is a good-
faith effort to try to make something happen. Therefore we would accept 
the language.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee and the ranking member and thank them for including the 
Castor amendment in the farm bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 20 printed in part B of House Report 113-117.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Grimm

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. GRIMM. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 318, at the end of line 3, add the following:

     ``At least 1 such pilot project shall be carried out in an 
     urban area that is among the 10 largest urban areas in the 
     United States (based on population) if the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program is separately administered in 
     such area and if the administration of such program in such 
     area complies with the other applicable requirements of such 
     program.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Grimm) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would reduce fraud in the SNAP program.
  The farm bill currently requires the USDA to create pilot programs 
around the Nation that leverage Federal-State partnerships to combat 
SNAP retailer fraud.
  My amendment requires the USDA to include at least one of the top 10 
largest urban areas as one of the pilot program locations. To be clear, 
the bill specifically states that any State or large urban area chosen 
for a pilot program would not be able to divert resources away from 
recipient anti-fraud efforts; thus, this program only supplements those 
recipient fraud efforts.
  This is a critically important amendment because we must ensure that 
the pilot programs account for the unique structure of SNAP programs 
within large urban areas. For instance, in one Midwest State, 75 
percent of SNAP benefits were redeemed in just eight large supermarkets 
or publicly owned convenience store chains.
  But the urban environment is distinctly different. As an example, New 
York City has over 10,000 SNAP retailers--of which 80 percent are 
small, privately owned retailers. According to recent statistics, while 
87 percent of SNAP transactions occur in large supermarkets, they 
account for only 5.4 percent of retailer trafficking.

                              {time}  1910

  Conversely, 9 percent of SNAP retailers are privately owned--small 
convenience stores in local neighborhoods--but they account for 80 
percent of SNAP fraud.
  Therefore, to be successful in combating retailer fraud, we must 
ensure that we're able to investigate fraudulent activities at these 
small, privately owned stores. To do this, we must ensure that a large 
urban area is included in at least one of these pilot programs, in one 
location. If we fail to include a large urban area in the pilot 
program, we will miss a large portion of retailers responsible for 80 
percent of the retailer fraud.
  This amendment will not take a pilot program away from any other 
State or determine which large urban area must receive a program. It 
only says that to ensure we receive fully accurate information from the 
pilots, that we must include at least one large urban area.
  Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRIMM. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. I would note to my good friend and colleague that I think 
he is involved here in a good government measure, and I would encourage 
my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. GRIMM. I thank the chairman of the Ag Committee, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek time in opposition? If not, 
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Grimm).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hudson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. HUDSON. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV (page 346, after line 
     17), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 4033. TESTING APPLICANTS FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF CONTROLLED 
                   SUBSTANCES.

       Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2015), as amended by section 4009. is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(s) Testing Applicants for Unlawful Use of Controlled 
     Substances.--
       ``(1) Nothing in this Act, or in any other Federal law, 
     shall be considered to prevent a State, at the full cost to 
     such State, from--
       ``(A) enacting legislation to provide for testing any 
     individual who is a member of a household applying for 
     supplemental nutrition assistance benefits, for the unlawful 
     use of controlled substances as a condition for receiving 
     such benefits; and

[[Page 9713]]

       ``(B) finding an individual ineligible to participate in 
     the supplemental nutrition assistance program on the basis of 
     the positive result of the testing conducted by the State 
     under such legislation.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, term `controlled 
     substance' has the meaning given such term in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act ((21 U.S.C. 802).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our 
commonsense amendment to allow the States to conduct drug screening on 
applicants for welfare. If adopted, this amendment would join a list of 
good government reforms contained in the FARRM Bill that save taxpayer 
money and ensure integrity and accountability within our nutrition 
system.
  From preventing lottery winners from receiving food stamps to closing 
loopholes and preventing illegal immigrants from receiving benefits, I 
commend the chairman and ranking member on the work done to reform the 
food stamps program in the FARRM Bill.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment simply allows the States to conduct drug 
testing to ensure addicts and criminals are not taking food out of the 
mouths of hungry children. This debate is not about hungry children. We 
all agree that we need to take care of the least among us, those who 
need this type of assistance. We all agree that we don't want children 
to go hungry. What this amendment is about is making sure that addicts 
and criminals are not taking what is not theirs, taking food from the 
mouths of these children, taking food from those who are in need.
  So I ask my colleagues to just consider this as a simple measure, a 
commonsense measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would rebut several of the 
arguments the gentleman has made.
  First of all, you know, common sense really ain't that common, and 
this amendment is an example of that. First of all, it uses very 
fallacious arguments that presume that most of the people who use food 
stamps also use drugs. I would just remind the body that 46 percent of 
the people who use food stamps are hungry children. And as the author 
of this amendment has suggested--quite incorrectly--this is not about 
hungry children, it is; because if that person in the household who is 
the applicant is denied food stamps, hungry children will be affected.
  This is unconstitutional. This has been through court. It violates 
the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against illegal searches and 
seizures. It costs a lot of public money just to humiliate people. They 
found in Florida, for example, that people who don't use public 
assistance programs are three times more likely to be drug users; and 
nationwide, they have found that recipients don't use drugs at any 
greater rate than the general population. This is a slippery slope in 
violating one of the basic tenets of our Constitution.
  Mandatory drug testing laws are not based on individualized 
suspicion, and the Supreme Court has held that it doesn't pass the 
constitutional measure. It will cost $75 for one of these drug tests, 
and for what purpose? Just to criminalize and humiliate poor people.
  So with that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague from North Carolina.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my colleagues, Congressmen Hudson and 
LaMalfa, in offering this amendment.
  Under current law, States are not allowed to test SNAP recipients. 
This amendment would give States the authority to do the testing only 
if they want to, so it gives States States' rights.
  Law-abiding citizens who are most in need are those who the program 
is meant to serve. We're cutting waste to protect this program so we 
make sure that the SNAP dollars are going to those who truly need it, 
not to those who are able to spend funds on illegal purchases.
  With a $17 trillion national debt, we must give States all the tools 
they need in order to make sure SNAP funding goes to the people most in 
need.
  I thank my colleagues, Congressman Hudson and Congressman LaMalfa, 
for working with me on this and encourage my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this amendment.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MOORE. I just would like to remind the body and the sponsors of 
this bill that SNAP already has an option to target and punish drug 
offenders. States right now, without this amendment, can require 
individuals who have been convicted of a drug felony to submit to a 
drug test before they can receive SNAP benefits--totally in line with 
our Constitution.
  At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a great member on the Ag Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady, and I rise along with her to 
oppose this amendment.
  I just want to say, Really? This is what we're debating here right 
now? I mean, I'm curious why the amendment doesn't include drug testing 
for people who get benefits of crop insurance or who receive direct 
payments, agricultural benefits from the Federal Government. Why aren't 
we requiring that they be drug tested, too? Why don't we drug test all 
the Members of Congress here, force everybody to go urinate in a cup to 
see whether or not anybody is on drugs? Maybe that will explain why 
some of these amendments are coming up or why some of the votes are 
turning out the way they are.
  Bottom line is this is about demeaning poor people, and we've been 
doing this time and time again on this House floor. Enough is enough. 
We don't need this amendment. This is a bad idea. Please vote it down.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUDSON. At this point, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join my colleagues, 
Representatives Hudson and Yoho, to again offer a commonsense amendment 
that will further assist in diminishing the abuse in the SNAP program.
  This is a no-nonsense amendment. If you have enough money to buy 
drugs, you do not need taxpayer money to buy food. This amendment 
protects the taxpayer from directly subsidizing the purchase of drugs. 
Without this amendment, drug users will continue to use their money to 
buy drugs and your money to buy food.
  This amendment gives States the ability to implement a drug screening 
program in the way that works best for them, but it needs to be part of 
the SNAP benefit qualification application. There are already 29 States 
that have proposals to do this, and eight States have already passed 
this type of legislation for this type of screening.
  Letting drug users abuse the SNAP program diverts funds from those 
who truly need it. That's what we're about here. Of course, this is 
what taxpayers, when you talk to regular folks, this is the kind of 
thing they complain about around the kitchen table, like, ``Why are my 
tax dollars going towards this?'' If I had a dime for every time I've 
heard this.

                              {time}  1920

  People want this sort of thing to happen for those that are abusing 
this program. Taxpayers deserve better; the folks that really need the 
benefits of food stamps deserve better.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

[[Page 9714]]


  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I would like to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady.
  I think that this is really the height of temerity here to make 
reference to people who are on a food stamp program and make a 
presumption that because they're on a food stamp program that they are 
using drugs and that they should be tested.
  My gosh, I would just say that what about those people who are 
getting $4.7 million in direct payments from the Federal Government--as 
the gentleman from California does--and an additional $1.2 million from 
direct payments from the Federal Government? Maybe we ought to start 
drug testing all of the people who get some sort of a benefit from the 
Federal Government, and particularly those folks in this program, like 
the folks who are on crop insurance.
  We can't find out the names of the 26 individuals on crop insurance 
that get at least $1 million--$1 million they get in a premium subsidy. 
And do you know what, my friends? There is no cap on the amount of 
money, there is no threshold on what they can receive, they have no 
eligibility criteria. They just get the money, and they don't have to 
even farm the land. Why don't we drug test those folks today and not 
demean people who have fallen on hard times?
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time 
remaining.
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Again, I ask my colleagues to consider this as a commonsense measure 
that does nothing to take food away from those who need it, but it 
makes sure the integrity of this program is upheld. We don't make any 
presumptions about folks on the program, but we think that States need 
this tool so that they can make sure that folks who are on the program 
are the folks that need to be on that program.
  I thank the gentlelady, my colleague, from Connecticut for endorsing 
this farm bill this year because we do eliminate direct payments. As 
she alluded, I agree, that is a practice that we should end, and so I 
appreciate her endorsement of that piece of it.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I will conclude by just saying I urge my 
colleagues to support this commonsense measure that does nothing but 
allow the States to have the tool to use drug testing should they see 
fit when administering this program.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 15 
seconds.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not commonsensical; this 
is unconstitutional. The majority wants to excuse itself from taking 
food away from 46 million people who are hungry, and it is a proxy for 
criminalizing the food stamp program in order to get away with it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Conaway

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 4033. REDUCTION IN BENEFITS PAID WITH UNAUTHORIZED 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 8(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2017(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) For any fiscal year for which funds are not 
     authorized under section 18(a)(1), the thrifty food plan 
     shall be reduced by 10 percent only for the purpose of 
     determining the value of allotments under paragraph (1) for 
     such fiscal year.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I offer this amendment because serious reforms to the SNAP program 
are difficult because the program continues on autopilot even after the 
FARRM Bill expires.
  SNAP is defined as an appropriated entitlement, meaning that 
appropriations can continue to fund the program regardless of action 
taken by the Ag Committee.
  This amendment is about the accountability of SNAP. While SNAP 
funding is provided in the annual appropriations act, the level of 
spending for appropriated entitlements is not controlled through the 
annual appropriations process. Instead, the level of spending for 
appropriated entitlements, like other entitlements, is based on the 
benefits and the eligibility criteria established in law.
  The amount provided in the appropriations act is based on the 
projected level. In general, the maximum SNAP benefit is set at 100 
percent of the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan. TFP is calculated each year by 
USDA as the lowest cost food plan and varies by household size. 
Benefits are further reduced by 30 percent of a qualifying family's 
annual income on the expectation that families contribute to their own 
food purchases.
  This amendment will simply reduce by 10 percent the Thrifty Food Plan 
calculation in any year that SNAP is not authorized, otherwise bringing 
the Agriculture Committee back into the operations. In this way, all 
parties would have an incentive to come to the table and negotiate SNAP 
reforms while drafting the next FARRM Bill.
  It is important to note that this amendment does not end SNAP; nor is 
it expected this amendment will actually ever go into force. It simply 
lowers the benefit if, and only if, Congress fails to reach an 
agreement on how to reauthorize the SNAP program. Further, it does not 
impact the baseline for this year's FARRM Bill and does not cost any 
money to implement.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment and reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is unprecedented. This far-reaching amendment would quite 
literally hold millions of our country's poorest children, working 
families, seniors, and the disabled hostage to this Congress' ability 
to compromise and pass a farm bill. That is almost laughable. This 
Congress hasn't been able to come to an agreement or a compromise on 
anything.
  If the farm bill is not reauthorized by September 30, food stamps for 
all families of four would be cut about $64 a month. Right now, more 
than 47 million Americans, including more than 19 million children, 
rely on food stamps to put food on the table. They don't rely on the 
program because they want to; they rely on the food stamp program 
because they have no other choice. They either do not make enough money 
to afford food for their family because of the paltry minimum wage or 
they are temporarily unemployed because of the historic economic 
recession this country has experienced.
  This is a misguided amendment. It would impose deep cuts for each and 
every one of the households. The nonpartisan Center on Budget and 
Policy

[[Page 9715]]

Priorities estimated that passing this amendment could result in a 
nearly 15 percent cut for households. That is $64 for a family of four 
when they only receive an average of less than $430 a month.
  Already, 90 percent of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week 
of the month, around the same time that food banks see more and more 
men, women, and children enrolled in the program turning to the food 
bank because their benefits ran out.
  All social safety net programs, including food stamps, have 
historically been protected from automatic across-the-board cuts. This 
was true when the law was enacted in 1985, 1987, 1990, 2010, and the 
Budget Control Act of 2011. SNAP was also protected in Simpson-Bowles, 
which recognizes the need not to reduce the deficit on the backs of the 
poor and the most vulnerable in this country.
  Christian leaders continue to call on this body to form a circle of 
protection around programs that help the neediest Americans, including 
those on food stamps. That circle of protection should surround this 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to heed that request and to oppose this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, can you tell me how much time remains.
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Let me get this straight. So, if Congress doesn't do its job, we 
don't get punished--poor people get punished. I think we have it 
backwards here. Why should we hold poor people hostage to the fact that 
somehow this Congress can't get its act together? For our lack of 
ability to get things done around here, we don't hold people 
accountable who receive other subsidies who are, quite frankly, well 
off.
  This is yet another in a series of amendments to diminish the plight 
of poor people, to demonize programs like SNAP; and I really think it's 
unfortunate. I mean, we're going to punish poor people because we can't 
reauthorize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. What a 
terrible idea. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will agree with us on this and reject this.
  Ms. DeLAURO. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlelady from Connecticut has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I think it's really rather incredible that we, once 
again, in the prior amendment have singled out a group of people, many 
of whom today are people who were working but who lost their jobs 
through no fault of their own and who find themselves in a situation in 
which they have to access the food stamp program in order to feed their 
families.
  On the other hand, those people whom I singled out earlier--the 26 
individuals--will get at least $1 million in a premium subsidy for crop 
insurance, and they have no income threshold at all. These folks, if we 
can't get to a compromise, will continue to get what they're getting. 
They're eating well. I would bet they have more than three squares a 
day.
  Let's think about who this amendment targets--76 percent of SNAP 
households, including child, senior or disabled individuals. The 
average household on SNAP has a gross monthly income of $744. The 
average SNAP allocation is already less than $1.50 per meal, and 55 
percent of SNAP dollars go to households with incomes below half of the 
Federal poverty line. This targets the poorest. It asks them to pay a 
price for congressional farm bill politics.
  Let's talk about the Members of Congress. If they can't get it to a 
compromise, let's make sure they don't get their salaries and that we 
do something to those who are responsible for not getting the job done. 
Don't take it out on the poorest people in this Nation. This is 
unprecedented. It is immoral. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Many of the arguments that have just been made speak to 
why we need to do this deal. We need that sense of urgency that is 
portrayed on the other side in order to get this FARRM Bill done.
  Now, this amendment won't take effect until the next FARRM Bill; but 
right now, this FARRM Bill's only production agriculture and 
conservation programs are trying to drag this program across the finish 
line with 219 votes. The nutrition program and its supporters couldn't 
give a rat's rear end whether or not it gets passed because its program 
goes forward without any effect if we don't do anything. They're really 
at an advantage to production agriculture.
  This is not about the SNAP program, and this is not about the 
benefits. This is simply saying, I don't necessarily think SNAP is 
perfect, and the only way to get out of SNAP reform is to bring the 
SNAP beneficiaries--who are in every single congressional district, as 
opposed to farmers who are not in every single congressional district--
to the table, to have some skin in the game, to make sure that they are 
communicating to their Members of Congress that they want them to get 
something done.
  Right now, they're just simply on the take side. They're not part of 
the process, and they don't have to be because of the way we've done 
these rules. Arguing against the rules of the House don't argue about 
the idea that we must do our jobs. As Congressmen, we do our jobs. I've 
got folks back home who motivate me to do it far more than anything 
else that's up here. This amendment is simply saying that SNAP has a 
role and that the SNAP beneficiaries have a role in communicating to 
their Members of Congress to get this work done on a timely basis.
  I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 printed in part B of 
House Report 113-117.


              Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Butterfield

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 4033. SNAP ENHANCEMENT.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 3(k) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(k)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (9)'' the last place it appears and 
     inserting ``(9)'', and
       (2) by inserting ``, and (10) items of personal hygiene for 
     household use'' before the period at the end.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st 
     month that begins not less than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to propose an amendment to the 
nutrition title of this bill. I will mention at the outset that my 
amendment has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as budget 
neutral and not adding to direct spending.

[[Page 9716]]

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It will expand the items 
available for purchase under the SNAP program to include items of 
personal hygiene.
  Historically, the purpose of the SNAP program has been to provide 
financial assistance to poor individuals to purchase food. Nearly 50 
million people in this country currently rely on SNAP benefits to 
provide food for themselves and their families. No one wants to depend 
on SNAP for one's next meal, but we have a responsibility to our 
neighbors to provide and care for them in their time of need; but for 
the poor, need does not just stop at food.
  While SNAP currently provides financial assistance to purchase 
certain types of food, there is no mechanism to help needy people 
purchase personal hygiene items like toothbrushes and toothpaste and 
toilet paper and feminine items, among other items used for their 
personal care, items that they cannot afford. My amendment expands 
SNAP-eligible purchases to include personal hygiene items to be 
determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
  Ensuring that poor families have access to personal hygiene products 
is the right thing to do. Giving families the ability to purchase 
personal hygiene products will save us money in the long run. Poor 
personal hygiene can have far-reaching consequences on an individual's 
health and result in more trips to the emergency room, and it increases 
uncompensated care. Research indicates that a lack of proper dental 
hygiene can increase the risk of heart attack and stroke, can 
exacerbate diabetes and kidney disease and, for expectant mothers, can 
increase the risk of delivering a pre-term, low-birth-weight baby.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are coming out of this recession and 
when State governments across the country, like the one in my home 
State of North Carolina, are refusing to expand Medicaid, now is the 
time to give our most vulnerable citizens some flexibility to buy 
products that will improve their long-term health. It is especially 
critical as we stand here today to debate this $20.5 billion cut to the 
SNAP program.
  So, Chairman Lucas and all of those responsible for this bill, thank 
you for the work that you have done.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is just that--a 
nutrition assistance program--which is designed to provide nutrition 
assistance to eligible low-income individuals and their families. 
Personal hygiene items never have been eligible for purchase under a 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program transaction and should never 
be eligible under SNAP. We should be devoting our scarce resources to 
providing food to hungry Americans, not personal hygiene items.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in the opposition of this amendment 
and to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
  I think that the majority has really raised the point that, 
historically, we have not allowed purchases beyond food for the food 
stamp program, but it's not that poor people don't really need to be 
able to do that.

                              {time}  1940

  This amendment is very narrow, and I can recall from personal 
experience some of the things that many families run out of in a family 
that are directly related to their nutritional needs, like a baby 
bottle. You've never seen a family frantically trying to find the last 
baby bottle or nipple that the baby has bitten off and not be able to 
deliver the formula to the child because they don't have a baby bottle 
and it'll cost over $2 to be able to make that purchase.
  Certainly, toilet paper is sort of inversely related to eating. The 
need for feminine hygiene products or deodorant is something that adds 
to the dignity of being alive. It's quite true that many Americans 
during our Great Recession only had food stamps to depend on, not even 
TANF benefits. So if you're looking for a job, you really do want to 
have deodorant and toothpaste.
  I think that this is budget neutral, and it is a small concession to 
make given the draconian cuts we're making in the program already.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I reserve the balance of my time, as I'm prepared to 
close if the gentleman has no further speakers.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask my colleagues if they 
would look very closely at this amendment. It's not a radical 
amendment. It simply empowers those recipients of SNAP to buy very 
simple and basic items that are related to nutrition, such as toilet 
paper and toothpaste and toothbrushes and the like.
  I ask my colleagues to please allow an up-or-down vote on this and to 
vote ``aye'' on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I respect the initiative here. I 
appreciate that. I think that we're kind of wandering into uncharted 
waters here because we're talking about a farm bill and nutrition 
title, and this is not, I don't believe, in our purview to authorize 
the use of nutrition funds to address personal hygiene items, and 
that's why I have reservations about this.
  I appreciate the effort put forth here and totally recognize the 
value of personal hygiene. I'm a big believer in personal hygiene. I 
just don't think that it's appropriate for us to address personal 
hygiene items in the context of nutrition.
  For that reason, I would respectfully request a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Marino

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A, of title IV, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 4033. GAO PILOT PROGRAM TO COLLECT AND PUBLISH 
                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE BENEFIT 
                   REDEMPTION DATA.

       (a) Pilot Program.--After the enactment of this Act, the 
     Comptroller General shall carry out a pilot program as 
     follows:
       (1) The program shall collect the data that is currently 
     required to be reported under the Food and Nutrition Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) and under the benefit redemption 
     requirements applicable to households under such Act.
       (2) The program shall be carried out in 9 States, selected 
     by the Comptroller General in the discretion of the 
     Comptroller General, based on a good variety of demographics, 
     economics and geographics.
       (3) The program shall conclude after the expiration of the 
     9-month period, and before the expiration of the 1-year 
     period, beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Results of Program.--Promptly after the conclusion of 
     the program, the Comptroller General shall--
       (1) describe the extent to which data collected under 
     subsection (a) can be analyzed under current reporting 
     requirements to identify the aggregate number and aggregate 
     cost of each specific food item purchased with supplemental 
     nutrition assistance benefits;

[[Page 9717]]

       (2) indicate which additional information should be 
     collected in order to obtain the aggregate number of and cost 
     of each specific food item purchased with supplemental 
     nutrition assistance benefits;
       (3) make recommendations necessary to improve the current 
     benefit redemption data reporting requirements to enable the 
     Secretary to publish on the Internet in a searchable, 
     comparable database available to the public, the aggregate 
     number and aggregate cost of each specific food item 
     purchased with supplemental nutrition assistance benefits; 
     and
       (4) publish the data collected under subsection(a) on the 
     Internet in a searchable, comparable database available to 
     the public.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment is simple. This amendment finally brings some 
transparency and public accountability to the 80-plus billion dollar 
food stamp program. It directs the Government Accountability Office to 
establish a pilot program in nine States that will allow the GAO to 
collect and make public information showing how our food stamp dollars 
are being spent.
  As a prosecutor, I presented all of the facts to the jury so that 
they were able to make an accurate decision based on the evidence. It 
is inconceivable to me that at a time when all Americans are demanding 
accountability and transparency in government, we are allowing 80-plus 
billion dollars a year to go out the door with virtually no idea on how 
it is being spent. To put that into context, $80 billion a year is more 
than double the amount of money the Department of Homeland Security 
received in the appropriation bill we approved on June 6 and roughly 
the same amount that was cut by sequester.
  I have had several interesting arguments made to me against this 
bill, driven primarily by Big Business, who are more interested in 
protecting profits rather than taxpayers. Opponents have argued that 
this would be costly for retailers to implement.
  First, the information required to be reported and made public is 
information that retailers are already required to keep under existing 
law. I also find it ironic that opponents are arguing that because 
there may be a compliance cost for a program that is voluntary for 
retailers, we should just forego any meaningful oversight over how 
these taxpayer dollars are being spent.
  Some opponents claim that this is food surveillance. This amendment 
is not food surveillance; it is oversight and accountability. At a time 
of high debt and deficit, it is incumbent on Congress to scrutinize 
fully every Federal dollar spent.
  I have also heard opponents argue that SNAP is efficient because USDA 
says that it only has a 3.8 percent error rate. This is a false, red 
herring argument that is meant to distract from what this amendment 
would do. The error rate referred to involves the percentage of 
benefits that either went to ineligible households or went to eligible 
households, but in excessive amounts. The error rate has nothing to do 
with how the taxpayer dollars are spent.
  Having that information is critical, especially as we debate things 
like how much to scale back the SNAP program or whether it is 
inappropriate to allow the purchase of certain items with SNAP dollars. 
I have heard that there were no hearings about the SNAP program in 
conjunction with this FARRM Bill. I agree that there should have been 
hearings. Nevertheless, those hearings would be more productive if they 
had all the information as to how programs are operating.
  My amendment would give us and the American people the ability to 
make informed policy decisions about the program. That is why my 
amendment is supported by a range of groups from the Physicians 
Committee for Responsible Medicine to Americans for Limited Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to again emphasize that this amendment is about 
transparency. It is about oversight and accountability. We have to have 
the facts at our disposal to determine what, if anything, to do. It is 
about good government.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this commonsense 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most 
terrible amendments that has ever been brought before this House of 
Representatives. It goes against the very grain of what America is 
about.
  I don't care if you're rich. I don't care if you're poor. I don't 
care if you're in the service. I don't care if you have to have SNAP. 
You are an American. And Americans today if they're tired of one thing, 
they're tired of the government prying into their lives under 
surveillance that's happening right now on the 6 o'clock news, in our 
major papers. The one thing is the mistrust of a government-
surveillance program. This has everything to do with surveillance. 
That's exactly what it is. It's a food surveillance program from my 
good friend, Mr. Tom Marino.
  What this will do--you tell me if it isn't--it will require retail 
food stores to monitor, to put in a surveillance system, to collect and 
report back to the Secretary of Agriculture detailed information that 
identifies what food items, what type, what size of purchase by those 
who are on SNAP.
  This isn't about SNAP. You've gone into the grocery stores. Everybody 
goes into that grocery store as an American to purchase, to buy the 
food, the basic things that he needs to survive. You can't put 
surveillance on the SNAP person without putting surveillance on every 
American that goes into that store. How asinine such an amendment this 
is in this eagerness of this declaring of war on SNAP recipients.

                              {time}  1950

  We are declaring a war on the soul of America itself. And I don't 
care if you're liberal; I don't care if you're moderate or you are 
conservative. Every American ought to be concerned about this. You're 
not going to be able to put a surveillance program over what the SNAP 
folks get without putting a surveillance program over all Americans. 
Just think about how big our system is, and the statistics bear it out. 
Right now, there are 460,000 different items on the market shelves. 
There are 15,000 new ones going on every year. What's going to happen 
there?
  And for the consumers, there's going to be a cost. Yes, there's going 
to be a cost. These retailers don't go and print money and make it. Do 
you know who is going to pay for the cost of this surveillance program 
that is unneeded? It's going to be the customers.
  And so, ladies and gentlemen, and with all due respect to the 
gentleman, let us ease this war against the poorest who are among us. I 
remind everybody every day that the fastest growing group of recipients 
who are receiving benefits from food stamps are our veterans, the very 
ones who've gone and put their lives on the line, who come back maimed, 
that have to depend on food stamps, who went and fought overseas so we 
could be free from surveillance, and here's an amendment that wants to 
put surveillance on them.
  Let's look at this and see it for what it is. It is an awful 
surveillance program. And I have respect for the gentleman, but this 
amendment is totally misguided and does great damage to the heart and 
the soul of this Nation, because you cannot discriminate going into 
those grocery stores against the poor recipient of SNAP without 
discriminating and taking away the freedoms of every single American.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. MARINO. You know, keeping track of this, it's already done by a 
bar code, so there's no additional cost. And there's no surveillance. 
There's no

[[Page 9718]]

cameras. There's nothing checking on anybody. We're not asking who is 
buying. We're asking what is being purchased. With my colleagues, it's 
always a war. It's a war on women, and now it's a war on people using 
food stamps.
  We should be doing this anyhow. It's a law that should be done by the 
stores. It is just not being enforced. Hardworking taxpayers deserve 
accountability. They deserve to know how their $80 billion is being 
spent and on what. I wonder what my friend across the aisle is 
concerned about, perhaps what the results will show. But we don't know 
at this point. The American people are entitled to know how their money 
is being spent.
  As I said, there's no cost associated with this. They're doing it by 
bar code anyhow. Everything that goes through a store now is bar coded, 
so it's just reporting the information. If anything is misguided, what 
is misguided is $80 billion in 2012 and $82.5 billion projected in 2013 
that's going to be spent and there is no accountability for it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 4033. EXPUNGEMENT OF UNSUED SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS.

       Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2020), as amended by section 4015, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(w) Expungement of Unused Beneftis.--The State agency 
     shall expunge from the EBT account of a household benefits 
     that are not used before the expiration of the 60-day period 
     beginning on the date such benefits are posted to such 
     account.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I introduced this amendment to reform the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program, or SNAP program, and specifically the electronic 
benefit transfer account program within the SNAP or within the food 
stamp program.
  The SNAP, or food stamp program, is in dire need of reform, and I 
think most people realize that and many have spoken out about that 
already. Under the current administration, the Obama administration, 
the number of people on food stamps has increased by 16.5 million 
persons. In 2011, the SNAP program handed out $84 billion in food 
stamps in 1 year alone. The SNAP program is now the second most 
expensive--after Medicaid--program, and it is the fastest growing of 
all the Federal Government's 80 welfare programs. This cost is 
unsustainable. Reforms can be made without impacting, in my belief, 
those who truly need assistance; and there are some who truly need 
assistance, and we ought to help them.
  Under current law, unused benefits are rolled over each month and can 
pile up for an entire year. The current law is terribly flawed and 
encourages fraud and abuse. My amendment would increase the integrity 
of the program by ending the rollover and recouping leftover benefits. 
Instead of allowing benefits to remain unused in an account for an 
entire year, my amendment would return unused SNAP or unused food stamp 
money or benefits to the U.S. Treasury after 60 days, 2 months, which I 
believe is a reasonable period of time.
  Those actually using the benefits or those truly in need would not be 
impacted. The intent of SNAP, or food stamps, is to assist those in 
need on an as-needed basis. If a recipient hasn't utilized all their 
benefits, those benefits could be used to help others who do need them 
or used to reduce our almost $17 trillion national debt.
  Clearly, this is a program in need of reform. My amendment addresses 
the out-of-control growth we have witnessed with this program over the 
past 4 years, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just like to say, on behalf of the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing 
this good government amendment before us today. Current law states that 
a State agency must return unused benefits to the Treasury after a 12-
month period of inactivity. The gentleman's amendment simply shortens 
that time period that a SNAP recipient has to claim their benefits to 
60 days.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to claim the time in 
opposition? If not, the gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would also note that almost 80 percent of 
the farm bill--we're spending about a trillion dollars overall--goes to 
the food stamp program. So we're talking about a very significant part 
of the overall farm bill.
  The GAO notes in a report:

       It's inconclusive regarding whether SNAP, or food stamps, 
     alleviates hunger and malnutrition in low-income households.

  Think about that. It's inconclusive whether it actually reduces 
hunger or malnutrition. And the people that it's supposed to be 
helping, which is low-income households, if that's the case, why are we 
spending all these dollars? This doesn't go to the entire food stamp 
program, obviously; it just goes to a certain item, and that is 
reducing from a year, allowing those dollars to pile up, to a 
reasonable time, which is 2 months.
  I would also note that the GAO report goes on to say that the amount 
of SNAP money paid in error is substantial, totaling in the billions of 
dollars.

                              {time}  2000

  So it's clearly something that should be reformed.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mrs. Black

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 4033. TERMINATION OF EXISTING AGREEMENT.

       Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     memorandum of understanding entered into on July 22, 2004, by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States Department 
     of Agriculture and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the 
     Republic of Mexico and known as the ``Partnership for 
     Nutrition Assistance Initiative'' is null and void.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 9719]]

  I rise today to speak in support of my amendment to officially end 
the agreement between the USDA and the Mexican Government known as the 
Partnership for Nutrition Assistance Initiative.
  Now, this partnership began back in 2004, but it has greatly expanded 
under the Obama administration. It's an aggressive outreach program 
funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars which promotes SNAP enrollment in 
targeted communities by partnering with Mexican Government officials to 
hold meetings, health fairs, and coordinate other outreach initiatives 
designed to bring working-class families into public assistance and 
dependence programs.
  Not only is this an ill-conceived partnership with Mexico promoting a 
life of dependency rather than upward mobility, there is no reason to 
believe that the Obama administration isn't just using this partnership 
as a way to get illegal immigrants enrolled in the SNAP program.
  This current partnership is among the most egregious examples of 
policies contributing to the 46 percent expansion in SNAP recipients 
under the Obama administration, and it must stop now.
  My amendment today is an opportunity for Congress to be good stewards 
of our taxpayer dollars, our hardworking taxpayer dollars, and to get 
the U.S. Government out of the business of promoting dependence.
  I urge my colleagues today to vote in support of my amendment to 
terminate this partnership with the Mexican Government. Let's stop this 
blatant misuse of the taxpayer dollars so that SNAP is there for those 
who have fallen on hard times and truly need temporary assistance, not 
for exploitation by foreign governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding.
  And on behalf of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I would 
like to thank her for bringing this amendment to void the partnership 
with the Mexican Government that promotes participation in the SNAP 
program.
  We support this amendment, and urge our colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek time in opposition? If not, 
the gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, this is so important that we are assured 
that our hardworking taxpayer dollars are used for those that are the 
most in need, as a safety net, and not to be given to foreign 
governments. And so I ask support for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 4402(a) of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3007(a)), as added by 
     section 4201 of subtitle C of title IV--
       (1) in paragraph (2) strike the close quotation and the 
     period at the end, and
       (2) add at the end the following:
       ``(3) Requirement.--Not less than 50 percent of the funds 
     made available to carry out this section in any fiscal year 
     shall be used to provide assistance to seniors.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman, and yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I'm offering today would create a clear 
set-aside for senior citizens in the Farmers Market Nutrition Program.
  Senior hunger is a serious and growing problem, sadly, in our 
country. Feeding America estimates nearly 5 million seniors--5 million; 
1 in 12--in 2011 were food insecure, double the number in 2001. With 
prices up and with what's happening across this country, we know that 
that number is not the top, but probably the base, and it's probably 
more.
  So, senior hunger is a growing problem, and we know the costs of food 
are up. In fact, 6 percent of households with an elderly person are 
definitely food insecure, and we know that women over the age of 85 
have a poverty rate of 13.8 percent. That means elderly women have the 
second-highest poverty rate in the Nation.
  This is a great country. No single senior citizen in our country 
should ever have to worry about food.
  I remember one senior center that I went to for a small little lunch, 
and they put these tiny sandwiches on the plate, and they cut them in 
half. And I remember a senior woman, very frail, very elderly, she took 
half a sandwich and ate it, and then when she thought no one else was 
looking, she wrapped up the other half of the sandwich and put it in 
her purse.
  Unless you really see it, you don't realize how painful it is for 
millions of seniors across our country. Senior hunger has a health 
impact because food insecurity among elders causes more headaches, more 
dehydration, more disability, more decreases in resistance to 
infection, more high blood pressure and extended hospital stays.
  In fact, food-insecure elderly persons have been found to be over two 
times more likely to report poor or fair health. Ultimately, the health 
impact of hunger results in higher health care costs.
  In an effort to help address this serious problem of senior hunger, 
Congress created the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. It is a 
very popular and very effective program. It is so small and meagerly 
funded it doesn't even function in every congressional district in this 
country.
  But the program is a home run for seniors who need help, and it's a 
home run for local producers. The program brings together needy 
seniors, who purchase fresh and nutritious, locally-grown fruits, 
vegetables, honey and herbs at their local farmers markets, roadside 
stands and community-supported agriculture programs.
  In effect, seniors help farmers and farmers help seniors. Farmers 
expand their customer base, and seniors buy fresh vegetables, fresh 
fruits, fresh honey, locally produced, which helps to combat many 
allergies which are growing across this country and, obviously, herbs.
  The program helps local food production because farmers sell their 
agricultural products locally, at local places, with direct marketing.
  There are similar programs for WIC participants but, unfortunately, 
the discretionary funding for the program has been declining. It is my 
hope that as we go to conference with the Senate we can look at the 
changes in the underlying bill and increase mandatory funding for a 
unified program.
  From my perspective, a unified program holds the potential to serve 
the more needy seniors, which will help combat senior hunger. Given the 
damage sequestration is doing to Meals on Wheels and other senior 
assistance programs, I hope we can work on a bipartisan basis to 
support our seniors, the most vulnerable among us.
  I urge adoption of the amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Who claims time in opposition?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have been given every indication that 
this amendment is going to be acceptable to both sides, and I would 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 9720]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In subtitle C of title IV, strike section 4207.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm sure this is true for all of us in the body, both 
on the right and the left. As we grind through the amendments and look 
at them, we, on occasion, come across an amendment that you can 
actually see where it was well meaning. It may have had a good heart 
behind it, but when you sort of dice it up, you start to actually 
understand both something from a personal basis almost borders on the 
humorous side but also structurally has some real problems.
  I stand up today trying to remove some language, the Healthy Food 
Financing Initiative. Look, we will have some Members who will say it's 
only $125 million, but understand that $125 million may be used to buy 
a grocery store to subsidize certain healthy food products in areas 
where the program deems there is a shortage of such.
  Where there is an amazing irony is, okay, we want healthy foods. 
There are some areas that the products that may be available in those 
areas we deem not to be particularly nutritious, but that may be 
because in our commodity subsidy system, what's in our grocery stores? 
The fact of the matter, processed foods, because we subsidize 
commodities. Then I go in and say, But my solution is I'm going to 
create another subsidy to take care of the problem on the other side. 
At some point, you've got to be willing to take a step back and see the 
irony of this.
  But there are also other structural problems. We're basically taking 
taxpayer money, and through a sort of a network, you may find a private 
grocery store being financed by taxpayer money. You may be finding the 
system where certain foods and certain retailers are being financed by 
taxpayer money just because it's designated as an area where these 
products don't exist.
  So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. FUDGE. I rise in opposition to the Schweikert amendment to strike 
the Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
  Let me just say that not only is it well meaning, it works. And it's 
about time this Congress does something that is proven to work.
  This amendment removes from the farm bill bipartisan language that I 
successfully championed during the House farm bill markup. The Healthy 
Food Financing Initiative outlines a comprehensive Federal response to 
addressing the limited and inequitable access to healthy foods in low-
income communities in both rural and urban America.
  It does this through the creation of a national fund manager housed 
within USDA that would improve access to healthy foods, create quality 
jobs, and revitalize low-income communities by providing loans and 
grants to eligible food retailers.
  Nearly 30 million people live in low-income areas more than 1 mile 
from a supermarket, which means they lack adequate access to fresh, 
healthy, and affordable food. It comes as no surprise that these same 
people are less likely to have a healthy diet than those with better 
access. Barriers to healthy food have worsened the growing epidemic of 
obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related health problems in these 
communities.
  The Healthy Food Financing Initiative would combat the lack of 
healthy food retail through a public-private initiative that would 
allow for the leveraging of millions of private capital at the national 
level--something that my colleagues talk about all of the time.
  HFFI provides one-time loans and grant financing to attract grocery 
stores and other fresh fruit retail to renovate and expand existing 
stores so they can provide the healthy foods that communities want and 
need. This financing will help local businesses through loans and 
tailored financing packages that are not readily available.
  Healthy food retail increases and stabilizes home values in nearby 
neighborhoods. It generates local tax revenues, provides workforce 
training and development, and promotes additional spending in the local 
economy generated by the store and the new jobs it creates. It actually 
has a multiplier effect.
  To know that this works, we just need to look at Pennsylvania. A 
similar program that began there in 2004 resulted in 88 projects being 
built or renovated in underserved urban and rural communities across 
the State. Today, more than 5,000 jobs have been created--and I know we 
all want to create jobs--have been created or retained, and 400,000 
people now have increased access to healthy food. Thirty million 
invested by the State has resulted in projects totalling more than $190 
million.
  The Pennsylvania program success rate has been better than the 
grocery industry overall. Federal, State, and many city governments are 
enacting legislation and policies to attract healthy food retail. There 
is tremendous momentum around the country right now to bring grocery 
stores to places that need them.
  Also, a diverse group of nearly 100 stakeholders support this bill, 
including PolicyLink, The Reinvestment Fund, The Food Trust, and the 
National Grocers Association; and numerous agriculture, health, civil 
rights, and industry groups support this bill.
  The Senate supports HFFI--not his bill. The Senate has recognized the 
case for HFFI and included this text in their bill.
  Food access is a critical problem. The good news is that we know what 
to do and we can do it. I ask that you stand with me in defending this 
HFFI by opposing the Schweikert amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve to close.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has the right to close as 
a member of the committee.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, to the gentlelady from Ohio, you hit a 
couple points that I absolutely agree on.
  We have a horrible obesity epidemic. We have a crisis of nutrition of 
what people consume. If you really care about those things, then you 
would actually look at the farm bill overall and what we do in this 
country to distort what we consume. Walk down your grocery store aisles 
and you will see what we've done by more government policy.
  But the fact of the matter is you, in many ways, make your own 
argument. If there is actually a program that you believe is working at 
all in Pennsylvania, then you've demonstrated the States are capable of 
doing this. But, once again, to take another $125 million of Federal 
money to create another program that ultimately actually does things 
like buys a grocery store, I mean actually competes with a private 
business, I see something that's almost absurd in that if that's the 
way that this amendment ultimately works.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentleman.
  First, let me just say that certainly we can agree to disagree. But 
let's be honest. We are not buying grocery stores. It is not accurate 
to say to the American people that is what we are doing, Mr. Chairman. 
So let me just make that clear.
  Secondly, if we have something that works and we know that our people 
are in need, then I think that we should make it something that all of 
us can agree to do.
  Now, every State is not in the same situation. Every State doesn't 
have the same kind of vision that maybe the State of Pennsylvania had, 
but there

[[Page 9721]]

are a lot of things that the States can do that they don't do and that 
all States don't do. So we want to make sure that every American has 
the opportunity to have decent, healthy food.
  So I think that this is, in fact, a good start. My bill was passed 
bipartisan. I think it's good. I think that for someone to just come up 
and take potshots at something that they don't even clearly understand 
is unfair to the American people, because if it was understood, they 
would know that we are not buying grocery stores.
  Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. FUDGE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, Members, you know your 
districts. Some of you do have food deserts, whether you be in rural or 
urban areas.
  This is important. We want people to spend those food stamp dollars 
wisely. This gives them an opportunity to do so. This is not a Democrat 
or Republican issue. This is a commonsense, good health issue. We 
should defeat the Schweikert amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. May I request my remaining time?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, it may be a little unprecedented, but I 
wanted to actually give my friend, Dr. Burgess, even though he is on 
the other side, 30 seconds of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It seems a little strange for me to be lecturing you about a desert, 
but, Mr. Chairman, it is true. There are food deserts in both 
Republican and Democratic districts all over this country, people 
without access to fresh foods or healthy foods.
  Look, I don't think it's right that people buy processed foods and 
soft drinks with food stamps, but if they've got no other choice, what 
are they going to do?

                              {time}  2020

  This initiative allows people to have the option to purchase healthy 
foods, get those micronutrients that they need to keep them healthy. 
Let's keep them out of the doctor's office. Let's keep them out of the 
hospital.
  I thank the gentleman for the recognition. I urge defeat of the 
Schweikert amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I will try to be fast at this.
  To the gentlewoman from Ohio, actually, I want to be careful in my 
language because I did say purchase grocery stores. It's basically 
finance their acquisitions through loans and other mechanics. It would 
be unfair to use the Solyndra type, but it is that mechanic of doing 
those loan mechanics and those things. And functionally, the taxpayers 
do have money out and risk in that fashion.
  Look, for many of us here, we see an amendment like this, we see the 
well-meaning nature of it, but the underlying cause of much of this is 
the global policy we engage in--and we have for 60, 70 years.
  We seem to be, if you look at all the amendments and really dig 
through this farm bill, I believe you will see layer after layer after 
layer where we're trying to fix sins that we created with our last 
attempt to fix a mistake.
  I appreciate we have a crisis in parts of our country--whether it be 
access to healthy foods, whether it be obesity--but a $125 million 
program that creates special grants, special purchases, special loans, 
this isn't the way you get there to fix that.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 31 will not be offered.


                Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 375, line 5, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Section''.
       Page 375, after line 6, insert the following:
       (1) by inserting ``or commercial fishing'' after 
     ``aquaculture'' the 1st place it appears;
       (2) by striking ``or aquaculture'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``aquaculture, or commercial fishing'';
       Page 375, line 7, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 375, line 15, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 375, line 19, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 375, line 22, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 376, line 1, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 376, line 3, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       Page 376, after line 10, insert the following:
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 329 of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1970) is amended by striking ``or aquaculture'' and 
     inserting ``aquaculture, or commercial fishing''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, right now, fishermen in Gloucester, 
Massachusetts--which is in my district--and across the country are 
facing dire circumstances. There have been devastating cuts to the 
allowable catch of a number of crucial stocks; for instance, a 78 
percent cut in Gulf of Maine cod, a 61 percent cut to Georges Bank cod. 
Consequently, some of these fishermen already have been forced to sell 
their boats and their permits, while others feel that they will soon be 
out of business.
  Many of my Massachusetts colleagues and I have been doing everything 
we can to help these fishermen and their families. We've offered 
amendments to last year's disaster relief appropriations bill for those 
fishermen in Massachusetts and the several other States that were 
officially declared fisheries disasters by the Department of Commerce, 
but to no avail.
  I filed legislation to redirect a portion of the tariffs that the 
United States collects on imported fish to provide urgently needed 
financial assistance for our fishermen, but that matter has yet to come 
up.
  A number of us are working to responsibly reform the underlying 
Federal statute--the Magnuson-Stevens Act--that governs our Nation's 
fisheries so the law is more flexible and fairer toward our fishermen, 
but of course that is somewhere down the road.
  I don't think we can stop there, and that's why I--along with Mr. 
Markey, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Keating, Mr. Tim Bishop and Ms. Shea-Porter--am 
offering this amendment today to ensure our fishermen have access to 
the USDA's emergency disaster loan program.
  We're essentially doing away with an inequity in the law that denies 
fishermen the ability to apply through the normal procedures for a loan 
under Federal emergency standards. A similar provision was included in 
the Senate-approved farm bill, and our work to provide financial relief 
to our fishermen and reform the law will certainly continue in the 
weeks and months ahead. But in the meantime, this is a small and 
important step that's intended to help those in our local community who 
are struggling.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.

[[Page 9722]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I must oppose, with respect, the gentleman's amendment.
  The addition of commercial fishing operations, which have 
traditionally not been recognized in FSA lending programs, 
unnecessarily extend the limits of an already oversubscribed lender. 
Commercial fishermen in need of disaster assistance are already able to 
apply for loans from both Farm Credit and the Small Business 
Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, we are basically trying to settle an 
inequity here where the loans that are available to the fishermen of 
course are at 3 percent or 4 percent, not the 2.25 percent. That would 
make a substantial difference to them if they were there. And we're not 
giving them any preference over anybody else, they would just get the 
equitable right to apply for and seek those loans.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I just reiterate what I said earlier, Mr. Chairman. 
These people are in dire straits. There has been nothing that we've 
been able to do. Even though they've been declared eligible for 
disaster relief, this Congress has yet to afford them any of that 
relief.
  The fleets are shrinking. They are going out of business. They have 
all sorts of debt and problems with their gear and their property on 
that. They need the access to this low-interest loan at 2.25 percent. 
It gives them no more preference than anybody else on this, and it 
makes available to them a much needed supply. It is passed, it's in the 
Senate version. The Senate version score showed there was no increase 
in the scoring on that.
  I would hope that my colleagues would have some compassion for the 
fishing industry as they do for others in this country that are in this 
type of situation.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his input 
on this.
  I continue to oppose the amendment. I certainly sympathize with those 
affected by disaster. But given the current fiscal environment, it just 
defies common sense to implement new, duplicative lending programs.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Costa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 379, line 23, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Section''.
       Page 380, after line 2, insert the following:
       (b) Pilot Program for Techncal Assistance to Address 
     Nitrate Contamination of Rural Drinking Water.--Section 
     306(a)(2)(B) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2)(B)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(viii) Pilot program for techncal assistance to address 
     nitrate contamination of rural drinkingwater.--Using amounts 
     made available to carry out this subparagraph, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Rural Utilities Service, shall conduct a 
     pilot program under which the Secretary shall provide grants 
     and technical assistance for disadvantaged communities in 
     rural areas and in cities and towns with a population of less 
     than 10,000 individuals where drinking water is impaired by 
     nitrate contamination.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, it is oftentimes the poorest and some of the 
most underrepresented communities in the country that have the greatest 
impacts--for historical reasons, in part--on public health, communities 
across the country we all represent.
  I represent a number of those communities in California in the San 
Joaquin Valley that are experiencing enormous challenges as it relates 
to their water quality and contamination that has existed because of 
decades-past experiences in many cases with nitrates, in which at the 
time it was not well understood, but today it is, that in fact it has 
tremendous impacts on our drinking water supply as it relates to our 
aquifers.
  The amendment that is proposed is intended to address this problem by 
creating a pilot program for severely disadvantaged communities that 
would provide funds in this FARRM Bill for the Rural Utility Service 
that would address this nitrate contamination for rural drinking water 
communities, those communities that we all represent that have 10,000 
population or less.
  The San Joaquin Valley that Congressman Valadao and I and others 
represent has almost 4 million people. It's almost 10 percent of 
California's population. Twenty percent of those folks live below the 
poverty line. They reflect a broad cross-range of folks--immigrants 
past, immigrants present--who have come here to live the American Dream 
and work so hard, so many in our agriculture economy.
  While nitrates occur naturally at low levels, crop fertilizers and 
practices with both dairy and other animal husbandry practices create 
nitrates that in fact impact the elevation of the contamination within 
our drinking water sources within our aquifers.

                              {time}  2030

  In fact, California's Central Valley is especially vulnerable to that 
nitrate contamination since it accounts for more than half of the 
agriculture production in California and aquifers are the primary 
source of drinking water for 90 percent of the residents.
  Unfortunately, in the past, we didn't have strong controls, and we 
didn't really understand the science. Today, we do.
  It is often difficult to identify a single party that is responsible 
for the impacts; but what is most important is that we fix the problem, 
that we clean the water supply for those residents.
  Today, we have, I think, a better balance between public health and 
the impact of agricultural practices.
  This amendment, if adopted, would provide the opportunity to focus on 
assisting disadvantaged communities with improving their drinking water 
that has been contaminated by nitrates.
  I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Valadao).
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa) and his amendment.
  Groundwater provides drinking water for more than one-half of the 
Nation's population and is the only source of drinking water for many 
rural communities, like those in my Central Valley congressional 
district. Many do not have access to a clean, safe supply of water and 
are unable to access the funding or resources necessary to develop 
sustainable water supplies and improve their water infrastructure.
  In the Central Valley, nitrate contamination is all too common. While 
contamination can occur for many reasons, oftentimes no one is directly 
responsible. Clean-up costs are then borne by the affected community.
  Through my position on the House Appropriations Committee, I worked 
to ensure language was included in the

[[Page 9723]]

House agricultural appropriations bill to require the Department of 
Agriculture to provide a report to the Appropriations Committee 
regarding their programs and outreach efforts to disadvantaged 
communities who are impacted by water supply issues.
  Every family in America should have clean drinking water. Anything 
less is unacceptable.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COSTA. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate that.
  On behalf of Chairman Lucas, I certainly want to extend my 
appreciation for the gentleman's work on this issue. If the gentleman 
will be willing to withdraw his amendment, I have been assured by the 
chairman that he is more than willing to work with you on this 
important issue.
  Mr. COSTA. Yes, Congressman Crawford, I will be more than willing to 
yield to Chairman Lucas and to Ranking Member Peterson. We appreciate 
your willingness to work with us together on this effort to ensure that 
we can deliver resources that are important to our small communities 
throughout the country that are impacted in this way. I will withdraw 
the amendment and continue to work with you.
  The ACTING CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


           Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 394, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     396, line 17.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise this evening to urge my colleagues to support my commonsense 
amendment to H.R. 1947, the FARRM Act of 2013. My amendment is very 
straightforward in that it would simply strike section 6105 from the 
underlying bill. This is the section of the FARRM Bill that 
reauthorizes the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program 
at RUS, Rural Utilities Services, at USDA at a cost of $25 million each 
fiscal year over the next 5, subject to appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, this program was first authorized by the 2002 farm bill 
with the goal of deploying broadband to rural and unserved areas. 
Despite this goal, the rural broadband loan program has been riddled--
riddled--with numerous problems.
  In the 112th Congress, I was a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. During a hearing held in 
the subcommittee in February of 2011, I first learned of problems 
within this program. USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong testified on a 
variety of issues at RUS that prevented it from being effective. She 
testified that in the 2005 OIG audit of the program, of the 159 of the 
240 communities associated with loans in 2004, 66 percent of the loans 
already had preexisting broadband service in contravention of the 
statutory intention of these funds.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the problems were only exacerbated in 
the 2009 OIG audit. Of the 14 recommendations made by OIG in 2005, RUS 
only took action on six of them. Between 2005 and 2009, RUS made loans 
to broadband providers serving 148 communities within 30 miles of urban 
areas with 200,000 or more residents. Furthermore, RUS approved 34 of 
37 applications for providers with service lines already existing.
  Mr. Chairman, although there were reforms made in the 2008 farm bill 
that were finally enacted earlier this year, I am still very skeptical 
of the need for this program when it has consistently demonstrated its 
inability to achieve its objective.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to our chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee and to our staff, I deeply appreciate all the 
work on this farm bill. I am proud to have been associated with it.
  I will say to the gentleman from Georgia, who just moments ago cited 
data from about a decade ago and then a report from 2009, I acknowledge 
the challenges with the program. However, as the gentleman mentioned, a 
couple of developments that have occurred are, first of all, 
implementation that has occurred just several months ago that addressed 
the points that were made in an IG report, and also the fact that in 
the underlying language--and I will thank the chairman--we incorporated 
other measures that deal with transparency and clarification that were 
talking about unserved areas.
  So I would say to the gentleman, and I appreciate him very much, but 
I want to tell you that this program is really important to districts 
like mine. The FCC claims that there are up to 19 million Americans who 
do not have access to high-speed broadband. The place that I represent 
in upstate New York, we've got many communities that don't have access 
to high-speed broadband. A program such as this has been helpful and 
will be helpful going forward.
  I want to remind everyone--it is worth pointing out--that this is a 
loan program that is paid back with interest. This expanding broadband 
helps us not only with job creation, but it helps us with health care 
delivery, it helps us with education, and overall quality of life. I 
know that even in your own State this has been a program that has done 
some good, certainly needed reform, and has happened, reform has come 
about.
  What I would say to the gentleman is I appreciate his concern for the 
taxpayer, I share that concern, and believe that we have made 
significant progress with regard to transparency, efficacy in the 
program, and want to see us continue this program because we need to 
move forward and continue to--just as we did with electrification for 
this country--to see all communities have access to high-speed 
broadband.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I remind my good friend from New York that Solyndra was a loan 
program, too, that was supposed to be paid back with interest. I offer 
this amendment because there is something better--there is something 
better.

                              {time}  2040

  I certainly understand and I appreciate the efforts taken by the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee for creating further transparency 
with the RUS Rural Broadband Loan Program. However, despite these 
improvements, I am still incredibly skeptical of this program.
  Mr. Chairman, since its inception, Congress has appropriated nearly 
$130 million in taxpayer dollars towards this program, and I feel that 
RUS has consistently missed the mark. On the other hand--and this is 
the alternative--in 2011, the FCC, the Federal Communications 
Commission, under existing statutory authority, fundamentally changed 
the nature of the Universal Service Fund and created the Connect 
America Fund with essentially the same goal as the Rural Broadband Loan 
Program. The Connect America Fund is a different entity, and the FCC 
announced last month that $485 million of that fund, which is rooted 
not in increased taxes but in user fees, will be dedicated to unserved 
areas for broadband deployment.
  Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the FCC is in a better position than 
the USDA to implement telecommunications policy, and over the life of 
the

[[Page 9724]]

Rural Broadband Loan Program, USDA has only confirmed my cynicism.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GIBSON. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from 
Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege every evening to travel back to 
the northern neck of Virginia. It's just an hour and a half from D.C., 
and that area is not served by broadband. We all know how important it 
is to have that service. Folks there are stuck with 1990s' technology--
dial-up. If you've ever had to deal with that, you know how frustrating 
that is. We know for rural areas that economic development, job 
creation and educational opportunities are all tied to broadband 
access. Granted, there may be challenges with the Rural Utilities 
Service program, but, nonetheless, those areas need that particular 
service. I want to make sure that they get that.
  That's why I oppose this amendment, and I understand the gentleman's 
frustration with that. The RUS Broadband Loan Program does provide the 
needed leverage to fund construction. It also provides the ability to 
improve our systems in these areas and to acquire the facilities and 
equipment that are needed to provide broadband to these communities.
  Folks, this is absolutely critical. This amendment, unfortunately, 
takes us away from that. I want to make sure that reforms are put in 
place so the system works, not taking away that opportunity for our 
rural areas.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Might I ask the gentleman to yield 15 seconds 
to me for closing?
  Mr. GIBSON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia's time has expired.
  The gentleman from New York is the only one who has time at this 
point.
  Mr. GIBSON. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GIBSON. In order to demonstrate the bipartisan nature of this 
amendment, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from California (Mr. 
Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank my friend from New York.
  I thought it so very unfair that the majority party would be fighting 
this out without somebody from the minority party jumping in in 
opposition to the proposal.
  I am delighted that the FCC has provided $400-plus million for what 
is a very essential service. I am also very happy that the Department 
of Agriculture continues with the program in which they have a unique 
ability to reach out to these rural communities. The Department of 
Agriculture has the men, the women and the organizational structure to 
provide direct access and direct service. Perhaps--just perhaps--the 
Department of Agriculture program, together with the FCC program, might 
actually get the job done. It's very, very important.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I ask the gentleman again if he would yield 
15 seconds.
  Mr. GIBSON. I will yield in just a second. I will be happy to do it. 
Let me first yield 30 seconds to our acting chairman, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from New York.
  I had the opportunity to discuss this with the gentleman from Georgia 
prior to debate.
  As I understand it, if you are still of the mind and would like to 
consider withdrawing your amendment, I would gladly yield the balance 
of my time to allow you to do that.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York controls the time.
  Mr. GIBSON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and do that.
  I believe that it is critically important to eliminate duplicative 
programs. It was just mentioned from the other side of the aisle that, 
with both programs, duplication is unnecessary with the changes in the 
Connect America Fund. I believe that the Rural Broadband Loan Program 
will only become more obsolete. Therefore, I believe that we must act 
now to eliminate the authorization of this program, and I do urge all 
of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GIBSON. I appreciate the debate here, but I will just end where I 
began.
  I think that there have been significant improvements that have been 
made over time. I appreciate both the chairman and the ranking member 
for allowing us to improve this program.
  This is a program that's going to particularly help small companies 
so that we can build out broadband. It will be good for job creation 
and good for rural America. It's going to be good for health care 
delivery, and it's going to be good for education. I urge my colleagues 
to defeat this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.


                Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Palazzo

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. PALAZZO. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 444, after line 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 73__. AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP 
                   PILOT PROGRAM FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND 
                   INNOVATIVE VENTURE DEVELOPMENT TRAINING.

       Subtitle A of title VI of the Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 is amended by 
     adding after section 604 (7 U.S.C. 7642) the following:

     ``SEC. 605. AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP 
                   PILOT PROGRAM FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND 
                   INNOVATIVE VENTURE DEVELOPMENT TRAINING.

       ``(a) In General.--Funds made available under this section 
     shall be used to provide regional collaborations, technology 
     transfer and commercialization, and innovative venture 
     development training under the Agricultural Technology 
     Innovation Partnership program of the Office of Technology 
     Transfer in the Agricultural Research Service.
       ``(b) Funding.--Of the funds made available to the 
     Agricultural Research Service, the Secretary shall use to 
     carry out this section $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to discuss my amendment, which ensures adequate funding 
for a valuable program already authorized within this farm bill.
  My amendment would simply provide the funding of the Agricultural 
Technology Innovation Partnership from the funds already available for 
that purpose. As a member of the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee, we often discuss the significant role technological 
advancements play in maintaining U.S. competitiveness among global 
industries and growing our economy. My amendment is simple. It adds 
absolutely no extra cost to this bill or to the taxpayer. It authorizes 
existing funds within the agricultural research program budget to 
support the ATIP program, which has already been established by the 
USDA.
  For those of you unfamiliar with the program, the Agricultural 
Technology Innovation Partnership, ATIP, is a partnership set up to 
harness the research and development capabilities and innovations of 
USDA's research

[[Page 9725]]

programs for technology-based economic development.
  Adequate funding for the program will enable the integration of 
research from academic, government and industry institutes, and will 
help develop relationships with outside businesses and private 
investors. Establishing these relationships will allow the agriculture 
industry to assist in guiding USDA to conduct research most beneficial 
to the industry as well as providing the agriculture industry quick 
access to new and innovative findings within USDA's research as it 
becomes available.
  The program allows the advancement of transferring groundbreaking 
ideas and results from research labs into the commercial sector, which 
will maintain the growth of the industry as well as our economy. It is 
important for the U.S. to remain competitive in today's global 
agriculture marketplace, and in order to do this, we must lead the way 
in research and innovation. I believe this amendment is a step to 
ensure that this tool is being fully utilized.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would statutorily authorize a pilot 
program at $500,000. It's my understanding that USDA is already doing 
this without statutory capability. I appreciate the gentleman's 
interest in this matter, but there is really no reason to legislate on 
an issue that the administration has the capability to do.

                              {time}  2050

  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member from Minnesota 
(Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON. I'm not sure I'll need 2 minutes.
  This is basically an earmark, and basically all kinds of people want 
to put in bills to allocate their money to ARS. We don't have enough 
research money for wheat and whatever else.
  We can't be doing this because it's going against everything else 
that was agreed to. I thought you guys had decided we weren't going to 
have any earmarks, we weren't going to do these kinds of things. So I 
would hope that we would not support this amendment, and I join the 
gentleman from Arkansas in opposing it.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, in drafting this amendment, I saw nowhere 
where it would actually be considered an earmark. I'm definitely 
opposed to earmarks in this Congress, and it doesn't specify an entity 
in a certain State or a certain location.
  If you just want to tag something as an earmark just to kill an 
amendment, explain why this amendment may be bad, but don't just sit 
there and say this is an earmark just because everybody is going to run 
from it. I see no reason why it would be considered such.
  But if the gentleman from Arkansas will work with me in addressing 
this to possibly pursue this in the final legislation, I would 
definitely consider withdrawing my amendment.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and I feel like 
the chairman would certainly be of the mind to work with the gentleman 
from Mississippi on this if he is inclined to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. PALAZZO. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  So with that, I withdraw my amendment and yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 475, after line 15, add the following new section:

     SEC. 7605. LEGITIMACY OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 
     1988 (41 U.S.C. 8101 et seq.), the Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
     and Communities Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), or any 
     other Federal law, an institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001)) may grow or cultivate industrial hemp if--
       (1) the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated for purposes 
     of agricultural research or other academic research; and
       (2) the growing or cultivating of industrial hemp is 
     allowed under the laws of the State in which such institution 
     of higher education is located and such research occurs.
       (b) Industrial Hemp Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``industrial hemp'' means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and 
     any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-
     9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 
     percent on a dry weight basis.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In 1794, George Washington, our founding father, wrote to his 
gardener that he should ``make the most of the hemp seed and sow it 
everywhere.''
  He wasn't alone. Thomas Jefferson grew hemp. Betsy Ross even made the 
first American flag out of hemp fiber. In fact, here is a flag right 
here that's made entirely from hemp.
  Today, U.S. retailers sell over $300 million worth of hemp-related 
goods. It's not just flags. Hemp is found in over 25,000 products from 
lotions to soaps, to protein bars, to auto parts, to fuel. Yet somehow 
it's caught up in a completely unrelated drug war that prevents 
American farmers from growing this crop and forces us to import it from 
other countries. Our institutions of higher education can't even grow 
or cultivate hemp for research purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment, which I'm offering with my 
good friends Mr. Thomas Massie and Earl Blumenauer is simple. It would 
allow colleges and universities to grow and cultivate hemp for research 
purposes. Our amendment would only apply in States where hemp 
cultivation is already legal, such as my home State of Colorado.
  I recently had an exchange with the premiere agriculture research 
university in my district, Colorado State University. This is an area 
that they want to get into it, but they feel that they're prohibited; 
and their attorneys are telling them that unless we can make this 
change, they can't actually do research on what has great potential to 
be an important crop for Colorado.
  Mr. Chairman, let me be clear about something because there's been 
some misleading information that's been put out there by the Drug 
Enforcement Agency. Hemp is not marijuana. I'm very disappointed to 
hear that the DEA is circulating misleading talking points that claim 
that somehow hemp could be used as marijuana. At the concentration 
levels specified in our amendment, it is physically impossible to use 
hemp as a drug. Let me emphasize that. It is physically impossible to 
use hemp as a drug.
  Voters in my home State of Colorado and across the country have made 
it clear that they believe industrial hemp is an agricultural 
commodity, not a drug. Our colleges and universities are the best in 
the world. This is a modest step to simply allow them to research the 
potential benefits, downsides, strains to grow of this important 
agricultural commodity. There's been technology in France that allows 
tracers to be put in to ensure that it doesn't get contaminated with 
anything that includes narcotics. There's lots of research that can be 
done, and this amendment is a very simple and pragmatic step to do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I seek time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's interest 
in

[[Page 9726]]

the issue, but it's clear that the Agriculture Committee is not the 
committee of jurisdiction to be addressing the provisions of the Safe 
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.
  While some may consider the growth of hemp to be an agricultural 
endeavor, I think that there are many who feel quite differently. I 
would therefore oppose this amendment and urge the gentleman to seek a 
hearing on the issue within the appropriate committee.
  I point out also that one of the concerns that we have long had is 
that even though the gentleman says hemp is not marijuana, I don't know 
if one can tell the difference when it's planted row by row out in the 
field. I know that's been a problem within my State when the residue of 
the leftover hemp from World War II became companions with the 
marijuana that was raised for a different purpose.
  Mr. PETERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON. On that last point, the University of North Dakota, one 
of their ag guys up there came up with a way to splice a fluorescent 
gene into hemp, and North Dakota is a State where it's legal. So now 
the hemp that grows is fluorescent. So you can clearly tell the 
difference between the hemp and the marijuana. So we have solved that 
problem through research.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time in amazement, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. This is, of course, germane. It was ruled in order by the 
Rules Committee. There's no issue with the committee of jurisdiction.
  I yield 1 minute to the cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about some of the legal 
products that you can buy in the United States that are made with hemp.
  You can buy paper, clothes, rope, food, hundreds of products. Even 
car panels are made out of hemp. But the great tragedy is that we 
cannot grow hemp in Kentucky. We can't grow industrial hemp anywhere in 
the United States, and so we have to import it. Where do we import it 
from? It comes from China. It comes from Canada. It comes from Europe.
  There are many uses for hemp. There are 30 countries on this globe 
that can grow hemp. In fact, I believe every industrialized country in 
the world grows hemp. Farmers in Kentucky grew hemp during World War 
II. Hemp was grown in large quantities in my State of Kentucky. Canvas 
and rope made from hemp helped with the war effort.
  So this is not about drugs. This is not about a drugs bill. This is 
about jobs. And for Kentucky farmers, we need the opportunity. We need 
the opportunity to compete globally in a global market, and we 
shouldn't be denied this outlet for another productive crop in 
Kentucky.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to remark to the gentleman from Colorado that it wasn't 
a surprise to me to see that Colorado is the State that has legalized 
marijuana and so we also see the advocacy for this coming from the safe 
place. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but I'll give you two things to 
respond to.
  The other one is the reference to George Washington and Thomas 
Jefferson and Betsy Ross. That's quite curious. And I don't think we 
advocate all the things that they might have participated in. Two out 
of three of those would have fit within a category of an ownership that 
I don't really care to bring up today, even though today is Juneteenth.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. In addition, Colorado did legalize recreational use of 
marijuana. It also separately has legalized industrial hemp. There are 
more States that have legalized industrial hemp than have done anything 
with regard to recreational use of marijuana or even medicinal use of 
marijuana. All very different issues, and States are taking them up as 
we speak.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I recognize that the 
gentleman's amendment only applies to States that have already 
legalized it, and that's true.
  Nonetheless, I urge opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, under 
the basis that we haven't had a full hearing on this; we don't have a 
knowledge base behind it; we each have our own understanding of it. 
Mine is a debate that I have seen that's gone on for years, which is, 
when you plant hemp alongside marijuana, you can't tell the difference. 
So it opens up the door for the recreational agriculture of the 
marijuana drug, and for that reason alone I oppose it. So I'd urge the 
gentleman to seek a hearing in the appropriate committee, and I urge 
the defeat of this amendment.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. POLIS. How much time remains on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Iowa has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, we should explore the opportunity to produce 
industrial hemp here in the United States. This amendment would allow 
us to take a first step carefully and deliberately. It will allow 
research institutions in our States, including my home State of 
Kentucky, to grow industrial hemp for the purpose of agricultural 
research, helping provide the information we need to consider future 
expansion of production.
  Our States deserve this opportunity to demonstrate the usefulness and 
viability of this crop for our farmers. Kentucky was once the Nation's 
leading producer of industrial hemp. I encourage and support the 
passage of this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the leadership of my friend from 
Colorado and my friend from Kentucky in moving this forward. Nineteen 
States have passed pro-industrial hemp legislation; nine States 
removing barriers to its production altogether. As has been pointed 
out, these products are perfectly legal in the United States, some $300 
million a year, but it just has to be grown someplace else.
  It's outrageous that American farmers can't produce it, but what this 
amendment does is to simply permit the research opportunities for 
colleges and universities to grow and cultivate hemp for academic and 
agricultural research purposes.
  If this amendment passes and we're able to do this research in 
agricultural colleges and universities, then we're not going to have 
stupid talking points coming from DEA, and we won't have misleading 
statements that are made. People will understand why other countries 
have been able to figure this out, and the United States will be able. 
Nobody, regardless of your position on this, should be opposed to 
allowing our research colleges and universities to be able to do a deep 
dive to be able to find out what's possible.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the arguments that come forward from the 
Members here. They do come from States that have voted and expressed 
their support for, let's say, for the husbandry of hemp. It has a long 
history and it has been a useful product, but we have outlawed it for 
clear reasons; and that is, as I said, you can plant it alongside the 
recreational use marijuana and you can't tell the difference. If we are 
going to legalize the farming and the experimental agriculture with 
industrial hemp on our college campuses, that really wouldn't be the 
first place I would choose.
  Mr. PETERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

[[Page 9727]]


  Mr. PETERSON. I'd say to the gentleman, and we may have differing 
views on this, but again, the University of North Dakota has spliced a 
gene into hemp; and I will work with the gentleman to say, if we ever 
do anything with this, that we'll require that that be done. And if 
it's grown in the United States, it has to have the gene spliced into 
it so it is fluorescent so you'll clearly be able to tell the 
difference between hemp and marijuana. I don't really know anything 
about marijuana, but I've been told that if you put hemp in with 
marijuana, it ruins it. I don't know if that's true or not. But anyway, 
I think there's a way to solve this.
  You know, 35 percent of our cars are made out of hemp. This is a big 
market. We should be doing this. So let's work together, and I would 
like to bring you this information from North Dakota. We can solve that 
problem and maybe move forward.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I might want to do a night 
field trip up there and see that fluorescent hemp field.
  Mr. PETERSON. We'll take you up there in January when it's 40 below.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. This is a new piece of information for me, glow-in-
the-dark hemp. I know that they have spliced a gene from a jellyfish 
into a monkey and it glows also in the dark, so I'm confident that the 
gentleman's science is accurate. But whether we can keep those who 
raise recreational marijuana from splicing an identical gene into 
their's, we've got to deal with the GMO recreational marijuana problem 
that would be created by this, too.
  In any case, I oppose the gentleman's amendment and I urge its 
defeat.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 8102, relating to the Forest Legacy Program, 
     insert before the existing text ``(a) Authorization of 
     Appropriations.--'' and add at the end the following:
       (b) Authorizing States to Allow Qualified Organizations to 
     Acquire, Hold, and Manage Conservation Easements.--Subsection 
     (l) of section 7 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103c) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) State authorization.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the request of a State acting through 
     the State Lead Agency, the Secretary shall authorize the 
     State to allow qualified organizations, as defined in section 
     170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and organized 
     for one or more of the purposes described in section 
     170(h)(4)(A) of that Code, to acquire, hold, and manage 
     conservation easements, using funds granted to the State 
     under this subsection, for purposes of the Forest Legacy 
     Program in the State.
       ``(B) Eligibility.--To be eligible to acquire and manage 
     conservation easements under this paragraph, a qualified 
     organization described in subparagraph (A) must demonstrate 
     to the Secretary the abilities necessary to acquire, monitor, 
     and enforce interests in forestland consistent with the 
     Forest Legacy Program and the assessment of need for the 
     State.
       ``(C) Reversion.--If the Secretary, or a State acting 
     through the State Lead Agency, makes any of the 
     determinations described in subparagraph (D) with respect to 
     a conservation easement acquired by a qualified organization 
     under the authority of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) all right, title, and interest of the qualified 
     organization in and to the conservation easement shall 
     terminate; and
       ``(ii) all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     conservation easement shall revert to the State or other 
     qualified designee as approved by the State.
       ``(D) Determinations.--The determinations required for 
     operation of the reversionary interest retained in 
     subparagraph (C) are that--
       ``(i) the qualified organization is unable to carry out its 
     responsibilities under the Forest Legacy Program in the State 
     with respect to the conservation easement;
       ``(ii) the conservation easement has been modified in a way 
     that is inconsistent with the purposes of the Forest Legacy 
     Program or the assessment of need for the State; or
       ``(iii) the conservation easement has been conveyed to 
     another person (other than a qualified organization approved 
     by the State and the Secretary).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  To the disappointment, I suppose, of everybody that is here, this 
isn't nearly as much fun as the last amendment. This is a rather simple 
amendment. It deals with a 1990 law, the Forest Legacy Act. It simply 
allows the Forest Legacy Act to be much more efficient and effective. 
It would allow those States that would like to participate in the 
Forest Legacy Act to also allow within that State a qualified trust, a 
land trust, to hold the easement.
  The benefit of this is that it reduces the burden on the State 
government. The State government doesn't have to manage that easement. 
It would be managed by a qualified land trust, and it also allows for 
greater leverage of the money that would be available from the forest 
legacy projects from both the State and the Federal Government. It's a 
win all the way around. This program has been very, very successful in 
protecting forest lands all around the Nation, and this amendment 
simply would provide another opportunity to do even more to protect our 
forests.
  Now, these forests are not going to be held as national parks or 
wilderness. These are operating forests. These are forests that would 
be operating with good, modern forest practices, providing wood and 
fiber into the community and the jobs that go with it.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate and 
share the gentleman's desire to preserve forests in danger of 
conversion--that's very important to me. I chair the Agriculture 
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, but I don't believe 
that this is the best way to do it. I respectfully oppose the 
amendment.
  The Forest Legacy Program has been successful, to date, due to its 
unique structure, partnering with States to preserve forested land 
threatened by development. Since its creation in the 1990 farm bill, 
the Forest Legacy Program has more than been successful in fulfilling 
that purpose. The program has protected more than 2.2 million acres in 
43 States and has leveraged $739 million of non-Federal funding over 
the last 20 years.
  By opening the program to nongovernmental programs, we're doing 
nothing to promote the program's purpose. Demand is quite high for the 
program. For the last 3 years, USDA has only been able to fund roughly 
a quarter of the funding requests under this program. Additionally, 
this change only has the effect of making the program more similar to 
other conservation programs.
  In the 2008 farm bill, we created the Community Forest Program with 
the purpose of allowing groups such as land trusts and Indian tribes 
the authority to manage forest easements. This was done in part to 
allow nongovernment groups to participate in protecting local forests.
  While I'm certain the gentleman from California has the best of 
intentions, I don't agree we have a problem with this program that 
justifies opening it for alteration; and, therefore, I will oppose the 
amendment.

[[Page 9728]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. May I inquire as to how much time I have available?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the State 
of New York (Mr. Gibson).
  Mr. GIBSON. I thank my friend for yielding, and I am honored to join 
with him in support of this amendment. And I would say to my good 
friend from Pennsylvania, absolutely, and I believe I speak for my 
friend Mr. Garamendi as well, we think the program is working very 
well. We think it can work even better.

                              {time}  2110

  We've got land trusts in my area of upstate New York that are highly 
confident. In fact, you know, I'll tell you that they played a major 
role in preparing me for this farm bill. I'm thinking of Teri Platchek 
out in Washington County, and Peter Paden from Columbia County at the 
Columbia Land Conservancy, and Ned Sullivan and Andy Bickening with the 
Scenic Hudson, Becky Thornton, Duchess Land Conservancy.
  These are folks that are passionate about finding that nexus between 
agriculture and tourism where conservation plays a key role; and, you 
know, their insight to me helped me influence this farm bill. They're 
ready to step up and be more involved. That's going to help.
  As my friend from California said, it's going to help us use our 
money in even a more efficient manner and to reach out more in this 
program.
  So I urge support of this amendment. This only allows States the 
authority. You know, it really empowers States to make this decision. I 
think it's a good choice, and let's do it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I just note that my good 
friend from New York--and I appreciate his passion on this--but the 
organizations you named already have opportunities under the Community 
Forest Program.
  And we have two rather unique programs, one that already, well, as of 
the last farm bill that was done in 2008, provides the opportunity for 
nongovernmental groups to be able to participate.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Pennsylvania, I 
thought, was making a wonderful argument in support of this 
legislation, in that you talked about the success of the Forest Legacy 
Program, and it really has been eminently successful.
  And you also talked about the demands on the program, and that's 
true. Many, many States want to implement this program.
  But you didn't mention the fact that many States don't have the 
resources to manage additional properties, to manage additional trusts 
that they've taken. This would allow those States to make a decision. 
It's a State decision, it's not a Federal decision, it's not a decision 
by a private nonprofit qualified trust. This is a decision by the State 
to welcome into their program a private, nonprofit, qualified trust 
that does this kind of work that could then manage the trust without 
the State having to spend the money.
  The State maintains oversight and, should something happen that the 
trust is unable to continue, it would then revert to the State. But 
this is a way of really expanding what, apparently, the three of us 
want to have happen.
  You mentioned another program that does exist. Wonderful. Those 
programs could work in unison with the Federal Government 
participating, the State government participating, and the private.
  But the problem here is that, under the Forest Legacy Program, the 
private, nonprofit qualified trust can't participate in that program.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let me restate again, I 
recognize there's two different programs. There is one program that was 
created in 2008 that nongovernmental programs can participate in.
  There's no capacity within the Forest Legacy Program, Mr. Chairman, 
to add nongovernmental programs in. It is specifically designed for 
partnering with States to preserve forest lands that are threatened by 
development.
  And just as a reminder, over the last 3 years, USDA's only been able 
to fund roughly a quarter of those funding requests at this point, and 
by extending this would not serve a purpose.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I wish we had time to sit down and talk about this. 
It's really a shame that we're here on the floor at this moment. 
Really, I think, both of us are in support of protecting our forests, 
of enhancing their ability to continue to produce jobs, the food, the 
fiber and the wood that we need in our economy and in our society.
  We're not very far apart. If there's something here that needs to be 
worked out between these two programs, I'm sure we could do it. But 
this really gives us an opportunity to really do what I think all of us 
want, and that is to preserve our forests, keep them in operating 
production, and allow the nonprofits to participate together with the 
States.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 8301 through 8303 (page 481, line 20, 
     through page 485, line 23) and insert the following:

     SEC. 8301. INSECT AND DISEASE INFESTATION.

       Title VI of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 
     U.S.C. 6591 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 602. DESIGNATION OF TREATMENT AREAS.

       ``(a) Definition of Declining Forest Health.--In this 
     section, the term `declining forest health' means a forest 
     that is experiencing--
       ``(1) substantially increased tree mortality due to insect 
     or disease infestation; or
       ``(2) dieback due to infestation or defoliation by insects 
     or disease.
       ``(b) Designation of Treatment Areas.--
       ``(1) Initial areas.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 
     2013, the Secretary shall, if requested by the Governor of 
     the State, designate as part of an insect and disease 
     treatment program 1 or more subwatersheds (sixth-level 
     hydrologic units, according to the System of Hydrologic Unit 
     Codes of the United States Geological Survey) in at least 1 
     national forest in each State that is experiencing an insect 
     or disease epidemic.
       ``(2) Additional areas.--After the end of the 60-day period 
     described in paragraph (1), the Secretary may designate 
     additional subwatersheds under this section as needed to 
     address insect or disease threats.
       ``(c) Requirements.--To be designated a subwatershed under 
     subsection (b), the subwatershed shall be--
       ``(1) experiencing declining forest health, based on annual 
     forest health surveys conducted by the Secretary;
       ``(2) at risk of experiencing substantially increased tree 
     mortality over the next 15 years due to insect or disease 
     infestation, based on the most recent National Insect and 
     Disease Risk Map published by the Forest Service; or
       ``(3) in an area in which the risk of hazard trees poses an 
     imminent risk to public infrastructure, health, or safety.
       ``(d) Treatment of Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out priority 
     projects on Federal land in the subwatersheds designated 
     under subsection (b) to reduce the risk or extent of, or 
     increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation in 
     the subwatersheds.
       ``(2) Authority.--Any project under paragraph (1) for which 
     a public notice to initiate scoping is issued on or before 
     September 30,

[[Page 9729]]

     2018, may be carried out in accordance with subsections (b), 
     (c), and (d) of section 102, and sections 104, 105, and 106.
       ``(3) Effect.--Projects carried out under this subsection 
     shall be considered authorized hazardous fuel reduction 
     projects for purposes of the authorities described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2018, the 
     Secretary shall issue a report on actions taken to carry out 
     this subsection, including--
       ``(A) an evaluation of the progress towards project goals; 
     and
       ``(B) recommendations for modifications to the projects and 
     management treatments.
       ``(e) Tree Retention.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     projects under subsection (d) in a manner that maximizes the 
     retention of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for 
     the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote stands 
     that are resilient to insects and disease.''.

       Page 485, line 24, strike ``8304'' and insert ``8302''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, in my district in Colorado, and in other States 
across the West and Northwest, our trees, in my district, primarily 
lodgepole pines, have been plagued by pine beetle. Dendroctonus 
ponderosae has infected our trees. They're killed by a related fungus.
  We have entire mountainsides for miles and miles where trees are dead 
and are now beginning to rot. It's really transformed, sadly, the 
landscape of Colorado.
  The reason for the rise of the beetle is that we haven't had cold 
enough winters over the last several years to kill off the larva in the 
winter. It requires a certain number of days below a certain 
temperature.
  So, again, this is not about preventing the spread of pine beetles. 
We have some ability to do that in small areas on private land. They 
can wrap trees, but we don't have a cost-effective way to do that 
across large areas.
  What we do need to do, though, is once the trees have been killed, 
they represent a tremendous risk for forest fires, particularly when 
they're near power lines and other sensitive areas.
  So what my amendment does is it adds language that makes it easier to 
access Federal land. In the West, much of our land, as the Chair knows, 
is owned by the Federal Government, and there's been varying 
difficulties in getting on to the Federal land, being able to make sure 
that they do mitigation where necessary, take down pine beetle infested 
trees near power lines, near watersheds, near populated areas, a very 
important but more active part of forest management.
  Frankly, we'd love to find economically viable uses for the pine 
beetle kill. I have a desk in my office that's made from pine beetle 
kill. We also use it for biomass and other purposes. But many of it is 
back-country areas, and they're on Federal land.
  And so this amendment is simply an amendment that allows a lease on 
lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, an 
expedited way that we can engage in some of the necessary clearing and 
forest maintenance to prevent the pine beetle kill from causing 
ancillary damage.
  There is similar language in the Senate bill. I'm hopeful that we can 
work with Kristi Noem from South Dakota and others to achieve this 
important goal, increasing access to Federal lands for purposes of 
mitigating pine beetle damage.
  We plan to continue to work on this issue, one of the top priorities 
from my district.
  At this time I withdraw my amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 40 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Marino

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 9006 and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 9006. REPEAL OF BIODIESEL FUEL EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       Section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106) is repealed.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide for the elimination of the 
Biodiesel Fuel Education Program subsidy. This is one of a series of 
duplicative programs.

                              {time}  2120

  This program gives money to not-for-profit organizations that inform 
fleet operators and the public on the so-called benefits of using 
biodiesel fuels rather than fossil fuels.
  Mr. Chairman, this program is yet another example of corporate 
welfare--taxpayer dollars not being used wisely. The American taxpayer 
should not be forced to foot the bill for a proposed program in an 
industry that would be nonexistent if it were not for government 
subsidies.
  The Biodiesel Fuel Education Program incorrectly informs the public 
that biodiesel fuel is ``better'' than fossil fuels, oil, or natural 
gas. I am supportive of an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but 
Congress need not be in the business of picking winners and losers. 
These industries should stand on their own merit, and the consumer 
should decide what is the best product. We should not be wasting hard-
earned taxpayer dollars on groups that have a bias against fossil 
fuels. We should use this money to develop our current natural 
resources and create jobs.
  My district is in the heart of the Marcellus shale, and I have seen 
the jobs and opportunities created by domestic energy. The unemployment 
rate is below the national average. I cannot support any program that 
favors any one type of energy over another.
  I am not debating the merits of biofuels, and I am not against or 
opposed to biofuels; but there are over 20 other energy programs in the 
FARRM Bill alone. By continuing to funnel money to these programs to 
not-for-profit organizations going toward salaries, we are preventing 
other new energy technologies from breaking ground.
  We are $17 trillion in debt and borrowing more and more money every 
day. Let the taxpayers determine what they prefer, what source of 
energy to use, not the government using hardworking taxpayer dollars. 
This program is nothing but a colossal government subsidy that is not 
profitable at all.
  Again, I am not against the biofuel itself. I am against using 
taxpayer moneys going to not-for-profit organizations to promote this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from South Dakota is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. NOEM. Essentially what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is it 
eliminates an extremely effective program. Biodiesel is a clean-burning 
product that's produced by a mix of feedstocks, including soybean oil, 
wasted grease, and recycled animal fats. The byproducts of biodiesel is 
protein meal that is often made from soy and is used as livestock feed. 
It's a protein-rich livestock feed, as well.
  The more animal fat as biodiesel feedstock demand increases, 
livestock value increases, and this program is a grant education that's 
used to educate engine manufacturers, fleet operators, and the public 
on the benefits of biodiesel. The program plays a vital role in making 
sure it helps expand marketplace acceptance and the use of biodiesel as 
a low-carbon, renewable diesel replacement fuel.

[[Page 9730]]

  Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it doesn't save any money; 
what it does is it eliminates a program that is out there telling the 
story of what an all-of-the-above energy supply means that prioritizes 
American energy. We absolutely need to make sure that we are 
prioritizing the types of energy that we can produce in this country 
right here from renewable sources as well as petroleum products.
  I'm a farmer and a rancher. I utilize petroleum products every single 
day in our operation. But I also recognize the value in being able to 
have a program that promotes the use of renewable sources that we can 
regenerate and prioritize over other sources that come from other 
countries.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield 1 minute to Mr. King from 
Iowa if he would like to speak, as well.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from South Dakota for 
yielding to me, and I wanted to come to the floor in opposition, also, 
of this amendment.
  I've seen what this research does, and I've watched as we've gone 
from no industry to an industry now that's utilizing the products that 
the gentlelady from South Dakota has said, from animal fats, for soy 
oil, and it has cheapened up our energy supply and has cleaned up our 
air, and it's made us a better country because of it. This research 
that gets done--we should remember that there isn't always a return on 
that research investment. That's why we do research. That's why we do 
research in our universities, for example. And so with that research we 
can find those things that make us more efficient.
  I remember when the research labs said it was impossible to get the 
energy out of the feed grains that we now turn into energy. We've 
exceeded that because of research. And to utilize these animal fats has 
dramatically been changed a lot because of the research that takes 
place here with this fund.
  So I think this is a piece that we need to preserve so that we can 
preserve the efficiency that's there and we can preserve the education.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the things that we don't talk 
about enough is the fact that this research brings us benefits and cost 
savings in many other industries that we see reflected every day such 
as lower costs in energy areas, also lower costs in livestock feeds.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to Mr. 
Peterson from Minnesota if he would like to speak in opposition to the 
amendment, as well.
  Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentlelady.
  I, too, oppose this amendment. People need to realize that the diesel 
engine was invented by a German fellow named Diesel, and it ran on 
peanut oil. It didn't run on diesel fuel. And the internal combustion 
engine ran on ethanol. It didn't run on gasoline. They had to 
reengineer those motors to get them to run on gasoline and diesel fuel. 
It takes a different type of engine to run those kinds of fuels.
  One of the things you do with this type of a program is you help 
those manufacturers develop engines that can utilize the fuel. The same 
thing with a car engine. Down in Brazil, they're burning 30 percent 
ethanol with cars that are made by General Motors that are engineered 
to run on that fuel, and they get better mileage with that 30 percent 
ethanol than they get with gasoline because they engineered the engines 
right.
  That's what we're trying to do with this program is help the industry 
be able to utilize these fuels which are renewable and are made by 
Americans and are creating jobs. So this is a good program, and I 
oppose the amendment.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. I reserve the balance of my time, and if my colleague is 
ready, to close then.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from South Dakota, a member of the 
committee, has the right to close.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Once again, I'm not against the use of biofuels. I'm 
against the use of taxpayer dollars going to not-for-profit 
organizations to promote the use of biofuels. There is not one vehicle 
that runs 100 percent on biofuel that I know of at this point. And it 
does save money. If this program is eliminated of hundreds of thousands 
of dollars and millions of dollars per year, then that money should go 
back into the taxpayers' pockets, or at least pay the debt down.
  We should use taxpayer dollars to create jobs like building the 
Keystone XL pipeline and like developing natural gas exploration that 
we have an abundant supply of. So let's stop borrowing money to promote 
a product where we pick the winners and losers. As I said earlier, 
that's up to the consumer. They can choose what best product to use.
  But I just oppose the fact that hardworking, middle class taxpayer 
dollars are going for propaganda and advertising.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's 
concerns and all that he has brought to this House today.
  I will just reiterate that this is an extremely effective program. 
What it does is it lets the consumers know that they do have a choice. 
It lets them know about the benefits of the fuel, lets them know that 
it actually can have an impact on their efficiency levels that they are 
able to enjoy with their engines, that it gives them another market 
that they can go to to lower their energy costs. It lowers our 
livestock feed costs.
  What this program essentially does is it goes out there and it tells 
the consumer that there are options that are renewable right here in 
the United States that we can grow, that we can produce, and that we 
can put out there in the marketplace that will actually be something 
that is sustainable without the volatility of relying on the Middle 
East for our energy needs.
  I will reiterate that this program does not have a cost score as it 
relates to the underlying bill. Even though that was mentioned in some 
of the comments, there will be no money saved in the underlying bill if 
this amendment is adopted, and that is why I oppose it because of the 
effectiveness of the program and ask that we would oppose this 
amendment when it comes to a vote.
  Mr. PETERSON. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. NOEM. Absolutely.
  Mr. PETERSON. I just wanted to say that Willie Nelson's bus runs on 
B-100.
  Mrs. NOEM. There we go.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2130

  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42 printed in part B of 
House Report 113-117.


               Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 509, strike line 15 and all that follows through page 
     512, line 22.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a very simple 
question: Why are we spending millions of dollars advertising and 
promoting farmers markets?

[[Page 9731]]

  The Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program spends $40 
million on such trivialities as redecorating farmers' market stalls and 
roadside stands to attract yuppie customers. In Colorado, funds from 
this program paid for a chef competition and bike tour. More than 
$120,000 in two grants under this program were spent for beer seminars 
in China.
  This program duplicates four other Federal programs that also promote 
various aspects of farmers markets, and God knows how many State and 
local programs that also do the same thing. My amendment simply 
eliminates this program.
  I would challenge the supporters of the program to answer three 
questions.
  First: Why should a taxpayer in Latimer, Iowa, for example, pay for a 
farmer in Lancaster, California to advertise his produce?
  Second: Why should a shopkeeper in Lancaster, who has to pay for his 
own advertising, also pay for the local farmers advertising as well?
  And third, and most importantly: How can any Member look his or her 
constituents in the eye and tell them that a beer seminar in China is 
worth spending more of their earnings than they make in a year?
  We keep hearing how draconian is the sequester. We keep hearing how 
it's cutting deeply into vital public services. I dare say at least a 
dozen speeches on this floor this week were dedicated to the painful 
cutbacks caused by the sequester. We tell schoolchildren they can't 
tour the White House because we don't have the money due to the 
sequester. We tell our constituents that they'll have to wait in 
insufferable lines just to see us in the House office buildings because 
we don't have the money due to the sequester. And yet we seem to have 
plenty of money to fund travesties like those that are crammed into 
this farm bill. Doesn't that bother anybody here?
  I believe that rooting out wasteful programs like this one is the 
principle reason that voters entrusted Republicans with majority 
control of the House--the House that's supposed to hold the purse 
strings of this government. I ask my colleagues if we're being true to 
our campaign promises that we made to our constituents by continuing to 
fund such obscene wastes of their money as this one.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment and want to speak in favor of the Farmers Market Promotion 
Program.
  I have a very different perspective. While I appreciate my 
colleague's opposition or concerns raised about the sequester, I do not 
think those same concerns apply to what is a very good program.
  You know, when I moved to Maine about 40 years ago and started a 
small farm, growing and selling healthy food, locally grown food, was a 
little bit out of the mainstream. We had gone in a different direction. 
But I can tell you today, wherever I go, whether I'm talking to a group 
of bankers or a group of school teachers or a group of school kids or 
their parents, people nod in very strong support when I say we need to 
have more locally grown, sustainable food.
  People want to know where their food comes from. They want to see 
farmers in their communities. They want to help those farmers make ends 
meet. This amendment would take us backwards. It would further undo our 
weakened infrastructure of local food support.
  The Farmers Market Promotion Program--which is reformed in this bill 
to be the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program--helps 
communities support local food systems through direct marketing. There 
are not price guarantees, there isn't income support. This helps 
farmers understand the best practices for marketing their food. It 
helps them understand how to get the best price from the market for 
their product in this growing opportunity that truly supports rural 
communities.
  It's not an either/or proposition. You don't have to have just 
locally grown food or nationally grown food. You can support re-growing 
our local food infrastructure, helping rural communities, and also 
support conventional agriculture. You can buy California lettuce and 
also buy in-season tomatoes from the farmers who live down the road and 
support your community.
  The truth is I come from a State like Maine, and Maine is like many 
other States around the country; we have very, very few farmers who 
will be able to take advantage of the biggest programs in this bill, 
the biggest programs that are worth billions of dollars--the Revenue 
Loss Program, the Price Loss Program, the Stacked Income Protection 
Plan. They don't apply to farmers in my State. They get very little 
support to help these growing opportunities in rural communities. 
That's okay with them. They're not asking for a price guarantee; 
they're asking for some parity, for USDA programs to once and finally 
apply to them. They're not asking to be at a tremendous disadvantage 
because they are diversified and sustainable farmers, people who live 
and work in rural communities, whose kids go to our schools, who serve 
on local boards, who are part of the rural fiber of our country. That's 
all this program is asking for, a little bit of parity, a little bit of 
assistance in this billion-dollar program for big corporate farms.
  I cannot imagine how anyone could come to the floor and say, I don't 
want to help the fiber and fabric of rural States like mine, programs 
like Cultivating Community, which helped promote six local farm stands 
in low-income areas. This program helps people to support farm stands 
that accept SNAP benefits, that do a tremendous amount of things to get 
more people eating healthy, local food and promoting them. As I said, 
it's a critical part of our local infrastructure. I can't imagine why 
anyone would go against that.
  I'll pause there and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment as well.
  While we all share the desire to get rid of the fraud, waste and 
abuse, I think we've reached a delicate balance in the committee with 
the language that we've done here.
  This is a competitive grant process. It will improve direct producer-
to-consumer market opportunities. I think it's very valuable for our 
small farmers and our small communities.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I would just like to say one more time that 
this is a vital program.
  Let me again reinforce the good words of my colleague and thank him 
for speaking on the other side of the aisle in support of this program. 
This helps communities through direct marketing. This helps roadside 
stands, farmers markets, CSA, agritourism, other direct producer-to-
consumer marketing opportunities.
  It's a competitive grant. It's not a boondoggle. It's not direct 
payments to a farmer. And once again, I just want to say, I come from 
the State of Maine, which like many States is full of rural 
communities, rural communities who are seeing this renewed interest in 
buying food locally--a great way to expand this economy, to provide 
jobs, to get more money into our rural economies, to make sure people 
are eating healthier food, getting to know their farmers in their 
communities, making better, healthier decisions.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I begin by asking the supporters to 
answer three simple questions:
  Why should a taxpayer in one community pay to advertise produce for a 
farmer in another community? I heard no answer.

[[Page 9732]]



                              {time}  2140

  I asked why should a shopkeeper in one community who has to pay for 
his own advertising also pay for the local farmer's advertising as 
well. I heard no answer.
  And third, I asked how can any of us look our constituents in the eye 
and tell them that $120,000, more than most of our constituents make in 
a year, is a worthwhile expenditure to hold a beer seminar in China. 
Once again, I heard no answer.
  I forgive my Democratic colleagues the error of their ways. They 
never promised to be careful with the people's money. The Republicans 
made that promise. And because of that promise, the Republicans were 
entrusted with the majority of this House. Allowing programs like this 
to continue on our watch dishonors those promises, and I appeal to my 
Republican colleagues not to repeat the conduct that turned the 
Nation's stomach the last time we held the majority.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Gibson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 10010.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gibson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a bipartisan amendment addressing some underlying language in 
the bill pertaining to olive oil advanced by my good friends from 
California and Georgia who are here today to defend and to advance 
their olive growers. They are very proud of them.
  I just want to say how proud I am of their olive growers, as well, 
and also to address fraud. I want to also express my commitment to 
combating fraud as well.
  Regrettably, this underlying language misses the mark. In fact, it is 
going to significantly drive up costs. It is going to cost hundreds, in 
fact thousands, of jobs across America, including hundreds of jobs in 
my home State.
  I think it is important to focus in on what this underlying language 
does. We should face the facts that at least at the moment 98 percent 
of the olive oil that we consume in America is imported from overseas. 
In fact, we've got hundreds of jobs in New York State that deal with 
that. But 98 percent of the olive oil is imported. The underlying 
language will require 100 percent of that 98 percent to be chemical- 
and taste-tested at the port. Now you have about 5 to 8 percent that's 
spot checked. We're talking about going to 100 percent. I don't even 
think the United States Government has the capacity to do that. I 
certainly would fear if it ended up with the capacity to do that.
  Look, the way that we should deal with fraud is strike this language. 
We should look to the FDA for standards. We did this in New York. We 
have standards in New York. The olive oil distributors are certainly 
complying with it. They were part of making it come about. But what 
we've done in this underlying bill, I want to make sure it is very 
clear that this is going to drive up costs for all of our consumers, 
millions of dollars according to the CBO, and we are going to end up 
crushing jobs.
  With that, I want to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, after three debates in support of my 
colleague from New York, I find myself on the opposite side of this 
issue.
  We are in the process of developing a very viable American olive oil 
industry, one that has great potential. At the same time, that industry 
faces a question from the consumers about the quality of the oil that 
is available, both domestically produced, as well as internationally 
produced.
  There have been numerous studies done that indicate that there is a 
lot of misrepresentation as to the quality and the nature of olive oil. 
This bill, the FARRM Bill, simply establishes the opportunity for the 
creation of a marketing order that would eventually provide a farmer-
oriented regulation of the quality and the type of olive oil that's 
going to be on the market. That would apply both to imported, as well 
as domestically produced, olive oil.
  The cost of this need not be as high as my colleague from New York 
suggests. It is probable, and most feasible, that the olive oil that's 
imported would be checked as to its quality and consistency at the 
point of export, certainly not at the retail and probably not at the 
point of import.
  This can be done. This is done in many, many products that are 
produced in America, as well as imported--quality controls, consumer 
awareness.
  This is a very important bill for the domestic nascent olive oil 
industry.
  Mr. GIBSON. At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to demonstrate my strong 
support for this amendment, led by my colleague from New York, Mr. 
Gibson, to strike the olive oil price increase.
  This amendment is needed to stop the unnecessary increase in olive 
oil pricing. The unfair marketing order being considered would place 
heavy restrictions and burdens on the importation of olive oil.
  The United States is the largest importer of oil, importing 
approximately 97 percent of the olive oil Americans consume. The 
marketing order would result in tens of millions of dollars of costs 
for inspections a year, in turn raising the price of olive oil and 
making it incredibly expensive.
  The inspection would occur only when it is produced, not once the 
product enters the United States. This tax on American consumers will 
hinder trade and undermine our international trade relations. It is 
clearly a non-tariff trade barrier, which will further complicate U.S. 
trade and export relations with our Transatlantic partners.
  Just this week, the President has launched the Transatlantic Trade 
and Investment Partnership negotiations. This provision is against the 
spirit of the talks and trade with our largest trading partner. Current 
European Union free trade talks would be compromised, resulting in the 
loss of greater U.S. exports.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike the olive 
oil price increase.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of 
this amendment. This current farm bill, the olive oil provision, will 
simply require that both domestic and imported olive oil will be 
subject to the same labeling requirements. Let me restate that: the 
same labeling requirements for domestic and imported olive oil. 
Americans deserve to know that the product that is advertised on the 
label is the product that they are buying when they are pulling it off 
the shelf.
  As the gentleman from New York stated, it is spot-checked right now. 
Less than 5 percent of the 98 percent of the oil sold in this country 
is actually

[[Page 9733]]

checked as to whether or not it is labeled accurately.
  U.S. growers and ethical importers have a strong interest in 
developing this program of cost-effective solutions since you are 
saving high-quality standards for the consumer.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hanna).
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York for yielding 
and for his work on this amendment.
  I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment to strike the new 
trade barrier on imported olive oil included in this farm bill.
  This would place a new effective tax rate on olive oil imports, which 
hurts small businesses like restaurants, retailers, and especially 
consumers. It will seriously threaten good jobs in many communities, 
including my own.
  Roughly 98 percent of the olive oil consumed in the United States is 
imported. Only 2 percent--2 percent--is produced here. This new barrier 
would benefit a very small segment of the olive oil producers in very 
few States at the expense of all 50 States.
  CBO pegged the new olive oil regulation as a private sector mandate--
an earmark effectively--potentially costing businesses and consumers 
tens of millions of dollars.

                              {time}  2150

  Now is not the time to implement trade barriers with our allies as we 
begin new trade negotiations with the European Union. This amendment 
protects small businesses, consumers, and robust trade. I urge the 
support of this amendment.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LaMALFA I must rise in opposition to this amendment from my 
colleague from New York.
  In my family, olive oil was something that was very heavily used, my 
being of Italian descent. We purchased it locally in northern 
California by vendors just right nearby, and we always got top quality 
oil. I think we need to have that same opportunity for everybody across 
the country, not just the opportunity to buy the oil, but to know that 
the advertising--the labeling of it--is correct. Unfortunately, much 
imported oil does not have to meet the same standards for labeling, 
either using European standards or ours, especially by the time it's 
shipped here.
  So what we're looking for is not knocking out jobs or knocking out 
imported oil or any of that; it's just simply the truth in labeling 
that people would expect. When a label says ``extra virgin,'' then what 
should be in that container should be extra virgin. Unfortunately, much 
of it, by the time it gets here, is rancid. Maybe the label should say 
``extra rancid.'' What we're after here is not to cause problems for 
our friends who would like to market it; it's more just the truth in 
advertising that's necessary. There shouldn't be anything to worry 
about if you're an importer if your oil is meeting that standard.
  Reasonable standards can be worked out for what the testing is, so 
let's move forward with blocking this amendment for today and, instead, 
allowing for a good labeling standard to be put in place for American 
olive oil users whether the olive oil is domestic or imported. So I ask 
for people to deny this amendment today.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining, 
and the gentleman from Oregon has 1 minute remaining and has the right 
to close.
  Mr. GIBSON. I yield my last minute to my good friend from New York 
(Mr. Grimm).
  Mr. GRIMM. I thank my colleague from New York.
  I respect my colleagues from California and from Georgia, but let's 
just stop the nonsense and call it what it is.
  I have a district that consumes more Greek oil and Italian oil than 
you can ever imagine. It's not rancid, and they don't have any 
problems. The producers here are the ones with the problems. The people 
buying it, the distributors, all the different restaurants--their costs 
would go up exponentially. They know good oil, and they haven't had a 
problem. Of course, there is always going to be a problem in every 
industry, but this is nothing more than a multimillion-dollar earmark, 
so let's call it what it is; but I respect the fact that they're 
sticking up for their States.
  Olives, just like oranges, are tested, but we don't test orange 
juice. Grapes are tested, but we don't test the wine. We do test 
olives, but we shouldn't be testing olive oil. It would be the only 
manufactured good tested as a commodity. That would be a mistake. Even 
the CBO says it would be tens of millions of dollars in costs. We can't 
afford that for our jobs throughout the country. We can't afford that 
for our industry. This is a specialty earmark. I respect the intent, 
but it is bad policy, and I would ask everyone to oppose it.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I yield the last 1 minute to the other gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. This is a marketing order. The underlying law 
establishes a marketing order. A marketing order allows the producers 
to come together and decide how they're going to market their products 
and do it in a way that sets up standards for their products. This is 
common across virtually every aspect of American agriculture. This is 
nothing new. When you have a marketing order that involves imported as 
well as domestically produced, those imports are also affected by the 
qualifications and the standards set on that marketing order. This is 
not new.
  In fact, virtually everything you'll find in the produce, including 
many of the products that were described a moment ago, are controlled 
by a marketing order. We're not exactly sure, until the marketing 
order, what kind of regulations and quality standards will be put in 
place; but once they're in place, then whether it's an imported or a 
domestically produced oil, they'll have to abide by the same 
regulations.
  With regard to the cost, this is not new either. This happens in 
virtually most of the kinds of commodities and products that are 
imported and produced domestically. We're not talking about something 
radical.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mrs. Walorski

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 541, strike line 21 and all that follows through page 
     542, line 8.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman 
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment--to 
prevent the Christmas tree tax from taking effect. This amendment 
prevents President Obama's proposed Christmas tree tax from being 
implemented.
  The administration already tried to enforce this tax right before the 
Christmas season in 2011. In response to a resounding outcry from the 
American people, the tax was put on hold.
  When I'm at home in Indiana, I hear from Hoosier families firsthand 
about their daily struggles due to the sluggish economy--moms and dads 
and single parents who are struggling to make

[[Page 9734]]

ends meet to pay their monthly bills and to pay their mortgages and 
still have enough left in their budgets to put food on the tables and 
fill up the gas tanks.
  Americans are seeking commonsense solutions from Washington to jump-
start the economy, to provide more jobs, and to ensure that our 
children and grandchildren have the same opportunities that we enjoy in 
this great Nation. Now, as we focus on passing a comprehensive 5-year 
farm bill, some of my colleagues are looking to revive this unnecessary 
tax.
  There is no justification to impose another tax on the American 
people. There is certainly no justification to impose a tax on a 
commodity that symbolizes an historic Christmas tradition to many 
American families. The administration has denied that this is a 
``tax,'' but I think most Americans would agree that, when the Federal 
Government forces us to pay something, it's a tax--a tax imposed on 
every American family the next time one goes to pick out a Christmas 
tree.
  Christmas tree growers opposed to this tax cannot opt out. This tax 
will be charged to the grower, passed on to the consumer, adding to the 
cost printed at the bottom of your receipt, and increasing the amount 
of your hard-earned dollars owed to the Federal Government. Supporters 
of this tax will call it ``nominal'' and will argue that it's only 15 
to 20 cents, but with around 33 million fresh cut Christmas trees sold 
in the U.S. each year, this little tax adds up to millions of dollars 
in tax revenues.
  Our families save up for months to provide gifts for their families, 
to donate to charities, or to purchase a flight home to spend the 
holidays with their loved ones. This is not the time to raise taxes on 
our hardworking families, especially during the Christmas season. The 
President and Congress should, instead, focus on reducing government 
spending and finding commonsense solutions to lower taxes to provide 
relief for Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to make sure 
that our Christmas trees remain a symbol of Christmas and of the 
holiday spirit, not a symbol of more Big Government taxation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record 
straight.
  With all due respect, the good and gentlelady from Indiana is 
completely and totally misinformed as to what this Christmas tree 
checkoff bill does.
  If we were to strip this out of the FARRM Bill, millions of Americans 
would lose jobs. This is about protecting American agriculture. I did 
not see the gentlelady or any of her friends on the other side of the 
aisle get up and talk about the beef checkoff program or the dairy 
checkoff program or the cotton checkoff program, all of which help to 
promote American industry and American jobs and American research.

                              {time}  2200

  With all due respect, the idea that this is a tax is absolutely 
ludicrous. This is a fee that the industry has come to us for, just 
like the cattlemen did, just like the cotton growers did, and just like 
the dairymen did, to help promote their industry.
  Perhaps the gentlelady is unaware of the fact that the Christmas tree 
industry is under siege in this country. What's more American than 
Christmas? You know what's happening? The Chinese are exporting to our 
country, and we are importing fake Chinese trees. It's devastating the 
American industry right now. We can be in favor of Chinese jobs, or we 
can be in favor of American agriculture jobs and silviculture jobs.
  This is pretty straightforward, folks. This is something that's not 
new. It's been done for years and years. With all due respect again, 
the gentlelady's talking points talk about this Christmas season--well, 
I don't think it's Christmas season. We are now into June. It's time to 
get updated and understand where this country is coming from.
  American agriculture has worked hard trying to stay competitive. What 
are the States that are going to be affected if we don't do this? What 
are the States that are going to be affected? We've got North Carolina. 
We've got Tennessee. We've got Michigan. We've got Washington. We've 
got Oregon. I could go on. Pennsylvania. All 50 States produce 
Christmas trees.
  This industry needs to survive. This is an American industry 
producing Christmas trees. I'm shocked actually, that there's anyone 
that is willing to take this off the agenda.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Indiana has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. With all due respect to the gentleman and his point on 
all these ``checkoffs,'' this is a tax that the American people 
themselves resoundingly in 2011 have said, absolutely not. In fact, the 
American people put so much pressure on President Obama, he actually 
backed off and rescinded this and moved it into a different time slot, 
which is what we're looking at today.
  The people in my district are hardworking Americans. They're double-
income households, single moms with kids under the age of 18 that are 
trying to raise up households, they're trying to pay for their bills, 
they're trying to pay their mortgage and they're trying to put gas in 
their car. And I think that we have a government and a Washington that 
is out of control when it comes to taxation. We don't need another tax 
coming out of Washington. We need help for American families.
  With that, I would again urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I would again like to continue to set the record 
straight.
  The American people did not vote in any, way, shape or form on this 
promotion research program for American Christmas trees. If they had, I 
think they would vote in favor of American agricultural jobs in rural 
America.
  I don't know if the gentlelady knows this, but the unemployment rate 
in rural America is easily still in the double digits. This is an 
industry that needs severe help and our time. If the American 
government can't come to their aid by letting them assess themselves a 
fee that is overwhelmingly supported by the industry to keep it alive, 
to keep it producing American jobs, I don't know what our government is 
all about at the end of the day.
  This should be a straightforward ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  As a matter of fact, this was so noncontroversial in the Agriculture 
Committee on which I serve, that it passed unanimous en bloc. This was 
not a controversial issue. So I guess I'd like to think we've moved 
forward out of the election season. It's now time to get real. It's now 
time to put some jobs on the table for Americans, particularly in rural 
America.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, again I would just like to add, as I 
close, that this is a time--and I agree with the gentleman in one 
sense. This is a time for us to be talking here about things like jobs 
and a struggling, sluggish economy. Because of that, the hardworking 
people in my district, the last thing they expect to see, the last 
thing they want to see--and Americans did resoundingly cry out in 2011 
to not send another tax their way.
  This is a tax. When the Federal Government says to Americans you must 
pay ``X,'' that's a tax. In my district, it's hardworking Hoosiers that 
have resoundingly said, No more taxes from this government. They are 
taxed enough, and they don't want to be taxed at the Christmas season.
  I again urge my colleagues to stand in support of this amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 9735]]


  Mr. SCHRADER. I guess what I would like to close with here is that I 
can't say it often enough and more accurate enough, that this is 
nothing about taxation. This is about the promotion of an industry that 
we would like to support in America: Christmas. What's more American 
than Christmas? I can't believe the opposition is seeking to attack 
Christmas and Christmas tree producers.
  It's tough out there. The recession isn't over. The recession isn't 
over in rural America right now. Over 70 percent of the folks in the 
Christmas tree industry easily favor this bill. I'd love to see my 
approval rating come even up to 15 percent or 20 percent. These guys 
are at 70 percent wanting to get something done.
  I think we owe it to them to back them. The producers across this 
country need our help. We did it for beef. We did it for dairy. We've 
done it for cotton. We've done it for a number of other industries. I 
don't see why Christmas trees should be discriminated against and we 
should be encouraging Chinese jobs and Chinese fake trees in our 
Christmas tree pageants. I think that's terrible.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Indiana 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Courtney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 10018. FARMED SHELLFISH AS SPECIALTY CROPS.

       Section 3(1) of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 
     2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law 108-465) is amended by 
     inserting ``farmed shellfish'' after ``fruits,''.
       In the table of contents in section 1(b), insert after the 
     item relating to section 10017 the following new item:

Sec. 10018. Farmed shellfish as specialty crops.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment, which I've 
introduced with my friend, Mr. Wittman from Virginia, is a budget 
neutral amendment. It does not change any authorized level of spending. 
It very simply adds shellfish farming to the Specialty Crops 
Competitiveness Act programs, the block grants and the crop research 
initiative, which is again, I think, a reasonable addition given the 
history of the block grants and the research initiative program prior 
to 2004.
  Again, I want to just emphasize at the outset what we're talking 
about here is shellfish farming. We are not talking about fishing. 
Shellfish farming is a cultivated process from seed which in many 
instances starts offshore and proceeds to harvest in beds just adjacent 
to a coast. It actually goes back into antiquity in terms of the 
process and the farming technique that surrounds shellfish farming.
  Again, prior to 2004, the specialty crop programs were administered 
through the USDA to States, and States had discretion to determine 
specialty crop programs which they wanted to fund. In some instances, 
shellfish farming was included along with fruit and nuts and other 
forms of specialty crops.
  In 2004, Congress changed the program and gave specific definitions 
which take away that discretion to States in terms of the block grants 
program. And the block grants in many instances provide marketing 
assistance.
  Shellfish farming--oysters, clams, mussels--is a growing industry. In 
fact, for people who have become exposed to it, it is considered a very 
high quality industry in terms of U.S. shellfish that actually provides 
opportunities for export growth around the world. And what this 
amendment will do is to give that growing area of aquaculture an 
opportunity to expand and grow. It affects the Pacific coast, gulf 
coast and the eastern coast.
  Again, this is a cost neutral amendment to extend very important 
marketing assistance and research assistance to a part of American 
agriculture, which clearly aquaculture is. Again, this is cultivated 
growing of food, unlike fishing. And I think for the hardworking men 
and women who get up every single day, just like dairy farmers or 
people who pick apples or other forms of specialty crops who pay taxes, 
they should be allowed to have access to this program, a competitive 
grant program, which they would have to demonstrate their eligibility 
for.
  With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2210

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  While I appreciate the interest of the gentlemen in advancing 
shellfish fishermen in their districts, I think the premise of their 
amendment is wrong. While other definitions of specialty crops may have 
included shellfish, the definition under the Specialty Crops 
Competitiveness Act was designed specifically for fruit, vegetable, and 
horticulture producers. The programs under this act were new, so 
nothing that shellfish were previously eligible for had been taken away 
by them. Being animals, shellfish have simply not been included in the 
program specifically designed for plant products.
  Now, while some minor aspects of a limited number of programs 
developed under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act may be generic 
enough that the addition of animal species would not be overly 
problematic, this definition has been used multiple times since 2004 in 
a variety of plant protection laws; and as has been pointed out to the 
amendment sponsors, the simple modification of the definition they are 
seeking would create potentially massive confusion in a variety of 
critical programs.
  Therefore, as fond as I am of both authors, and as appreciative as I 
am of the product that they are attempting to endeavor, I must 
respectfully request that we oppose the amendment.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Again, first of all, I just want to salute the great 
work the chairman of the committee has done. It has been magnificent to 
see regular order in this Congress.
  Secondly, I would just point out that the 2004 specialty crop law was 
amended in the last farm bill in 2008 to add horticulture. So again, 
what was done in 2004 is hardly a sacred text. We have the ability to, 
again with good reason and evidence, to amend this law. And again, I 
think given the history of it pre-2004, this is not an unreasonable 
change.
  To help make that point, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. WITTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just as he said, this is an effort just to modernize the list of 
eligible products under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act. It is 
just about making sure that those folks in rural coastal areas have the 
same opportunities as those farmers on land. In those coastal areas, 
shellfish, molluscan shellfish, are extraordinarily important as a part 
of the economy.
  Modern practices take the watermen from wild harvest now to farming 
shellfish products, just like on-land farmers do. What this does is it 
makes sure that those coastal economies have

[[Page 9736]]

the same access to resources under this program as those farmers on 
land do. It really is just the situation of making sure that we have 
parity there.
  This doesn't add a new checkoff program. It doesn't add new taxes. It 
purely puts in place access to those dollars competitively, just like 
those farmers that farm other crops on land.
  Again, this is extraordinarily important to coastal communities in 
those areas where those watermen are now converting to being farmers on 
the water. So it really is, again, about making sure that we are fair 
in treating those farmers on the water the same as we do the farmers on 
the land.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There is a difference, I think, in the way that the act was created 
between animals and plants. I think this is an issue certainly that we 
need to address and look at, but in the context that it is put here, I 
don't think that this is an appropriate amendment. I would simply ask 
my colleagues in a very respectful fashion to decline this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Kind

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In title XI, insert after the title heading the following:

                         Subtitle A--In General

       At the end of title XI, add the following new subtitle:

 Subtitle B--Assisting Family Farmers Through Insurance Reform Measures

     SEC. 11041. ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME AND PER PERSON LIMITATIONS 
                   ON SHARE OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS PAID BY 
                   CORPORATION.

       Section 508(e)(1) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(e)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``For the purpose'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) Payment authority.--For the purpose''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(B) Adjusted gross income limitation.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this title, the Corporation shall not 
     pay a part of the premium for additional coverage for any 
     person or legal entity that has an average adjusted gross 
     income (as defined in section 1001D of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a)) in excess of $250,000.
       ``(C) Per person limitation.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this title, the total amount of premium paid by 
     the Corporation on behalf of a person or legal entity, 
     directly or indirectly, with respect to all policies issued 
     to the person or legal entity under this title for a crop 
     year shall be limited to a maximum of $50,000. To the maximum 
     extent practicable, the Corporation shall carry out this 
     subparagraph in accordance with sections 1001 through 1001F 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308 et seq.).''.

     SEC. 11042. CAP ON OVERALL RATE OF RETURN FOR CROP INSURANCE 
                   PROVIDERS.

       Section 508(k)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by designating paragraph (3) as subparagraph (A) (and 
     adjusting the margin two ems to the right);
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (A) (as so designated) 
     the following:
       ``(3) Risk.--''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Cap on overall rate of return.--The target rate of 
     return for all the companies combined for the 2013 and 
     subsequent reinsurance years shall be 12 percent of retained 
     premium.''.

     SEC. 11043. CAP ON REIMBURSEMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND 
                   OPERATING EXPENSES OF CROP INSURANCE PROVIDERS.

       Section 508(k)(4) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) Additional cap on reimbursements.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraphs (A) through (F), total reimbursements for 
     administrative and operating costs for the 2013 insurance 
     year for all types of policies and plans of insurance shall 
     not exceed $900,000,000. For each subsequent insurance year, 
     the dollar amount in effect pursuant to the preceding 
     sentence shall be increased by the same inflation factor as 
     established for the administrative and operating costs cap in 
     the 2011 Standard Reinsurance Agreement.''.

     SEC. 11044. BUDGET LIMITATIONS ON RENEGOTIATION OF STANDARD 
                   REINSURANCE AGREEMENT.

       Section 508(k)(8) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1938 
     (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(8)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) Reduction in corporation obligations.--The Board 
     shall ensure that any Standard Reinsurance Agreement 
     negotiated under subparagraph (A)(ii), when compared to the 
     immediately preceding Standard Reinsurance Agreement, shall 
     reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, the obligations of 
     the Corporation under subsections (e)(2) or (k)(4) or section 
     523.''.

     SEC. 11045. CROP INSURANCE PREMIUM SUBSIDIES DISCLOSURE IN 
                   THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

       Section 502(c)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1502(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D) respectively; and
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (C) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:
       ``(A) Disclosure in the public interest.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall on an 
     annual basis make available to the public--
       ``(i)(I) the name of each individual or entity who obtained 
     a federally subsidized crop insurance, livestock, or forage 
     policy or plan of insurance during the previous fiscal year;
       ``(II) the amount of premium subsidy received by the 
     individual or entity from the Corporation; and
       ``(III) the amount of any Federal portion of indemnities 
     paid in the event of a loss during that fiscal year for each 
     policy associated with that individual or entity; and
       ``(ii) for each private insurance provider, by name--

       ``(I) the underwriting gains earned through participation 
     in the federally subsidized crop insurance program; and
       ``(II) the amount paid under this subtitle for--

       ``(aa) administrative and operating expenses;
       ``(bb) any Federal portion of indemnities and reinsurance; 
     and
       ``(cc) any other purpose.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not disclose 
     information pertaining to individuals and entities covered by 
     a catastrophic risk protection plan offered under section 
     508(b).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment with my friend and 
colleague, Representative Petri from Wisconsin, that would call for 
further reforms in tightening of the crop insurance program. By the 
steps we take with this reform amendment, we would save the American 
taxpayer over $11 billion over the next 10 years. It was based on 
bipartisan legislation that Representative Petri and I offered earlier 
this year that was supported by Representatives McGovern, 
Sensenbrenner, DeLauro, Radel, Blumenauer, Conyers, Cooper, DeFazio, 
Connolly, and Waxman, and supported by a variety of outside groups.
  What we're trying to do is maintain an element of risk in farming, 
again, in a fiscally responsible manner, by tightening up crop 
insurance programs that we feel have become too excessive with the 
shifting of title I commodity money and direct payments into the crop 
insurance category. We'd save over $11 billion over the next 10 years 
by doing the following:
  We'd call for a limit of Federal crop insurance subsidies to $50,000 
per farmer per year. Currently, there are no limits, no cap on the 
amount of taxpayer subsidies going to farm entities. Last year alone, 
over 26 entities received over $1 million in taxpayer premium subsidies 
alone. We think that's wrong, and we're trying to correct it with this 
amendment.

[[Page 9737]]

  We'd also extend the adjusted gross income limit of $250,000 per farm 
entity to apply to crop insurance programs. The concept there is 
simple. If you're a farm entity with a gross profit of over a quarter 
of a million dollars, you really ought not be receiving taxpayer 
subsidies. This is after you back out the operating expenses of doing 
business. We're talking a quarter of a million dollars worth of profit.
  It would promote crop insurance company efficiency by ending the 100 
percent government subsidy of the administrative and operating costs 
that the private insurance companies currently enjoy today. Last year 
we spent over $1.3 billion on these insurance companies just for their 
A&O expenses alone. We're asking them to live with the total spending 
of $900 million, which is consistent with what the Obama administration 
is offering in its budget.
  This would also guarantee that the crop insurance companies do not 
pass along the riskiest policies back to the American taxpayer, which 
is currently the practice.
  It would lower the profit guaranteed to these private insurance 
companies from 14 percent to 12 percent. We don't offer that type of 
guarantee for any other business anywhere else in the country, and yet 
now they're guaranteed a 14 percent profit. We're saying can you at 
least live with a 12 percent profit for the sake of some savings within 
this program.
  And it would also promote transparency to help the taxpayer know 
where the money is going and who's benefiting from it. It opens the 
sunshine up so we have greater disclosure of these programs and, 
therefore, greater scrutiny.
  So we think this is commonsense reform. We think this is something 
that maintains the risk management tool of crop insurance. We're not 
proposing eliminating it, but we're just trying to propose making it 
more market sensitive and maintaining that element of risk.
  Finally, one of the reasons we feel that this is so important is 
because of current commodity prices. There is great pressure on farmers 
now to plant everywhere, in the most fallow, highly sensitive, highly 
erodible land because they know if they experience any loss, their loss 
is covered. Therefore, the risk is taken out of it. That is leading to 
bad stewardship practices throughout our country. With this reform, 
we're trying to introduce that element of some second guessing, some 
risk in the most fallow, unproductive land that's right now being 
brought back into production.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee 
chairman of primary jurisdiction, Mr. Conaway of Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to this attack on a very important piece 
of the safety net that production agriculture relies upon. There are 
two possible outcomes for this amendment, and both are bad.
  The first is that we're going to put the government back in the 
business of delivering crop insurance. We tried that. It didn't work. 
Government employees don't act nearly as responsibly as the private 
sector does. That comes with a cost, but the farmers like it. They get 
response from these folks that is appropriate.
  Secondly, we would go back to the possibility of days when we spent 
billions of dollars on unbudgeted, ad hoc disaster relief.

                              {time}  2220

  And that's the least efficient way that we ought to go about this. 
And that's what this amendment does. It is bad for taxpayers. In spite 
of my colleagues' comments, this amendment won't save money. It will 
end up costing us untold billions in this ad hoc disaster spending 
that's the norm in that regard.
  I know that the Environmental Working Group and other radical 
environment groups want to run our farmers and ranchers out of 
business. I get that. This amendment would certainly help them 
accomplish their goal.
  So if your aim today is to stick the American taxpayer with billions 
of dollars to pay for ad hoc disaster bills, this is your kind of 
amendment. If you want to give the extreme environmentalist group, the 
crowd that gave us Meatless Mondays, a win in their effort to ruin 
American farming and ranching families, this will get right at it.
  So I have farmers and ranchers struggling with 3 years of successive 
and severe drought. This is a slap in the face to those farmers and 
ranchers in west Texas and across this country. This amendment is not 
good, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Unless my good 
friend wants to include the National Taxpayer Union, Taxpayers for 
Common Sense, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax 
Reform, Committee for Responsible Taxation, American Commitment for the 
Center for Individual Liberty, ``R'' Street Competitive Enterprise 
Institute in that category of radical environmental groups, they've all 
come out in support, endorsing this legislation.
  But we're not taking the private insurance companies out. We're just 
asking them to carry some risk and to reduce their guaranteed profit 
margin from 14 to 12.
  With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend and colleague 
from Wisconsin, Representative Petri.
  Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  As the House considers the FARRM Act of 2013, I believe it's 
important that we offer the proper support for farmers, while ensuring 
that these support programs are responsible for the American taxpayer.
  As you may know, the Federal Crop Insurance Program is the most 
expensive government program supporting farm income and is the only 
farm income support program that is not subject to some form of payment 
limitation or means testing.
  This amendment, which incorporates the language in the AFFIRM Act 
that Representative Kind and I introduced last month, works to reform 
the crop insurance program. Capping crop insurance subsidies at $50,000 
per person per year does not prohibit farmers from purchasing crop 
insurance, nor does it eliminate all taxpayer support for the program.
  In fact, most farmers would not be affected by this cap at all. 
According to the GAO, in 2011, only 4 percent of farmers would have 
been impacted by this $50,000 cap on subsidy for insurance.
  For 2001 to 2012, the total cost of premium subsidies jumped 
fourfold, from $1.8 billion to $7.5 billion. The Congressional Budget 
Office projects even higher costs in the future, averaging $9.1 billion 
annually. The subsidy cap, combined with the $250,000 means testing 
requirement, will assist in preventing fraud, waste and abuse in the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KIND. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PETRI. This amendment also reforms administrative and operating 
reimbursements that the government pays to private insurance companies 
by capping those payments at $900 million, which is a fairly moderate 
cap and below what's currently being spent. It also lowers the 
reimbursement to insurance companies to the President's target of 12 
percent return from 14 percent return.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman.
  Farm policy is intended to provide support when needed, based on 
production. U.S. farms have been forced to become larger to increase 
efficiency and remain competitive in the global marketplace. 
Arbitrarily limiting policies

[[Page 9738]]

ultimately limits the ability of farms to grow and gain efficiencies, 
thereby penalizing U.S. farmers and putting them at a distinct 
disadvantage to our global competitors.
  Adjusted gross income is different than farm profit. There are a 
number of expenses that must be covered. In addition to personal 
expenses, farmers must service debt, given the cost of today's 
machinery and land can easily reach into the millions.
  AGI rules penalize spouses who oftentimes take off-farm jobs to help 
make ends meet when farmers are struggling with their farm income. An 
unreasonable AGI means test creates uncertainty for growers and their 
lenders by creating a ping-pong effect of being eligible one year and 
ineligible the next, making it difficult or impossible for lenders to 
measure, with any certainty, the future cash flow of thousands of farm 
and ranch families in order to make both short and long-term lending 
decisions.
  In short, an unreasonable AGI means test would make U.S. farm policy 
unpredictable, inequitable and punitive for thousands of American farm 
and ranch families.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 4 minutes.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to 
the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a champion for family 
farmers and for the nutrition program in the farm bill.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in support of this amendment, strong support of 
this amendment, because it aims to reform a broken crop insurance 
program. This is a program where taxpayers foot an average of 60 
percent of the premiums for beneficiaries, plus there's the 
reimbursement of the administrative and operating costs, 100 percent of 
those efforts.
  These are for private companies that sell the plans, including 
multinational corporations, some of whom trace back to companies who 
are in tax havens. And essentially, what it does, it works to improve 
crop insurance, it limits taxpayer subsidized profits of companies that 
sell crop insurance.
  It does not harm the ability of the companies to sell these policies 
in any way. It would ensure that taxpayers do not continue to subsidize 
these administrative and operating expenses.
  It's a bipartisan amendment. It enjoys broad support from a number of 
groups across the political spectrum, as has been laid out. It caps the 
amount of crop insurance premium support individual producers receive.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. KIND. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. GAO said that the cap would affect just under 4 percent. 
Crop insurance is the only farm support program subsidized by taxpayers 
and not subject to a payment limitation. This would bring this in line 
with other farm programs, and it would shine a little long overdue 
sunlight on the crop insurance program.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
  Mr. BARROW of Georgia. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The 
people I represent value American agriculture and understand that food 
doesn't grow on grocery store shelves. It takes the hard work and high 
risk of farmers to get that food to market. I believe all of those 
farmers are worth supporting.
  This amendment will undermine the safety net for many of those 
farmers, large and small. Many people don't realize it, but farm 
operations are made up of as many different kinds of farms as people. 
Different farms have different sizes, different ownership structures, 
different crop mixes and different equipment, and that diversity makes 
our domestic farming portfolio strong.
  It's often the big guys who act as the hub of a farm community and 
offer the smaller farmers in the area access to expensive equipment 
that they could never afford on their own. These are all family farms 
in the best sense of the word, and they depend on each other for their 
livelihood.
  This amendment effectively ends the safety net for the large family 
farmer, without whom many of our small family farms couldn't produce. 
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. KIND. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2\3/4\ minutes. 
The gentleman from Oklahoma has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KIND. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your yielding also to 
me.
  I rise in opposition to the Kind amendment, and do I so because I 
don't want to see agriculture distorted.
  We've watched as equipment's gotten larger, farms have gotten larger. 
And when you start locking this thing down and tying it to an AGI, what 
you really have is a means test for the first time. It pits neighbors 
against neighbors.
  Here's what I remember. Back in the eighties, when we had a farm 
crisis and we had a real disaster, I saw on the front page of the 
paper, $26 billion in farm subsidy disaster money to deal with drought 
and the climate that we had and the bad economic climate.
  We haven't had those calls. 2011 we had a big flood. No calls for 
disaster money. 2012 we had a big drought. No calls for disaster money.
  Crop insurance is working. Eighty-six percent of the crop is insured 
today. I recall it being 13 percent back then when I saw the $26 
billion bill hit the headlines in the Des Moines Register.
  So I urge opposition to the Kind amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the House Agriculture 
Committee.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding.
  You know, what this amendment's going to do is undermine the crop 
insurance system and take a whole bunch of people out of the crop 
insurance system that we need to make it actuarially sound.
  Now, it was just said here that there's no other program that doesn't 
have a payment limit. Well, let me tell you something. Mr. Kind is 
cosponsor of the Goodlatte-Scott dairy provision, which has no payment 
limits.

                              {time}  2230

  The 6,000 cow dairies in Mr. Kind's district are going to get 
$600,000 of benefit from our subsidies in the dairy program, and 
there's no payment limitation. So, come on. If you really believe in 
payment limits, why isn't it on the Goodlatte-Scott scheme?
  So this amendment undermines everything that we've been trying to do 
in the Agriculture Committee. We had the biggest disaster last year, 
drought, that we've ever had. We had no significant call for an ad hoc 
disaster for the first time that I can remember since I've been here, 
and the reason is because crop insurance worked.
  Agriculture is working. In my district, we have 3 percent 
unemployment because agriculture is working. The one part of the 
economy that's actually working, and all these people that want to 
create jobs and want to create government programs so we can create 
jobs, they want to take the one thing that's working in the country and 
screw it up. And I'm not going to be part of it.
  So vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 2\3/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield to myself, Mr. Chairman, 2 minutes.
  The ranking member makes very valid points. When you look at the way 
Federal crop insurance works, it shifts the risk from the Treasury to 
the private companies to the reinsurers to the farmers and ranchers. If 
you look at how these premiums and payments have gone over the last 
decade--not just the really tough weather last year--you'll find that, 
in reality, 70 percent of the policies over the last 10

[[Page 9739]]

years have not returned one single penny--70 percent.
  And if you look at how the program has worked in the 7 years prior to 
the onset of the drought of 2011, basically the Federal Government 
actually made money on Federal crop insurance. Now, I can't help the 
anomaly that the superdrought was in the Midwest. But I can tell you 
that's a pretty good track record.
  The ranking member is entirely right: it works. Let's not mess up 
something that works. With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in 
response.
  To my good friend in Minnesota, my average dairy herd size in western 
Wisconsin is 125 cows. I don't have the mega-dairy operations and that. 
So we'll have plenty of time to debate the federally run supply 
management program that he's been advocating for in the FARRM Bill, 
which I think will be a disaster and won't work.
  But to my friend from Iowa, we're not talking about eliminating the 
crop insurance program. This risk-management tool will be in place. It 
won't touch 96 percent of the producers out there.
  The last time I checked, we're running some record budget deficits, 
and there are areas in this farm program, especially in crop insurance, 
that we can go to for sensible, commonsense savings that's economically 
justifiable while maintaining risk within the program today.
  It's a little ironic that we have such defenders of this crop 
insurance program when last year alone, the typical insurance company 
received $1.46 in taxpayer subsidies to every dollar that went into the 
pocket of our farmers. And five of the 10 biggest insurance companies 
offering these programs are foreign-owned entities. As the gentlelady 
from Connecticut just pointed out, many of them are using tax havens on 
the taxpayer dime. And how they can get up here and justify this 
program with a straight face is really beyond me.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you to my colleague, Chairman 
Lucas. Thank you to Ranking Member Peterson.
  We agree: crop insurance is not broken. I stand here today to remind 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that recently Secretary of 
Agriculture Tom Vilsack sat in our Agriculture Committee hearing and 
said that crop insurance is not broken. Crop insurance is one of the 
most successful programs we have in the Midwest as you heard in this 
debate. We see that we're not doing off-budget disaster assistance. We 
see that farmers are willing to give up direct payments to have better 
risk-management tools like crop insurance.
  Let's also get to the point, too, that bankers, our creditors, will 
not give loans to our farmers and keep our family farms in business 
without a strong risk-management program like the effective crop 
insurance program that we have.
  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We need to 
ensure that this risk-management tool, crop insurance, stays as viable 
and as effective as it is; and I stand here today and agree with 
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and agree that crop insurance is 
not broken. Please oppose this amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to 
my good friend, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you, Mr. Kind, for giving up some of your 
valuable time. I will try to be quick. First, I want to thank the chair 
and the ranking member. They've worked hard on the FARRM bill, and I 
appreciate many of the good pieces that are in this bill.
  But there are a lot of unconscionable cuts that hit deeply into the 
working poor in this country, particularly the SNAP benefits cuts, 
which is a means-tested program.
  I want to rise in support of this amendment because unlike the cuts 
on the SNAP benefits for low-income families, this amendment just asks 
the richest agricultural business in America to pay a little more and 
receive a little less, just this one portion of the amendment, the 
$250,000 cap for farmers who clear more than $250,000 a year. We have a 
lot of farmers in our State and a growing number of farmers in our 
State, but there are very few that clear more money than that.
  This mostly affects corporate farms. Ninety-six percent of the 
farmers will never be affected by this amendment, but for a very few, 
this is a huge benefit.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank my 
colleague for his time.
  Mr. KIND. I believe the chairman has the right to close.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has the right to close 
and does still have time.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying that, listen, I 
understand there's a lot of hard work that goes into the committee in 
producing a farm bill. I get that. But there are areas of cost savings 
that we can justify to the American taxpayer without jeopardizing the 
risk-management tools.
  Crop insurance is ripe for that type of reform. And, again, what 
we're offering and what we're setting out is very commonsense, 
economically justifiable, and would save the American taxpayer over $11 
billion over the next 10 years.
  If the average taxpayer knew just how this crop insurance program is 
set up today, they'd be aghast in horror. It's not right. We're trying 
to correct that right now while maintaining the safety net in a viable 
crop insurance program that can work.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield myself whatever time I may have left.
  I would just simply say to my colleagues, the system works. As my 
colleague also noted, it is critically important that farmers be able 
to secure their financing. And while ultimately like most provisions in 
the FARRM Bill that raise the food and fiber, the consumers at the end 
of the chain benefit from the highest quality, most affordable price of 
food and fiber in the history of the world.
  Please protect this important resource to production agriculture. 
Please continue it to enable farmers to farm. Vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Carney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 11012.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Carney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a bipartisan, 
straightforward amendment that I introduced with my colleague, 
Congressman Radel of Florida, that will help maximize the efficiency of 
taxpayer dollars

[[Page 9740]]

used in the Federal crop insurance program.
  Periodically, the USDA, through the Risk Management Agency, 
renegotiates its agreement with private crop insurers for the delivery 
and administration of Federal crop insurance. These negotiations, known 
as Standard Reinsurance Agreements, do not affect the premium subsidies 
paid to farmers and instead focus on the percent of gains or losses 
assumed by taxpayers and the level of crop insurance administrative and 
operating costs paid by the Federal Government.

                              {time}  2240

  The most recent negotiation was finalized in 2010 and yielded $6 
billion in savings. Of these savings, $4 billion was used to reduce the 
Federal deficit, and the remaining $2 billion was put back into farm 
programs to supplement conservation efforts and improve certain 
products provided through the Federal crop insurance program.
  Our amendment simply maintains current law by striking a provision in 
the bill requiring that any savings from future Standard Reinsurance 
Agreements be put back into the Federal crop insurance program. This 
amendment continues to respect the importance of a robust farm safety 
net while maintaining USDA's tools to improve Federal crop insurance, 
reduce the deficit, and strengthen conservation programs within the 
farm bill.
  Our amendment is supported by taxpayer advocates as well as the 
environmental community who share the same goal of ensuring that the 
Federal crop insurance program works for farmers and for taxpayers.
  I want to thank my colleague from Florida for working with me on this 
amendment, and I urge its support. Thank you for your consideration.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).
  Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because 
I believe that American taxpayers should be considered when their money 
is basically being divvied up here in Washington. That's what we're 
deciding. This amendment--which I thank the gentleman from Delaware for 
offering with me--simply allows for savings to occur in a renegotiation 
of crop insurance agreements.
  I love the fact that we're working on both sides of the aisle. This 
is as bipartisan as you can get, Mr. Chair. Oftentimes on our side, as 
fiscal conservatives, we are accused of ``cut, cut, cut.'' But what 
this is really about is save, save, save. The Members of this House 
should be encouraging this administration to save, save, save when we 
can.
  This amendment allows for the USDA to attempt to find savings when 
negotiating. So let's not tie the hands of our negotiators, as this 
current bill does. Let's allow them to pursue savings on behalf of the 
hardworking American taxpayer working day in and day out right now.
  All around the country people are struggling to get by. So instead of 
requiring the maximum amount of taxpayer dollars to be spent on this 
government program, all we're asking is let's just try and save some 
money with this, and that's what this amendment does.
  So a vote for this amendment is a vote to keep the taxpayer--the 
hardworking American taxpayer--in mind, what is fair for them, when we 
set up this crop insurance policy. It's plain. It's simple.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Delaware has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close by thanking the 
gentleman from Florida for his assistance on this amendment and just to 
ask my colleagues to think about what we've been trying to do since I 
came to this House in 2011, which is to get a budget balanced and to 
find savings wherever we can.
  This is an opportunity to use savings from the renegotiations of 
these agreements for deficit reduction and other things that the USDA 
might deem appropriate. So I want to thank my colleague for that, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, first off, a couple of points.
  One, the 40-some-odd hearings we had in the last couple of years, at 
every single one of them, whether it blocked crop insurance or not, the 
producers said: Don't screw up crop insurance. Crop insurance is the 
one risk management tool that we know works, it's the one our bankers 
understand the best, and don't screw that up.
  A little history lesson. The 2008 farm bill cut $6 billion out of the 
crop insurance program and out of the hides of the folks that these 
folks have been talking about. A re-rating process that USDA went 
through and RMA went through cut an additional $3 billion. And then the 
Standard Reinsurance Agreement renegotiation--that Congress had nothing 
to do with--trimmed another $8 billion. So $17 billion has been reduced 
out of the crop insurance program since the last time we reauthorized 
this.
  Nothing in the base bill stops the USDA from finding savings in the 
crop insurance program, nothing. They are still able to do that. What 
we would like to happen with those savings though is we would like for 
Congress to control those. We don't want the pet projects of the 
administration, the pet projects of the USDA to get funded.
  Now, my colleagues threw the words ``deficit reduction'' around in 
good faith, but that's not what happens with this money. USDA and this 
administration finds other places to spend the money. We don't think 
that's the right idea.
  So I understand the intent of this, but there's nothing in the base 
bill that restricts USDA from finding those savings if they can find 
them. We just want Congress to control how that money gets spent and 
not the pet projects that the administration does.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this. I believe it was done in good faith, 
but it won't accomplish what they want. It simply further empowers this 
executive branch and the administration to do what they will with these 
savings.
  So the savings are still going to be there, still you're going to be 
able to find them. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Radel

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 590, beginning on line 18, strike section 12101 and 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 12101. REPEAL OF THE NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT 
                   CENTER.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 375 of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008j) is repealed.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Radel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, I've only been here a few months. In my 
short time I've witnessed firsthand just how we spend your money here 
in Washington--your money, the hardworking, tax-paying American.

[[Page 9741]]

  Even I was shocked though to learn about something that is hidden 
very, very deep in this year's farm bill. It's actually filed under 
miscellaneous. It is for sheep shearing. Sheep shearing. Sheep 
shearing. We have already spent $50 million--$50 million--on sheep 
shearing, an industry that basically goes back to the Old Testament. 
Moses was sheep shearing. So my amendment right here--one page, one 
sentence--will stop another $50 million from being wasted.
  But let's take a look at what $50 million of your money has purchased 
you as a hardworking, tax-paying American. This program funded a trip 
to Australia for the Tri-Lambs. It's kind of a play off of ``Revenge of 
the Nerds,'' if anyone saw that movie in the eighties.
  Look, as much as I love that flick, the purpose of this trip was to 
get people to eat lamb. And Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but I think that we 
can find a better way to use our money here in the United States.
  In another grant, two beginner sheep shearers were given--here we 
go--free combs, brushes, razors and scissors with our $50 million. What 
we're talking about here are startup costs. Think about that. If you 
are a business owner and you had $50 million, what you could do with 
that kind of money. It was startup money. And here again in Washington, 
where the people of the United States of America are so sick and tired 
of us picking and choosing who will succeed or who will lose, that's 
debatable right now when we look at this.
  It's not fair. You're struggling to make ends meet. We have Democrats 
right now and Republicans who are debating our social safety net in 
this country right now about how hungry children are, and we're talking 
about $50 million to shave sheep. It would be laughable if it was not 
so sad. This could be your money that you could be saving up for your 
rent, for your mortgage, for your next vacation.
  This is as bipartisan as you can get. We are looking for places to 
save and show how we here in Congress can be more efficient with your 
money, accountable and transparent with your money--you, who are 
working 40, 50, 60 hours a week.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I started to go down one path, but the 
disdain with which my good colleague from Florida insulted the folks in 
this industry is unacceptable.
  I rise in opposition. I wish he would get his facts correct. The 
total appropriation, actual money spent since '96 is $1 million. He has 
confused authorizations with appropriations. So if he will go and check 
his records, the $50 million he blasted out over and over and over was 
just simply incorrect. That is not the money that was spent.
  Sheep shearing is an important issue with respect to growing the wool 
industry in this country. It is about jobs. Sheep shearing is hard 
work, and we're trying to figure out ways to make that happen.
  This board is housed at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Agriculture Marketing Service. It's a board appointed by the Secretary 
of Agriculture. It's composed of seven members--four active sheep 
growers, two finance and management members, and then two folks out of 
the USDA to make a total of nine.

                              {time}  2250

  The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center provides small grant 
projects to assist in the improvement of the sheep industry and the 
expansion of markets.
  Throughout the farm bill, we have attempted over and over and over 
again to promote production agriculture and the jobs associated with 
it. While sheep shearing may not be particularly exotic and folks from 
Florida may think it is beneath them, the folks from west Texas take a 
whole different view of that.
  The author of the amendment has disparaged these grants saying that 
they are for razors and combs for beginning shearers. That's how you do 
it, Mr. Chairman. The truth is that a shortage of properly trained wool 
harvesting professionals, this shortage is critical and one of the 
difficulties for producers who wish to participate in the production of 
wool.
  A major barrier for beginning sheep shearing professionals is an 
initial cost of purchasing the equipment. These small grants assist to 
create these jobs in an industry that needs our help.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, we are defending sheep shearing: ``$50 
million in appropriations, $1 million under government accounting.''
  When we look at the industry ``best practices''--again, those quotes 
dripping with practically sarcasm--they could have been written by 
Moses with how old this industry is. The proposal funds ``an 
informational video describing recommended goat handling practices.''
  When we look at the positions in this, the nine, seven are from the 
industry itself, two are from the Federal Government. They're using 
this money on social media. Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do, 
we're talking this is free--social media, the Internet. This doesn't 
cost money to ``create a buzz'' among consumers. This is their quotes 
about lamb.
  I love lamb. Sure, I'll have dinner with lamb any night, but I don't 
think that the Federal Government needs to fund a PR campaign for one 
industry.
  Again, this is why the American people are so frustrated with both 
Democrats and Republicans picking and choosing industries. Congress has 
wasted $50 million, yes, in appropriations since 1996 on this program. 
It is time that this House elected to save taxpayer dollars at a time 
where we have record deficits and runaway spending. Put our votes where 
the Americans, the hardworking, taxpaying American's money is.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is $1 million since 1996, not 
$50 million. He's exaggerating again.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the committee, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment. I would reiterate what 
my good friend Mr. Conaway said, that we did not spend $50 million; we 
spent $1 million.
  I was part of putting this in the 2008 farm bill. The reason is that 
we almost killed off the sheep and goat industry in this country. With 
what we did back in the nineties and so forth, there was hardly anybody 
left in the industry. We basically gave it away to New Zealand and 
Australia.
  What we're trying to do, and what we tried to do in the 2008 bill for 
this little bit amount of money that we put in there was give this 
industry a chance to get back on its feet and start producing lamb 
products and goat products in this country instead of importing them 
from some other place. That's what this is all about.
  You can make fun of it all you want, but at the end of the day, this 
is about American jobs and about keeping the production here in the 
United States.
  Let's be clear about what this is. It is $1 million. I think it is 
money that's well spent. We can go into all of the reasons for the 
demise of the sheep industry. A lot of it had to do with what we did at 
the Federal level and the government level to screw this industry up, 
especially in Montana, Wyoming, and places like that, but we don't have 
time to go into all of that. This is a modest effort to help that 
industry get back on its feet and make sure that those jobs are in the 
U.S.
  Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, only in Washington, D.C., can someone call 
$1 million a modest amount. There's one thing that I live by that I 
hope I can serve the American people with, and it is that the 
individual raindrop does not blame itself for the flood.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in a time of record deficits, a debt that hangs 
over

[[Page 9742]]

to the point that it is a national security problem for our country. I 
encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment and slow the torrent 
of wasteful spending.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I would reiterate my opposition. This is a good 
investment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RADEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Walberg

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 12312.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, if it weren't for the lateness of the 
hour, I would be tempted to ask if any of my colleagues have had 
constituents call or write their offices to ask whether Congress has 
lost its marbles. I won't do that.
  But I would point out the fact that the underlying bill we are 
considering tonight contains a provision to create a checkoff program, 
like many others, but this is a checkoff program for natural stone on 
behalf of the marble and granite industry.
  To those of my friends who are supporters of the checkoff program--
and again, there are many checkoff programs--I would simply ask for you 
to take a close look at my amendment.
  Proponents of this checkoff have argued that stone is a natural 
product, and yes, it is. But is it just like the other products covered 
in the checkoff program in the agriculture arena?
  To anyone unfamiliar, here's a sampling of the some of the other 
checkoff programs currently run by the USDA: dairy, eggs, beef, 
blueberries, pork, sorghum, watermelons, et cetera.
  The common denominator between the some 20 checkoff programs run by 
the USDA is that they are all agricultural commodities. They all grow. 
They all can be raised. The statutory authority for this program 
defines precisely what an acceptable agricultural commodity is, and 
rock, no matter how natural it is, is not one of them.
  Mr. Chairman, farmers in my district do not grow rocks. In fact, they 
don't like it when frost heaves and pushes new rocks up in their 
fields, as in my farm field.

                              {time}  2300

  My amendment is more than fair, Mr. Chairman, and is necessary for 
maintaining the integrity of the farm bill and not for expanding--for 
which our chairman earlier this evening expressed concern--more farm 
bill programs in assorted prior amendments. There are no laws 
preventing this industry from imposing a voluntary tax on their 
membership. If they are really insistent on having a government-run 
checkoff, they could have pursued a program under a more appropriate 
agency like the Department of Commerce or the Department of the 
Interior.
  I would hope my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, would agree that rocks have 
no place in a farm bill, and would join me in removing this provision 
from the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. The underlying language of the farm bill 
simply provides this industry the same opportunity that many other 
industries have been provided through the checkoff.
  I share a similar concern with the gentleman who has the amendment. 
Commerce or the Interior might have been an appropriate place to put 
this, other than they simply don't have the infrastructure to handle 
such a program. The infrastructure is already there at the USDA. There 
are other examples of products outside of agriculture that have been 
handled there.
  It simply gives the U.S. stone industry the opportunity to come 
together with a voluntary payment to support a marketing program to 
help their industry. Again, it is voluntary. A ``tax,'' by definition, 
is an involuntary payment to support the government. This is a 
voluntary payment to support an industry.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. I would suggest that it's not voluntary for all of those 
in an industry, and I am certain that not all of them in the industry 
are asking for this checkoff.
  Again, I understand there may not be the best infrastructure like the 
agriculture at the USDA programs for a checkoff like this. But again, I 
would ask the sponsor of this proposal: When have we grown rocks? Do we 
seed rocks?
  When we look at the agriculture commodity as a term described and 
defined, it says that the agriculture commodity means agricultural, 
horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products, livestock and the 
products of livestock, the products of poultry and bee raising, the 
products of forestry. I could go on, but it nowhere says ``rocks.'' To 
expand the program in a farm bill issue and in dealing with something 
we can't grow, I think, establishes the wrong precedent.
  I ask for support for the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to address their 
remarks to the Chair rather than to other Members.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I've got great respect for the author of 
the amendment, and he knows that, but I do stand in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The checkoff programs on a generic basis are very successful. The 
industry itself votes on them and comes together to decide how they're 
used in the promotion of the products.
  I respectfully disagree with my good colleague, but I have to oppose 
this amendment. We handled this in committee, and it passed in 
committee. We gave it a good scrubbing there. So I would ask my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute remaining, 
and the gentleman from Georgia has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the respect, and I understand 
that. I appreciate the fact that the USDA has a good record of dealing 
with checkoffs. I'm not necessarily opposed to all checkoffs, but they 
ought to fit. Growing rocks--marble, granite--just does not fit in an 
agricultural program. I think that's apparent. So I ask my colleagues 
to support this amendment in order to keep the integrity of the farm 
bill in growing agriculture.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to 
put it in the Departments of Commerce or the Interior, but the 
infrastructure is already there to put it in the USDA.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. I thank the chairman.
  The chairman and I have had several small businesses in Alabama--
marble

[[Page 9743]]

businesses, granite businesses, stone businesses--that have contacted 
me and have told me that this discretionary permission to request a 
research order or a promotion is very important to them.
  They've been struggling over the past several years since our what 
was almost a depression, and they're small businesses. I'm talking 
about businesses of 10 people, 30 people, 100 people. This is 
predominantly a small business venture, and we all have them in our 
communities.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote, although I do respect the gentleman from 
Michigan and many of his endeavors.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, propane and oil heat function as checkoff 
programs under the Department of Commerce and under the Department of 
Energy. The statutory authority for the USDA checkoff also does not 
include rock. So I respectfully request that my colleagues in this body 
support this amendment, which keeps free those things that don't grow 
and are not part of agriculture out of a farm bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the industry has simply 
asked for a chance to participate in a no-cost-to-the-taxpayer, 
voluntary program in which they can use that to help promote their 
product. I as a conservative think that this is good for some of our 
small business owners, and I respectfully ask that we oppose the 
amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


             amendments en bloc no. 1 offered by mr. lucas

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
271, I offer the following amendments en bloc which I have placed at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 53, 59, 60, 62 
through 97, and 103, printed in part B of House Report 113-117, offered 
by Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma:


           Amendment No. 53 Offered by Ms. Sinema of Arizona

       Page 629, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 12317. PRODUCE REPRESENTED AS GROWN IN THE UNITED STATES 
                   WHEN IT IS NOT IN FACT GROWN IN THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) Technical Assistance to CBP.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall make available to U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection technical assistance related to the identification 
     of produce represented as grown in the United States when it 
     is not in fact grown in the United States.
       (b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate a report on produce represented as grown in the United 
     States when it is not in fact grown in the United States.


        Amendment No. 59 Offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire

       Page 200, line 2, strike ``5 percent'' and insert ``7.5 
     percent''.


        Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

       Page 238, after line 13, insert the following:
       ``(D) The healthy forests reserve program established under 
     section 501 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 
     (16 U.S.C. 6571).


          Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico

       At the end of subtitle G of title II, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 2609. LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN CONSERVATION REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry a report containing the 
     results of a review and analysis of each of the programs 
     administered by the Secretary that pertain to the 
     conservation of the lesser prairie-chicken, including the 
     conservation reserve program, the environmental quality 
     incentives program, the wildlife habitat incentive program, 
     and the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative.
       (b) Contents.--The Secretary shall include in the report 
     required by this section, at a minimum--
       (1) with respect to each program described in subsection 
     (a) as it relates to the conservation of the lesser prairie-
     chicken, findings regarding--
       (A) the cost of the program to the Federal Government, 
     impacted State governments, and the private sector;
       (B) the conservation effectiveness of the program; and
       (C) the cost-effectiveness of the program; and
       (2) a ranking of the programs described in subsection (a) 
     based on their relative cost-effectiveness.


         Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Cramer of North Dakota

       Page 265, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 2609. WETLANDS MITIGATION.

       Section 1222 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3822) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(D), by striking ``unless more acreage 
     is needed to provide equivalent functions and values that 
     will be lost as a result of the wetland conversion to be 
     mitigated''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(E)--
       (i) by inserting ``not'' before ``greater than''; and
       (ii) by striking ``if more acreage is needed to provide 
     equivalent functions and values that will be lost as a result 
     of the wetland conversion that is mitigated''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (g).


        Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts

       Page 290, after line 9, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) U.S. Atlantic Spiny Dogfish Study.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall conduct an economic study on the existing 
     market in the United States for U.S. Atlantic Spiny Dogfish.


            Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Reed of New York

       Strike section 4015 and insert the following:

     SEC. 4015. DATA EXCHANGE STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED 
                   INTEROPERABILITY.

       (a) Data Exchange Standardization.--Section 11 of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Data Exchange Standards for Improved 
     Interoperability.--
       ``(1) Designation.--The Secretary shall, in consultation 
     with an interagency work group established by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, and considering State government 
     perspectives, designate data exchange standards to govern, 
     under this part--
       ``(A) necessary categories of information that State 
     agencies operating such programs are required under 
     applicable law to electronically exchange with another State 
     agency; and
       ``(B) Federal reporting and data exchange required under 
     applicable law.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The data exchange standards required 
     by paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable--
       ``(A) incorporate a widely accepted, non-proprietary, 
     searchable, computer-readable format, such as the eXtensible 
     Markup Language;
       ``(B) contain interoperable standards developed and 
     maintained by intergovernmental partnerships, such as the 
     National Information Exchange Model;
       ``(C) incorporate interoperable standards developed and 
     maintained by Federal entities with authority over 
     contracting and financial assistance;
       ``(D) be consistent with and implement applicable 
     accounting principles;
       ``(E) be implemented in a manner that is cost-effective and 
     improves program efficiency and effectiveness; and
       ``(F) be capable of being continually upgraded as 
     necessary.
       ``(3) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to require a change to existing data 
     exchange standards for Federal reporting found to be 
     effective and efficient.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The Secretary shall issue a proposed 
     rule within 24 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act. The rule shall identify federally-required data 
     exchanges, include specification and timing of exchanges to 
     be standardized, and address the factors used in determining 
     whether and when to standardize data exchanges. It should 
     also specify state implementation options and describe future 
     milestones.


            Amendment No. 66 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:

[[Page 9744]]



     SEC. 4033. SERVICE OF TRADITIONAL FOODS IN PUBLIC FACILITIES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Food service program.--The term ``food service 
     program'' includes--
       (A) food service at a residential child care facility with 
     a license from an appropriate State agency;
       (B) a child nutrition program (as defined in section 25(b) 
     of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1769f (b));
       (C) food service at a hospital or clinic or long term care 
     facility; and
       (D) a senior meal program.
       (2) Indian; indian tribe; indian tribal organization.--The 
     terms ``Indian''; ``Indian tribe''; and ``Indian Tribal 
     Organization'' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (3) Traditional food.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``traditional food'' means food 
     that has traditionally been prepared and consumed by an 
     Indian tribe.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``traditional food'' includes--
       (i) wild game meat;
       (ii) fish;
       (iii) seafood;
       (iv) marine mammals;
       (iv) plants; and
       (v) berries.
       (b) Program.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary shall allow the donation to and serving of 
     traditional food through a food service program at a public 
     facility, nonprofit facility, including facilities operated 
     by an Indian tribe or tribal organization that primarily 
     serves Indians if the operator of the food service program--
       (1) ensures that the food is received whole, gutted, 
     gilled, as quarters, or as a roast, without further 
     processing;
       (2) makes a reasonable determination that--
       (A) the animal was not diseased;
       (B) the food was butchered, dressed, transported, and 
     stored to prevent contamination, undesirable microbial 
     growth, or deterioration; and
       (C) the food will not cause a significant health hazard or 
     potential for human illness;
       (3) carries out any further preparation or processing of 
     the food at a different time or in a different space from the 
     preparation or processing of other food for the applicable 
     program to prevent cross-contamination;
       (4) cleans and sanitizes food-contact surfaces of equipment 
     and utensils after processing the traditional food; and
       (5) labels donated traditional food with the name of the 
     food and stores the traditional food separately from other 
     food for the applicable program, including through storage in 
     a separate freezer or refrigerator or in a separate 
     compartment or shelf in the freezer or refrigerator.
       (c) Liability.--Liability for damages from donated 
     traditional food and products to the participating food 
     service program shall not be subject to civil or criminal 
     liability arising from the nature, age, packaging, or 
     condition of donated food.


     Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mrs. Negrete McLeod of California

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 4033. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR INDIAN TRIBES.

       Section 4 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2013) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Feasibility Study for Indian Tribes.--
       ``(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of a tribal demonstration project 
     for tribes to administer all Federal food assistance 
     programs, services, functions, and activities (or portions 
     thereof) of the agency.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) the probable effects on specific programs and program 
     beneficiaries of such a demonstration project;
       ``(B) statutory, regulatory, or other impediments to 
     implementation of such a demonstration project;
       ``(C) strategies for implementing such a demonstration 
     project;
       ``(D) probable costs or savings associated with such a 
     demonstration project;
       ``(E) methods to assure quality and accountability in such 
     a demonstration project; and
       ``(F) such other issues that may be determined by the 
     Secretary or developed through consultation with pursuant to 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(3) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the effective 
     date of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives. The report shall contain--
       ``(A) the results of the study under this subsection;
       ``(B) a list of programs, services, functions, and 
     activities (or portions thereof) within each agency with 
     respect to which it would be feasible to include in a tribal 
     demonstration project;
       ``(C) a list of programs, services, functions, and 
     activities (or portions thereof) included in the list 
     provided pursuant to subparagraph (B) that could be included 
     in a tribal demonstration project without amending a statute, 
     or waiving regulations that the Secretary may not waiver; and
       ``(D) a list of legislative actions required in order to 
     include those programs, services, function, and activities 
     (or portions thereof) included in the list provided pursuant 
     to subparagraph (B) but not included in the list provided 
     pursuant to subparagraph (C), in a tribal demonstration 
     project.
       ``(4) Consultation with indian tribes.--The Secretary shall 
     consult with Indian tribes to determine a protocol for 
     consultation under paragraph (1) prior to consultation under 
     such paragraph with the other entities described in such 
     paragraph. The protocol shall require, at a minimum, that--
       ``(A) the government-to-government relationship with Indian 
     tribes forms the basis for the consultation process;
       ``(B) the Indian tribes and the Secretary jointly conduct 
     the consultations required by this subsection; and
       ``(C) the consultation process allows for separate and 
     direct recommendations from the Indian tribes and other 
     entities described in paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this subsection. Such sums shall remain 
     available until expended.''.


         Amendment No. 68 Offered by Ms. Duckworth of Illinois

       Page 366, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 4208. STUDY ON FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY FEEDING 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations for such purpose, the Secretary shall conduct 
     a study of the impact on emergency feeding organizations of 
     cuts made to the supplemental nutrition assistance program 
     pursuant to this Act and the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 
     2010 (Public Law 111-296).
       (b) Matters to Be Assessed.--In carrying out the study 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall assess the 
     following:
       (1) In the month preceding the implementation of the cuts 
     described in subsection (a)--
       (A) a baseline of the number of clients served by emergency 
     feeding organizations;
       (B) a baseline of the frequency that clients visit an 
     emergency feeding organization during the month; and
       (C) a baseline of the amount of food distributed by 
     emergency feeding organizations during the month.
       (2) Two months and four months following the implementation 
     of such cuts (or at such other times the Secretary determines 
     appropriate to best measure the impact of such cuts)--
       (A) the change in the number of clients seeking food 
     assistance from emergency feeding organizations;
       (B) the change in the frequency that clients seek food 
     assistance from emergency feeding organizations;
       (C) the adequacy of supply of donated food to emergency 
     feeding organizations to meet demand for food assistance; and
       (D) the total number of clients served and number of 
     clients turned away or reductions in the amount of food 
     distributed to clients by emergency feeding organizations 
     because of the lack of resources to meet the need for food 
     assistance.
       (c) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2014, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing--
       (1) the impact of cuts described in subsection (a) on 
     demand at emergency feeding organizations; and
       (2) the ability of emergency feeding organizations to meet 
     changes in need resulting from such cuts.
       (d) Emergency Feeding Organization Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``emergency feeding organization'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 201A of the Emergency Food 
     Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501).


          Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Crowley of New York

       At the end of subtitle C of title IV, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 4208. PURCHASE OF HALAL AND KOSHER FOOD FOR EMERGENCY 
                   FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 202 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 
     U.S.C. 7502) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Kosher and Halal Food.--As soon as practicable after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     finalize and implement a plan--
       ``(1) to increase the purchase of Kosher and Halal food 
     from food manufacturers with a Kosher or Halal certification 
     to carry out the program established under this Act if the 
     Kosher and Halal food purchased is cost neutral as compared 
     to food that is not from food manufacturers with a Kosher or 
     Halal certification; and
       ``(2) to modify the labeling of the commodities list used 
     to carry out the program in a manner that enables Kosher and 
     Halal food bank operators to identify which commodities to 
     obtain from local food banks.''.


          Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

       At the end of subtitle C of title IV, insert the following:

[[Page 9745]]



     SEC. 4208. REVIEW OF SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTS IN FEDERAL 
                   NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

        The Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of sole-source 
     contracts in Federal nutrition programs, and the effect such 
     contracts have on program participation, program goals, 
     nonprogram consumers, retailers, and free market dynamics. 
     Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall report the findings of this review 
     to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate.


          Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. Gardner of Colordao

       Page 393, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.

       Section 18(c) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
     U.S.C. 918(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Rural Electrification 
     Administration'' each place it appears and inserting ``Rural 
     Utilities Service''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by insertiong ``cooperative'' 
     before ``agreements''; and
       (B) by inserting after the 1st sentence the folllowing: ``A 
     contract funded by a borrower that is to be paid for out of 
     the general funds of the borrower is not a public contract 
     within the meaning of title 41, United States Code''.


           Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Ruiz of California

       Page 401, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. TELEMEDICINE AND DISTANCE LEARNING SERVICES IN 
                   RURAL AREAS.

       Section 2333(d) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa-2(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (12); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (14) and 
     inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
       ``(13) whether the applicant for assistance is located in a 
     designated health professional shortage area (within the 
     meaning of section 332 of the Public Health Service Act)''.


            Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Michaud of Maine

       Page 401, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 15751 of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``Not more than'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     more than''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Limited funding.--In a case in which less than 
     $10,000,000 is made available to a Commission for a fiscal 
     year under this section, paragraph (1) shall not apply.''.


             Amendment No. 74 Offered by Mr. Turner of Ohio

       At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 430, after line 
     18), add the following:

     SEC. 7129. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EXPANSION OF THE LAND 
                   GRANT PROGRAM TO INCLUDE ENHANCED FUNDING AND 
                   ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) institutions of higher education designated under the 
     Act of August 30, 1890 (commonly known, and referred to in 
     this section, as the ``Second Morrill Act''; 7 U.S.C. 321 et 
     seq.) have played an integral role in the education and 
     advancement of agriculture and mechanic arts for over a 
     century;
       (2) in addition to those institutions, a number of colleges 
     and universities have fulfilled similar and parallel missions 
     in successfully training and graduating generations of 
     students who have gone on to be leaders in their field;
       (3) the colleges and universities, both with and without 
     designation under the Second Morrill Act, fulfill a vital 
     role to the future of industry, opportunities for increased 
     job creation, and the strength of American agriculture;
       (4) Congress must ensure that the United States' higher 
     education framework and policies meet the needs of young 
     Americans, and that students from across the country are able 
     to choose from a variety of institutions and programs that 
     will equip them with the skills and training necessary to 
     achieve their individual goals; and
       (5) as Congress and the agricultural community generally 
     consider policies and approaches to improve research, 
     extension, and education in the agricultural sciences, 
     expansion of the land grant program under the Second Morrill 
     Act to include enhanced funding and additional institutions 
     should be considered.


           Amendment No. 75 Offered by Ms. Gabbard of Hawaii

       Page 433, line 17, strike ```subsections (e) and (f)''' and 
     insert ```subsections (e), (f), and (g)'''.
       Page 433, line 20, strike ```subsections (e) and (f)''' and 
     insert ```subsections (e), (f), and (g)'''.
       Page 433, line 23, strike ``subsections (e), (f), and (g)'' 
     and insert ``subsections (e), (f), and (h)''.
       Page 434, line 10, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 434, after line 10, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (6) by inserting after subsection (f) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (4)) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Coffee Plant Health Initiative.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     coffee plant health initiative to address the critical needs 
     of the coffee industry by--
       ``(A) developing and disseminating science-based tools and 
     treatments to combat the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus 
     hampei); and
       ``(B) establishing an area-wide integrated pest management 
     program in areas affected by or areas at risk of being 
     affected by the coffee berry borer.
       ``(2) Eligible entities.--The Secretary may carry out the 
     coffee plant health initiative through--
       ``(A) Federal agencies, including the Agricultural Research 
     Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture;
       ``(B) National Laboratories;
       ``(C) institutions of higher education;
       ``(D) research institutions or organizations;
       ``(E) private organizations or corporations;
       ``(F) State agricultural experiment stations;
       ``(G) individuals; or
       ``(H) groups consisting of 2 or more entities or 
     individuals described in subparagraphs (A) through (G).
       ``(3) Project grants and cooperative agreements.--In 
     carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) enter into cooperative agreements with eligible 
     entities, as appropriate; and
       ``(B) award grants on a competitive basis.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.''; and
       Page 434, line 11, strike ``(6) in subsection (g)'' and 
     insert ``(7) in subsection (h)''.


     Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Faleomavaega of American samoa

       Page 460, line 1, insert ``AMERICAN SAMOAM FEDERATED STATES 
     OF MICRONESIA, AND'' before ``NORTHERN MARIANA''.
       Page 460, line 7, insert ``american samoa, the Federated 
     States of Micronesia,'' before ``and the Commonwealth''.


         Amendment No. 77 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       Strike section 7514 and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7514. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION GRANTS FOR THE STUDY OF 
                   ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT BACTERIA.

       Section 7521(c) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 3202(c)) is amended by striking ``2012'' 
     and inserting ``2018''.


            Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Gosar of Arizona

       Page 481, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the second period.
       Page 481, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(7) Fire liability provisions.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Chief and 
     the Director shall issue for use in all contracts and 
     agreements under this section fire liability provisions that 
     are in substantially the same form as the fire liability 
     provisions contained in--
       ``(A) integrated resource timber contracts, as described in 
     the Forest Service contract numbered 2400-13, part H, section 
     H.4; and
       ``(B) timber sale contracts conducted pursuant to section 
     14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
     472a).''.


           Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Cotton of Arkansas

       Page 486, lines 15 and 19, insert ``, management,'' after 
     ``restoration''.
       Page 486, line 22, strike ``trees'' and insert ``forests''.
       Page 486, line 24, strike ``and'' and insert the 
     following:vegetative treatments; or
       Page 487, line 1, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.
       Page 487, lines 8, 13, and 24 insert ``, management,'' 
     after ``restoration''.
       Page 488, line 4, insert ``, management,'' after 
     ``restoration''.


           Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Tipton of Colorado

       At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 8408. FOREST SERVICE LARGE AIRTANKER AND AERIAL ASSET 
                   FIREFIGHTING RECAPITALIZATION PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary, acting through the Chief of 
     the Forest Service, may establish a large airtanker and 
     aerial asset lease program in accordance with this section.
       (b) Aircraft Requirements.--In carrying out the program 
     described in subsection (a), the Secretary may enter into a 
     multiyear lease contract for up to five aircraft that meet 
     the criteria--
       (1) described in the Forest Service document entitled 
     ``Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy'' and dated February 
     10, 2012, for large airtankers; and

[[Page 9746]]

       (2) determined by the Secretary, for other aerial assets.
       (c) Lease Terms.--The term of any individual lease 
     agreement into which the Secretary enters under this section 
     shall be--
       (1) up to five years, inclusive of any options to renew or 
     extend the initial lease term; and
       (2) in accordance with section 3903 of title 41, United 
     States Code.
       (d) Prohibition.--No lease entered into under this section 
     shall provide for the purchase of the aircraft by, or the 
     transfer of ownership to, the Forest Service.


          Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Griffith of Virginia

       At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

     SEC. 8408. LAND CONVEYANCE, JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST IN WISE 
                   COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

       (a) Conveyance Required.--Upon payment by the Association 
     of the consideration under subsection (b) and the costs under 
     subsection (d), the Secretary shall, subject to valid 
     existing rights, convey to the Association all right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of 
     National Forest System land in the Jefferson National Forest 
     in Wise County, Virginia, consisting of approximately 0.70 
     acres and containing the Mullins and Sturgill Cemetery and an 
     easement to provide access to the parcel, as generally 
     depicted on the map.
       (b) Consideration.--
       (1) Fair market value.--As consideration for the land 
     conveyed under subsection (a), the Association shall pay to 
     the Secretary cash in an amount equal to the market value of 
     the land, as determined by an appraisal approved by the 
     Secretary and conducted in conformity with the Uniform 
     Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and section 
     206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1716).
       (2) Deposit.--The consideration received by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (1) shall be deposited into the general fund 
     of the Treasury of the United States for the purposes of 
     deficit reduction.
       (c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the land to be conveyed under subsection (a) 
     shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the 
     Secretary.
       (d) Costs.--The Association shall pay to the Secretary at 
     closing the reasonable costs of the survey, the appraisal, 
     and any administrative and environmental analyses required by 
     law.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Association.--The term ``Association'' means the 
     Mullins and Sturgill Cemetery Association of Pound, Virginia.
       (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map titled ``Mullins 
     and Sturgill Cemetery'' dated March 1, 2013.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (f) Additional Terms and Conditions.-- The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.


       amendment no. 82 offered by mr. meadows of north carolina

       At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

     SEC. 8408. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR FOREST PROJECTS IN 
                   RESPOSE TO EMERGENCIES.

       In the case of National Forest System land damaged by a 
     natural disaster regarding which the President declares a 
     disaster or emergency pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 
     et seq.), any forest project carried out to clean up or 
     restore the damaged National Forest System land during the 
     two-year period beginning on the date of the declaration 
     shall be categorically excluded from the requirements 
     relating to environmental assessments or environmental impact 
     statements under section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.


            amendment no. 83 offered by mr. loebsack of iowa

       Page 502, strike lines 20 through 24.
       Page 503, line 1, redesignate paragraph (2) as subsection 
     (a) and conform the margins accordingly.
       Page 503, line 5, redesignate subparagraph (A) as paragraph 
     (1) and conform the margins accordingly.
       Page 503, beginning on line 5, strike ``paragraph (2) as 
     paragraph (3)'' and insert ``paragraphs (2) and (3) as 
     paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively''.
       Page 503, line 7, redesignate subparagraph (B) as paragraph 
     (2) and conform the margins accordingly.


           amendment no. 84 offered by mr. grimm of new york

       At the end of title IX, add the following new section:

     SEC. __. ENERGY EFFICIENCY REPORT FOR USDA FACILITIES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a report on energy use and energy 
     efficiency projects at Department of Agriculture facilities.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An analysis of energy use by Department of Agriculture 
     facilities.
       (2) A list of energy audits that have been conducted at 
     such facilities.
       (3) A list of energy efficiency projects that have been 
     conducted at such facilities.
       (4) A list of energy savings projects that could be 
     achieved with enacting a consistent, timely, and proper 
     mechanical insulation maintenance program and upgrading 
     mechanical insulation at such facilities.


         amendment no. 85 offered by mr. cardenas of california

       Page 527, strike lines 20 through 23 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 10006. FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION INITIATIVES.

       Section 10105 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 7655) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 
     including farm workers'' after ``industry'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) practices that prevent bacterial contamination of 
     food, how to identify sources of food contamination, and 
     other means of decreasing food contamination.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.


        amendment no. 86 offered by mr. austin scott of georgia

       After section 10007, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate succeeding sections and conform the table of 
     contents accordingly):

     SEC. 10008. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONSULTATION REGARDING 
                   ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN LABOR LAW PROVISIONS.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with the 
     Secretary of Labor regarding the restraining of shipments of 
     agricultural commodities, or the confiscation of such 
     commodities, by the Department of Labor for actual or 
     suspected labor law violations in order to consider--
       (1) the perishable nature of such commodities;
       (2) the impact of such restraining or confiscation on the 
     economic viability of farming operations; and
       (3) the competitiveness of specialty crops through grants 
     awarded to States under section 101 of the Specialty Crops 
     Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note).


             amendment no. 87 offered by ms. kaptur of ohio

       Page 545, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 10018. ANNUAL REPORT ON INVASIVE SPECIES.

       (a) Initial Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report on invasive species.
       (2) Matters included.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) A list of each invasive species that is in the United 
     States as of the date of the report.
       (B) For each invasive species listed under subparagraph 
     (A)--
       (i) the country that the species originated;
       (ii) the means in which the species entered the United 
     States;
       (iii) the year in which the species entered the United 
     States;
       (iv) the rate by which the entry of the species is 
     increasing or decreasing;
       (v) cost estimates, covering both the date of the report 
     and future periods, of the cost of such species to the public 
     and private sectors;
       (vi) if cost estimates cannot be conducted under clause 
     (iv), a detailed explanation of why;
       (vii) environmental impact estimates, covering both the 
     date of the report and future periods, of the environmental 
     impact of the species;
       (viii) if environmental impact estimates cannot be 
     conducted under clause (iv), a detailed explanation of why;
       (ix) recommendations as to what steps are needed to combat 
     the species;
       (x) a description of the ongoing research occurring to 
     combat the species; and
       (xi) a description of any legal recourse available to 
     people affected by the species.
       (C) Any other matter the Secretary determines appropriate.
       (3) Period covered.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     cover the period beginning in 1980 and ending on the date on 
     which the report is submitted.
       (b) Annual Updated Reports.--Not later than October 1 of 
     each fiscal year beginning after the date on which the report 
     under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) is submitted, the 
     Secretary shall submit annually to Congress an updated 
     report, including an update to each of the matters described 
     in paragraph (2) of such subsection.
       (c) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall make each 
     report under this section available to the public.

[[Page 9747]]




         amendment no. 88 offered by ms. foxx of north carolina

       In section 11001, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Section 502(c)'' and add at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       (b) Disclosure of Crop Insurance Premium Subsidies Made on 
     Behalf of Members of Congress and Certain Other Individuals 
     and Entities.--Section 502(c)(2) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E) respectively; and
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (C) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:
       ``(A) Disclosure in the public interest.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall on an 
     annual basis make available to the public--
       ``(i)(I) the name of each individual or entity specified in 
     subparagraph (C) who obtained a federally subsidized crop 
     insurance, livestock, or forage policy or plan of insurance 
     during the previous fiscal year;
       ``(II) the amount of premium subsidy received by that 
     individual or entity from the Corporation; and
       ``(III) the amount of any Federal portion of indemnities 
     paid in the event of a loss during that fiscal year for each 
     policy associated with that individual or entity; and
       ``(ii) for each private insurance provider, by name--

       ``(I) the underwriting gains earned through participation 
     in the federally subsidized crop insurance program; and
       ``(II) the amount paid under this subtitle for--

       ``(aa) administrative and operating expenses;
       ``(bb) any Federal portion of indemnities and reinsurance; 
     and
       ``(cc) any other purpose.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not disclose 
     information pertaining to individuals and entities covered by 
     a catastrophic risk protection plan offered under section 
     508(b).
       ``(C) Covered individuals and entities.--Subparagraph (A) 
     applies with respect to the following:
       ``(i) Members of Congress and their immediate families.
       ``(ii) Cabinet Secretaries and their immediate families.
       ``(iii) Entities of which any individual described in 
     clause (i) or (ii), or combination of such individuals, is a 
     majority shareholder.''.


           amendment no. 89 offered by mr. schock of illinois

       Page 578, line 20, insert ``pennycress,'' after 
     ``alfalfa,''.


            amendment no. 90 offered by mr. barr of kentucky

       Page 590, after line 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 11025. ADVANCE PUBLIC NOTICE OF CROP INSURANCE POLICY 
                   AND PLAN CHANGES.

       Section 505(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1505(e)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs 
     (6) and (7); respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph (5):
       ``(5) Advance notice of modification before 
     implementation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any modification to be made in the terms 
     or conditions of any policy or plan of insurance offered 
     under this subtitle shall not take effect for a crop year 
     unless the Secretary publishes the modification in the 
     Federal Register and on the website of the Corporation and 
     provides for a subsequent period of public comment--
       ``(i) with respect to fall-planted crops, not later than 60 
     days before June 30 during the preceding crop year; and
       ``(ii) with respect to spring-planted crops, not later than 
     60 days before November 30 during the preceding crop year.
       ``(B) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the application of 
     subparagraph (A) in an emergency situation declared by the 
     Secretary upon notice to Congress of the nature of the 
     emergency and the need for immediate implementation of the 
     policy or plan modification referred to in such 
     subparagraph.''.


          Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Takano of California

       At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following 
     new section:

     SEC. __. ECONOMIC FRAUD IN WILD AND FARM-RAISED SEAFOOD.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     acting through the Office of the Chief Economist, shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the economic implications for 
     consumers, fishermen, and aquaculturists of fraud and 
     mislabeling in wild and farmed seafood.
       (b) Contents.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include, with respect to fraud and mislabeling in wild 
     and farm-raised seafood, an analysis of the impact on 
     consumers and producers in the Unites States of--
       (1) sales of imported seafood that is misrepresented as 
     domestic product;
       (2) country of origin labeling that allows seafood 
     harvested outside the United States to be labeled as a 
     product of the United States;
       (3) the lack of seafood product traceability through the 
     supply chain; and
       (4) the inadequate use of DNA testing and other technology 
     to address seafood safety and fraud, including traceability.


             amendment no. 92 offered by ms. fudge of ohio

       Page 601, after line 18, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 12204. RECEIPT FOR SERVICE OR DENIAL OF SERVICE FROM 
                   CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGENCIES.

       Section 2501A(e) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279-1(e)) is amended by 
     striking ``and, at the time of the request, also requests a 
     receipt''.


         amendment no. 93 offered by Ms. Velazquez of New York

       Page 629, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. URBAN AGRICULTURE COORDINATION.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate opportunities 
     for urban agriculture, by--
       (1) compiling a list of all programs administered by the 
     Secretary or by the head of any other department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States to which urban farmers 
     can apply for assistance or participation;
       (2) examining and implementing opportunities to adjust the 
     regulations governing the programs to enable urban farmers to 
     participate in more of the programs;
       (3) developing a process for streamlining the process by 
     which urban farmers may apply for assistance from, or for 
     participation in, the programs, including through the use of 
     a single, harmonized application for multiple programs; and
       (4) such other methods as the Secretary deems appropriate.


          Amendment No. 94 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

       Page 629, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 12317. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INCREASED BUSINESS 
                   OPPORTUNITIES FOR BLACK FARMERS, WOMEN, 
                   MINORITIES, AND SMALL BUSINESSES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government 
     should increase the number of contracts the Federal 
     Government awards to Black farmers, businesses owned and 
     controlled by women, businesses owned and controlled by 
     minorities, and small business concerns.


            Amendment No. 95 offered by mr. ross of florida

       Page 629, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 12317. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING AGRICULTURE SECURITY 
                   PROGRAMS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) agricultural nutrients and other agricultural chemicals 
     are essential to ensuring the most efficient production of 
     food, fuel, and fiber;
       (2) these products must be properly stored, handled, 
     transported, and used to ensure that they are not misused or 
     cause harm either accidentally or intentionally;
       (3) the Department of Agriculture is the Federal agency 
     with the staffing and technical expertise to understand the 
     important role these products play in agriculture;
       (4) other Federal departments and agencies have been given 
     lead responsibility to develop and implement security 
     programs affecting the availability, storage, transportation, 
     and use of a variety of chemicals and products used in 
     agriculture;
       (5) it is critical that the Department of Agriculture 
     participate fully in the development of any such security 
     programs to ensure that they do not unnecessarily restrict 
     the availability of the most efficient and beneficial 
     products needed to sustain American agriculture;
       (6) the Secretary of Agriculture should review staffing at 
     the Department to ensure that the agency has senior employees 
     within the Department at the Senior Executive Service level 
     or higher, who have responsibility for coordinating with 
     other Federal, State, and international agencies in the 
     development of regulations, guidance, and procedures for the 
     secure handling of agricultural chemicals; and
       (7) that such employees shall--
       (A) work with manufacturers, retailers, and the general 
     farm community to review existing and proposed Federal, 
     State, and international agricultural chemical security 
     regulations;
       (B) coordinate with manufacturers, retailers, transporters, 
     and farmers to evaluate how existing and proposed security 
     regulations, including systems to track the sale, 
     transportation, delivery, and use of agricultural products, 
     can be designed to minimize any adverse impact on 
     agricultural productivity;
       (C) evaluate how existing and proposed security regulations 
     will affect the ability of agricultural producers to have 
     timely access to nutrients, chemicals, and other products 
     that are affordable and best suited to the producers' 
     operations;
       (D) develop recommendations on best practices, policies, 
     and regulatory mechanisms relating to existing and proposed 
     security programs to ensure that there is minimal adverse 
     impact on agricultural productivity; and

[[Page 9748]]

       (E) engage with Federal agencies with responsibility for 
     establishing security programs to ensure that they have the 
     information needed to develop procedures for effective 
     security administration and enforcement that minimize any 
     adverse impact on domestic or international agricultural 
     productivity.


            Amendment No. 96 offered by Mr. Conaway of Texas

       At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12317. REPORT ON WATER SHARING.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State 
     shall submit to Congress a report on--
       (1) efforts by Mexico to meet its treaty deliveries of 
     water to the Rio Grande in accordance with the Treaty between 
     the United States and Mexico Respecting Utilization of waters 
     of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande 
     (done at Washington, February 3, 1944); and
       (2) the benefits to the United States of the Interim 
     International Cooperative Measures in the Colorado River 
     Basin through 2017 and Extension of Minute 318 Cooperative 
     Measures to Address the Continued Effects of the April 2010 
     Earthquake in the Mexicali Valley, Baja, California (done at 
     Coronado, California, November 20, 2012; commonly referred to 
     as ``Minute No. 319'').


            Amendment No. 97 offered by Mr. Flores of Texas

       At the end of title XII, add the following new section:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Executive Order 13547, issued on July 19, 2010, 
     established the national policy for the Stewardship of the 
     Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes and requires--
       (A) Federal implementation of ``ecosystem-based 
     management'' to achieve a ``fundamental shift'' in how the 
     United States manages ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 
     resources; and
       (B) the establishment of nine new governmental ``Regional 
     Planning Bodies'' and ``Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans'' in 
     every region of the United States.
       (2) Executive Order 13547 created a 54-member National 
     Ocean Council led by the White House Council on Environmental 
     Quality and Office of Science and Technology Policy that 
     includes 54 principal and deputy-level representatives from 
     Federal entities, including the Department of Agriculture.
       (3) Executive Order 13547 requires National Ocean Council 
     members, including the Department of Agriculture, to take 
     action to implement the Policy and participate in coastal and 
     marine spatial planning to the maximum extent possible.
       (4) The Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean 
     Policy Task Force that were adopted by Executive Order 13547 
     state that ``effective'' implementation of the National Ocean 
     Policy will ``require clear and easily understood 
     requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that include 
     enforcement as a critical component''.
       (5) Despite repeated Congressional requests, the National 
     Ocean Council, which is charged with overseeing 
     implementation of the policy, has still not provided a 
     complete accounting of Federal activities under the policy 
     and resources expended and allocated in furtherance of 
     implementation of the policy.
       (6) The continued economic and budgetary challenges of the 
     United States underscore the necessity for sound, 
     transparent, and practical Federal policies.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a 
     report detailing--
       (1) all activities engaged in and resources expended in 
     furtherance of Executive Order 13547 since July 19, 2010; and
       (2) any budget requests for fiscal year 2014 for support of 
     implementation of Executive Order 13547.


           amendment no. 103 offered by mr. reed of new york

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 4033. ELIGIBILITY DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN 
                   CONVICTED FELONS.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015), as amended by section 4009, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Disqualification for Certain Convicted Felons.--
       ``(1) In general.--An individual shall not be eligible for 
     benefits under this Act if the individual is convicted of--
       ``(A) aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 
     18, United States Code;
       ``(B) murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States 
     Code;
       ``(C) an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United 
     States Code;
       ``(D) a Federal or State offense involving sexual assault, 
     as defined in 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 
     1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)); or
       ``(E) an offense under State law determined by the Attorney 
     General to be substantially similar to an offense described 
     in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
       ``(2) Effects on assistance and benefits for others.--The 
     amount of benefits otherwise required to be provided to an 
     eligible household under this Act shall be determined by 
     considering the individual to whom paragraph (1) applies not 
     to be a member of such household, except that the income and 
     resources of the individual shall be considered to be income 
     and resources of the household.
       ``(3) Enforcement.--Each State shall require each 
     individual applying for benefits under this Act, during the 
     application process, to state, in writing, whether the 
     individual, or any member of the household of the individual, 
     has been convicted of a crime described in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5(a) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(a)), as amended by 
     section 4009, is amended in the 2d sentence by striking ``and 
     (r)'' and inserting ``, (r), and (s)''.
       (c) Inapplicability to Convictions Occurring on or Before 
     Enactment.--The amendments made by this section shall not 
     apply to a conviction if the conviction is for conduct 
     occurring on or before the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment, one to 
ensure certainty and advance notice of any changes to crop insurance 
eligibility for our family farmers.
  On December 18, 2012, the RMA made a decision to alter the 2013 
provisions of insurance for flue-cured and burley tobacco to impose a 
more stringent rotation schedule on tobacco farmers. Starting this 
year, farms have to rotate land every 2 years to qualify for crop 
insurance coverage. Farmers had already made their preparations for 
spring planting at the time of this untimely announcement, and there 
was no public involvement or formal rule-making process. Many farmers 
had already purchased fertilizer, signed leases and made other business 
decisions under the impression that the land they were making 
preparations for would be covered under the previous requirements.

                              {time}  2310

  Had these farmers been made aware in advance of these changes that 
rendered many ineligible for crop insurance coverage, they would have 
had sufficient time to make alternative plans. This amendment would 
prevent this problem for any commodity moving forward.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It would not 
overturn any existing crop insurance requirements, but it would simply 
give our family farmers, including those in Kentucky, particularly 
Burley tobacco growers, the time they need to adjust to future changes 
in crop insurance requirements. It would require that any changes to 
current crop insurance policies be published and open for public 
comment at least 60 days before June 30, and at least 60 days before 
November 30 of the preceding year. These dates are the self-imposed 
deadlines the risk management agency sets each year to announce any 
changes to existing policies for the ensuing crop season.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for including this amendment in 
the en bloc section.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support an amendment that will require the 
Secretary of State to submit a report on water sharing with Mexico as 
defined by the 1944 Water Treaty. This amendment has bipartisan 
support, and I would like to thank my good colleague

[[Page 9749]]

Mr. Vela from Texas for supporting this important legislation.
  This amendment addresses Mexico's failure to uphold its water 
obligations to the United States by seeking to increase accountability 
in water management by requiring the State Department to provide 
regular reports to Congress outlining the management of the Rio Grande 
system. The Rio Grande plays an important role in meeting the water 
needs of businesses and families all across west and south Texas.
  This is a result of the 1944 water treaty between the United States 
and Mexico which outlines the obligations of both parties in the lower 
Rio Grande. Both the U.S. and Mexico are obligated to jointly manage 
and derive benefit from the water resources located across the 
binational border.
  Mexico is required to provide 350,000 acre-feet of water on average 
each year over a 5-year term. Currently, Mexico has failed to meet this 
obligation as they owe nearly half a million acre-feet to the United 
States.
  It's not a secret that Texas has suffered a terrible drought and 
there is really no relief in sight. Mexico needs to begin fulfilling 
its obligations. Our farming and ranching communities depend on it.
  Again, I appreciate the chairman for including it in the en bloc 
amendment and obviously support passage of the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like the chairman to know that I support his 
efforts to keep this process moving, but I'm hearing concerns 
apparently on our side about the reach of amendments Nos. 79 and 82 and 
some potential labor concerns. I'm not exactly sure what it is. 
Apparently, the Natural Resources Committee has got some forestry 
issues.
  So I inquire if the gentleman is willing to work with us in this 
regard. I'm not sure exactly what the concerns are.
  Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. I would say to the ranking member that of course I will 
work with and cooperate with the ranking member in the minority. We 
have accomplished so much together in that spirit, and I would be happy 
to continue to on those particular issues of concern.
  Mr. PETERSON. I'm not even sure what the concern is, but we'll work 
it out.
  We've notified Members that this is going on, but nobody has shown 
up, so I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. In closing, I just offer the observation that this en bloc 
amendment will move us substantially towards completion. I believe 
we'll continue to work longer this evening. But most assuredly I think 
now--and the ranking member would probably agree--that it's possible to 
meet our departure deadline tomorrow, thank goodness.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Slaughter/Polis 
amendment to H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk 
Management Act of 2013, which reauthorizes the study of antibiotic 
resistant bacteria through 2018.
  Since 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has funded important 
research on antibiotic resistant bacteria in agriculture and the 
development of strategies to mitigate them. For example, the Department 
has funded research into the development of vaccines and probiotics 
that reduce the need for antibiotics in agriculture, research tracking 
the transmission of dangerous and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in 
agriculture, and the development of strategies for mitigating 
antibiotic resistance in food-animal production systems.
  This type of research is more important today than it has ever been 
before. Eighty percent of all antibiotics sold in the United States are 
used in agriculture. We are throwing away the greatest scientific 
advancement of the 20th century on healthy animals--and in the process 
creating a massive public health emergency. Science has clearly 
demonstrated that this type of overuse contributes to the rise of 
antibiotic resistant infections, which kill 70,000 Americans each year. 
We must fund research to identify ways antibiotic use on farms can be 
eliminated to ensure that our Nation's food supply is safe. The type of 
research authorized under this grants does just that.
  When we go to the grocery store to pick up dinner, we should be able 
to buy our food without the worry that eating it will expose our family 
to potentially deadly bacteria that will no longer respond to our 
medical treatments. Unless we act now to develop better surveillance 
and strategies to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture, we will 
unwittingly be permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant 
bacteria and do irreparable damage to our ability to fight disease and 
protect the health of our fellow Americans.
  It is time for Congress to stand with scientists and do something to 
stop the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Protecting the 
public's health is one of the greatest responsibilities of this body. I 
urge my colleagues to stand with me to support the Slaughter/Polis 
amendment reauthorizing research into antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard. This amendment establishes 
a coffee plant health initiative to be led by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, with the goal of addressing the pressing needs of the 
coffee industry in the United States.
  The U.S. coffee industry is principally based in my district, Puerto 
Rico, and in the State of Hawaii, given that both jurisdictions offer 
natural conditions ideally suited for cultivation of the coffee crop. 
The industry in both Puerto Rico and Hawaii is increasingly threatened 
by a nonnative insect commonly known as the coffee berry borer or the 
Broca del Cafe in Spanish. This agricultural pest arrived in Puerto 
Rico in 2007 and in Hawaii in 2010. The insect has emerged as the 
primary threat facing the coffee industry, adversely impacting both the 
yield and the market value of coffee crops.
  The insect damages coffee plants by boring and depositing eggs into 
the berries. The larvae then hatch inside the berries and feed on the 
coffee beans, destroying them by creating holes. The Agricultural 
Research Service estimates that the coffee berry borer has caused over 
$500 million in losses worldwide. In Puerto Rico, production of coffee 
has recently fallen to an historic low, and the coffee berry borer is 
partially responsible. Annual coffee production in Puerto Rico is now 
valued at $21 million, less than half of what it was just five years 
ago and about a third of what it was at its peak in the mid-1990s. Most 
hard hit are the rural and mountainous municipalities where coffee has 
traditionally been a cash crop--Adjuntas, Lares, Utuado, Maricao, 
Jayuya, Yauco, Orocovis, Ciales, Las Marias, and San Sebastian.
  Why should we care about this situation? Because without a coffee 
berry borer-free and controlled environment in which to plant coffee 
trees, our agricultural economies in Puerto Rico and Hawaii are in 
jeopardy. This means higher unemployment, reduced exports and increased 
reliance on imports. Simply put, we must protect the U.S. interests in 
this worldwide commodity. So research on the coffee berry borer should 
be made a high priority at the USDA.
  This amendment is relevant not only to residents of Puerto Rico and 
Hawaii, but also to millions of coffee consumers around the country, 
who should be able to enjoy American-made coffee, such as Puerto Rico's 
58 gourmet brands or the world famous coffee from the Big Island in 
Hawaii. Economically speaking, the United States benefits if we can 
increase the worldwide market share and quality of coffee that is 
produced in Puerto Rico and in Hawaii.
  The latest statistics available reveal that my constituents consume 
about 30 million pounds of coffee each year. Local production in Puerto 
Rico, though, is roughly 10 million pounds, leaving 20 million to be 
imported--typically from countries in the Caribbean and Central 
America.
  Since the berry borer emerged as a threat in Puerto Rico and Hawaii, 
the local governments in these two jurisdictions have worked diligently 
with farmers and the extension agents of our land grant universities to 
control the spread of the insect and to mitigate its impact. However, 
more must be done. Now that the insect is affecting more than just one 
jurisdiction, a Federal response is especially appropriate.
  The amendment requires USDA to develop and provide science-based 
tools and treatments to combat the coffee berry borer and to establish 
area-wide integrated pest management programs in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, 
and anywhere else in the U.S. that the coffee berry borer may affect. 
USDA would be authorized to collaborate with the land-grant 
universities of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, as well as with the state 
governments and outside organizations, to carry out scientific research 
and to develop and implement the integrated pest management programs.

[[Page 9750]]

  For years, USDA has sponsored applied research targeted toward the 
Nation's most challenging agricultural pests and diseases. Targeted 
research has spanned the range of commodities and crops. The needs in 
tropical and subtropical agriculture are many, and the needs facing our 
coffee industry are pressing. Cutting edge research continues to be 
conducted at the U.S. Tropical Agriculture Research Station in 
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, and at the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural 
Research Center in Hilo, Hawaii, by a cadre of dedicated scientists, 
technicians, and agronomists.
  This amendment is designed to buttress their mission and to give them 
the authority in law they need to expand their work to help local 
producers. The amendment also improves the capacity of the land-grant 
universities to address the problems presented by the coffee berry 
borer.
  Finally, I would note that the research conducted at the ARS research 
stations and by the land-grant universities in Puerto Rico and Hawaii 
has national application. The techniques and technology developed there 
have proven their utility for increasing food production and 
controlling agricultural pests in the U.S. mainland. The research that 
stands to be enhanced through this amendment has a high probability of 
application benefiting agricultural production beyond coffee and beyond 
Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
  For these reasons, I urge adoption of the amendment and I thank my 
colleague, Ms. Gabbard, for her leadership in bringing it forward for 
consideration.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chair, farmers work hard to produce the abundant food 
supply that our nation, and much of the world, needs. However, they 
could not make it on their own.
  They owe much of their productivity to the equipment, practices, and 
inputs, including nutrients and crop protection products, which we have 
in the U.S.
  Sadly, terrorists who will stop at nothing to undermine our way of 
life have illegally manipulated certain agricultural nutrients and 
chemicals.
  In response, the Department of Homeland Security has been developing, 
and implementing a set of security regulations to secure and limit 
access to these products, such as ammonium nitrate.
  The agricultural community understands this and understands the need 
to be vigilant to ensure that we not only have the most productive 
agriculture industry in the world--but also the safest.
  Ammonium nitrate is used as a fertilizer on crops and pastures, 
especially in warm, moist climates like Florida. It is incredibly 
important to the many citrus growers in my district.
  I think all of us want to see effective and prudent regulations 
implemented; however, we also do not want to interfere with legitimate 
access to the nutrients needed by the farmer during the growing season.
  The amendment I am offering with my good friend from Florida, Mr. 
Rooney, would simply ask that the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
participate fully and at senior levels in the development of any 
security regulations regarding a variety of agricultural chemicals 
developed by DHS, or any other agency.
  Once again, I want to thank the Chair and Ranking Member for their 
work on this legislation, and encourage my colleagues to join me in 
passing this important amendment.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my sincere thanks to 
Chairman Frank Lucas for his acceptance of the amendment to the Farm 
Bill that I offered with my colleagues from New York Reps. Chris Gibson 
and Tim Bishop. Our amendment would require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to conduct a study and no later than 180 days after 
enactment report back to the relevant committees in the House and 
Senate an analysis of energy use in USDA facilities, a list of energy 
audits that have been conducted at USDA facilities, a list of energy 
efficiency projects that have been conducted at USDA facilities and a 
list of energy savings projects that could be achieved with additional 
mechanical insulation at USDA facilities.
  Thermal Insulation for piping, equipment, and other mechanical 
devices, known as mechanical insulation, is a proven energy efficiency 
and emission reduction technology that will reduce costs, save energy, 
and improve personnel safety. It is also important to point out that 95 
percent of all mechanical insulation products used in the United States 
are manufactured in the United States.
  As you are well aware, buildings are responsible for 40 percent of 
the United States energy demand and emissions, which makes efficiency 
gains in this area crucial if we are to markedly reduce America's 
energy consumption. To give you a sense of the impact mechanical 
insulation can have on our country, the National Insulation Association 
estimates that implementing a comprehensive mechanical insulation 
maintenance program in the commercial and industrial market segments 
would lead to annual energy savings of 1.22 quads of primary energy or 
$3.8 billion and returns on investment ranging from 25-100 percent.
  We, as Members of Congress, should be taking a leading role in 
ensuring energy efficiency is a priority in our country. What better 
way to lead than to look in our federal buildings at the ways we 
utilize, or unfortunately, the ways we all too often do not utilize and 
maintain a low cost, high impact American product that is proven to 
save energy and money.
  By passing this amendment we are asking the Department of Agriculture 
to help lead the way for others to follow by reducing its energy cost 
and emissions with the increased use of a proven technology, simply 
known as mechanical insulation.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Chair, the Farm Bill that we are considering today 
includes massive cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP) program--$20.5 billion to be exact.
  I am offering an amendment that will help us understand the 
repercussions of these drastic cuts.
  My amendment will require the Secretary of Agriculture to report to 
Congress on the effects of SNAP cuts on charitable food providers, like 
food banks and soup kitchens. Should these devastating cuts become law, 
it is common sense that we should know the consequences--my amendment 
is about taking responsibility.
  There is little room to cut this vital program. The average SNAP 
benefit is now only $4.50 a day. That's just $1.50 a meal. And this 
benefit will get even lower in November when the 2009 Recovery Act 
increase expires.
  The reality is that these cuts will significantly increase demand on 
charitable food providers who are already stretched to the limit trying 
to meet the needs of our communities during this tough economic time.
  These providers are facing the perfect storm--over the past few years 
demand for their services has been increasing as the federal, state and 
local, and private funding they depend on has dwindled. Higher food and 
fuel prices are also making it harder for them to purchase and 
distribute food.
  Charities simply do not have the resources to fill the growing 
funding gaps. This means that when the SNAP program faces further cuts, 
hungry Americans will have nowhere else to turn.
  I hope every Member in this body will agree that in the wealthiest 
nation in the world, no American child should go to school hungry and 
no parent should have to make the difficult decision between paying 
rent or paying for groceries. This is simply unconscionable.
  At this point we've all heard the numbers--these cuts will end food 
aid for nearly 2 million Americans and cut 210,000 children off of 
school lunch and breakfast programs.
  This is a very personal issue for me. I was one of those hungry 
children. My father lost his job when I was a teenager and it was food 
stamps that kept me from going hungry. Food stamps, school breakfast 
and school lunch were there for me so I could worry about school 
instead of hunger. They nourished me so I could develop the skills to 
serve our country in the Army, the VA, and here in Congress.
  This is also very personal for many of my constituents like Christine 
from Elgin, Illinois. It is because of her SNAP benefits and the Willow 
Creek Community Church's Food Pantry that Christine is able to provide 
food for her family. Her husband was laid off from the manufacturing 
company he worked at for 29 years. Christine, who is now disabled, can 
no longer work as a Nursing Assistant. Theirs is one of 3,000 families 
that Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois serves 
per month.
  It is personal for the husband and wife who now count on SNAP 
benefits and the Church of the Holy Spirit Food Pantry in Schaumburg, 
IL after the husband lost his job as an electrician due to nerve damage 
in his hand, and they saw their savings quickly drain.
  It is personal for the hard working employees and volunteers at the 
Greater Chicago Food Depository who serve 77 percent more people today 
than they did in 2008.
  These stories are just a tiny sample. Forty-seven million Americans--
most of whom are children, elderly or disabled--rely on the SNAP 
program.
  These cuts are not just numbers on a page. They affect real human 
beings. They will have devastating consequences for real families.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and face the reality 
of what these devastating cuts will mean for families and charities all 
across the country.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I rise to speak in support of Jackson 
Lee Amendment #94, which will be in the en bloc for H.R.

[[Page 9751]]

1947, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 
2013.'' My thanks to Agriculture Committee Chair Frank D. Lucas and 
Ranking Member Collin C. Peterson for including the Jackson Lee 
Amendment in the en block.
  I appreciate the work of Rules Committee Chair and Rules Committee 
members Congressman McGovern for managing the debate on amendments to 
H.R. 1947.
  I offered amendments to H.R. 1947 for deliberation by the Rules 
Committee for approval for consideration by the Full House. Only one of 
my Amendments was made in order and will be included in the en bloc for 
the bill.
  Jackson Lee #94 will be included in the en bloc and is a sense of 
Congress that the Federal Government should increase business 
opportunities for small businesses, black farmers, women and minority 
businesses.
  Small farm businesses, black farmers, women and minority agriculture 
related businesses could benefit from partnerships with federal office 
location in receiving support for farmers markets. This would assist 
with eliminating food deserts, which are urban neighborhoods and rural 
towns without easy access to fresh, healthy and affordable food. These 
communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food 
restaurants and convenience stores.
  Other Amendments, I request that the Rules Committee favorably 
consider included Amendment #1, the McGovern Amendment, which was 
joined by over 80 members of the House. This important amendment would 
have restored $20.5 billion in cuts in SNAP funding by offsetting the 
Farm Risk Management Election Program and the Supplemental Coverage 
Option.
  Jackson Lee Amendments not included in the Rule for the bill include:
  Jackson Lee Amendment #182 was a sense of Congress that the Federal 
Government should increase financial support provided to urban 
community gardens and victory gardens to heighten awareness of 
nutrition.
  The knowledge shared with urban dwellers can have a long term benefit 
to the health of our nation by increasing awareness regarding the link 
between what we each and health. This would also be a means of 
expanding the diet options for persons who live in areas where the cost 
of fresh fruits and vegetables can be prohibitive.
  Jackson Lee #183 is a sense of the Congress regarding funding for 
nutrition program for disabled and older Americans. Accessible and 
affordable nutrition is especially important when dietary needs change 
or must accommodate life's changes. Older Americans and persons with 
disabilities often must live with restricted diets.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #184 was a sense of the Congress that 
encourages food items being provided pursuant to the Federal school 
breakfast and school lunch program should be selected so as to reduce 
the incidence of juvenile obesity and to maximize nutritional value.
  This amendment passed the House by a substantial margin in the 110th 
Congress by a recorded vote of 422 to 3. The inclusion of this 
amendment in the Rule for H.R. 1947 would affirm Congressional 
commitment to fight juvenile obesity and to maximize nutritional value. 
The amendment should have been made in order considering the epidemic 
of juvenile and adult obesity.
  Finally, I sought support by the Rules Committee of an Amendment 
offered by Congresspersons Kildee, Fudge, Peters, Tim Ryan and Jackson 
Lee Amendment #53.
  This amendment was not included in the final Rule for the bill. This 
amendment would have brought healthy food to those with limited access 
to fresh fruits and vegetables through a public-private partnership. It 
would increase funding for SNAP incentive programs for fresh fruits and 
vegetables by $5 million per year, which is offset by decreasing the 
adjusted gross income limit for certain Title and Title II programs.
  Food is not an option--it is a right that all people living in this 
nation must have to exist and to prosper. The $20.5 billion cuts in the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program also known as SNAP would 
remove 2 million Americans from this important food assistance program, 
and 210,000 children would lose access to free or reduced priced school 
meals.
  The course of our nation's history led to changes in our economy 
first from agricultural, to industrial and now technological. These 
economic changes impacted the availability and affordability of food. 
Today our nation is still one of the wealthiest in the world, but we 
now have food deserts. A food desert is a place where access to food 
may not be available and certainly access to health sustaining food is 
not available.
  The US Department of Agriculture defines a food desert as a ``low-
access community,'' where at least 500 people and/or at least 33 
percent of the census tract's population live more than one mile from a 
supermarket or large grocery store. The USDA defines a food desert for 
rural communities as a census tract where the distance to a grocery 
store is more than 10 miles.
  Food deserts exist in rural and urban areas and are spreading as a 
result fewer farms as well as fewer places to access fresh fruits, 
vegetables, proteins, and other foods as well as a poor economy.
  The result of food deserts are increases in malnutrition and other 
health disparities that impact minority and low income communities in 
rural and urban areas. Health disparities occur because of a lack of 
access to critical food groups that provide nutrients that support 
normal metabolic functions.
  Poor metabolic function leads to malnutrition that causes breakdown 
in tissue. For example, a lack of protein in a diet leads to disease 
and decay of teeth and bones. Another example of health disparities in 
food deserts are the presence of fast food establishments instead of 
grocery stores. If someone only consumes energy dense foods like fast 
foods this will lead to clogged arteries, which is a precursor for 
arterial disease a leading cause of heart disease. A person eating a 
constant diet of fast foods are also vulnerable to higher risks of 
insulin resistance which results in diabetes.
  In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households or 20 percent of 
residents do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from 
a grocery store.
  At the beginning of the third millennium of this nation's existence 
we should know better. Denying a higher quality of life that would 
result from better access to healthier food choices is shortsighted--it 
is also economically unsound and threatens our national security.
  Social stability is threatened when people's basic needs are not 
met--food, clean drinking water and breathable air or the least of the 
requirements for life. Denying access to sufficient amounts of the 
right kinds of food means people will become less productive, more 
prone to disease and will not be able to function as contributing 
members of a society.
  For one in six Americans hunger is real and far too many people 
assume that the problem of hunger is isolated. One in six men, women or 
children you see every day may not know where their next meal is coming 
from or may have missed one or two meals yesterday.
  Hunger is silent--most victims of hunger are ashamed and will not ask 
for help, they work to hide their situation from everyone. Hunger is 
persistent and impacts millions of people who struggle to find enough 
to eat. Food insecurity causes parents to skip meals so that their 
children can eat.
  In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households or 20 percent of 
residents do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from 
a grocery store.
  For one in six Americans hunger is real and far too many people 
assume that the problem of hunger is isolated. One in six men, women or 
children you see every day may not know where their next meal is coming 
from or may have missed one or two meals yesterday.
  In 2009-2010 the Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown area had 27.6 
percent of households with children experiencing food hardship. In 
households without children food hardship was experienced by 16.5. 
Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown rank 22 among the areas surveyed.
  In 2011, according to Feeding America: 46.2 million people were in 
poverty, 9.5 million families were in poverty, 26.5 million of people 
ages 18-64 were in poverty. 16.1 million children under the age of 18 
were in poverty. 3.6 million (9.0 percent) seniors 65 and older were in 
poverty.
  In the State of Texas: 34% of children live in poverty in Texas. 21% 
of adults (19-64) live in poverty in Texas. 17% of elderly live in 
poverty in Texas.
  In my city of Houston, Texas the U.S. census reports that over the 
last 12 months 442,881 incomes were below the poverty level.
  In 2011: 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 
33.5 million adults and 16.7 million children. Households with children 
reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those 
without children, 20.6 percent compared to 12.2 percent.
  Eighteen percent of households in the state of Texas from 2009 
through 2011 ranked second in the highest rate of food insecurity--only 
the state of Mississippi exceed the ratio of households struggling with 
hunger.
  In the 18th Congressional District an estimated 151,741 families 
lived in poverty.
  There are charitable organizations that many of us contribute to that 
provide food assistance to people in need, but their resources would 
not be able to fill the gap created by a

[[Page 9752]]

$20.5 billion dollar cut to Federal food assistance programs.
  Food banks and pantries fill an important role by helping the working 
poor, disabled and the poor gain access to food assistance when 
government subsidized food assistance or budgets fall short of basic 
needs. Food pantries also help when an unforeseen circumstance occurs 
and more food is needed for a family to make it until payday or 
government assistance arrives. However, food pantries cannot carry the 
full burden of a communities' need for food on their own.
  During these difficult economic times, people who once gave to food 
pantries may now seek donations from them. Millions of low income 
persons and families receive food assistance through SNAP. This program 
represents the nation's largest program that combats domestic hunger.
  For more than 40 years, SNAP has offered nutrition assistance to 
millions of low income individuals and families. Today, the SNAP 
program serves over 46 million people each month.


                            SNAP Statistics

  Households with children receive about 75 percent of all food stamp 
benefits.
  23 percent of households include a disabled person and 18 percent of 
households include an elderly person.
  The FSP increases household food spending, and the increase is 
greater than what would occur with an equal benefit in cash.
  Every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates almost twice as much 
($9.20) in total community spending.
  The economics of SNAP food support programs benefit everyone by 
preventing new food deserts from developing. The impact of SNAP funds 
coming into local and neighborhood grocery stores is more profitable 
supermarkets. SNAP funds going into local food economies also make the 
cost of food for everyone less expensive and assure a variety and 
abundance of food selections found in grocery stores.
  SNAP is the largest program in the American domestic hunger safety 
net. The Food and Nutrition Service programs supported by SNAP work 
with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood as well as 
faith-based organizations to assist those eligible for nutrition 
assistance. Food and Nutrition Service programs also work with State 
partners and the retail community to improve program administration and 
work to ensure the program's integrity.
  Yes, more can be done to assure that food distribution from the 
fields to the tables of Americans in most need can be improved. To 
begin the process of improving our nations ability to be more efficient 
and effective in meeting the food needs of citizens must begin with 
understanding the problem and acting on facts. I strongly support 
hearings on the subject and encourage all oversight committees to 
consider taking up the matter during this Congress.
  However, we cannot ignore the safety process in place to prevent 
abuse or misuse of the program. The Federal SNAP law provides two basic 
pathways for financial eligibility to the program: (1) meeting federal 
eligibility requirements, or (2) being automatically or 
``categorically'' eligible for SNAP based on being eligible for or 
receiving benefits from other specified low-income assistance programs. 
Categorical eligibility eliminated the requirement that households who 
already met financial eligibility rules in one specified low-income 
program go through another financial eligibility determination in SNAP.
  However, since the 1996 welfare reform law, states have been able to 
expand categorical eligibility beyond its traditional bounds. That law 
created TANF to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
(AFDC) program, which was a traditional cash assistance program. TANF 
is a broad-purpose block grant that finances a wide range of social and 
human services.
  TANF gives states flexibility in meeting its goals, resulting in a 
wide variation of benefits and services offered among the states. SNAP 
allows states to convey categorical eligibility based on receipt of a 
TANF ``benefit,'' not just TANF cash welfare. This provides states with 
the ability to convey categorical eligibility based on a wide range of 
benefits and services. TANF benefits other than cash assistance 
typically are available to a broader range of households and at higher 
levels of income than are TANF cash assistance benefits.
  Congress cannot afford to forget that by the year 2050, the world 
population is expected to be 9 billion persons. We cannot build our 
nation's food security on an uncertain future. Domestic food production 
and access to healthy nutritious food is essential to our nation's long 
term national security.
  Until we see the final farm bill, including the amendment adopted by 
the Full House, I cannot offer my support for the legislation as it is 
written.
  The bill is too shortsighted about the realities of hunger in our 
nation--the fact that it proposes to cut $20.5 billion from the SNAP 
program is of great concern. We should work to create certainty for 
farmers who run high risk businesses that are vulnerable to weather 
changes, insects or blight.
  We should be equally concerned about providing long term food 
security for all of our nation's citizens, which include rural, 
suburban and urban dwellers.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle should have supported the 
McGovern Amendment to prevent the $20.5 billion in cuts to the SNAP 
program. Food is not an option--and people who need help from their 
government should not be treated like they committed a crime.
  My support for this bill will be greatly influenced by the decisions 
made this week in the House and the willingness of members of good will 
to work to fix what is wrong with how we treat the working poor, 
disabled, which include veterans, and the elderly. Otherwise I will not 
vote for this bill. Today I did not vote for this bill!
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the majority and 
minority for accepting my amendment to the farm bill on invasive 
species en bloc.
  My amendment requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to 
submit an annual report to Congress on invasive species.
  The report would include a list of invasive species in the country, 
their country of origin, how they got into the country, what year they 
entered the country, rate of entry, cost estimates, and a description 
of the ongoing research occurring to combat the species.
  More importantly, the report must include a description of any legal 
recourse available to people affected by the species.
  A 2005 study shows that invasive species cost the United States more 
than $120 billion in damages every year.
  U.S. agriculture loses $13 billion annually in crops from invasive 
insects.
  Every farmer, rancher, local government, non-profit or small business 
deserves to know what legal avenues are available to compensate them 
for dealing with an invasive species that was brought into their 
backyard through no fault of their own.
  Invasive species are not just harmful to humans or our food supply. 
They affect our endangered animals.
  More than 400 of the over 1,300 species currently protected under the 
Endangered Species Act, and more than 180 candidate species for listing 
are considered to be at risk at least partly due to displacement by, 
competition with, or predation by invasive species.
  My amendment seeks to bring an understanding to the challenge we are 
facing in combating invasive species.
  Currently, no single clearinghouse exists to find out how many 
invasive species there are in the country, where those species came 
from, and what research is ongoing to combat that particular species.
  How are we ever going to come up with a national strategy to combat 
invasive species if we don't know how what we are up against.
  This information needs to be available to the public so we can begin 
a national conversation and put our best and brightest to the task of 
coming up with solutions for combating invasive species.
  Again, I would like to thank the Members of the Agriculture Committee 
and I look forward to the remaining 2013 Farm Bill debates.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


               Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Benishek.

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12317. SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE FDA FOOD 
                   SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') may not 
     enforce any regulations promulgated under the FDA Food Safety 
     Modernization Act (Public Law 111-353) until the Secretary 
     publishes in the Federal Register the following:
       (1) An analysis of the scientific information used in the 
     final rule to implement the

[[Page 9753]]

     FDA Food Safety Modernization Act with a particular focus 
     on--
       (A) agricultural businesses of a variety of sizes;
       (B) regional differences of agriculture production, 
     processing, marketing, and value added production;
       (C) agricultural businesses that are diverse livestock and 
     produce producers; and
       (D) what, if any, negative impact on the agricultural 
     businesses would be created, or exacerbated, by 
     implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
       (2) An analysis of the economic impact of the proposed 
     final rule to implement the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act 
     with a particular focus on--
       (A) agricultural businesses of a variety of sizes; and
       (B) small and mid-sized value added food processors.
       (3) A plan to systematically evaluate the regulations by 
     surveying farmers and processors and developing an ongoing 
     process to evaluate and address business concerns.
       (b) Annual Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House of Representatives a report on the impact of 
     implementation of the regulations promulgated under the FDA 
     Food Safety Modernization Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Benishek) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I would like to thank the chairman for the opportunity 
to speak on this amendment and to bring this issue to the floor.
  As many of my constituents and colleagues know, I'm a doctor, not a 
farmer. So what they taught me in medical school is, when you don't 
understand something or you need a second opinion, you ask the experts.
  Since becoming a Member of Congress in January 2011, I began talking 
to farmers in my district when I needed to learn more about 
agricultural issues. In fact, I realized how much farming and 
agribusiness contributed not only to my district, but to Michigan's 
economy. I asked to join the Agriculture Committee so I could better 
represent them in Congress.
  Earlier this spring, I began to hear about a regulation that some of 
the farmers in my district were really concerned about. Now, if you 
don't have farmers in your district, let me tell you something; they 
will make sure that you know there's an issue.
  Gradually, they began to talk to me more and more about a rule that 
had been proposed by the FDA that would make farming fruits and 
vegetables, better known as specialty crops, much more difficult in the 
near future. This rule, better known as Standards for the Growing, 
Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption, was 
imposed by the FDA as a result of the 2011 Food Safety Modernization 
Act.
  Before I go any further, I want to make one thing crystal clear. I 
support access to clean, safe, and healthy food, but this proposed 
rulemaking will have widespread consequences for American family 
farmers. For example, farmers will have to comply with a new set of 
rules as determined by the FDA when cleaning and storing their 
equipment--meaning tractors, harvesters, knives, et cetera--so that 
domesticated animals may be prevented from contaminating them. In 
addition, the same rules suggest that farmers inspect each individual 
piece of fruit or vegetable for bird excreta and refuse to harvest it 
if they find any evidence.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you've ever seen a cherry harvester or 
picked an apple, but if you had to hand inspect each individual piece 
of fruit for bird feces and throw it out before sending it to a packer, 
well, let's just say that most of our growers would go to a pick-it-
yourself system or simply stop growing.
  Let's move on to some other aspects of this rule.
  The FDA suggests continuous soil and water monitoring. While that 
might not sound like a bad idea, we've already heard that some growers 
will have to completely redesign their irrigation systems to meet the 
new set of standards.
  I spent the last few years visiting with farmers in my district. I 
know that they want to provide clean, safe foods for the American 
public. All specialty crop growers I have met eat the foods that they 
grow. So my point is that if the FDA estimates that this rule will cost 
at a minimum $460 million to the industry, why not make sure we're 
doing this right?
  My amendment simply asks that the Secretary of HHS delay 
implementation of any final regulations resulting from the Food Safety 
Modernization Act until a scientific and economic analysis of the rule 
can be completed. This analysis will focus on both the science behind 
and the economic impact of these regulations. In particular, the study 
will look at the regional differences in agriculture production to see 
how producers will be impacted by these rules. If we take the time to 
study the proposed rules, I think the FDA will be able to see that some 
changes may be in order.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it's very interesting that the Food Safety Modernization Act 
was passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has 
jurisdiction, as well as the FDA; and, quite frankly, it does not have 
any jurisdiction under this piece of legislation, and I'm disappointed 
that it made it through the Rules Committee.
  However, in January 2011, the President signed a transformative food 
safety law that Congress had passed in a bipartisan manner to improve 
the health of our constituents.

                              {time}  2320

  The legislation was supported by a broad coalition of consumer, 
public health, and industry groups, groups including the Grocery 
Manufacturers Association and the National Restaurant Association.
  When we crafted the final food safety bill, we struck a compromise, a 
compromise on the scope of the bill so that the vast majority of truly 
small farms and processors are excluded, including those that sell most 
of their food directly to the public through farmers markets and farm 
stands; in addition to which regional considerations were also taken 
into consideration.
  The integrity of that compromise has been maintained in the proposals 
released by the FDA to date. I can speak to this compromise and the 
agreement we reached at the time because, in fact, I helped to craft 
and negotiate the final language.
  The law also requires that the FDA take regional differences into 
account when crafting its proposed rules. Let us be clear: that 
legislation was needed. Foodborne illness remains a threat to the 
public health. According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year 
48 million Americans become sick from the very food they eat; 128,000 
are hospitalized; and 3,000 die. These figures are far too high and 
simply unacceptable, so we acted. We passed the first major improvement 
to the FDA's food safety laws in more than 70 years.
  Under the guise of seeking a report, this amendment seeks to further 
slow down the implementation of the law, a law with the potential to 
improve the very health of our constituents by reducing their risk of 
becoming sick from food. Yet nowhere in the text of this amendment or 
in the intent of these reports do I see a mention of the public health 
or consumer safety.
  All of the FDA's proposals to implement this critical law already go 
through the official rulemaking process, meaning that the agency must 
consider the costs and the benefit of the rules, and that every one of 
us and our constituents can weigh in and submit comments on the rules 
already. The amendment before us now simply intends to slow down the 
process of implementing the law.
  Rather than working to obstruct and delay implementation, we should 
be working to encourage strong implementation. Let's look at what has 
happened since the bill was signed into

[[Page 9754]]

law. In that short period of time, there have been almost 20 multi-
State outbreaks positively linked to food products regulated by the 
FDA. One of those was an outbreak of listeria associated with 
cantaloupe, a product that had not previously been identified as 
associated with that dangerous pathogen. The same outbreak killed 33 
Americans, the largest number of Americans lost to a single outbreak in 
a quarter of a century.
  Right now there is a multi-State outbreak of hepatitis A that may 
have been caused by a contaminated product regulated by the FDA. More 
than 115 people in eight States have become ill, and more than 50 of 
them have required hospitalization.
  It continues to be supported by the majority of Americans. A recent 
poll showed that more than 75 percent of Americans surveyed supported 
the food safety law, which is why so many respected organizations that 
work to improve the public health, including the Consumer Federation of 
America, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Pew Charitable 
Trusts, and Consumer Unions, oppose this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to heed their advice and oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Benishek, I appreciate you yielding to me.
  The gentleman's amendment, by requiring FDA to conduct scientific and 
economic analysis prior to enforcing these regulations, is a step in 
the right direction. Simply put, it is a step in the right direction. I 
commend him and support his amendment.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, 
and I am certainly willing to work with you in the future on this 
issue, but we are just concerned that we are not going to make food any 
safer, and it is not going to help the jobs and the cost of our food 
because some of the rules are very difficult to comply with at the 
local level. There is difficulty in keeping wildlife away from apple 
orchards, for example. It is very difficult and more costly than I 
think the gentlelady suspects. I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just say to my colleague that all of those 
arguments were debated and discussed during the time of the Food Safety 
Modernization Act. As I said, I worked very, very hard, along with 
members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, in which jurisdiction 
this actually resides. It does not reside in the jurisdiction of the 
farm bill.
  The fact of the matter is that we've had industry support of the 
legislation. I have a white paper, a summary by the United Fresh 
Producers Association issued in January 2011, which talks about all of 
the flexibility that exists for small farmers.
  The issue here is about public health and public safety. I 
recommended that we oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Bachus

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XII, add the following new section:

     SEC. 12317. IMPROVED DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONSIDERATION 
                   OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF REGULATIONS ON SMALL 
                   BUSINESS.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall complete procedures 
     consistent with the requirements of subsection (b) of section 
     609 of title 5, United States Code, whenever the Department 
     of Agriculture promulgates any rule which will have a 
     significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
     entities.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I bring a very simple but a very important 
amendment for consideration.
  Several agencies of government have small business review panels. 
They are advisory in nature; and as our agencies go through the 
rulemaking process, they get input on how their regulations will affect 
small businesses. This amendment really takes advantage of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which was signed into law by President 
Clinton in 1996, which allows the agencies to form these panels.
  Mr. Barrow of Georgia, myself, Mr. Graves of Missouri, and Mr. 
Matheson, actually in the next week or two, will be introducing 
language to really improve these small business panels. The SBA 
Advocacy Office recently said that small businesses pay about 45 
percent more in annual cost in complying with regulations. They spoke 
very favorably of these panels.
  I have a letter I will include from the NFIB urging strong support 
for this amendment.

                                               National Federation


                                      of Independent Business,

                                    Washington, DC, June 17, 2013.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     House of Representatives,
     Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Bachus: The National Federation of 
     Independent Business is pleased to support your amendment to 
     the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 
     2013 (H.R. 1947). This amendment would expand critical small 
     business regulatory impact analyses and outreach requirements 
     to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
       Farming remains an integral part of the American economy 
     and is at its core one of the most basic entrepreneurial 
     endeavors. The federal government needs to be sure to use 
     care when regulating the farming industry to ensure its 
     viability.
       Our farming members continually tell us about the 
     difficulty and expense of complying with ever-increasing 
     federal regulation. In fact, in our most recent Small 
     Business Problems and Priorities, unreasonable government 
     regulations ranked third out of 75 issues important to small 
     businesses in the agriculture industry.
       This amendment would help address this problem by requiring 
     the USDA to conduct important small business impact analyses 
     and outreach to small farmers. Specifically, the amendment 
     would require USDA to convene Small Business Advocacy Review 
     panels for rules that the department determines would have a 
     ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
     small entities.'' These panels are critical tools that allow 
     small businesses to provide feedback to the agency before 
     rules are proposed, therefore allowing the opportunity for 
     more compliance flexibility.
       NFIB supports this commonsense amendment because it will 
     help alleviate compliance burden on small farmers while at 
     the same time ensuring USDA can meet its regulatory aims. We 
     urge the House of Representatives to approve the amendment to 
     help America's agricultural community.
           Sincerely,

                                                Susan Eckerly,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                                    Public Policy.

  Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding just to note that the 
ranking member and I have discussed your amendment, and we are 
supportive.
  Mr. BACHUS. I do want to say, as the chairman knows, the Judiciary 
Committee, as well as the Small Business Committee, has been looking at 
the effect of regulations on small businesses, and we've heard several 
horror stories. I welcome and applaud the Agriculture Committee and its 
leadership for being in support of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2330

  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Wittman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 54 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 9755]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XII, add the following new subtitle:

         Subtitle D--Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery

     SECTION 12401. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay 
     Accountability and Recovery Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 12402. CHESAPEAKE BAY CROSSCUT BUDGET.

       (a) Crosscut Budget.--The Director, in consultation with 
     the Chesapeake Executive Council, the chief executive of each 
     Chesapeake Bay State, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, 
     shall submit to Congress a financial report containing--
       (1) an interagency crosscut budget that displays--
       (A) the proposed funding for any Federal restoration 
     activity to be carried out in the succeeding fiscal year, 
     including any planned interagency or intra-agency transfer, 
     for each of the Federal agencies that carry out restoration 
     activities;
       (B) to the extent that information is available, the 
     estimated funding for any State restoration activity to be 
     carried out in the succeeding fiscal year;
       (C) all expenditures for Federal restoration activities 
     from the preceding 2 fiscal years, the current fiscal year, 
     and the succeeding fiscal year; and
       (D) all expenditures, to the extent that information is 
     available, for State restoration activities during the 
     equivalent time period described in subparagraph (C);
       (2) a detailed accounting of all funds received and 
     obligated by all Federal agencies for restoration activities 
     during the current and preceding fiscal years, including the 
     identification of funds which were transferred to a 
     Chesapeake Bay State for restoration activities;
       (3) to the extent that information is available, a detailed 
     accounting from each State of all funds received and 
     obligated from a Federal agency for restoration activities 
     during the current and preceding fiscal years; and
       (4) a description of each of the proposed Federal and State 
     restoration activities to be carried out in the succeeding 
     fiscal year (corresponding to those activities listed in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)), including the--
       (A) project description;
       (B) current status of the project;
       (C) Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority, 
     programs, or responsible agencies;
       (D) authorization level for appropriations;
       (E) project timeline, including benchmarks;
       (F) references to project documents;
       (G) descriptions of risks and uncertainties of project 
     implementation;
       (H) adaptive management actions or framework;
       (I) coordinating entities;
       (J) funding history;
       (K) cost sharing; and
       (L) alignment with existing Chesapeake Bay Agreement and 
     Chesapeake Executive Council goals and priorities.
       (b) Minimum Funding Levels.--The Director shall only 
     describe restoration activities in the report required under 
     subsection (a) that--
       (1) for Federal restoration activities, have funding 
     amounts greater than or equal to $100,000; and
       (2) for State restoration activities, have funding amounts 
     greater than or equal to $50,000.
       (c) Deadline.--The Director shall submit to Congress the 
     report required by subsection (a) not later than 30 days 
     after the submission by the President of the President's 
     annual budget to Congress.
       (d) Report.--Copies of the financial report required by 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Environment and Public Works, and Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply beginning 
     with the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act for which the President submits a budget to 
     Congress.

     SEC. 12403. RESTORATION THROUGH ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with other Federal and State agencies, and with the 
     participation of stakeholders, shall develop a plan to 
     provide technical and financial assistance to Chesapeake Bay 
     States to employ adaptive management in carrying out 
     restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
       (b) Plan Development.--The plan referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) specific and measurable objectives to improve water 
     quality, habitat, and fisheries identified by Chesapeake Bay 
     States;
       (2) a process for stakeholder participation;
       (3) monitoring, modeling, experimentation, and other 
     research and evaluation technical assistance requested by 
     Chesapeake Bay States;
       (4) identification of State restoration activities planned 
     by Chesapeake Bay States to attain the State's objectives 
     under paragraph (1);
       (5) identification of Federal restoration activities that 
     could help a Chesapeake Bay State to attain the State's 
     objectives under paragraph (1);
       (6) recommendations for a process for modification of State 
     and Federal restoration activities that have not attained or 
     will not attain the specific and measurable objectives set 
     forth under paragraph (1); and
       (7) recommendations for a process for integrating and 
     prioritizing State and Federal restoration activities and 
     programs to which adaptive management can be applied.
       (c) Implementation.--In addition to carrying out Federal 
     restoration activities under existing authorities and 
     funding, the Administrator shall implement the plan developed 
     under subsection (a) by providing technical and financial 
     assistance to Chesapeake Bay States using resources available 
     for such purposes that are identified by the Director under 
     section 12402.
       (d) Updates.--The Administrator shall update the plan 
     developed under subsection (a) every 2 years.
       (e) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of a 
     fiscal year, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress an 
     annual report on the implementation of the plan required 
     under this section for such fiscal year.
       (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall contain information about the application of adaptive 
     management to restoration activities and programs, including 
     level changes implemented through the process of adaptive 
     management.
       (3) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to the first 
     fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (f) Inclusion of Plan in Annual Action Plan and Annual 
     Progress Report.--The Administrator shall ensure that the 
     Annual Action Plan and Annual Progress Report required by 
     section 205 of Executive Order 13508 includes the adaptive 
     management plan outlined in subsection (a).

     SEC. 12404. INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--There shall be an Independent Evaluator 
     for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 
     who shall review and report on restoration activities and the 
     use of adaptive management in restoration activities, 
     including on such related topics as are suggested by the 
     Chesapeake Executive Council.
       (b) Appointment.--
       (1) In general.--The Independent Evaluator shall be 
     appointed by the Administrator from among nominees submitted 
     by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
       (2) Nominations.--The Chesapeake Executive Council may 
     submit to the Administrator 4 nominees for appointment to any 
     vacancy in the office of the Independent Evaluator.
       (c) Reports.--The Independent Evaluator shall submit a 
     report to the Congress every 2 years in the findings and 
     recommendations of reviews under this section.
       (d) Chesapeake Executive Council.--In this section, the 
     term ``Chesapeake Executive Council'' has the meaning given 
     that term by section 307 of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public 
     Law 102-567; 15 U.S.C. 1511d).

     SEC. 12405. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Adaptive management.--The term ``adaptive management'' 
     means a type of natural resource management in which project 
     and program decisions are made as part of an ongoing science-
     based process. Adaptive management involves testing, 
     monitoring, and evaluating applied strategies and 
     incorporating new knowledge into programs and restoration 
     activities that are based on scientific findings and the 
     needs of society. Results are used to modify management 
     policy, strategies, practices, programs, and restoration 
     activities.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (3) Chesapeake bay state.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     State'' or ``State'' means the States of Maryland, West 
     Virginia, Delaware, and New York, the Commonwealths of 
     Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
       (4) Chesapeake bay watershed.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed'' means the Chesapeake Bay and the geographic area, 
     as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, consisting of 
     36 tributary basins, within the Chesapeake Bay States, 
     through which precipitation drains into the Chesapeake Bay.
       (5) Chief executive.--The term ``chief executive'' means, 
     in the case of a State or Commonwealth, the Governor of each 
     such State or Commonwealth and, in the case of the District 
     of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
       (6) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.

[[Page 9756]]

       (7) State restoration activities.--The term ``State 
     restoration activities'' means any State programs or projects 
     carried out under State authority that directly or indirectly 
     protect, conserve, or restore living resources, habitat, 
     water resources, or water quality in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed, including programs or projects that promote 
     responsible land use, stewardship, and community engagement 
     in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Restoration activities may 
     be categorized as follows:
       (A) Physical restoration.
       (B) Planning.
       (C) Feasibility studies.
       (D) Scientific research.
       (E) Monitoring.
       (F) Education.
       (G) Infrastructure development.
       (8) Federal restoration activities.--The term ``Federal 
     restoration activities'' means any Federal programs or 
     projects carried out under existing Federal authority that 
     directly or indirectly protect, conserve, or restore living 
     resources, habitat, water resources, or water quality in the 
     Chesapeake Bay watershed, including programs or projects that 
     provide financial and technical assistance to promote 
     responsible land use, stewardship, and community engagement 
     in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Restoration activities may 
     be categorized as follows:
       (A) Physical restoration.
       (B) Planning.
       (C) Feasibility studies.
       (D) Scientific research.
       (E) Monitoring.
       (F) Education.
       (G) Infrastructure development.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as the largest estuary in the United States, the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed is home to more than 16 million people. The 
watershed encompasses six States and the District of Columbia; well 
over 1,000 local governments; 150 major tributaries; 100,000 streams 
and rivers; and more than 11,600 miles of shoreline, plus thousands of 
plant and animal species.
  In addition to generating billions of dollars in economic activity 
and recreational revenue, the bay provides tens of thousands of jobs in 
the commercial seafood and recreational fishing industries alone and is 
the site of multiple major ports and military bases.
  The bay draws millions of tourists each year. Clean and healthy 
waters encourage boating, fishing, and swimming, activities that are of 
great intrinsic value to the surrounding States and to our Nation.
  The bay watershed is also home to many farmers and agricultural 
lands. Virginia forestry and agriculture alone account for $79 billion 
in economic output and employ over 500,000 workers.
  Farmers have a vested interest in a clean Chesapeake Bay. Their 
commitment to the land and waters is reflected by multi-generational 
stewardship of farms across the watershed.
  My amendment includes similar legislation that passed in a bipartisan 
way in the House of Representatives in the 111th Congress by a vote of 
418-1.
  Better accounting and more flexible management are essential to 
restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Crosscut budgeting and adaptive 
management provide performance-based measures to ensure Federal dollars 
currently being spent on bay restoration activities produce results.
  Both techniques will ensure that we're coordinating how restoration 
dollars are spent and making sure that everyone understands how 
individual projects fit into the bigger picture. That way, we're not 
duplicating efforts, spending money we don't need to or, worse, working 
at cross purposes. Crosscut budgeting, adaptive management, and an 
independent evaluator should be key components for the complex 
restoration activities for the Chesapeake Bay.
  Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WITTMAN. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Clearly the gentleman 
is working diligently to do good things; and, therefore, I would be 
supportive of his amendment.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Crawford

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12317. APPLICABILITY OF SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND 
                   COUNTERMEASURE RULE.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator, in implementing the 
     Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule with 
     respect to any farm, shall--
       (1) require certification of compliance with such rule by--
       (A) a professional engineer for a farm with--
       (i) an individual tank with an aboveground storage capacity 
     greater than 10,000 gallons;
       (ii) an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than 
     or equal to 42,000 gallons; or
       (iii) a history that includes a spill, as determined by the 
     Administrator; or
       (B) the owner or operator of the farm (via self-
     certification) for a farm with--
       (i) an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than 
     10,000 gallons but less than 42,000 gallons; and
       (ii) no history of spills, as determined by the 
     Administrator; and
       (2) exempt from all requirements of such rule any farm--
       (A) with an aggregate aboveground storage capacity of less 
     than or equal to 10,000 gallons; and
       (B) no history of spills, as determined by the 
     Administrator.
       (b) Calculation of Aggregate Aboveground Storage 
     Capacity.--For the purposes of subsection (a), the aggregate 
     aboveground storage capacity of a farm excludes--
       (1) all containers on separate parcels that have a capacity 
     that is less than 1,320 gallons; and
       (2) all storage containers holding animal feed ingredients 
     approved for use in livestock feed by the Food and Drug 
     Administration.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Farm.--The term ``farm'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 112.2 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (3) Gallon.--The term ``gallon'' refers to a United States 
     liquid gallon.
       (4) History of spills.--The term ``history of spills'' has 
     the meaning used to describe the term ``reportable discharge 
     history'' in section 112.7(k)(1) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or successor regulations).
       (5) Spill prevention, control, and countermeasure rule.--
     The term ``Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 
     rule'' means the regulation promulgated by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency under part 112 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, first I want to thank the 71 Members from both parties who 
joined in cosponsoring the bill that is identical to this amendment, 
H.R. 311, the FUELS Act. That bill also passed the House unanimously 
last year.
  The EPA-mandated spill prevention and containment countermeasure 
rules require that oil storage facilities with a capacity of over 1,320 
gallons make costly infrastructure modification to reduce the 
possibility of oil spills.
  This bill simply changes those standards, makes them considerably 
more workable. We have 71 cosponsors that agree with me.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of 
the Agriculture Committee for such time as he may consume.

[[Page 9757]]


  Mr. LUCAS. I thank the subcommittee chairman and, once again, 
outstanding working being done.
  I would encourage all of our fellow Members of this great body to 
vote for your wonderful amendment.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman.
  With that, I'd urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Crawford

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 123__. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCER INFORMATION DISCLOSURE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Agency.--The term ``Agency'' means the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.
       (3) Agricultural operation.--The term ``agricultural 
     operation'' includes any operation where an agricultural 
     commodity crop is raised, including livestock operations.
       (4) Livestock operation.--The term ``livestock operation'' 
     includes any operation involved in the raising or finishing 
     of livestock or poultry.
       (b) Disclosure of Information.--
       (1) Prohibition.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Administrator, any officer or employee of the Agency, or any 
     contractor of the Agency, shall not make public the 
     information of any owner, operator, or employee of an 
     agricultural operation provided to the Agency by a farmer, 
     rancher, or livestock producer or a State agency that has 
     been obtained in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or any other law, 
     including--
       (A) names;
       (B) telephone numbers;
       (C) email addresses;
       (D) physical addresses;
       (E) Global Positioning System coordinates; or
       (F) other identifying location information.
       (2) Effect.--Nothing in paragraph (1) affects--
       (A) the disclosure of information described in paragraph 
     (1) if--
       (i) the information has been transformed into a statistical 
     or aggregate form at the county level or higher without any 
     information that identifies the agricultural operation or 
     agricultural producer; or
       (ii) the producer consents to the disclosure; or
       (B) the authority of any State agency to collect 
     information on livestock operations.
       (3) Condition of permit or other programs.--The approval of 
     any permit, practice, or program administered by the 
     Administrator shall not be conditioned on the consent of the 
     agricultural producer or livestock producer under paragraph 
     (2)(A)(ii).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank my colleague from Nebraska for joining me in 
sponsoring this amendment.
  Earlier this year, as most of us already know, the EPA violated the 
privacy rights of producers across the country by releasing the 
personal information of livestock and poultry producers to various 
environmental activist groups. This information included names, 
addresses, phone numbers, GPS coordinates of over 80,000 producers over 
30 States, including my home State of Arkansas. It was obtained by the 
EPA through State environmental quality agencies and released to the 
environmental groups through FOIA requests.
  We all know this story, and I'll be brief, and I will yield such time 
as my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) will consume.
  Mr. TERRY. Well, I thank you, my friend from Arkansas.
  It's too bad that the E in EPA now means ``espionage'' because the 
EPA rents airplanes and videotapes from the air farmers and ranchers 
and feedlots in their daily activities without any reason to think that 
they're violating any rule or regulation.
  So not only are they spying, but what is most concerning to those 
that have been videotaped by the EPA is that the EPA released the 
documents. We don't know how the environmental and animal rights groups 
found out that they were doing this because the farmers didn't know it 
was going on.
  But through a FOIA request, the EPA turned over all of the documents 
about the farmers, ranchers and food lot owners, with their personal 
identifiable information, their names and their addresses. And this has 
to stop.
  The people that have been victims of this videotaping and giving this 
information are really concerned; and so I thank the gentleman for his 
good amendment here, and allowing me to join, because this protects 
their privacy rights in the future.
  It doesn't stop them from spying yet. That will be done in a 
different bill. But this at least protects their privacy, and I really 
appreciate it.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, and I appreciate 
his leadership on this as well.
  The Crawford-Terry amendment would prevent the EPA from making public 
the private information of producers, including their names, telephone 
numbers, addresses, email and physical, GPS coordinates or other 
identifying location information.
  This measure will protect the individual privacy rights of ag 
producers and allow farm families to live without the threats of 
harassment and targeting.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COSTA. Not to oppose the measure, but actually to speak on behalf 
of the amendment. The issues that have been raised here by this 
amendment, I think, are valid. There are concerns that have been raised 
by cattlemen and cattlewomen across the country. I think that, 
obviously, we all feel that there ought to be a level playing field 
when it comes to the protection of the Freedom of Information Act.
  But on the other hand, cattlemen and cattlewomen every day are 
working really hard to try to do their best to produce the safest and 
the highest quality beef that Americans do every day and is the best in 
the world.

                              {time}  2340

  So we think this amendment is a step in the right direction and would 
like to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the gentleman from California for his support.
  I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee 
for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. LUCAS. This is clearly a very important issue and the gentleman 
has made great headway on it. Thank you for those efforts. Of course 
I'm very supportive of what you're endeavoring to do.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman. With that, I would urge a ``yes'' 
vote and yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 58 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 12___. SUNSETTING OF PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), each fiscal 
     year the Secretary of Agriculture may not carry out any 
     program--
       (1) for which an authorization of appropriations is 
     established or extended under this Act; and
       (2) that is funded by discretionary appropriations (as 
     defined in section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c))).

[[Page 9758]]

       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect with 
     respect to a program referred to in such subsection on the 
     date on which the authorization of appropriations under this 
     Act for such program expires.
       (c) Existing Obligations.--Subsection (a) does not affect 
     the ability of the Secretary to carry out responsibilities 
     with regard to loans, grants, or other obligations made or in 
     existence before an applicable effective date under 
     subsection (b).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, President Ronald Reagan once said:

       No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So 
     government's programs, once launched, never disappear. 
     Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal 
     life we'll ever see on this Earth.

  Mr. Chairman, it's hard to argue with the Gipper.
  This amendment to H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk 
Management, FARRM, Act of 2013, will bring accountability to our work 
here in the House of Representatives. What it does is it sunsets 
discretionary programs in this bill upon the expiration of the 5-year 
authorization period.
  Now, some people might think that is the normal thing to happen in 
the Federal Government: you authorize a program; once the authorization 
goes away, the program either gets reauthorized or it goes away. But 
that isn't what happens, Mr. Chairman.
  The purpose of this program is to force Congress to justify the 
continued existence of these programs through regular reauthorization 
efforts. Mr. Chairman, it forces us to do our jobs.
  If these programs and subsidies are left unchallenged, they will 
continue to consume taxpayer dollars forever without being approved 
explicitly by the Members of Congress. As our national debt approaches 
$17 trillion, we can't afford to put all these programs on autopilot.
  This commonsense amendment would require Congress to explicitly 
revive expired programs at the end of the authorization period and 
prevent the covert continuance of sometimes wasteful, ineffective, and 
duplicative programs. Ultimately, this amendment will prompt Congress--
and the public--to reexamine thoughtfully these programs when the farm 
bill's authorization expires.
  Finally, this amendment will send a strong message to stakeholders, 
lobbyists, and special interests that many of these Federal programs 
have an expiration date.
  Let me hasten to add, this commonsense amendment would not eliminate 
or undermine the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, and 
would not apply to the FARRM Bill's mandatory spending provisions.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment before us.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, before I state my opposition, I'd like to 
first thank Chairman Frank Lucas for the hard work that he and his 
committee staff have done today and throughout this year and last year 
in trying to put together not one, but two farm bills for the 
consideration of the House and for America's heartland, and thank 
Ranking Member Collin Peterson and his staff for the hard work that 
they have done as well.
  These are never easy, but as both the chairman and the ranking member 
like to remind us, and I think it's an important underlying point, the 
farm bill that we reauthorize every 4 years is among the most 
bipartisan efforts that we ever do. And both the chair and the ranking 
member and their staff are to be commended.
  As it relates to this measure before us, this amendment, we believe 
that it uses a meat cleaver approach to the legislation. Like 
sequester, it doesn't discriminate among programs. It's blind between 
those programs which deserve longer authorization periods and those 
that could use trimming, and clearly we understand the author's intent.
  The whole purpose of the farm bill, though, is to review programs 
under our jurisdiction to determine whether or not they should 
continue, whether they should be changed, or whether they should be 
eliminated. And, once again, to commend the chair and the ranking 
member, we have done a very good job on that oversight on determining 
what areas ought to be trimmed, what programs ought to be consolidated, 
and which should be eliminated. Our bill already does that. Actually, 
as the chair has indicated and the ranking member, it terminates 
hundreds of programs and consolidates, and the committee did the work 
in a thoughtful and careful manner.
  So we can't support the amendment that undoes the careful work that 
the committee has pursued. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
haphazard approach--or shotgun approach, we might say back home--and 
vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, let me add my thanks to the chairman also for 
his good work. I know that he has worked very, very hard on getting a 
bill here to us to vote on, and I commend him and the staff for doing 
that. I was negligent in not saying that in the beginning of my 
remarks. So I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks and 
for reminding me that I should have done that.
  I want to say that this amendment does not limit in any way the 
ability of Congress to reauthorize an expired program. Congress is 
Congress and can pass any laws it wants, in accordance with the 
Constitution, of course. But this amendment would require Congress to 
explicitly revive expired programs at the end of the authorization 
period.
  What we are trying to prevent is the covert continuance of programs 
that have not been authorized. We should hold ourselves to a high 
standard here, Mr. Chairman. We shouldn't be funding programs that 
aren't authorized. It's just saying we should abide by the laws we 
pass, and that's what this does. We need to ensure that Congress and 
the public will thoughtfully reexamine these programs and revive them 
where they need to be.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Ag Committee.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. COSTA. As a member of the committee, I reserve the right to 
close.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. COSTA. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, let me state the persuasive powers of the gentlelady are to be 
much respected and appreciated, occasionally even feared. While perhaps 
not every syllable of her amendments in their present form do I 
necessarily agree with, I am supportive. I believe she is on the right 
vein, and we will work together to accomplish the ultimate goal.
  That said, though, I must also express my appreciation to all my 
colleagues, to the professional staff of both the majority and the 
professional staff of the minority.

                              {time}  2350

  When we started this process earlier, I noted to all of you that I 
felt like if we would work this in regular order, if we would have 
discussion and amendment and great debate, we could achieve consensus.
  Now, we have approximately five more amendments to go tomorrow. We 
will conclude this experience on time--hurray--and I believe in a 
fashion that is appropriate for this august body, which means I think 
we'll pass the bill, but we shall see tomorrow.
  That said, thank you all. This is the way the process is supposed to 
work.
  Mr. COSTA. I think we've conducted the people's work today and this 
evening.
  I yield back the balance of my time and thank the chair and, again, 
all those involved in this process. Hopefully, tomorrow we can conclude 
our work.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

[[Page 9759]]

  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61 
printed in part B of House Report 113-117.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Foxx) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1947) to 
provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other 
programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________