H. Rept. 112-749 - 112th Congress (2011-2012)
January 03, 2013, As Reported by the Agriculture Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 112-749 - FOURTH SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON ACTIVITIES DURING THE 112TH CONGRESS (JUNE 28, 2012 TO JANUARY 3, 2013)




[House Report 112-749]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


                                                 Union Calendar No. 551

112th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 112-749

                           FOURTH SEMIANNUAL

                          REPORT ON ACTIVITIES

                       DURING THE 112TH CONGRESS

                   (JUNE 28, 2012 TO JANUARY 3, 2013)

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


January 3, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                   FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia,             COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, 
    Vice Chairman                        Ranking Minority Member
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
STEVE KING, Iowa                     MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            JOE BACA, California
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska           DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                   HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         JIM COSTA, California
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida            TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana          KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado            CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida        JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  PETER WELCH, Vermont
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama                 MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas                GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, 
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee              Northern Mariana Islands
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             JOHN GARAMENDI, California
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                      Nicole Scott, Staff Director
                     Kevin J. Kramp, Chief Counsel
                 Tamara Hinton, Communications Director
                Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director


                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                 Washington, D.C., January 3, 2013.

    Hon. Karen L. Haas,
    Clerk of the House of Representatives,
    Washington, D.C.

    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to rule XI, clause 1(d), of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, I herewith submit to the 
House a report of the activities of the Committee on 
Agriculture during the fourth quarter of the 112th Congress.
    With best wishes, I am
            Sincerely,
                               Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
                                                  Chairman.


                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
I. Summary of Organization, Jurisdiction, and Oversight Plan of 
  the Committee on Agriculture...................................     1
    A. Organization..............................................     1
    B. Committee Jurisdiction....................................     4
    C. Oversight Plan............................................     8
II. Committee Activities During the 112th Congress...............    16
    A. Main Legislative Activities...............................    16
    B. Statistical Summary of Activities.........................    23
    C. Digest of Bills Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee 
      on Which Action Has Been Taken.............................    24
        1. Bills Enacted into Law................................    24
        2. Bills Acted on by the House But Not the Senate........    37
        3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.............    52
        4. Bills Reported........................................    52
        5. Bills Acted on by the Committee Included in the Other 
          Laws Enacted...........................................   121
        6. Bills Vetoed..........................................   121
        7. Bills Acted on by Both Houses But Not Enacted.........   121
        8. Concurrent Resolutions Approved.......................   121
        9. Bills Ordered Reported But Not Reported...............   122
        10. Bills Defeated.......................................   122
    D. Oversight.................................................   122
        1. Oversight Hearings....................................   122
        2. Legislative Hearings..................................   136
        3. Investigative Hearings................................   137
    E. Printed Hearings..........................................   137
    F. Meetings Not Printed......................................   141
    G. Committee Prints..........................................   142
    H. Watersheds................................................   142
III. Appendix....................................................   142
    A. Executive Communications..................................   142
    B. Statutory and Special Reports.............................   191


                                                 Union Calendar No. 551
112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-749

======================================================================



 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE ON ACTIVITIES DURING THE 112TH 
                                CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

January 3, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Lucas, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

    In accordance with rule XI, clause 1(d), of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture 
reports herewith on its activities during the 112th Congress.

  I. Summary of Organization, Jurisdiction, and Oversight Plan of the 
                        Committee on Agriculture


                            a. organization

    The House of Representatives established the total 
authorized membership of the Committee on Agriculture for the 
112th Congress at 46, with a party division of 26 Republicans 
and 20 Democrats. Among the committee members were 16 
Representatives who were serving their first terms (Gibbs, 
Austin Scott, Fincher, Tipton, Southerland, Crawford, Roby, 
Huelskamp, DesJarlais, Ellmers, Gibson, Hultgren, Hartzler, 
Schilling, Ribble, Sewell, and Noem).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Resigned from Committee May 11, 2011.
    Appointed to Committee and Subcommittee June 14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS

    (Ratio includes ex officio Members.)
    (Frank D. Lucas, Chairman, and Collin C. Peterson, Ranking 
Minority Member, are ex officio Members of all Subcommittees.)
    The Committee organized on January 25, 2011, into six 
subcommittees, five of which were assigned jurisdiction over 
major agricultural commodities and one that dealt with various 
related agricultural operations. The six subcommittees were 
constituted as follows:

           Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry
                        (Ratio 12-10 (Total 22))

  GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, Ranking Minority MemberE, Virginia
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York           BOB GIBBS, Ohio
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee
JIM COSTA, California                SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio                TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, Northern Mariana Islandsinois
                                     REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
                                     KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota

    Jurisdiction: Soil, water, and resource conservation, small 
watershed program, energy and bio-based energy production, 
rural electrification, forestry in general and forest reserves 
other than those created from the public domain.

                                 ------                                

      Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and Credit
                         (Ratio 6-4 (Total 10))

   JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska, 
             Chairman
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio, Ranking Minority Member. JOHNSON, Illinois
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts     STEVE KING, Iowa
JOE BACA, California                 ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, 
                                     Arkansas
                                     STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee
                                     KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota

    Jurisdiction: Agency oversight, review and analysis, 
special investigations, and agricultural credit.

                                 ------                                

               Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture
                         (Ratio 6-4 (Total 10))

  JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio, Chairwoman
JOE BACA, California, Ranking Minority MemberNG, Iowa
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, Northern Mariana IslandsI, Florida
                                     ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, 
                                     Arkansas

    Jurisdiction: Food stamps, nutrition and consumer programs, 
fruits and vegetables, honey and bees, marketing and promotion 
orders, plant pesticides, quarantine, adulteration of seeds and 
insect pests, and organic agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Resigned from Committee May 11, 2011.
    Appointed to Committee and Subcommittee June 14, 2011.

                                 ------                                

      Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management
                        (Ratio 15-11 (Total 26))

    K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, 
             Chairman
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa, Ranking Minority MemberIowa
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina        BOB GIBBS, Ohio
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts     AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
DENNIS A. CARDOZA,* California       ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, 
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia                 Arkansas
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama             RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
                                     CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
                                     RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
                                     VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
                                     ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois

    Jurisdiction: Program and markets related to cotton, 
cottonseed, wheat, feed grains, soybeans, oilseeds, rice, dry 
beans, peas, lentils, the Commodity Credit Corporation, risk 
management, including crop insurance, commodity exchanges, and 
specialty crops.

                                 ------                                

             Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry
                        (Ratio 11-9 (Total 20))

    THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida, 
             Chairman
DENNIS A. CARDOZA,* California,  Ranking Minority Memberinia
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia                 STEVE KING, Iowa
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee
JOE BACA, California                 TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York           CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
                                     REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
                                     KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota

    Jurisdiction: Livestock, dairy, poultry, meat, seafood and 
seafood products, inspection, marketing, and promotion of such 
commodities, aquaculture, animal welfare, and grazing.

                                 ------                                

Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign 
                              Agriculture
                         (Ratio 8-6 (Total 14))

  TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois, 
             Chairman
JIM COSTA, California, Ranking Minority MemberMPSON, Pennsylvania
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                 MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama             RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina        VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
                                     ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois

    Jurisdiction: Rural Development, farm security and family 
farming matters; research, education and extension, 
biotechnology, foreign agriculture assistance, and trade 
promotion programs, generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Resigned from Congress August 15, 2012.
    Resigned from Committee May 11, 2011.
    Appointed to Committee and Subcommittee June 14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       b. committee jurisdiction

    Under Rules adopted by the House of Representatives for the 
111th Congress, the Committee on Agriculture's (hereinafter 
also referred to as Committee) jurisdiction (See Rule X, clause 
1 of the Rules of the House of Representatives) extended to--

    (1) Adulteration of seeds, insect pests, and protection of 
        birds and animals in forest reserves.

    (2) Agriculture generally.

    (3) Agricultural and industrial chemistry.

    (4) Agricultural colleges and experiment stations.

    (5) Agricultural economics and research.

    (6) Agricultural education extension services.

    (7) Agricultural production and marketing and stabilization 
        of prices of agricultural products, and commodities 
        (not including distribution outside of the United 
        States).

    (8) Animal industry and diseases of animals.

    (9) Commodity exchanges.

    (10) Crop insurance and soil conservation.

    (11) Dairy industry.

    (12) Entomology and plant quarantine.

    (13) Extension of farm credit and farm security.

    (14) Inspection of livestock, poultry, meat products, and 
        seafood and seafood products.

    (15) Forestry in general, and forest reserves other than 
        those created from the public domain.

    (16) Human nutrition and home economics.

    (17) Plant industry, soils, and agricultural engineering.

    (18) Rural electrification.

    (19) Rural development.

    (20) Water conservation related to activities of the 
        Department of Agriculture.

    The revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of 
Representatives for the 107th Congress (House Document No. 106-
320) provides the following concerning the Committee on 
Agriculture:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\References are to the volume and section of Hinds' (volumes I-V, 
e.g., IV, 500) and Cannon's (volumes VI-VIII, e.g., VI, 400) Precedents 
of the House of Representatives, and to the Congressional Record by 
date and page (e.g., January 3, 1953, p. 500).

          ``This Committee was established in 1820 (IV, 4149). 
        In 1880 the subject of forestry was added to its 
        jurisdiction, and the Committee was conferred authority 
        to receive estimates of and to report appropriations 
        (IV, 4149). However, on July 1, 1920, authority to 
        report appropriations for the U.S. Department of 
        Agriculture was transferred to the Committee on 
        Appropriations (VII, 1860).
          The basic form of the present jurisdictional 
        statement was made effective January 2, 1947, as a part 
        of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 
        812). Subparagraph (7) was altered by the 93d Congress, 
        effective January 3, 1975, to include jurisdiction over 
        agricultural commodities (including the Commodity 
        Credit Corporation) while transferring jurisdiction 
        over foreign distribution and non-domestic production 
        of commodities to the Committee on International 
        Relations (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct 8, 1974, p. 
        34470). Nevertheless, the Committee has retained a 
        limited jurisdiction over measures to release CCC 
        stocks for such foreign distribution (Sept. 14, 1989, 
        p. 20428). Previously unstated jurisdictions over 
        commodities exchanges and rural development were 
        codified effective January 3, 1975.
          The 104th Congress consolidated the Committee's 
        jurisdiction over inspection of livestock and meat 
        products to include inspection of poultry, seafood, and 
        seafood products, and added subparagraph (20) relating 
        to water conservation (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 
        1995, p.464). Clerical and stylistic changes were 
        effected when the House recodified its rules in the 
        106th Congress (H. Res. 5. Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
          The Committee has had jurisdiction of bills for 
        establishing and regulating the Department of 
        Agriculture (IV, 4150), for inspection of livestock and 
        meat products, regulation of animal industry, diseases 
        of animals (IV, 4154; VII, 1862), adulteration of 
        seeds, insect pests, protection of birds and animals in 
        forest reserves (IV, 4157; VII, 1870), the improvement 
        of the breed of horses, even with the cavalry service 
        in view (IV, 4158; VII, 1865), and in addition to the 
        Committee on Energy and Commerce, amending Horse 
        Protection Act to prevent the shipping, transporting, 
        moving, delivering, or receiving of horses to be 
        slaughtered for human consumption (July 13, 2006, p. 
        5270).
          The Committee, having charge of the general subject 
        of forestry, has reported bills relating to timber, and 
        forest reserves other than those created from the 
        public domain (IV, 4160). The Committee on Natural 
        Resources, and not this committee, has jurisdiction 
        over a bill to convey land that is part of a National 
        Forest created from the public domain (March 23, 2004, 
        p. 1344). It has also exercised jurisdiction of bills 
        relating to agricultural colleges and experiment 
        stations (IV, 4152), incorporation of agricultural 
        societies (IV, 4159), and establishment of a highway 
        commission (IV, 4153), to discourage fictitious and 
        gambling transactions in farm products (IV, 4161; VII, 
        1861), to regulate the transportation, sale and 
        handling of dogs and cats intended for use in research 
        and the licensing of animal research facilities (July 
        29, 1965, p. 18691); and to designate an agricultural 
        research center (May 14, 1995, p. 11070). The Committee 
        shares with the Committee on the Judiciary jurisdiction 
        over a bill comprehensively amending the Immigration 
        and Nationality Act and including food stamp 
        eligibility requirements for aliens (Sept. 19, 1995, p. 
        25533).
          The House referred the President's message dealing 
        with the refinancing of farm-mortgage indebtedness to 
        the Committee, thus conferring jurisdiction (April 4, 
        1933, p. 1209).
          The Committee has jurisdiction over a bill relating 
        solely to executive level position in the Department of 
        Agriculture (Mar. 2, 1976, p. 4958) and has 
        jurisdiction over bills to develop land and water 
        conservation programs on private and non-Federal lands 
        (June 7, 1976, p. 16768).''

    Some of the specific areas in which the Committee on 
Agriculture exercises its jurisdiction or that have been 
created for the Committee by historical reference include:

    (1) Public Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, the restoration, 
        expansion, and development of foreign markets for 
        United States agricultural products; and the effect of 
        the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (and the 
        North American Free Trade Agreement), bilateral free 
        trade agreements, the European Community, and other 
        regional economic agreements and commodity marketing 
        and pricing systems on United States agriculture.

    (2) All matters relating to the establishment and 
        development of an effective Foreign Agricultural 
        Service.

    (3) Matters relating to rural development, including rural 
        telephone companies, farm credit banks, farm rural 
        housing loans, rural water supply, rural flood control 
        and water pollution control programs, and loans for 
        rural firehouses, community facilities, and businesses.

    (4) Production and use of energy from agricultural and 
        forestry resources.

    (5) Matters relating to the development, use, and 
        administration of the National Forests, including, but 
        not limited to, development of a sound program for 
        general public use of the National Forests consistent 
        with watershed protection and sustained-yield timber 
        management, study of the forest fire prevention and 
        control policies and activities of the Forest Service 
        and their relation to coordinated activities of other 
        Federal, State, and private agencies; Forest Service 
        land exchanges; and wilderness and similar use 
        designations applied to National Forest land.

    (6) Price spreads of agricultural commodities between 
        producers and consumers.

    (7) The formulation and development of improved programs 
        for agricultural commodities; matters relating to the 
        inspection, grading, and marketing of such commodities, 
        including seafood; and food safety generally.

    (8) Matters relating to trading in futures contracts for 
        all commodities and similar instruments, including 
        commodity options and commodity leverage contracts.

    (9) The administration and operation of agricultural 
        programs through State and county committees and the 
        administrative policies and procedures relating to the 
        selection, election, and operation of such committees.

    (10) The administration and development of small watershed 
        programs under Public Law 566, Eighty-third Congress, 
        as amended, and the development of resource 
        conservation and development programs for rural areas.

    (11) Programs of food assistance or distribution supported 
        in whole or in part by funds of the Department of 
        Agriculture, including but not limited to the food 
        stamp program and the commodity distribution program.

    (12) Aquaculture programs of the Department of Agriculture.

    (13) Sugar legislation, including import control programs 
        that stabilize domestic prices.

    (14) All matters relating to pesticides, the Federal 
        Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as 
        amended, the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control 
        Act of 1972, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
        Rodenticide Act Amendments of 1988, and the Food 
        Quality Protection Act of 1996, including, but not 
        limited to, the registration, marketing, and safe use 
        of pesticides, groundwater contamination, and the 
        coordination of the pesticide program under FIFRA with 
        food safety programs.

    (15) Agricultural research programs, including, but not 
        limited to, the authorization of specific research 
        projects and agricultural biotechnology development 
        efforts.

    (16) All matters relating to the Commodity Credit 
        Corporation Charter Act.

    (17) Legislation relating to the control of the entry into 
        the United States of temporary, nonresident aliens for 
        employment in agricultural production.

    (18) Legislation relating to the general operations and the 
        Organic Act of the Department of Agriculture, the 
        Commodity Credit Corporation, Federal Crop Insurance 
        Corporation, Farm Credit Administration, Farm Credit 
        System, Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, and 
        Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    (19) Producer-funded research, promotion, and consumer and 
        industry information programs for agricultural 
        commodities.

    (20) Legislation regarding reclamation water projects where 
        the pricing of water delivered by such projects is 
        affected by whether the water will be used in the 
        production of a crop for which an acreage reduction 
        program is in effect.

    (21) Legislation regarding reclamation water projects for 
        which the Secretary of Agriculture is required to make 
        a determination regarding commodity availability prior 
        to the determination of the price to be charged for the 
        delivery of such project water.

    (22) Legislation establishing the level of fees charged by 
        the Federal Government for the grazing of livestock on 
        Federal lands.

    (23) Legislation governing the Federal regulation of 
        transactions involving swaps contracts, hybrid 
        financial instruments, and derivative securities and 
        financial products.

    (24) Legislation regarding the Federal Reserve Board with 
        respect to its authority to regulate the establishment 
        of appropriate levels of margin on stock index futures 
        contracts.

    The Committee also reviews and studies, on a continuing 
basis, the current and prospective application, administration, 
execution, and effectiveness of those laws, or parts of laws, 
the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee, and the organization and operation of the Federal 
agencies and entities having responsibilities in or for the 
administration and execution thereof. In addition, the 
Committee, along with other standing Committees of the House, 
has the function of reviewing and studying on a continuing 
basis the effect or probable effect of tax and other fiscal and 
monetary policies affecting subjects within their jurisdiction.

                           c. oversight plan

    The Committee on Agriculture met on February 10, 2011 to 
also fulfill the General Oversight Responsibility reporting 
requirements of Rule X 2(d)(1) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.
    The following outline was prepared in consultation with the 
Ranking Minority Member and approved by the Full Committee 
which was forwarded to the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform and the Committee on House Administration on 
February 10, 2011:

      Oversight Plan House Committee on Agriculture 112TH Congress

    The committee expects to exercise appropriate oversight 
activity with regard to the following issues:

2008 Farm Bill and Current Agricultural Conditions

  
 Review the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 
        implementation of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
        Act of 2008 (FCEA);

  
 Conduct an audit or inventory of every farm bill 
        program under the committee's jurisdiction;

  
 Review programs that may be inefficient, 
        duplicative, outdated or more appropriately 
        administered by State or local governments for possible 
        cuts or elimination;

  
 Review programs for waste, fraud and abuse;

  
 Review the current state of health of the U.S. farm 
        economy;

  
 Review USDA's initial and subsequent implementation 
        of FCEA payment limit and adjusted gross income 
        provisions;

  
 Review USDA's use of Ad Hoc Disaster Assistance;

  
 Review the state of credit conditions and 
        availability in rural America;

  
 Review the impact of weather conditions on crop 
        production;

  
 Review USDA's activities regarding implementation of 
        the U.S. Warehouse Act;

  
 Review of market situation, including impact of crop 
        reports and projections;

  
 Review colony collapse disorder and other long term 
        threats to pollinator health;

  
 Review USDA's implementation of the U.S. Grain 
        Standards Act;

  
 Review USDA's implementation of the Fair and 
        Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004;

  
 Review the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) management 
        controls for Finality Rule and equitable relief 
        decisions;

  
 Review how Administrative Pay-Go is affecting 
        Department actions; and

  
 Review discretionary actions by USDA that are not 
        directly authorized by legislation.

Energy

  
 Assess implementation of energy programs authorized 
        by FCEA;

  
 Review administration of the Biomass Crop Assistance 
        Program (BCAP);

  
 Review activities funded by the Biomass Research and 
        Development Act (BRDA) and input from the external BRDA 
        Advisory Board;

  
 Review availability of agriculture and forestry 
        feedstocks for renewable energy production;

  
 Review current status of research on energy crops 
        and feedstocks;

  
 Review RUS electric loan program;

  
 Review electricity reliability in rural America;

  
 Review current provisions in existing law that 
        support agriculture-based energy production and use;

  
 Review the implementation of the Renewable Fuels 
        Standard (RFA);

  
 Review programs that may be inefficient, 
        duplicative, outdated or more appropriately 
        administered by State or local governments for possible 
        cuts or elimination;

  
 Review renewable fuel programs and their impact on 
        agriculture; and

  
 Review USDA's energy infrastructure initiative.

Conservation and the Environment

  
 Review the impact of regulatory activities by the 
        EPA and its effect on agriculture productivity;

  
 Review the impact of regulatory activities carried 
        out pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or 
        any proposed legislative changes to such Act, on 
        agricultural producers;

  
 Review the impact of the Administration's regulatory 
        activity relative to methyl bromide on production of 
        agriculture in the U.S.;

  
 Review of EPA's resource needs as they pertain to 
        the collection of pesticide user fees;

  
 Review any proposed legislation to implement the 
        Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 
        the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the 
        Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, 
        and the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed 
        Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and 
        Pesticides in International Trade;

  
 Review the International Treaty on Plant Genetic 
        Resources for Food and Agriculture;

  
 Review budget and program activities of the NRCS;

  
 Review implementation of all of USDA's conservation 
        programs;

  
 Review conservation streamlining initiatives to 
        eliminate duplicative and overlapping programs;

  
 Review programs that may be inefficient, 
        duplicative, outdated or more appropriately 
        administered by State or local governments for possible 
        cuts or elimination;

  
 Review EPA's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act 
        (CWA) and its impact to U.S. agriculture;

  
 Review of potential impacts of EPA's Clean Air Act 
        (CAA) regulatory program on U.S. agriculture;

  
 Review ongoing discussions and potential 
        consequences for American agriculture under the United 
        Nations Climate Change Conference;

  
 Review EPA's implementation of the Food Quality 
        Protection Act (FQPA), FIFRA and Pesticide Registration 
        Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2);

  
 Review the impact of litigation and rulemaking 
        concerning FIFRA, ESA, CAA, CWA, the Comprehensive 
        Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
        (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right 
        to Know Act (EPCRA) and for impacts agricultural 
        operations;

  
 Review the EPA's regulatory actions in regard to 
        pesticide evaluations;

  
 Review of EPA's regulation of Animal Feeding 
        Operations;

  
 Review of the non-emergency haying and grazing 
        provisions of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP);

  
 Review of the operation of the Resource, 
        Conservation and Development Program; and

  
 Review of Total Maximum Daily Load strategies and 
        impacts on production agriculture.

Federal Crop Insurance and Risk Management

  
 Review USDA's implementation of crop insurance 
        provisions of the FCEA;

  
 Review the effectiveness of the Supplemental Revenue 
        Assistance Payments Program (SURE);

  
 Review the role and effectiveness of the Federal 
        Crop Insurance Program;

  
 Review USDA's and the Risk Management Agency's (RMA) 
        administration and oversight of the Federal Crop 
        Insurance Program;

  
 Review the availability of crop insurance as a risk 
        management tool;

  
 Review programs that may be inefficient, 
        duplicative, outdated or more appropriately 
        administered by State or local governments for possible 
        cuts or elimination;

  
 Review USDA's activities designed to find and reduce 
        crop insurance program waste, fraud, and abuse;

  
 Review USDA's handling of the SRA process;

  
 Review RMA's combination of revenue protection crop 
        insurance programs;

  
 Review the operations of the Commodity Futures 
        Trading Commission (CFTC);

  
 Review the growing consolidation and 
        internationalization of futures exchange trading;

  
 Review market machinations for exchange traded 
        energy and agricultural future products;

  
 Review enforcement and oversight capabilities of the 
        CFTC both domestically and internationally; and

  
 Review the role of the CFTC in light of potential 
        climate change legislation.

Implementation of Title VII of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
        Consumer Protection Act

  
 Review the process by which the CFTC engages in 
        rulemaking as directed by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank 
        Act to ensure--

      (1) it is a transparent process;

      (2) the sequence, timing and comment deadlines of rule 
            proposals allow for meaningful public comment;

      (3) cost benefit analysis is adequately performed and 
            reflected in rule proposals;

      (4) the CFTC is well coordinated with other Federal 
            financial regulators responsible for implementing 
            Title VII;

      (5) regulations do not impose undue or excessive burdens 
            on financial markets and the economy;

      (6) regulations are consistent with the intent and 
            statutory language of the Dodd-Frank Act.

  
 Examine the CFTC, SEC and Federal Reserve rules as 
        they relate to the exemption for commercial end-users, 
        including the application of margin and capital to end-
        user OTC transactions;

  
 Examine the feasibility of timetables established by 
        Dodd-Frank in building the data, technology and 
        connectivity necessary to meet regulatory objectives;

  
 Review the impact of Title VII on market structure;

  
 Review the impact of proposed transparency 
        mechanisms on trade pricing and liquidity;

  
 Review the impact of Title VII on the global 
        competitiveness of U.S. firms.

Agriculture Trade and International Food Aid

  
 Review ongoing multilateral, regional, and bilateral 
        trade negotiations (including WTO accession agreements) 
        to assess their potential impact on U.S. agriculture;

  
 Review implementation of existing trade agreements 
        and commitments as well as proposed new trade 
        agreements and commitments to determine--

      (1) whether they are consistent with current U.S. law;

      (2) whether they will promote economic development in 
            rural areas of the U.S.;

      (3) their impact or potential impact on current 
            production of import sensitive agricultural 
            commodities, and on exports of U.S. agricultural 
            products; and

      (4) their impact or potential impact on the overall 
            competitiveness of the U.S. agricultural sector, 
            including the production, processing and 
            distribution of agricultural products.

  
 Monitor existing trade agreements to ensure trading 
        partners are meeting obligations and enforcing trade 
        commitments;

  
 Review farm export programs to determine how well 
        they are promoting the interests of U.S. agriculture 
        and examine proposals to improve, modify or expand such 
        programs;

  
 Assess U.S. food aid programs to determine their 
        impact or potential impact on the reduction of world 
        hunger. In particular, the committee will examine the 
        potential impact of multilateral trade negotiations on 
        the effectiveness of U.S. food aid programs; and

  
 Address sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) barriers 
        and other technical barriers to U.S. agricultural 
        exports and examine USDA efforts to eliminate such 
        barriers.

Agricultural Research and Promotion

  
 Review implementation of biosecurity protocols at 
        USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) laboratories;

  
 Review USDA's implementation of research, education 
        and extension programs authorized in FCEA;

  
 Review the administration of the ARS research 
        stations and worksites;

  
 Review USDA's continuing ability to conduct foreign 
        animal disease research, training and diagnostic 
        programs at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility 
        following the transfer of the center to the Department 
        of Homeland Security;

  
 Assess Federal efforts to facilitate research and 
        development of aquacultural enterprises, specifically 
        focusing on the activities of the Joint Committee on 
        Aquaculture;

  
 Review implementation of USDA's regulation on 
        organic standards;

  
 Review implementation of USDA's collection of 
        organic production and market data;

  
 Review implementation of National Institute of Food 
        and Agriculture (NIFA);

  
 Review coordination between ARS, Economic Research 
        Service (ERS), NIFA and action agencies in USDA--such 
        as NRCS and FSA--in order to prevent duplicative 
        research;

  
 Review operation of the National Agricultural 
        Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory 
        Board;

  
 Review USDA's efforts to expand research and 
        development of pathogen reduction technologies;

  
 Evaluate the current mix of research funding 
        mechanisms to ensure maximum benefits from these 
        investments to producers, processors and consumers;

  
 Review administration of USDA's agricultural 
        marketing and promotion programs;

  
 Review of coordination between USDA and DOE on 
        energy research programs;

  
 Review of congressional appropriation process and 
        implications on research funding under ARS, ERS, NASS 
        and NIFA;

  
 Review of ARS, ERS, NASS and NIFA national program 
        priorities;

  
 Oversight of research grant process to coordinate 
        and prevent overlapping research; and

  
 Review the potential for research and technology 
        transfer to address the needs of both the biofuels and 
        livestock industries.

Biotechnology

  
 Review current regulations and research regarding 
        animal and plant biotechnology;

  
 Review the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 
        findings regarding cloned animal products and 
        regulation of genetically engineered animals;

  
 Assess USDA's efforts to develop and promote 
        benefits of biotechnology for increasing agricultural 
        productivity and combating hunger globally; and

  
 Review USDA's management and controls over 
        biotechnology-derived material.

U.S. Forest Service Administration

  
 Review U.S. Forest Service (USFS) budget, with 
        special attention to land acquisition and easement 
        programs;

  
 Continue to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency 
        of the Forest Service fire management program, 
        including the impact of hazardous fuels management, 
        forest health efforts and fire preparedness;

  
 Review the impact of fire expenses on other USFS 
        program delivery;

  
 Assess the USFS strategy for timber harvesting on 
        Federal lands; and

  
 Review USFS efforts to promote utilization of 
        Federal forests for renewable energy purposes.

Dairy

  
 Review options to improve the efficiency and 
        effectiveness of dairy programs; and

  
 Review efficiency of Federal market order system.

Outreach and Civil Rights

  
 Review implementation of Section 14012 of the FCEA;

  
 Review the implementation of the Office of Advocacy 
        and Outreach;

  
 Monitor USDA's outreach efforts to small and 
        minority farmers/ranchers;

  
 Review of the operations of the office of the 
        Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights;

  
 Review USDA process for evaluating discrimination 
        claims under the Pigford settlement;

  
 Review of the delivery of USDA services and outreach 
        efforts on Indian reservations and tribal lands;

  
 Review current status of Agricultural Census and 
        efforts to reach undercounted farmers and ranchers; and

  
 Review participation of minority farmers in FSA 
        County/Local Committees as well as outreach to increase 
        participation in County Committee elections.

USDA General Administration

  
 Review confidentiality of information provided to 
        USDA by agricultural producers;

  
 Review USDA's field office structure for the purpose 
        of delivering commodity, conservation, energy and rural 
        development programs;

  
 Review USDA's plan to modernize its Information 
        Technology (IT) systems; and

  
 Review the administrative structure of USDA for 
        effectiveness and additional efficiencies.

Farm Credit, Rural Development, and the Rural Economy

  
 Review Farm Credit Administration's (FCA) regulatory 
        program and activities regarding the Farm Credit System 
        (FCS) to assure the its safety and soundness;

  
 Review of Farmer Mac activities and programs;

  
 Review of FSA's direct and guaranteed loan programs 
        and graduation efforts;

  
 Review of the Rural Electrification Act (REA);

  
 Review of the farm economy and access to credit;

  
 Review implementation of rural development policies 
        and authorities contained in FCEA and the Consolidated 
        Farm and Rural Development Act;

  
 Review programs that may be inefficient, 
        duplicative, outdated or more appropriately 
        administered by State or local governments for possible 
        cuts or elimination;

  
 Conduct oversight of the USDA's Rural Broadband 
        Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program;

  
 Conduct oversight of new Rural Microentrepreneur 
        Assistance Program;

  
 Conduct oversight of the implementation of the 
        USDA's Telecommunications Programs;

  
 Review the status of the Rural Telephone Bank;

  
 Assess state of rural water systems and 
        effectiveness of Federal funding to build and upgrade 
        those systems;

  
 Assess rural infrastructure and business needs and 
        effectiveness of USDA programs targeted to those needs;

  
 Review of agriculture lending practices;

  
 Review of definition of ``rural'' under rural 
        development programs; and

  
 Review of rural development loan programs and 
        default rates.

USDA Food and Nutrition Programs

  
 Review food and nutrition programs including the 
        Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), fruit 
        and vegetable initiatives, the Emergency Food 
        Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Food Distribution on 
        Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and other commodity 
        distribution programs;

  
 Assess the level of participation by states in SNAP 
        and examine state options for expanding SNAP 
        participation;

  
 Review buying patterns of SNAP recipients and 
        methods for encouraging balanced lifestyles;

  
 Review programs that may be inefficient, 
        duplicative, outdated or more appropriately 
        administered by State or local governments for possible 
        cuts or elimination;

  
 Review efforts by state SNAP administrators to 
        modernize and streamline their programs;

  
 Review the Community Food Project Program to ensure 
        cooperative grants are working;

  
 Review of the SNAP retailer approval process; and

  
 Review of the implementation of changes made to the 
        SNAP Nutrition Education Program.

Food Safety

  
 Review implementation of the FDA Food Safety 
        Modernization Act;

  
 Review implementation of the recent FDA Egg Safety 
        Rule;

  
 Review USDA's administration of meat and poultry 
        inspection laws and the FDA's food inspection 
        activities to ensure the development of scientifically 
        sound systems for food safety assurance;

  
 Review USDA's implementation of the catfish 
        inspection program;

  
 Review USDA's efforts to educate consumers regarding 
        safe food handling practices and streamline the 
        assessment and approval of food safety technologies;

  
 Review implementation of new protocols for meat, 
        poultry, eggs, or seafood safety inspection; and

  
 Review USDA's enforcement of the Humane Methods of 
        Slaughter Act and humane handling regulations.

Plant and Animal Health

  
 Review enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act;

  
 Assess Federal efforts to reduce threats to human, 
        animal, and plant health due to predatory and invasive 
        species;

  
 Assess USDA's Animal Disease Traceability Plan; and

  
 Review implementation of Sec. 10201--Plant pest and 
        disease management and disaster prevention.

Livestock Marketing

  
 Assess the effectiveness of the Grain Inspection, 
        Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) in 
        determining market manipulation in the livestock 
        industry;

  
 Review structural changes in agribusiness and the 
        potential cost and benefits for agricultural producers; 
        and

  
 Review the USDA's mandatory livestock price 
        reporting system.

Homeland and Agricultural Security

  
 Oversight of USDA's preparedness against terrorist 
        threats to agriculture production; and

  
 Review of agriculture inspection activities under 
        the Department of Homeland Security.

Miscellaneous

  
 Review the implementation and impact of The American 
        Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on USDA 
        programs;

  
 Review implementation of the Specialty Crop 
        Competitiveness Act;

  
 Review of the impact of transportation 
        infrastructure issues on agriculture and forestry;

  
 Review USDA's implementation and enforcement of the 
        country of origin labeling rule; and

  
 Assess operation of the Fruit and Vegetable (FAV) 
        planting prohibition pilot program.

Consultation With Other Committees To Reduce Duplication

  
 With Natural Resources Committee on forestry issues, 
        ESA issues and other public land issues;

  
 With Science Committee on Research;

  
 With Ways and Means and Education and the Workforce 
        on nutrition programs;

  
 With Ways and Means on trade issues;

  
 With Homeland Security on importation of animal and 
        plant material and on research related to 
        agroterrorism;

  
 With Judiciary on immigrant agricultural labor;

  
 With Energy and Commerce on food safety and biomass 
        energy programs both existing and new;

  
 With Transportation and Infrastructure on CWA 
        compliance issues;

  
 With Financial Services Committee on Dodd-Frank Act 
        issues; and

  
 With any other committee as appropriate.

           II. Committee Activities During the 112th Congress


                     a. main legislative activities

    The Committee on Agriculture reported or otherwise 
considered a variety of bills in the 112th Congress covering 
many of the diverse areas within its jurisdictional interests.
    Some of the major activities of the committee during the 
112th Congress included the following:

Agenda for the House Agriculture Committee

  
 The Agriculture Committee approached its business in 
        an open, transparent manner and maintained the strong 
        bipartisan tradition of the Committee. One of the main 
        priorities of the Committee during this Congress was to 
        provide oversight to the various Federal agencies 
        through the hearing process.

  
 The Agriculture Committee held 16 full committee 
        hearings and 12 business meetings during the 112th 
        Congress. Various subcommittees held 42 hearings during 
        the 112th Congress.

  
 The Committee heard testimony from Administration 
        officials on 60 occasions, including 36 testimonies 
        from U.S. Department of Agriculture representatives, 
        and 12 from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 
        Additional testimony heard by the Committee was offered 
        by university researchers, nonprofit organizations, 
        trade groups, international regulators, and farmers and 
        ranchers from across the United States and totaled 237 
        testimonies all together.

Biotechnology

  
 In January 2011, the Committee held a public forum 
        to review the biotechnology product regulatory approval 
        process. The public forum was held to explore the issue 
        in advance of that decision.

Trade

  
 On April 7, 2011, Rep. Timothy V. Johnson, Chairman 
        of the Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, 
        Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture, held a public 
        hearing to review market promotion programs and their 
        effectiveness on expanding exports of U.S. agricultural 
        products.

Oversight of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Commodity 
        Futures Trading Commission

  
 On February 17, 2011, the House Agriculture 
        Committee held a public hearing to review the state of 
        the farm economy. Members of the committee heard 
        testimony from U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary 
        Tom Vilsack and questioned him on a variety of topics 
        including the many regulatory burdens affecting the 
        livelihoods of farmers and ranchers. The committee also 
        discussed economic trends in prices, input costs, and 
        farm output.

  
 March 31, 2011, the House Agriculture Committee held 
        a public hearing to review the definitions of key terms 
        included in Title VII of the Wall Street Reform and 
        Consumer Protection Act, such as ``swap,'' ``Swap 
        Dealer,'' and ``Major Swap Participant.'' Additionally, 
        Members examined how end-users will be impacted by 
        these definitions and regulatory designations. The Act 
        does not define an end-user explicitly. In order to 
        qualify for the end-user exemption, a company must not 
        be designated a Swap Dealer, Major Swap Participant, or 
        a financial entity.

  
 On April 13, 2011, Rep. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman 
        of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and 
        Risk Management held a public hearing to further review 
        the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) 
        rulemaking process for implementing title VII of the 
        Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
        Act.

  
 On May 4, 2011, the House Agriculture Committee 
        approved H.R. 1573, to facilitate implementation of 
        title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, 
        promote regulatory coordination, and avoid market 
        disruption. This legislation gives regulators 
        additional time to write and vet the rules governing 
        derivatives, and brings the U.S. into alignment with 
        our G20 partners on financial reform.

  
 On April 15, 2011, Chairman Frank D. Lucas, and U.S. 
        Representatives Spencer Bachus, K. Michael Conaway, and 
        Scott Garrett introduced H.R. 1573, which would extend 
        the deadline by 18 months for implementing Title VII of 
        the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
        Protection Act. The bill gives the regulatory agencies 
        more time to effectively meet the objectives of the 
        derivatives title, to prioritize deliberation over 
        speed, to consider the costs and benefits, and to 
        understand the cumulative impact of the rules that will 
        be applied to the marketplace. Additionally, the bill 
        realigns the U.S. with the G20 agreement to implement 
        reform by December 2012.

Dodd-Frank

  
 On January 25, 2012, the House Agriculture Committee 
        advanced by voice vote six bills that amend Title VII 
        of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
        Protection Act. The legislation is the culmination of 
        the committee's oversight efforts of the Commodity 
        Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as it writes rules 
        for Dodd-Frank. The bills passed included: H.R. 3336, 
        H.R. 3527, H.R. 2779, H.R. 2682, H.R. 2586, and H.R. 
        1840.

  
 On February 29, 2012, the House Agriculture 
        Committee held a public hearing to review the 2012 
        agenda of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
        (CFTC) as the agency continues to investigate the 
        collapse of MF Global and promulgate rules pursuant to 
        the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
        Protection Act. Members of the Committee pressed CFTC 
        Chairman Gary Gensler on the strength of customer 
        protections in place in light of the collapse of MF 
        Global and the Dodd-Frank rulemaking process.

  
 On March 28, 2012, Rep. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman 
        of the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on 
        General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, held a 
        public hearing to consider three pieces of legislation 
        designed to mitigate unintended consequences of certain 
        provisions of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
        Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and clarify the 
        reach of new regulatory requirements to swaps 
        activities that occur outside the U.S. Members of the 
        Subcommittee reviewed H.R. 3283, the ``Swap 
        Jurisdiction Certainty Act'', H.R. 1838 to repeal 
        Section 716 of Dodd-Frank, and H.R. 4235, the ``Swap 
        Data Repository & Clearinghouse Indemnification 
        Correction Act of 2012''.

  
 On July 25, 2012, the full Committee held a public 
        hearing entitled Oversight of the Swaps and Futures 
        Markets: Recent Events and Impending Regulatory 
        Reforms. This hearing was held to examine the collapse 
        of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., the LIBOR 
        manipulation, and receive an update on MF Global and 
        Dodd-Frank implementation.

  
 On December 13, 2012, the House Agriculture 
        Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk 
        Management held a public hearing on the challenges 
        facing the U.S. and International Markets in respect to 
        Dodd-Frank derivatives reform.

Oversight of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development 
        Programs

  
 On February 15, 2011, Rep. Timothy V. Johnson, 
        Chairman of the Subcommittee on Rural Development, 
        Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture held a 
        public hearing to review the various definitions of 
        rural applied under programs operated by the U.S. 
        Department of Agriculture (USDA).

  
 On April 14, 2011, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, Chairman 
        of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, 
        Oversight, and Credit held a public hearing to review 
        credit conditions in rural America. A number of 
        institutions provide credit to our nation's farmers, 
        ranchers, and rural constituents. It is important to 
        ensure credit is readily available through institutions 
        that are fundamentally sound.

  
 On March 21, 2012, Rep. Timothy V. Johnson, Chairman 
        of the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on 
        Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign 
        Agriculture, held a public hearing to identify 
        duplicative Federal rural development programs. Members 
        questioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 
        Undersecretary for Rural Development and the Director 
        of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the 
        efforts being made to streamline duplicative programs 
        and improve coordination among agencies that administer 
        programs.

Livestock

  
 On April 6, 2011, Rep. Thomas J. Rooney, Chairman of 
        the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry held 
        a public hearing to review the state of the beef 
        industry. Members of the Subcommittee heard testimony 
        from a cow/calf producer, an owner of a feeding 
        business, and a beef packer. In addition to educating 
        Members about the structure and economic conditions of 
        the beef sector, witnesses also highlighted a range of 
        issues impacting the beef industry such as 
        environmental policies, feed availability, input 
        prices, trade, and the proposed Grain Inspection, 
        Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rule.

  
 April 13, 2011, Rep. Thomas J. Rooney, Chairman of 
        the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry held 
        a public hearing to review the state of the poultry 
        industry. Members of the Subcommittee heard testimony 
        from a chicken grower, a chicken integrator, and a 
        turkey grower who is also the chairman of a poultry 
        processing cooperative. In addition to educating 
        Members about the structure and economic conditions of 
        the poultry sector, witnesses also highlighted a range 
        of issues impacting the poultry industry, such as 
        environmental policies, feed availability, input 
        prices, trade, and the proposed Grain Inspection, 
        Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rule.

  
 One May 4, 2011, Rep. Thomas J. Rooney, Chairman of 
        the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, held 
        a public hearing to review the state of America's pork 
        industry. Members of the Subcommittee heard statements 
        from witnesses that represented a cross-section of the 
        pork industry, including a small farrow-to-finish 
        producer, an owner of a large family-owned pork farming 
        network, and a packer. The witnesses discussed the 
        economic and policy issues currently affecting the pork 
        industry, including international trade, feed 
        availability, animal health and welfare, environmental 
        policies, and the proposed Grain Inspection, Packers 
        and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rule adding new 
        regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Environmental Protection Agency

  
 On February 16, 2011, Rep. Jean Schmidt, Chairman of 
        the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture and Rep. 
        Bob Gibbs, Chairman of the House Transportation and 
        Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Water 
        Resources and Environment held a joint public hearing 
        to consider reducing the regulatory burdens posed by 
        the case National Cotton Council v. EPA (6th Cir. 2009) 
        and to review related draft legislation.

  
 On March 2, 2011, Reps. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), Jean 
        Schmidt (R-OH), and Joe Baca (D-CA) introduced H.R. 
        872, a bipartisan bill to reduce the regulatory burdens 
        posed by the case National Cotton Council v. EPA (6th 
        Cir. 2009).

  
 On March 9, 2011, the House Agriculture Committee 
        approved H.R. 872, The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act 
        of 2011. It was a bipartisan bill that would amend the 
        Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 
        and the Clean Water Act (CWA) to clarify Congressional 
        intent and eliminate the requirement of a National 
        Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 
        for pesticides approved for use under FIFRA. The 
        legislation was cosponsored by 39 of the 46 Agriculture 
        Committee members.

  
 On March 31, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives 
        passed H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 
        2011 in a bipartisan vote, 292-130.

  
 Rep. Glenn Thompson, Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
        Conservation, Energy, and Forestry held a public 
        hearing on March 16, 2011 to further review the 
        Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), 
        agricultural practices, and their implications on 
        national watersheds. Members of the subcommittee 
        highlighted the importance of conservation programs and 
        their impact on the health of the Chesapeake Bay, as 
        well as the voluntary steps farmers have taken to 
        preserve and protect this watershed.

  
 On March 10, 2011, the Committee held a public 
        hearing to review the impact of Environmental 
        Protection Agency regulations on agriculture.

Budget

  
 On March 7, 2012, the House Agriculture Committee 
        held a business meeting to consider the Budget Views 
        and Estimates Letter of the Committee on Agriculture 
        for the agencies and programs under jurisdiction of the 
        Committee for FY 2013.

Farm Bill Field Hearings

  
 On March 9, 2012, Chairman Frank D. Lucas held a 
        field hearing in Saranac Lake, New York. It was the 
        first of a series to be held throughout March and April 
        to gather input in advance of writing the 2012 Farm 
        Bill. Members heard testimony from producers in the 
        northeastern United States on the future of farm 
        policy.

  
 On March 23, 2012, Chairman Frank D. Lucas continued 
        the House Agriculture Committee's field hearing series 
        in Galesburg, Illinois. It was the second of four 
        hearings to be held across the country throughout March 
        and April to gather input in advance of writing the 
        2012 Farm Bill. Members heard testimony from Midwest 
        producers of corn, rice, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, 
        specialty crops and beef.

  
 On March 30, 2012, Chairman Frank D. Lucas continued 
        the House Agriculture Committee's field hearing series 
        in State University, Arkansas. It was the third of four 
        hearings to be held across the country throughout March 
        and April to gather input in advance of writing the 
        2012 Farm Bill. Members heard from Southeast producers 
        of aquaculture, beef, and a variety of commodities, 
        including rice and cotton, about the contributions U.S. 
        agriculture has made to the U.S. economy.

  
 On April 20, 2012, Chairman Frank D. Lucas wrapped 
        up the House Agriculture Committee's field hearing 
        series in Dodge City, Kansas. It was the final hearing 
        that was held across the country to listen directly to 
        producers on the ground and gather input in advance of 
        writing the 2012 Farm Bill. Members heard from 
        producers of a variety of commodities and beef about 
        the tools they need to continue to produce a safe and 
        affordable food and fiber supply. Witnesses explained 
        that one of the goals of the Farm Bill should be to 
        provide opportunities for effective risk management for 
        all of agriculture.

Farm Bill Formulation

  
 On April 25, 2012, Rep. Timothy V. Johnson, Chairman 
        of the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on 
        Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign 
        Agriculture, held a hearing to review U.S. Department 
        of Agriculture (USDA) rural development programs in 
        advance of writing the 2012 Farm Bill. Members heard 
        from two panels of witnesses who explained how programs 
        can be improved to increase their effectiveness.

  
 On April 26, 2012, Rep. Thomas J. Rooney, Chairman 
        of the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on 
        Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry held a hearing on 
        reforming dairy programs in the 2012 Farm Bill. 
        Witnesses discussed problems with current dairy 
        programs and provided feedback on proposals being 
        considered to address those inadequacies.

  
 On April 26, 2012, Rep. Glenn Thompson, Chairman of 
        the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on 
        Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, held a hearing to 
        learn from members of the agriculture community on how 
        conservation programs should be structured in the 2012 
        Farm Bill. Witnesses testified to the importance of 
        conservation programs to assist producers and 
        landowners with voluntary conservation initiatives, 
        while also acknowledging the difficult budget 
        circumstances for reauthorizing Farm Bill programs.

  
 On May 8, 2012, Rep. Jean Schmidt, Chairman of the 
        House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Nutrition 
        and Horticulture, held a hearing to continue receiving 
        input on agricultural programs in preparation for 
        writing the 2012 Farm Bill. This hearing focused on 
        specialty crop and nutrition programs.

  
 On May 10, 2012, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, Chairman of 
        the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on 
        Department Operations, Oversight, and Credit held a 
        public hearing to learn more about how credit programs 
        are working for farmers and how they should continue in 
        the 2012 Farm Bill.

  
 On May 16 & 17, 2012, Rep. K. Michael Conaway, 
        Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee's 
        Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk 
        Management, held a two day hearing that focused on 
        commodity programs and crop insurance in preparation of 
        the 2012 Farm Bill. The four panels of witnesses 
        included economists and leaders from various commodity 
        and agricultural groups highlighting the diversity of 
        agriculture across the country. Witnesses described how 
        programs are working under current law and how reforms 
        can be made while stressing the need for a fair and 
        effective safety net and a strong crop insurance 
        program.

  
 On May 18, 2012, Rep. Glenn Thompson, Chairman of 
        the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on 
        Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, wrapped up the 
        third and final hearing series on agricultural programs 
        in advance of writing the next Farm Bill. This series 
        was held on the Subcommittee level and gathered 
        agricultural leaders in Washington to share their 
        policy priorities. This hearing focused on energy and 
        forestry programs.

  
 On July 11, 2012, the House Agriculture Committee 
        held a business meeting to consider the 2012 Farm Bill, 
        H.R. 6083, The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk 
        Management Act.

  
 H.R. 6083, Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk 
        Management Act, was passed in the Committee by a vote 
        of 35-11 and it awaiting a vote in the U.S. House of 
        Representatives.

Reconciliation Requirement

  
 On April 18, 2012, the House Agriculture Committee 
        held a business meeting. Advancing, by voice vote, the 
        proposal to satisfy reconciliation instructions 
        required by House Concurrent Resolution 112. 
        Instructions included making policy changes that 
        resulted in one, five, and 10 year saving estimates of 
        $7.7 billion, $19.7 billion, and $33.2 billion, 
        respectively.

Forestry

  
 On March 27, 2012, Rep. Glenn Thompson, Chairman of 
        the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on 
        Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, held a public 
        hearing to review several aspects affecting forest 
        health, including timber harvests, wildlife management, 
        invasive species, and the U.S. Forest Service's 
        planning rule.

Disaster Assistance

  
 On August 2, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives 
        passed H.R. 6233, Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act 
        of 2012, by a vote of 223-197. The Agricultural 
        Disaster Assistance Act of 2012, provides risk 
        management tools to those producers currently exposed 
        to drought conditions.

                  b. statistical summary of activities

    (1) Statistics on bills referred to the Committee on 
        Agriculture

    Number of bills referred:





House bills................................................        237
Senate bills...............................................          3
House joint resolutions....................................          1
House concurrent resolutions...............................          0
Senate joint resolutions...................................          0
Senate concurrent resolutions..............................          0
House resolutions..........................................         11
                                                            ------------
  Total....................................................        252



    (2) Disposition of Bills Containing Items Under the 
        Jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture





Bills enacted into law.....................................          7
Bills acted on by the Committee included in other bills              0
 that became law...........................................
Bills vetoed...............................................          0
Bills acted on by both Houses, but not enacted.............          1
Bills acted on by the House but not the Senate.............          8
Concurrent Resolutions approved............................          0
Bills reported to the House but not considered.............         14
Bills ordered reported, but not reported...................          0
Bills defeated in the House................................          0



    (3) Statistics on hearings and markups:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Open business    Washington
                                                     meetings     hearings/forum  Field hearings       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Committee..................................              12              12               4              28

Subcommittees:

  General Farm Commodities and Risk Management..               0               9               0               9
  Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.................               0               6               0               6
  Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology,                  0               8               1               9
   and Foreign Agriculture......................
  Conservation, Energy, and Forestry............               0               9               0               9
  Department Operations, Oversight, and Credit..               0               5               0               5
  Nutrition and Horticulture....................               0               4               0               4
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................              12              53               5              70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 c. digest of bills within the jurisdiction of the committee on which 
                         action has been taken


1. Bills Enacted into Law

            P.L. 112-46, (H.R. 765)
    Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011
    H.R. 765 was introduced on February 17, 2011 by 
Representative Rob Bishop and referred to the Committee on 
Agriculture and in addition to the Committee on Natural 
Resources. On June 15, 2011 the Committee on Natural Resources 
ordered reported the bill without amendment by unanimous 
consent. On July 20, 2011, the bill was reported to House, H. 
Rept. 112-164, Part 1. On October 3, 2011 the bill passed the 
House under suspension of the rules by a recorded vote of 394 
yeas to 0 nays. On October 18, 2011 the bill passed the Senate 
by unanimous consent clearing the measure for the President. On 
November 7, 2011 the bill was signed by the President into 
Public Law 112-46.
    The Act amends the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 
1986 to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to permit 
seasonal and year-round natural resource based, recreational 
activities and associated facilities at ski areas, in addition 
to those that support Nordic and alpine skiing and other snow 
sports that are currently authorized by the Act. Current law 
does not address activities other than Nordic and alpine 
skiing, snow sports, and their ancillary facilities at ski 
areas on U.S. Forest Service lands. Congress intended the term 
`appropriate ancillary facilities' to include `only those 
facilities directly necessary for the operation and support of 
a winter sports facility.' The Act will allow for new 
activities such as ziplines, climbing walls, mountain biking, 
and alpine slides.
    The additional seasonal and year-round recreational 
activities and associated facilities authorized by the Act 
would encourage outdoor recreation and require such activities 
to harmonize with the natural environment. The Act also will 
make clear that the primary purpose of the authorized use and 
occupancy would continue to be skiing and other snow sports. 
The Act will not waive existing laws such as the Endangered 
Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act to allow 
for these new activities to take place. Ski areas on Forest 
Service lands are themselves `developed sites' so these new 
activities will be in keeping with the intended use of these 
areas.
            P.L. 112-96 (H.R. 3630)
    Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
    H.R. 3630 was introduced on December 9, 2011 by 
Representative Dave Camp and referred to the Committee on Ways 
and Means, in addition the Committees on Energy and Commerce; 
Financial Services; Foreign Affairs; Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Agriculture; Oversight and Government Reform; 
House Administration; Budget; Natural Resources; Rules; and 
Intelligence (Permanent Select). On December 13, 2011 the bill 
passed the House, amended, by a recorded vote of 234 yeas to 
193 nays. On December 17, 2011, the bill passed the Senate, 
amended, by unanimous consent. On December 20, 2011, House 
disagreed to the Senate amendment, and appointed conferees: 
Camp, Upton, Brady (TX), Walden, Price (GA), Reed, Ellmers, and 
Hayworth. On December 23, 2011, the Senate insisted on its 
amendment, agreed to a conference. On that same date the House 
appointed additional conferees: Levin, Beccerra, Van Hollen, 
Schwartz, and Waxman. On January 3, 2012, the Senate appointed 
conferees: Baucus, Reed; Cardin, Casey, Kyl, Crapo, and 
Barrasso. A conference was held on: January 24, 2012, February 
1, 2012, February 2, 2012, and February 7, 2012 with a 
conference report filed on February 16, 2012, H. Rept. 112-399. 
The conference report passed the House on February 17, 2012 by 
a recorded vote of 293 yeas to 13 nays. On that same date, the 
Senate agreed to the conference report by a recorded vote of 60 
yeas to 36 nays. On February 22, 2012 the bill was presented to 
the President and signed into Public Law 112-96.
    The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 
provided an extension of the payroll tax rates for the 
remainder of the calendar year 2012. In addition, the Act 
provided a fully-offset delay it the implementation of the 
Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (the so-called ``Doc-fix'') 
and extended and reformed Federal funded Unemployment Insurance 
benefits for the remainder of calendar year 2012. Title IV of 
the Act extends the authorization of the Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF) state block grant program at current 
level of $16.5 billion annually, through September 30, 2012. 
The Act also improves program administration by standardizing 
date elements to improve integrity and collaboration. The 
measure would also prohibit welfare funds from being accessed 
in strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos by blocking welfare 
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards from working in ATMs 
there.
    The measure requires states receiving Federal grants 
through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
program to maintain policies that prevent TANF assistance from 
being used in a transaction in a liquor store, gaming 
establishment, or any retail establishment that provides adult 
entertainment in which performers disrobe.
    The measure further requires that Federal TANF assistance 
be reduced by 5 percent in any state that does not report its 
implementation of these policies within 2 years. The reduction 
would be enforced in the fiscal year immediately succeeding the 
year in which two year period end s and would continue each 
year until the state demonstrates that these policies have been 
implemented. (Note: See also the discussion of H. Res. 72 under 
``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
            P.L. 112-105, (S. 2038)
    Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK 
Act)
    S. 2038 was introduced on January 26, 2012 by Senator 
Joseph Lieberman and referred to the Senate Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On February 2, 2012 
the bill passed the Senate by a recorded vote of 96 yeas to 3 
nays. On February 6, 2012 the bill was received by House and 
held at the desk. On February 9, 2012 the bill passed the 
House, amended, under suspension of the rules by a recorded 
vote of 417 yeas to 2 nays. On March 22, 2012 the Senate agreed 
to the House amendment to the bill by unanimous consent. The 
measure was presented to the President on March 28, 2012 and 
signed into law on April 4, 2012.
    The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 
requires the congressional ethics committees to issue 
interpretive guidance of the rules of each chamber, including 
rules on conflicts of interest and gifts, with respect to the 
prohibition against the use by Members of Congress and 
congressional employees including Legislative Branch offices 
and employees), as a means for making a private profit, of any 
nonpublic information derived from their positions a members or 
congressional employees, or gained from performance of the 
individual's official responsibilities.
    The Act declares that such Members and employees are not 
exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the 
securities laws, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
and Rule 10b-5.
    The measure amends the Securities Exchange Act of 2934 to 
declare that such Members and employees owe a duty arising from 
a relationship of trust and confidence to Congress, the U.S. 
Government and U.S. citizens with respect to material, 
nonpublic information derived from their positions as Members 
or congressional employees or gained from performance of the 
individual's official responsibilities.
    The Act also amends the Commodity Exchange Act to apply to 
Members and congressional employees, or to judicial officers or 
employees its prohibitions against certain transactions, 
involving the purchase or sale of any commodity in interstate 
commerce, or for future delivery, or any swap.

            P.L. 112-132 (S. 3261)
    To allow the Chief of the Forest Service to award certain 
contracts for large air tankers.
    S. 3261 was introduced on June 4, 2012 by Senator Wyden and 
referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry. The bill was discharged from Committee and passed by 
the Senate by Unanimous Consent on June 7, 2012. On that same 
day the bill was received in the House and referred to the 
Committee on Agriculture. The measure was discharged from 
Committee and passed by the House by Unanimous Consent on June 
8, 2012. On June 13, 2012, the bill was presented to the 
President and signed into Public Law 112-132.
    The Act waives the congressional mandated 30 day 
notification period before the Forest Service can issue new 
contracts for aircraft for its air tanker fleet. The West is 
currently experiencing a drought that drastically increased the 
hazards of wildfire this year and the measure gives the Forest 
Service the tools to modernize its fleet of air tankers 
immediately. The fleet is currently using several tankers that 
have been in service for 50 years or longer.

            P.L. 112-177, (S. 3552), Pesticide Registration Improvement 
                    Extension Act of 2012
    S. 3552 was introduced on September 13, 2012 by Senator 
Debbie Stabenow and was passed in the Senate without amendment 
by unanimous consent on the same day. The measure was received 
in the House on September 14, 2012 and held at the desk. On 
that same day, Chairman Lucas asked unanimous consent that the 
Act be taken from the Speaker's table and considered. The 
measure was then considered and passed without objection. The 
measure was received by the President on September 20, 2012 and 
signed into law on September 28, 2012. Under PRIA 1, the EPA's 
Office of Pesticide Programs was required to process 
applications within timeframes specified for each of the 50 
categories of registration actions. That number has since 
increased, and would be set at 189 under the proposed 
reauthorization. PRIA retained and increased the product 
maintenance fees that support re-registration and tolerance 
reassessment authorized under the Food Quality Protection Act. 
Pesticide registrants paid $110 million in maintenance fees 
during the authorization of PRIA and registrants are scheduled 
to pay $139 million in maintenance fees for the five year 
period to be covered by the proposed ``PRIA 3.''
    PRIA established a prohibition against the collection of 
other registration fees, as distinct from registration service 
fees, authorized under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 
Rodenticide Act, FIFRA. PRIA also suspended the Agency's 
authority to collect tolerance fees which had been authorized 
by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA.
    In the absence of this reauthorization, substantially 
higher fees whose authority is suspended by this legislation 
would be collected with the revenue going directly to the U.S. 
Treasury where it would be unavailable to EPA's Pesticide 
Program. This would necessitate the discretionary appropriation 
of new funds to carry out pesticide review activities and 
eliminate the transparency and accountability measures enacted 
in PRIA which have placed effective checks on the EPA.
    The Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 
2012: extends the authority of EPA to collect maintenance fees 
until 2017; extends the prohibition on collection of other 
registration and tolerance fees to 2019 and 2017, respectively; 
establishes a small business cap; allocates funds for EPA to 
use for the enhancement and improvement of ``IT'' systems for 
the registration of pesticides and tracking of key information; 
amends the percentage of maintenance fees devoted to review of 
inert ingredients; increases registration service fees during 
the life of PRIA 3 by 2.5 percent; provides that the 
Administrator shall identify reforms in processing that would 
allow it to improve decision times beyond those provided for in 
the Act; and cites new schedule of decision review times.

            P.L. 112-XXX, (S. 3666) A bill to amend the Animal Welfare 
                    Act to modify the definition of ``exhibitor''
    S. 3666 was introduced in the Senate on December 6, 2012, 
by Senator David Vitter and was agreed to on the same day by 
unanimous consent without amendment. S. 3666 was received in 
the House on December 7, 2012, and referred to the Committee on 
Agriculture. The measure was considered by the House on 
December 31, 2012, and passed under suspension of the rules by 
a voice vote.
    The measure amends the Animal Welfare Act to exclude from 
the definition of ``exhibitor,'' for purposes of the licensing 
and other regulatory requirements of the Act; owners of common, 
domesticated household pets who derive less than a substantial 
portion of income from a nonprimary source for exhibiting an 
animal that exclusively resides at the residence of the pet 
owner.

            P.L. 112-XXX, (H.R. 8)
    American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012
    H.R. 8 was introduced in the House on July 24, 2012 by 
Representative Dave Camp and referred to the Committee on Ways 
and Means in addition to the Committee on the Budget. On July 
31, 2012, the Rules Committee reported H. Res 747 (H. Rept. 
112-641) to the House allowing for consideration of H.R. 6169 
and H.R. 8. The resolution was considered and agreed to in the 
House on August 1, 2012 by a recorded vote of 240 yeas to 184 
nays. H.R. 8 was subsequently agreed to by a recorded vote of 
256 yeas to 171 nays. The measure was received in the Senate on 
September 9, 2012 and laid before the Senate by unanimous 
consent on January 1, 2013. The measure was agreed to in the 
Senate on January 1, 2013, with an amendment and an amendment 
to the Title by a recorded vote of 89 yeas to 8 nays. A message 
on Senate action was sent to the House on that same day and the 
House Rules Committee reported H. Res. 844 (H. Rept. 112-741) 
to the House to allow for consideration of the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 8. The resolution was agreed to by a 
recorded vote of 408 yeas to 10 nays. H.R. 8, as amended by the 
Senate, was ultimately agreed to in the House by a recorded 
vote of 257 yeas to 167 nays.
    Under the measure, income tax rates will rise on 
individuals making more than $400,000 and families making more 
than $450,000; the Alternative Minimum Tax is permanently 
indexed for inflation and the estate tax rises to 40 percent 
from its current 35 percent level, with the first $5 million in 
assets exempted.
    Of special importance to the Committee on Agriculture is 
the measure's inclusion of an extension of the 2008 farm bill 
policies which continue current commodity support programs 
(including the Milk Income Loss Contract Program) until 
September 30, 2013. Maximum enrollment in the Conservation 
Reserve Program is maintained at 32 million acres. Finally, 
disaster provisions in the bill authorize; $80 million for 
livestock indemnity payments; $400 million for the livestock 
forage disaster program; $50 million for emergency assistance 
for livestock, honey bees and farm-raised fish; as well as $20 
million for tree assistance.

    Other Bills: Several bills acted on by other committees, 
but not acted on by the Committee on Agriculture contain 
provisions relating to matters with the Committee's 
jurisdiction. The following are abbreviated summaries of these 
bills, including some of the relevant provisions.

Legislative Matters

            P.L. 112-41, (H.R. 3080)
    United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
    H.R. 3080 was introduced on October 3, 2011 by 
Representative Eric Cantor and referred to the Committee on 
Ways and Means. On October 5, 2011 the bill was ordered 
reported by a recorded vote of 31 yeas to 5 nays. On October 6, 
2011 the bill was reported to the House, H. Rept. 112-239. On 
October 12, 2011 the bill passed the House by a recorded vote 
of 278 yeas to 151 nays. On that same date the bill passed the 
Senate by a recorded vote of 83 yeas to 15 nays. On October 21, 
2011 the bill was signed by the President into Public Law 112-
41.
    The Act will implement the agreement establishing a free 
trade area between the United States and Korea that was signed 
on June 30, 2007. The United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement 
covers all agricultural and industrial sectors, provides for 
expanded market access for U.S. services, contains greater 
protections for U.S. intellectual property rights holders, and 
includes strong labor and environment provisions.
    Currently, U.S. industrial goods face an average tariff of 
6.2 percent in Korea, paying over $1.3 billion a year. Korean 
exports enter the United States at an average tariff of only 
2.8 percent--less than \1/2\ the Korean rate. The agreement 
will significantly open up the Korean market, helping U.S. 
exporters gain greater access. The International Trade 
Commission (`ITC') estimates that U.S. exports to Korea would 
increase by $9.7-10.9 billion as a result of tariff reductions 
alone.
    U.S. agriculture exports to Korea currently face an average 
tariff of 54 percent, whereas Korean agricultural exports to 
the United States face average tariffs of just 9 percent. The 
agreement would remedy this by making more than \1/2\ of 
current U.S. farm exports to Korea by value duty-free 
immediately upon implementation, including U.S. exports of 
wheat, corn for feed, soybeans for crushing, whey for feed use, 
hides and skins, cotton, cherries, pistachios, almonds, grape 
juice, and wine. The agreement would also address key non-
tariff barriers. For example, Korea would recognize the 
equivalence of the U.S. food safety system for meat, poultry, 
and processed foods.

            P.L. 112-42, (H.R. 3078)
    United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 
Implementation Act
    H.R. 3078 was introduced on October 3, 2011 by 
Representative Eric Cantor and referred to the Committee on 
Ways and Means. On October 5, 2011 the bill was ordered 
reported by a recorded vote of 24 yeas to 12 nays. On October 
6, 2011 the bill was reported to the House, H. Rept. 112-237. 
On October 12, 2011 the bill passed the House by a recorded 
vote of 262 yeas to 167 nays. On that same date the bill passed 
the Senate by a recorded vote of 66 yeas to 33 nays. On October 
21, 2011 the bill was signed by the President into Public Law 
112-42.
    The Act will implement the agreement establishing a free 
trade area between the United States and Colombia that was 
signed on November 22, 2006. That agreement was approved by the 
Colombian Congress in June 2007 and again in October 2007 after 
it was modified to include new provisions after the May 10, 
2007 bipartisan understanding between Congressional leaders and 
the Administration. The agreement will immediately eliminate 
duties on 80% of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial 
products to Colombia. Most remaining tariffs will be eliminated 
within 10 years of implementation.
    Currently, U.S. agriculture exports to Colombia face an 
average tariff of 20 percent, whereas only two Colombian 
agricultural exports to the United States face tariffs above 
three percent. The agreement would remedy this by providing 
immediate duty-free treatment for 77.5 percent of Colombia's 
agricultural tariff lines, including U.S. exports of soybeans, 
cotton, wheat, barley, peanuts, bacon, high-quality beef, the 
vast majority of processed products, and almost all fruit and 
vegetable products, with tariffs eliminated on almost 93 
percent of agricultural tariff lines within 10 years. The 
agreement would immediately eliminate Colombia's separate 
`price band' variable tariffs for U.S. exports, which the 
European Union's trade agreement with Colombia does not 
eliminate for EU exports.
    As a result, the ITC estimates significant gains in U.S. 
agricultural exports. For example, the ITC estimates that U.S. 
exports of grains could increase by 55 to 77 percent and 
soybeans, soybean products, and animal feeds by 30 to 50 
percent. The agreement would also provide guarantees against 
key non-tariff barriers. For example, Colombia has committed to 
continuing to recognize the equivalence of the U.S. food safety 
system for meat and poultry and would provide access for all 
U.S. beef and beef products consistent with international 
norms.

            P.L. 112-43, (H.R. 3079)
    United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement 
Implementation Act
    H.R. 3079 was introduced on October 3, 2011 by 
Representative Eric Cantor and referred to the Committee on 
Ways and Means. On October 5, 2011 the bill was ordered 
reported by a recorded vote of 32 yeas to 3 nays. On October 6, 
2011 the bill was reported to the House, H. Rept. 112-238. On 
October 12, 2011 the bill passed the House by a recorded vote 
of 300 yeas to 129 nays. On that same date the bill passed the 
Senate by a recorded vote of 77 yeas to 22 nays. On October 21, 
2011 the bill was signed by the President into Public Law 112-
43.
    The United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement 
Implementation Act approves the United States-Panama Trade 
Promotion Agreement that was signed on June 28, 2007, with the 
Government of Panama, and the statement of administrative 
action proposed to implement the agreement, both submitted to 
Congress on October 3, 2011.
    The agreement covers all agricultural and industrial 
sectors, provides for greatly expanded market access for U.S. 
services, contains greater protections for U.S. intellectual 
property rights holders, and includes strong labor and 
environmental provisions.
    Currently, U.S. industrial goods face an average tariff of 
7 percent in Panama, with some tariffs as high as 81 percent. 
Almost all Panamanian exports enter the United States duty free 
due to low U.S. tariffs and U.S. trade preference programs. The 
agreement would transition the U.S.-Panama trading relationship 
from one-way preferences to full partnership and reciprocal 
commitments, helping U.S. exporters gain greater access to the 
Panamanian market, one of the fastest growing in Latin America. 
The International Trade Commissions (`ITC') estimates that U.S. 
exports to Panama for certain sectors would increase up to 145 
percent.
    U.S. agriculture exports to Panama currently face an 
average tariff of 15 percent, whereas more than 99 percent of 
Panamanian agricultural exports to the United States enter 
duty-free. The agreement would remedy this by making more than 
\1/2\ of current U.S. farm exports to Panama by value duty-free 
immediately upon implementation, including U.S. exports of 
pork, rice, soybeans, cotton, wheat, and most fresh fruit. The 
agreement would also address key non-tariff barriers. For 
example, Panama would recognize the equivalence of the U.S. 
food safety system for meat, poultry, and processed foods and 
would provide access for all U.S. beef and beef products 
consistent with international norms.

Appropriations

            P.L. 112-4, (H.J. Res. 44)
    Further Continuing Appropriations Amendments
    H.J. Res. 44 was introduced on February 28, 2011 by 
Representative Harold Rogers and referred to the Committee on 
Appropriations and in addition to the Committee on the Budget. 
On March 1, 2011 the resolution passed the House by a recorded 
vote of 335 yeas to 91 nays. On March 2, 2011 the resolution 
passed the Senate by a recorded vote of 91 yeas to 9 nays, 
clearing the measure for the President. On that same date the 
resolution was presented to the President and signed into 
Public Law 112-4.
    The Act amends the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 
(P.L. 111-242) to extend through March 18, 2011, specified 
continuing appropriations for FY 2011.
    The measure also makes certain provisions under the 
Agriculture, Rural Development, food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Appropriations Act, 2010 relating to ``Rural 
Development Programs--Rural Utilities Service--Distance 
Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program'' for the 
principal amount of broadband telecommunication loans and for 
the cost of certain broadband loans inapplicable to funds 
appropriated by the Continuing Appropriation Act of 2011.

            P.L. 112-6 (H.J. Res. 48)
    Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011
    H.J. Res. 48 was introduced on March 11, 2011 by 
Representative Harold Rogers and referred to the Committee on 
Appropriations. On March 15, 2011 the resolution passed the 
House by a recorded vote of 271 yeas to 158 nays. On March 17, 
2011 the resolution passed the Senate by a recorded vote of 87 
yeas to 13 nays clearing the measure for the President. On 
March 18, 2011 the resolution was signed by the President into 
Public Law 112-6.
    The Additional Continuing Appropriations Act amends the 
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 (P.L. 111-242) to extend 
through April 8, 2011, specified continuing appropriations for 
FY 2011.
    The Act provides funding at a specified rate of operations 
for certain agricultural, conservation, and rural development 
programs. Eliminates specified funding for: (1) the 
Agricultural Research Service; (2) the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service; (3) the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration; (4) the Federal Payment to the 
Office of the Chief Financial Officer for the District of 
Columbia; (5) the International Fund for Ireland; (6) the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Brownfields 
Redevelopment; and (7) the Federal Railroad Administration.
    The Act also eliminated specified funds made available in 
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 
for: (1) a certain grant to the National Center for Natural 
Products Research; (2) an agricultural pest facility in Hawaii; 
(3) the Congressional Hunger Fellows Program; (4) grants to the 
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer 
Protection, to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Foods, and 
Markets, and to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade 
and Consumer Protection; (5) development of a prototype for a 
national carbon inventory and accounting system for forestry 
and agriculture; (6) the International Food Protection Training 
Institute; and (7) the Center for Foodborne Illness Research 
and Prevention.

            P.L. 112-8 (H.R. 1363)
    Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 
2011
    H.R. 1363 was introduced on April 4, 2011 by 
Representatives Harold Rogers and referred to the Committee on 
Appropriations and in addition to the Committee on the Budget. 
On April 7, 2011 the bill passed the House by a recorded vote 
of 247 yeas to 181 nays. On April 8, 2011 the Senate passed the 
bill, amended, by a voice vote. On April 9, 2011 the House 
agreed to the Senate amendment by a recorded vote of 348 yeas 
to 70 nays. On that same date the bill was presented to the 
President and signed into Public Law 112-8.
    The Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 
amends the Continuing Appropriations, 2011 to extend from 
December 3, 2010, to April 15, 2011, the date by which 
appropriations and funds made available authority granted 
pursuant to such Act shall be available.

            P.L. 112-10 (H.R. 1473)
    Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2011
    H.R. 1473 was introduced on April 11, 2011 by 
Representatives Harold Rogers and referred to the Committee on 
Appropriations and in addition to the Committee on the Budget 
and Ways and Means. On April 14, 2011 the bill passed the House 
by a recorded vote of 260 yeas to 167 nays. On that same day 
the bill passed the Senate by a recorded vote of 81 yeas to 19 
nays. On April 15, 2011 the bill was presented to the President 
and signed into Public Law 112-10.
    Division B of the Act makes continuing appropriations for 
FY 2011 by appropriating FY 2011 amounts at FY 2010 level for 
such operating, projects or activities as were conducted in FY 
2010 and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority 
were made available in: (1) the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2010; (2) the Energy and Water Development 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; (3) the 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010; (4) 
the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; (5) the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 2010; (6) the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2010; and (7) chapter 1 of title I of the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 2010, addressing guaranteed loans in the 
rural housing insurance fund. (Note: See also the discussion of 
H.R. 1 under ``7. Bills Acted on by Both Houses But Not 
Enacted.'')

            P.L. 112-33, (H.R. 2017)
    Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012
    H.R. 2017 was introduced and reported as an original 
measure by Representative Robert Aderholt on May 26, 2011, H. 
Rept. 112-91. On June 2, 2011 the bill passed the House, 
amended, by a recorded vote of 231 yeas to 188 nays. On 
September 7, 2011 the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
reported the bill with amendment, S. Rept. 112-74. On September 
26, 2011 the Senate adopted a full substitute amendment 
converting the measure into a Continuing Appropriations Act and 
passed the bill, as amended, by a voice vote. On September 29, 
2011 the House agreed to the Senate amendments by unanimous 
consent. On September 30, 2011 the bill was presented to the 
President and signed into Public Law 112-33.
    The Continuing Appropriations Act makes continuing 
appropriations for FY 2012 thru October 4, 2011.

            P.L. 112-36 (H.R. 2608)
    Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012
    H.R. 2608 was introduced by Representative Sam Graves on 
July 21, 2011 and referred to the Committee on Small Business. 
On July 26, 2011 the bill passed the House under suspension of 
the rules, as amended by a voice vote. On July 28, 2011 the 
bill passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. 
On September 21, 2011, a complete substitute amendment 
converting the measure into a Continuing Appropriations Act was 
rejected by the House by a recorded vote of 195 yeas to 230 
nays. On September 23, 2011 the House adopted a second 
amendment by a recorded vote of 219 yeas to 203 nays. This 
amendment was identical to the first, except it included a $100 
million rescission of FY 2011 spending from DOE's Title XVII 
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program. On September 26, 
2011 the Senate concurred in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment with an amendment by a recorded vote of 79 yeas to 12 
nays. On October 4, 2011 the House agreed to the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment by a 
recorded vote of 352 yeas to 66 nays. On October 5, 2011 the 
bill was signed by the President into Public Law 112-36.
    The Continuing Appropriations Act makes continuing 
appropriations for FY 2012 thru November 18, 2011.

            P.L. 112-55 (H.R. 2112)
    Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2012
    H.R. 2112 was introduced and reported as an original 
measure by Representative Jack Kingston on June 3, 2011, H. 
Rept. 112-101. On June 16, 2011 the bill passed the House by a 
vote of 217 yeas to 203 nays. On September 7, 2011 the Senate 
Committee on Appropriations reported the bill with an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, S. Rept. 112-73. On November 1, 
2011 the bill was passed by the Senate with an amendment and an 
amendment to the Title by a recorded vote of 65 yeas to 30 nays 
converting the measure into a Consolidated and Further 
Continuing Appropriations Act. On November 14, 2011 conference 
report, H. Rept. 112-284 was filed and agreed to in the House 
by a roll call vote of 298 yeas to 121 nays as well as in the 
Senate by a recorded vote of 70 yeas to 30 nays. The bill was 
presented to the President on November 17 and signed into 
Public Law 112-55 on November 18, 2011.
    The agricultural agencies addressed in this bill will 
receive a total of $136.6 billion in both discretionary and 
mandatory funding, a reduction of $4.6 billion from the 
President's request based on the Administration's Mid-Session 
Review. Discretionary funding in the legislation totals $19.8 
billion--a reduction of $350 million below last year's level 
and a cut of $2.5 billion from the President's request.
    The Act also provides more than $2.5 billion for 
agricultural research programs, including the Agricultural 
Research Service and the National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture. This is a reduction of $53 million from the Fiscal 
Year 2011 level; includes $820 million--$47 million below last 
year's level--for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS); provides $1.2 billion for FSA Salaries and 
Expenses, a decrease of $9 million below the Fiscal Year 2011 
level and $158 million below the President's request. Of the 
total, the bill provides not less than $66.7 million for the 
continued modernization (MIDAS) of FSA's information technology 
systems; provides $844 million for Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) programs--a reduction of $45 
million below the Fiscal Year 2011 level; includes $1 billion 
for food safety and inspection programs--approximately the same 
as last year's level; provides a total of nearly $2.5 billion 
in discretionary funding for U.S. Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA)--$50 million above last year's level and $234 million 
below the President's request. Total funding for the FDA, 
including user fees, is $3.8 billion.
    Mandatory food and nutrition programs within the Department 
of Agriculture--including SNAP and child nutrition--are funded 
at $98.6 billion--$2 billion less than the President's request. 
This funding includes $3 billion in reserve funds in case of 
unanticipated increases in participation or food price 
increases.
    The Act places restrictions on the implementation of a 
Grain Inspection and Packers and Stockyards Administration 
(GIPSA) rule.
    The Act also provides $2.25 billion for rural development 
programs--$180 million below the Fiscal Year 2011 level. This 
funding includes $42.5 million to support $900 million in loan 
authority for the ``502'' direct single-family housing loan 
program, provides $900 million for the rental assistance 
program, $75 million for the Business and Industry Loan 
Guarantee program, $513 million for rural water and waste 
programs, $7.7 billion in loans for the rural electric and 
telecommunications program, and $212 million in loans for 
broadband deployment in rural areas.
    The Act further provides $205 million for the CFTC--a 
reduction of $103 million below the President's request.

            P.L 112-67 (H.J. Res. 94)
    Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
2012, and for other purposes.
    H.J. Res. 94 was introduced by Representative Harold Rogers 
on December 16, 2011. On that same date the resolution was 
passed by the House and the Senate by unanimous consent and 
signed by the President into Public Law 112-67.
    H.J. Res. 94 amends the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 
(P.L. 112-36) to extend through December 17, 2011, specified 
continuing appropriations for FY 2012.
            P.L 112-68 (H.J. Res. 95)
    Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
2015, and for other purposes.
    H.J. Res. 95 was introduced by Representative Harold Rogers 
on December 16, 2011. On that same date the resolution was 
passed by the House and the Senate by unanimous consent. On 
December 17, 2011 the resolution was signed by the President 
into Public Law 112-68.
    H.J. Res. 95 amend the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 
(P.L. 112-36) to extend through December 23, 2011, specified 
continuing appropriations for FY 2012.

            P.L 112-74 (H.R. 2055)
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012
    H.R. 2055 was introduced and reported as an original 
measure by Representative John Abney Culberson on May 31, 2011, 
H. Rept. 112-94. As reported, H.R. 2055 was the Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, FY 2012 
Appropriations bill. However, H.R. 2055 became the vehicle for 
a number of unenacted appropriations, and a conference began on 
December 8, 2011. A conference report, H. Rept. 112-331 was 
filed on December 15, 2011. On December 16, 2011 the House 
agreed to the Conference Report by a recorded vote of 296 yeas 
to 121 nays. On December 17, 2011 the Senate agreed to the 
Conference Report by a recorded vote of 67 yeas to 32 nays. On 
December, 23, 2011 the bill was signed by the President in to 
Public Law 112-74.
    H.R. 2055 makes appropriations for FY 2012 to the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of 
Agriculture for the Forest Service for (1) forest and rangeland 
research; (2) state and private forestry; (3) the National 
Forest System; (4) land acquisitions, including specified 
National Forest areas in Utah, Nevada, and California; (5) 
range rehabilitation, protection, and improvement; (6) gifts, 
donations, and bequests for forest and rangeland research; (7) 
Federal land management in Alaska; (8) wildland fire management 
(including transfers of funds); and (9) the FLAME Wildfire 
Suppression Reserve Fund (including transfers of funds).
    The Act authorizes the EPA Administrator to collect and 
obligate pesticide registration service fees in accordance with 
the Federal Insecticide Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
    The Act also makes funds appropriated to the Forest Service 
available for assistance to or through the Agency for 
International Development (USAID) to support forestry and 
related natural resource activities outside the United States 
and U.S. territories and possessions. Authorizes the Forest 
Service to sign direct funding agreements with foreign 
governments and institutions, as well as other domestic 
agencies, U.S. private sector firms, institutions, and 
organizations to provide technical assistance and training 
programs overseas on forestry and rangeland management.
    The measure prohibits subjecting funds made available to 
the Forest Service in this Act or any other Act to transfer 
under certain transfer authorities under the Department of 
Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, P.L. 106-224 (the Plant 
Protection Act of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000) 
and P.L. 107-107 (the Animal Health Protection Act of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002).
    The Act also makes funds appropriated to the Forest Service 
available for making annual payments to certain counties within 
the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon and 
Washington state pursuant to P.L. 99-663 (Columbia River Gorge 
National Scenic Area Act).
    The Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture, through the 
Forest Service, to make the requirements of the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act of 2003 which provide for a pre-decisional 
objection process respecting an authorized hazardous fuel 
reduction project on Forest Service land applicable to proposed 
actions of the Forest Service concerning projects and 
activities that implement land and resource management plans 
developed under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
Planning Act of 1974.

            P.L. 112-175 (H.J. Res. 117)
    Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013
    H.J. Res. 117 was introduced in the House on September 10, 
2012 by Representative Harold Rogers and referred to the 
Committees on Appropriations and the Budget. The measure was 
agreed to in the House on September 13, 2012 by a recorded vote 
of 329 yeas to 91 nays. On September 22, 2012, the measure was 
passed in the Senate by a recorded vote of 62 yeas to 30 nays. 
The Resolution was presented to the President on September 25, 
2012, and signed into law on September 28, 2012.
    The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 makes 
continuing appropriations for FY 2013 with the following areas 
of special interest to the Committee on Agriculture:

  
 (Sec. 101) Appropriates amounts for continuing 
        operations, projects, or activities which were 
        conducted in FY 2012 and for which appropriations, 
        funds, or other authority were made available in the 
        Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
        Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
        Act, 2012 (division A of P.L. 112-55), except for 
        appropriations designated by Congress for disaster 
        relief in such Act

  
 (Sec. 111) Continues funding through March 27, 2013, 
        at the FY 2012 level for entitlements and other 
        mandatory payments whose budget authority was provided 
        in FY 2012 appropriations Acts, as well as for 
        activities under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.

  
 (Sec. 118) Waives application to this joint 
        resolution of the limitation placed, until October 1, 
        2012, on the use of funds for the fresh fruit and 
        vegetable program under the Richard B. Russell National 
        School Lunch Act.

  
 (Sec. 119) Provides funding from amounts provided 
        for the ``Department of Agriculture--Domestic Food 
        Programs--Food and Nutrition Service--Commodity 
        Assistance Program'' at a specified rate for 
        operations, with a specified allocation for the 
        Commodity Supplemental Food Program.

  
 Sec. 140) Provides funding for the ``Department of 
        the Interior--Department-wide Programs--Wildland Fire 
        Management'' and the ``Department of Agriculture--
        Forest Service--Wildland Fire Management'' at specified 
        rates for operations. Appropriates additional funding 
        for FY 2013 for such purposes, to remain available 
        until expended, for repayment to other appropriations 
        accounts from which funds were transferred in FY 2012 
        for wildfire suppression.

  
 (Sec. 143) Continues through March 27, 2013, the 
        Secretary of Agriculture's authority to implement a 
        pilot program to enhance Forest Service administration 
        of rights-of-way and other land uses.

  
 (Sec. 144) Continues through March 27, 2013, 
        requirements and/or authority under the Federal 
        Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act regarding: 
        (1) adjustment of annual maintenance fees payable for 
        each pesticide registration, (2) review and evaluation 
        of inert ingredients of pesticides in registration 
        applications, (3) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
        use of certain amounts in the Pesticide Registration 
        Fund to enhance scientific and regulatory activities 
        relating to worker protection, and (4) exemption of a 
        public health pesticide from payment of the maintenance 
        fee if its economic return to the registrant from sales 
        does not support its registration or reregistration. 
        Extends through March 27, 2013: (1) EPA authority to 
        collect pesticide registration service fees, and (2) 
        the prohibition against collection of certain tolerance 
        fees for pesticide chemical residue in or on food.

2. Bills Acted on by the House But Not the Senate

            H.R. 872, Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011
    H.R. 872 was introduced on March 2, 2011 by Representative 
Bob Gibbs, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. 
On March 9, 2011, the Committee on Agriculture ordered reported 
the bill, amended, by a voice vote. On March 16, 2011, the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered reported 
the bill, amended, by a recorded vote of 46 yeas to 8 nays. The 
measure was reported to the House on March 29, 2011, by both 
committees of jurisdiction, H. Rept. part 1 and 2. On March 30, 
2011, the bill was considered in the House under suspension of 
the rules with the vote postponed until the following day. The 
bill then passed the House, amended, by a recorded vote of 292 
yeas to 130 nays on March 31, 2011. On April 4, 2011, the 
measure was received in the Senate and referred to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
    The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, H.R. 872, 
amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 
Congressional intent regarding the regulation of application of 
pesticides or residue of pesticides in or near navigable 
waters.
            The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(``FIFRA'') is a regulatory statute that governs the sale and 
use of pesticides in the United States through the registration 
and labeling of such products. Its objective is to protect 
human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse 
effects of pesticides, taking into account the costs and 
benefits of various product uses. Pesticides regulated under 
FIFRA include insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, 
rodenticides, and other designated substances. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') reviews scientific 
data submitted by chemical manufacturers on toxicity and 
behavior in the environment to evaluate risks and exposure 
associated with a product's use.
    FIFRA prohibits the sale of any pesticide unless it is 
registered and labeled indicating approved uses and 
restrictions. It is a violation of Federal law to use such a 
chemical in a manner that is inconsistent with the label 
instructions. If a registration is granted, EPA makes a finding 
that the chemical ``when used in accordance with widespread and 
commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause 
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' (7 
U.S.C.136a(c)(5)(D).) EPA then specifies the approved uses and 
conditions of use of the pesticide, and this is required to be 
explained on the product label.
            The Clean Water Act
    The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(commonly known as the ``Clean Water Act'' or the ``CWA'') is 
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 
integrity of the nation's waters. The primary mechanism for 
achieving this objective is the CWA's prohibition on the 
discharge of any pollutant without a National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permit. EPA has the 
authority to regulate the discharge of pollutants either 
through general permits or through individual permits. NPDES 
permits specify limits on what pollutants may be discharged 
from point sources and in what amounts. Under the CWA, 47 
states and territories have been authorized to implement NPDES 
permits and enforce permits. EPA manages the Clean Water Act 
program in the remaining states and territories.
    NPDES permits are the basic regulatory tool of the CWA. EPA 
or an authorized state may issue compliance orders, or file 
civil suits against those who violate the terms of a permit. In 
addition, in the absence of Federal or state action, 
individuals may bring a citizen suit in United States district 
court against those who violate the terms of an NPDES permit, 
or against those who discharge without a valid permit.
            Litigation
    In over 30 years of administering the CWA, EPA had never 
required an NPDES permit for the application of a pesticide, 
when the pesticide is applied in a manner consistent with FIFRA 
and its regulations. While the CWA contains a provision 
granting citizen suits against those who violate permit 
conditions or those who discharge without an NPDES permit, 
FIFRA has no citizen suit provision. As a result, beginning in 
the late 1990s, a series of citizen lawsuits were filed by 
parties, contending that an NPDES permit is necessary when 
applying a FIFRA-regulated product over, into, or near 
waterbodies. These cases generated several Court of Appeals 
decisions that created confusion and concern among pesticide 
users regarding the applicability of the CWA with regard to 
pesticide use.
    As the litigation continued, concern and confusion grew 
among farmers, forest landowners, and public health officials, 
prompting EPA to issue interim, and later final, interpretive 
guidance in August 2003 and January 2005, and then to undertake 
a rulemaking to clarify and formalize the Agency's 
interpretation of the CWA as it applied to pesticide use. The 
EPA rule was finalized in November 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 68483 
(Nov. 27, 2006)), and was the culmination of a three year 
participatory rulemaking process that began with the interim 
interpretive statement in 2003 and involved two rounds of 
public comment.
    The 2006 EPA rule codified EPA's long-standing 
interpretation that the application of chemical and biological 
pesticides for their intended purpose and in compliance with 
pesticide label restrictions is not a discharge of a 
``pollutant'' under the CWA, and therefore, that an NPDES 
permit is not required. The rule clearly defined specific 
circumstances in which the use of pesticides in accordance with 
all relevant requirements under FIFRA is not a CWA ``discharge 
of a pollutant,'' explaining in detail the rationale for the 
Agency's interpretation.
    When the rule was finalized, environmental groups, as well 
as farm and pesticide industry groups, filed petitions for 
review of the rule in several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. 
The petitions were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth 
Circuit ultimately vacated the rule on January 7, 2009 in 
National Cotton Council v. EPA (553 F.3d 927; hereinafter, 
National Cotton Council), concluding that the final rule was 
not a reasonable interpretation of the CWA's permitting 
requirements. The court rejected EPA's contention that, when 
pesticides are applied over, into, or near waterbodies to 
control pests, they are not considered pollutants as long as 
they comply with FIFRA, and held that NPDES permits are 
required for all pesticide applications that may leave a 
residue in water.
    EPA estimated that the ruling would affect approximately 
365,000 pesticide applicators that perform some 5.6 million 
pesticide applications annually. The court's decision, which 
would apply nationally, was to be effective seven days after 
the deadline for rehearing expires or seven days after a denial 
of any petition for rehearing. Parties had until April 9, 2009 
to seek rehearing.
    On April 9, 2009, the government chose not to seek 
rehearing in the National Cotton Council case. The government 
instead filed a motion to stay issuance of the court's mandate 
for two years to provide EPA time to develop an entirely new 
NPDES permitting process to cover pesticide use. As part of 
this, EPA needed to propose and issue a final NPDES general 
permit for pesticide applications, for states to develop 
permits, and for EPA to provide outreach and education to the 
regulated community. Industry groups filed a petition seeking 
en banc review, asking the full Sixth Circuit to reconsider the 
decision from the three-judge panel.
    On June 8, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted EPA a two year 
stay of the court's mandate, in response to their earlier 
request. The Sixth Circuit denied the industry groups' petition 
for rehearing in August 2009. The court-ordered deadline for 
EPA to promulgate a new permitting process for pesticides under 
the Clean Water Act is April 9, 2011. On March 3, 2011, EPA 
filed another request for an extension with the court. The new 
deadline or effective date is October 31, 2011.
    Two petitions were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in 
December 2009 by representatives of the agriculture community 
and the pesticide industry, requesting that the U.S. Supreme 
Court review the National Cotton Council case. A number of 
parties, including numerous Members of Congress, filed amicus 
briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of or opposition 
to the petitions. On February 22, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court 
denied the petitioners' request without comment.
            EPA Development of a New Permitting Process to Cover 
                    Pesticide Use
    With a two year stay of the Sixth Circuit's mandate in 
place, EPA moved ahead with developing a new NPDES permitting 
process to cover pesticide use by the court-ordered deadline of 
April 9, 2011. The permit covers four pesticide uses: (1) 
mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) aquatic weed 
and algae control; (3) aquatic nuisance animal control; and (4) 
forest canopy pest control. It does not cover terrestrial 
applications to control pests on agricultural crops or forest 
floors, and does not cover activities exempt from permitting 
under the CWA (irrigation return flow, agricultural stormwater 
runoff) and discharges that will require coverage under an 
individual permit, such as discharges of pesticides to 
waterbodies that are considered impaired under CWA 303(d) for 
that discharged pesticide.
            Implications
    The Committee has received testimony and other information 
on the implications of the Sixth Circuit's holding in the 
National Cotton Council case, and the new permitting process 
that EPA has to develop under the CWA as a result of that 
holding, on state and local agencies, mosquito control 
districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, agriculture, 
forest managers, and other stakeholders. On February 16, 2011, 
the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the 
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a 
joint hearing with the Nutrition and Horticulture Subcommittee 
of the House Committee on Agriculture to consider means for 
reducing the regulatory burdens posed by the case, National 
Cotton Council v. EPA (6th Cir. 2009), and to consider related 
draft legislation.
    Despite being limited to four categories of pesticide uses, 
EPA's new general permit for covered pesticides stands to be 
the single greatest expansion of the permitting process in the 
history of the NPDES program. EPA has estimated that it can 
expect approximately 5.6 million covered pesticide applications 
per year by approximately 365,000 applicators--virtually 
doubling the number of entities currently subject to NPDES 
permitting. (U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet for 2010 Public Notice of: 
Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
Pesticides General Permit (PGP) for Discharges from the 
Application of Pesticides to or over, including near Waters of 
the U.S., at 14, available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
proposed_pgp_fs.pdf.)
    With this unprecedented expansion comes real and tangible 
burdens for EPA and the states that will have to issue the 
permits, those whose livelihoods depend on the use of 
pesticides, and even everyday citizens going about their daily 
lives.
    EPA has said that it will be able to conform its current 
process to meet the Sixth Circuit's mandate. Even so, much of 
the responsibility of developing and issuing general permits 
falls on the states. Forty-five states (and the Virgin Islands) 
will face increased financial and administrative burdens in 
order to comply with the new permitting process. In a time when 
too many states are being forced to make difficult budgetary 
cuts, the nation cannot afford to impose more financial 
burdens.
    The expanded permitting process also imposes enormous 
burdens on pesticide users who encompass a wide range of 
individuals from state agencies, city and county 
municipalities, mosquito control districts, water districts, 
pesticide applicators, farmers, ranchers, forest managers, 
scientists and others. The new and duplicative permitting 
process will increase both the administrative difficulty and 
costs for pesticide applicators to come into compliance with 
the law. Compliance will no longer mean simply following 
instructions on a pesticide label. Instead, applicators will 
have to navigate a complex process of identifying the relevant 
permit, filing with the regulatory authority a valid notice of 
intent to comply with the permit and having a familiarity with 
all of the permit's conditions and restrictions. Along with 
increased administrative burdens comes an increased monetary 
burden. Estimates are that the cost associated with the EPA 
permit scheme to small businesses could be as high as $50,000 
annually.
    In addition to the costs of coming into compliance, 
pesticide users will be subject to an increased risk of 
litigation and exorbitant fines. Applicators not in compliance 
face fines of up to $37,500 per day per violation, not 
including attorney's fees. Given the fact that a large number 
of applicators have never been subject to NPDES and its 
permitting process, even a good faith effort to be in 
compliance could fall short. Moreover, the CWA allows for 
private actions against individuals who may or may not have 
committed a violation. Thus, while EPA may exercise its 
judgment and refrain from prosecuting certain applicators, they 
remain vulnerable to citizen suits. Unless Congress acts, 
hundreds of thousands of farmers, foresters, and public health 
pesticide users will go into the next season under threat of 
lawsuits once the Sixth Circuit's April 9, 2011 deadline 
passes.
    It is not only pesticide regulators and applicators who 
will be affected by new permitting requirements. Rather, the 
Sixth Circuit's decision will affect everyday citizens, who 
rely on the benefits provided by pesticides and their 
responsible application. Pesticide use is an essential part of 
agriculture. Imposing a burdensome and duplicative permitting 
process on our nation's farmers threatens their ability to 
continue to provide the country with a safe and reliable food 
supply. Many family farmers and small applicators lack the 
resources to ensure compliance with a cumbersome and detailed 
permit scheme. Moreover, for those farmers who are able to 
comply, delays that are inherent in permitting schemes are ill-
suited for prompt pest control actions necessary in 
agriculture. Failure to apply a pesticide soon after a pest is 
first detected could result in recurring and greater pest 
damage in subsequent years if a prolific insect were to become 
established in plant hosts. The Secretary of Agriculture, Hon. 
Thomas J. Vilsack, has said that a permitting system under the 
CWA for pesticide use ``is ill-suited to the demands of 
agricultural production.'' (Letter, Hon. Thomas J. Vilsack, 
Secretary of Agriculture, to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson, 
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Subject: 
The National Cotton Council of America, et al., v. United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (Mar. 6, 2009)).
    Forest landowners also will suffer under the new permit 
scheme. EPA's permit scheme will result in a reduction in the 
use of forest pest control as a forest management tool, 
resulting in the acceleration of tree mortality and general 
decline in overall forest health. It will also erect barriers 
for the control of pests, such as Gypsy Moth and Forest Tent 
Caterpillar. This may result in a higher incidence of 
preventable tree kills and defoliated landscapes.
    Finally, the Sixth Circuit's holding could have significant 
implications for public health. The National Centers for 
Disease Control officially recognizes the following as a 
partial list of mosquito-borne diseases--Eastern Equine 
Encephalitis, Japanese Encephalitis, La Crosse Encephalitis, 
St. Louis Encephalitis, West Nile Virus, Western Equine 
Encephalitis, Dengue Fever, Malaria, Rift Valley Fever, and 
Yellow Fever. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/list_mosquitoborne.htm.) 
EPA's permit program poses the possibility of critical delays 
in emergency responses to insect and disease outbreaks and will 
divert resources from controlling environmental pests to 
litigation and administrative burdens.
            Development of Legislation in Response to the Sixth Circuit 
                    Decision
    As a result of concerns raised by Federal, state, local, 
and private stakeholders regarding the interrelationship 
between FIFRA and the CWA and the concerns posed by the new and 
duplicative permitting process under the CWA, the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and House 
Committee on Agriculture sought technical assistance from EPA 
to draft very narrow legislation targeted only at addressing 
the Sixth Circuit's holding in National Cotton Council and 
return the state of pesticide regulation to the status quo--
before the courts got involved. H.R. 872 is based on the 
technical assistance that EPA provided to the Committees, and 
is intended to be consistent with EPA's final rule from 
November 2006. The bill amends FIFRA and the CWA to eliminate 
the requirement of an NPDES permit for applications of 
pesticides authorized for sale, distribution, or use under 
FIFRA. (Note: See also the discussion of H. Res. 72 under ``3. 
House Resolutions Considered in the House'' and the discussion 
under ``D. Oversight.'')
            H.R. 1343, To return unused or reclaimed funds made 
                    available for broadband awards in the American 
                    Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to the 
                    Treasury of the United States.
    H.R. 1343 was introduced by Representative Charles F. Bass 
on April 4, 2011 and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. On 
April 5, 2011 the Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered 
reported the bill, as amended by a voice vote. On September 29, 
2011 the bill was reported by the Committee on Energy Commerce, 
H. Rept. 112-228, Part 1. On that same date the Committee on 
Agriculture was discharged from further consideration, however 
there was an exchange of letters between the respective 
committees that was printed in the Congressional Record during 
consideration on the House floor. On October 5, 2011 the bill 
passed the House, amended, under suspension of the rules by a 
voice vote. On October 6, 2011 the bill was received in the 
Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
    H.R. 1343 requires the Administrator of the Rural Utilities 
Service or the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 
Communications and Information to terminate for cause any award 
(including grants and loans) made under the Broadband 
Initiatives Program or the Broadband Technology Opportunities 
Program established pursuant to the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009, if the Administrator or Assistant 
Secretary determines that cause exists (including insufficient 
level of performance, wasteful spending, or fraudulent 
spending) to terminate the award.
    The bill directs the Administrator or the Assistant 
Secretary to deobligate, upon terminating such an award, an 
amount equivalent to such award, less allowable costs, to the 
extent funds with respect to such award are available in the 
account relating to the respective programs (requires that any 
additional amount subsequently recovered be deobligated 
immediately upon receipt) and be returned to the Treasury's 
General Fund such deobligated amounts and any award returned or 
disclaimed by a recipient after enactment of this Act.
    The bill also requires the Administrator or the Assistant 
Secretary, upon receiving information from the Inspector 
General of the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Inspector 
General of the Department of Commerce, or the Comptroller 
General pertaining to material noncompliance with award terms 
or improper usage of award funds, to: (1) review such 
information immediately, (2) determine whether cause exists to 
terminate such award (unless the relevant official recommends 
that such a determination not be made), and (3) notify Congress 
of any such determination.
            H.R. 2682, Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization 
                    Act of 2011
    H.R. 2682 was introduced by Representative Michael Grimm 
July 28, 2011 and refereed to the Committee on Financial 
services in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. On 
November 30, 2011 the Committee on Financial Services held a 
business meeting and ordered reported the bill, amended, by a 
voice vote. The Committee on Financial Services filed a report, 
H. Rept. 112-343, Part 1, on December 23, 2011. The Committee 
on Agriculture held a business meeting January 25, 2012, and 
ordered reported the bill, amended, by a voice vote. On 
February 8, 2012 the Committee on Agriculture filed a report, 
H. Rept. 112-343, Part 2. On March 26, 2012 the bill passed the 
House, as amended, under suspension of the rules by a recorded 
vote of 370 yeas to 24 nays. On March 27, 2012 the measure was 
received in the Senate. The bill was placed on the Legislative 
Calendar in the Senate on March 28, 2012 under General Orders, 
Calendar No. 342.
    H.R. 2682 amends the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) to 
exempt, from the rules of prudential regulators for swap 
dealers and major swap participants with respect to initial and 
variation margin requirements for swaps not cleared by a 
registered derivatives clearing organization, those swaps in 
which one of the counterparties is: (1) not a financial entity, 
and (2) is eligible for exception from clearing requirements 
for certain significant price discovery agreements, contracts, 
or transactions in a commodity exempt from regulation by the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
    The measure also amends the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934, with respect to registration and regulation of security-
based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants, 
to exempt from initial and variation margin requirements for 
swaps not cleared by a registered derivatives clearing 
organization any security-based swap in which one of the 
counterparties is: (1) not a financial entity, and (2) is 
eligible for exception from clearing requirements. (Note: See 
also the discussion under ``D. Oversight.'')
            H.R. 2779, To exempt inter-affiliate swaps from certain 
                    regulatory requirements put in place by the Dodd-
                    Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
                    Act.
    H.R. 2779 was introduced by Representative Steve Stivers 
August 1, 2011 and referred to the Committee on Financial 
Services, in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. The 
Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored 
Enterprises held a business meeting November 15, 2011 and 
forwarded the measure to the full committee by a recorded vote 
of 23 yeas to 6 nays. On November 30, 2011 the Committee on 
Financial Services held a business meeting and ordered reported 
H.R. 2779, amended, by a recorded vote of 53 yeas to 0 nays. 
The Committee on Financial Services filed a report, H. Rept. 
112-344, Part 1, on December 23, 2011. The Committee on 
Agriculture held a business meeting January 25, 2012, and 
ordered reported H.R. 2779, amended, by a voice vote. On 
February 8, 2012, a report was filed by the Committee on 
Agriculture, H. Rept. 112-344, Part 2. On March 26, 2012 the 
bill passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the 
rules by a recorded vote of 357 yeas to 36 nays. On March 27, 
2012 the measure was received in the Senate. The bill was 
placed on the Legislative Calendar in the Senate on March 28, 
2012 under General Orders, Calendar No. 343.
    This measure amends the Commodity Exchange Act and the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, to exempt from 
certain regulatory requirements swaps and security-based swaps 
entered into by a party that is controlling, controlled by, or 
under common control with its counterparty.
    The proposal requires that such exempted agreements, 
contracts, or transactions be reported to an appropriate data 
repository, or, if there is no such repository that would 
accept them, to: (1) the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(CFTC) in the case of exempted swaps, or (2) the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) in the case of exempted security-
based swaps. (Note: See also the discussion under ``D. 
Oversight.'')
            H.R. 3336, Small Business Credit Availability Act
    H.R. 3336 was introduced by Representative Vicky Hartzler 
November, 3 2011 and referred to the House Committee on 
Agriculture. January 25, 2012, the committee held a business 
meeting and ordered reported H.R. 3336, amended, by a voice 
vote. On February 8, 2012, the bill was reported, amended, H. 
Rept. 112-390, and placed on the Union Calendar No. 269. On 
April 25, 2012 the bill passed the House, as amended, under 
suspension of the rules by a recorded vote of 312 yeas to 111 
nays. On April 26, 2012 the bill was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
    This measure amends the Commodity Exchange Act (as amended 
by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act) with respect to the exclusion of an insured depository 
institution from regulation as a ``swap dealer.'' The criterion 
for such exclusion as to the extent to which the institution 
offers to enter into a swap with a customer in connection with 
originating a loan with that customer are eliminated.
    A new criteria is added for such exclusion the extent to 
which the institution enters into a swap: (I) with a customer 
that is seeking to manage risk in connection with an extension 
of credit by the institution to, on behalf of, or for the 
benefit of, the customer; or (2) to offset the risks arising 
from a swap that meets such requirement.
    The proposal excludes from regulation as a swap dealer, 
under the same criteria, an institution chartered and operating 
under the Farm Credit Act of 1971.
    It revises the criteria for exemption of a swap from the 
requirement that it be submitted for clearing to a derivatives 
clearing organization either registered under this Act or 
exempt from registration. The bill also revises in particular 
the exemption from this requirement of a swap one of whose 
counterparties is not a financial institution. The definition 
of ``financial entity'' is modified with respect to a small 
bank, savings association, farm credit system institution, or 
credit union which the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(CFTC) may consider whether to exempt from such definition. 
CFTC's discretion to make such an exemption is repealed. 
Finally, the Small Business Credit Availability Act excludes 
outright from the meaning of financial entity any small bank, 
savings association, farm credit system institution, or credit 
union if: (1) its total assets are $30 billion or less, or (2) 
its aggregate uncollateralized outward exposure plus aggregate 
potential outward exposure with respect to its swaps does not 
exceed $1 billion. (Thus exempts such a small bank, savings 
association, farm credit system institution, or credit union 
from the clearing requirement.) (Note: See also the discussion 
under ``D. Oversight.'')
            H.R. 4089, Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012
    H.R. 4089 was introduced by Representative Jeff Miller on 
February 27, 2012 and referred to the Committee on Natural 
Resources and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture and 
Energy and Commerce. On April February 29, 2012 the Committee 
on Natural Resources ordered reported the bill, amended, by a 
recorded vote of 27 yeas to 16 nays. On April 13, 2012 the 
Committee on Natural Resources reported the bill, as amended, 
H. Rept. 112-426, Part 1. On that same date the Committee on 
Agriculture and the Committee on Energy and Commerce was 
discharged from further consideration. The bill passed the 
House, as amended, on April 17, 2012 by a recorded vote of 274 
yeas to 146 nays. On April 18, 2012 the measure was received in 
the Senate.
    H.R. 4089 would require Federal public land management 
officials to use their authority to facilitate access to 
Federal lands and waters for fishing, sport hunting, and 
recreational shooting. The requirement to provide access to 
Federal land could be limited for reasons of national security, 
public safety, or resource conservation. In addition, access 
could be limited because of any Federal statutes that 
specifically preclude these uses on Federal land or by any 
discretionary limitations on recreational fishing, hunting, and 
shooting determined to be ``necessary and reasonable.''
    The bill would also require that the head of each Federal 
land management agency exercise its land management discretion 
in a manner that supports and facilitates recreational fishing, 
hunting, and shooting opportunities, in accordance with 
applicable Federal law.
    The bill would provide that any Federal public land 
planning documents (including land management plans and 
resource management plans) include a specific evaluation of the 
effects that such plans would have on opportunities to engage 
in recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting. Under the bill, 
the fact that recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting occurs 
on adjacent or nearby public or private lands would not be 
considered in determining which Federal public lands would be 
open for these activities or for setting levels of use for 
these activities.
    Federal lands could be closed to hunting and fishing for 
numerous reasons including resource conservation, public 
safety, energy or mineral production, energy generation or 
transmission infrastructure, water supply facilities and 
national security. Proposals to close lands would require a 
scientific review and consideration through a ``transparent 
public process.'' If an agency moved to close a parcel larger 
than 640 acres, it would be required to publish notice of its 
intent to close the land to hunting activities, demonstrate 
coordination with relevant state entities and submit a report 
to Congress regarding the closure.
            H.R. 4480, Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012.
    H.R. 4480 was introduced on April 14, 2012 by 
Representative Cory Gardner and referred to the Committee 
Energy and Commerce and in addition to the Committees on 
Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Armed Services. On June 8, 
2012, the Committee on Energy Commerce reported the bill, 
amended, H. Rept. 112-520 Part 1. On that same date the 
Committees on Agriculture, National Resources, and Armed 
Services were discharged from further consideration and the 
bill was placed on the Union Calendar, No. 367. The measure was 
considered in the House on June 20, 2012 as unfinished 
business. On June 21, 2012 the bill passed the House, amended, 
by a recorded vote of 248 yeas to 163 nays.
    The bill would require the Secretary of Energy to develop a 
plan to increase the percentage of Federal lands under the 
jurisdictions of the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of 
Energy, Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Defense 
leased for oil and gas exploration, development, and production 
following the first drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
(SPR).
    The bill also requires that the plan: (1) increase the 
total percentage of Federal lands leased for oil and gas 
exploration, development, and production commensurate with the 
percentage of petroleum in the SPR that was drawn down; (2) 
limit the total percentage of Federal lands leased as a result 
of the plan to 10 percent; (3) exclude lands managed under the 
National Park System or that are part of the National 
Wilderness Preservation System; (4) be consistent with a 
national energy policy to meet present and future energy needs 
of the U.S.; and (5) promote the interests of consumers through 
the provision of an adequate and reliable supply of domestic 
transportation fuels at the lowest reasonable cost.
            H.R. 6233, Agriculture Disaster Assistance Act of 2012.
    H.R. 6233 was introduced on July 31, 2012 by Chairman Frank 
D. Lucas and referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. On 
August 1, 2012, the House Rules Committee reported H. Res. 752 
to the House (H. Rept. 112-644). The closed rule provided for 
consideration of H.R. 6233 with 1 hour of general debate, an 
allowance of a motion to recommit with or without instructions 
a, and stated that measure would be considered read with all 
points of order against consideration of the bill waived. On 
August 2, 2012, H. Res. 752 passed the House by a recorded vote 
of 236 yeas to 182 nays. On that same date, H.R. 6233 passed 
the House by a recorded vote of 223 yeas to 197 nays. On 
September 10, 2012, the measure was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
    This measure reauthorizes disaster assistance programs that 
expired at the end of the fiscal year 2011. Specifically, 
Livestock Indemnity Payments (LIP), Livestock Forage Disaster 
Programs (LFP), Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, 
and Farm-raised Fish (ELAP), and the Tree Assistance Program 
(TAP).
    H.R. 6233 is paid for with conservation program offsets 
consistent with levels previously established by enacted 
appropriations. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program is 
capped at $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2013 and the Conservation 
Stewardship Program is capped at 11 million acres in fiscal 
year 2013. Those programs will operate at recent spending 
levels. The net savings of H.R. 6233 is $256 million.
            H.R. 6684, Spending Reduction Act of 2012
    H.R. 6684 was introduced on December 19, 2012 by 
Representative Eric Cantor and referred to the Committee on the 
Budget and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, 
Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, 
Judiciary, Oversight and Government Affairs, House 
Administration, and Rules. On December 19, 2012, the House 
Rules Committee reported H. Res. 841 to the House (H. Rept. 
112-708) and the resolution was placed on the calendar. The 
resolution was agreed to in the House on December 20, 2012 by a 
recorded vote of 219 yeas to 197 nays and H.R. 6684 was 
subsequently passed by a recorded vote of 215 yeas to 209 nays. 
The measure was received in the Senate on December 21, 2012.
    Title I amends the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009 to terminate the increase in the value of supplemental 
nutrition assistance program (SNAP, formerly the food stamp 
program) benefits for Puerto Rico and American Samoa on March 
1, 2013.
    Amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to limit 
categorical SNAP eligibility to households receiving specified 
other program benefits in cash.
    Eliminates the requirement that a state agency using a 
standard utility allowance provide such allowance to a 
household that receives assistance under the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Act of 1981 or other energy assistance 
program if such household incurs out-of-pocket heating or 
cooling expenses exceeding such assistance.
    Eliminates: (1) administrative cost sharing to states for 
certain employment and training programs, (2) state bonus 
programs for effective SNAP administration, and (3) indexing 
for the nutrition education and obesity prevention grant 
program.
    Reduces FY 2013 funding for employment and training 
programs.
    Authorizes FY 2013 appropriations to carry out the Food and 
Nutrition Act of 2008.
    States that this title and the amendments made by this 
title shall take effect on enactment of this Act, and shall 
apply only with respect to certification periods that begin on 
or after such date.
    Other Bills: Several bills acted on by other committees, 
but not acted on by the Committee on Agriculture contain 
provisions relating to matters within the Committee's 
jurisdiction. The following are abbreviated summaries of these 
bills, including some of the relevant provisions.
            Legislative Matters
            H. Con. Res. 112, Establishing the budget for the United 
                    States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting 
                    forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
                    2014 through 2022.
    H. Con. Res. 112 was introduced and reported by the 
Representative Paul Ryan on March 23, 2012, H. Rept. 112-421. 
On March 29, 2012 the resolution passed the House by a recorded 
vote of 228 yeas to 191 nays. On April 16, 2012 the resolution 
was received in the Senate and placed on the Legislative 
Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 354. On May 16, 
2012 a motion to proceed to consideration failed in the Senate 
by a recorded vote of 41 yeas to 58 nays.
    H. Con. Res. 112 sets forth the congressional budget for 
the Federal government for FY 2013, including the appropriate 
budgetary levels for FY 2014-FY 2022.
    The resolution gives reconciliation instructions to six 
House Committees including the Committee on Agriculture; Energy 
and Commerce, Financial Services, the Judiciary, Oversight and 
Government Reform; and Ways and Means.
    The measure requires the House Budget Committee to report a 
bill that amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 to replace the sequester for enforcement of 
the $1.2 trillion budget goal established by the Budget Control 
Act of 2011 and include language making it application 
contingent upon the enactment of the required reconciliation 
bill. (Note: See also the discussion of H.R. 5652 under ``2. 
Bills Acted on by the House But Not the Senate.'')
            H.R. 910, to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the 
                    Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
                    Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, 
                    taking action relating to, or taking into 
                    consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to 
                    address climate change, and for other purposes.
    H.R. 910 was introduced by Representative Fred Upton on 
March 3, 2011 and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. On April 1, 2011 the bill was reported to the House, 
amended, H. Rept. 112-50. The bill passed the House, amended, 
by a recorded vote on April 7, 2011 and was then referred to 
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 
8, 2011.
    The Act prohibits the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) from promulgating any regulation 
concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into 
consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address 
climate change under the Clean Air Act. The bill would also 
repeal a number of EPA rules and actions and allow the term 
``air pollutant'' to include a GHG for the purpose of 
addressing other concerns.
    The Act also exempts from such prohibition: (1) 
implementation and enforcement of the rule, ``Light-Duty 
Vehicle Greenhouse Emission Standards and Corporate Average 
Fuel Economy Standards'' and finalization implementation, 
enforcement, and revision of the proposed rule, ``Greenhouse 
Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 
Medium and Heavy Duty Engines and Vehicles''; (2) 
implementation of the renewable fuel program, statutorily 
authorized Federal research, development, and demonstration 
programs and voluntary programs addressing climate change; (3) 
implementation and enforcement of stratospheric ozone 
protection to the extent that such implementation or 
enforcement only involves class I or II substances; and (4) 
implementation and enforcement of requirements for monitoring 
and reporting of carbon dioxide emission.
    The measure prohibits the Administrator from waiving, and 
invalidates waivers given by the Administrator, the ban on 
states from adopting or enforcing standards relating to the 
control of emissions from new motor vehicles or engines with 
respect to GHG emissions for model year 2017 or any subsequent 
model year.
    The bill expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) there is 
established scientific concern over warming of the climate 
system based upon evidence from observations of increases in 
global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting 
of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level; (2) 
addressing climate change is an international issue, involving 
complex scientific and economic consideration; (3) the United 
States has a role to play in resolving global climate change 
matters on an international basis; and (4) Congress should 
fulfill that role by developing policies that do not adversely 
affect the American economy, energy supplies, and employment. 
(Note: See also the discussion of H. Res. 72 under ``3. House 
Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
            H.R. 1633, Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011
    H.R. 1633 was introduced by Representative Kristi L. Noem 
on April 15, 2011 and referred to the House Committee on Energy 
and Commerce. The bill was reported (amended) to the House, H. 
Rept. 112-316. December 6, 2011 and agreed to in the House by a 
recorded vote of 268 yeas to 150 nays December 8. The bill was 
then received and placed on the legislative calendar in the 
Senate December 12, 2011.
    The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011 prohibits 
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
from proposing, finalizing, implementing, or enforcing any 
regulation revising the national primary ambient air quality 
standard or the national secondary ambient air quality standard 
applicable to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 
greater than 2.5 micrometers under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for 
one year.
    The bill exempts nuisance dust from the CAA and excludes 
nuisance dust from references in such Act to particulate 
matter, except with respect to geographic areas where such dust 
is not regulated under state, tribal, or local law if the 
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Agriculture, finds that: (1) nuisance dust (or any subcategory 
of nuisance dust) causes substantial adverse public health and 
welfare effects at ambient concentrations; and (2) the benefits 
of applying CAA standards and other requirements to such dust 
outweigh the costs.
    ``Nuisance dust'' is defined as particulate matter that: 
(1) is generated primarily from natural sources, unpaved roads, 
agricultural activities, earth moving, or other activities 
typically conducted in rural areas; (2) consists primarily of 
soil, other natural or biological materials, windblown dust, or 
some combination thereof; (3) is not emitted directly into the 
ambient air from combustion, such as exhaust from combustion 
engines and emissions from stationary combustion processes; (4) 
is not comprised of residuals from the combustion of coal; and 
(5) does not include radioactive particulate matter produced 
from uranium mining or processing.
    The measure expresses the sense of Congress that the 
Administrator should implement an approach to excluding 
exceptional events, or events that are not reasonably 
controllable or preventable, from determinations of whether an 
area is in compliance with any national ambient air quality 
standard (NAAQS) applicable to coarse particulate matter that 
maximizes transparency and predictability for states, tribes, 
and local governments and minimizes their regulatory and cost 
burdens.
    Under the proposed legislation, the Administrator, before 
taking a covered action, to analyze its impact, disaggregated 
by state, on employment levels in the agriculture industry and 
on agricultural economic activity, utilizing the best available 
economic models. Defines a ``covered action'' as an action by 
the Administrator under the Clean Air Act, relating to 
agriculture and the primary and secondary NAAQS for particulate 
matter to: (1) issue a regulation, policy statement, guidance, 
response to a petition, or other requirement; or (2) implement 
a new or substantially altered program. Requires the 
Administrator to: (1) post such analysis on the main page of 
EPA's website; (2) request the Secretary of Agriculture to post 
it on the main page of the Department of Agriculture's website; 
and (3) request the governor of any state experiencing more 
than a de minimis negative impact to post such analysis in the 
state's capitol.
    Finally, the bill requires the Administrator to: (1) hold a 
public hearing in each state in which a covered action will 
have more than a de minimis negative impact on agricultural 
employment levels or agricultural economic activity, at least 
30 days prior to the effective date of the action; and (2) give 
notice of such impact to the state's congressional delegation, 
governor, and legislature at least 45 days before the effective 
date of the action. Defines ``de minimis negative impact'' as: 
(1) a loss of more than 100 jobs related to the agriculture 
industry, or (2) a decrease in agricultural economic activity 
of more than $1 million over any calendar year. (Note: See also 
the discussion of H. Res. 72 under ``3. House Resolutions 
Considered in the House.'')
            H.R. 5652, Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012
    H.R. 5652 was introduced and reported as an original 
measure by Representatives Paul Ryan on May 9, 2012, H. Rept. 
112-470. On May 10, 2012 the bill passed the House by a 
recorded vote 218 yeas to 199 nays, and 11 present. On May 14, 
2012 the bill was received in the Senate, read for a first time 
and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. On May 15, 2012 
the bill was read for a second time and placed on the Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 398.
    Title I of H.R. 5652 amends the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 to terminate the increase in the value 
of supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP, formerly 
the food stamp program) benefits for Puerto Rico and American 
Samoa on June 30, 2012.
    The bill amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to limit 
categorical SNAP eligibility to households receiving specified 
other program benefits in cash.
    The bill also eliminates the requirement that a state 
agency using a standard utility allowance provide such 
allowance to a household that receives assistance under the Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 or other energy 
assistance program if such household incurs out-of-pocket 
heating or cooling expenses exceeding such assistance.
    The measure eliminates: (1) administrative cost sharing to 
states for certain employment and training programs, (2) state 
bonus programs for effective SNAP administration, and (3) 
indexing for the nutrition education and obesity prevention 
grant program. The bill also reduces FY 2013 funding for 
employment and training programs. (Note: See also the 
discussion of H. Con. Res. 112 under ``2. Bills Acted on by the 
House But Not the Senate.'')
    Finally, the bill authorizes FY 2013 appropriations to 
carry out the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.

3. House Resolutions Considered in the House

            H. Res. 72, Directing certain standing committees to 
                    inventory and review existing, pending, and 
                    proposed regulations and orders from agencies of 
                    the Federal Government, particularly with respect 
                    to their effect on jobs and economic growth.
    H. Res. 72 was introduced on February 8, 2011 by 
Representative Pete Sessions and referred to the Committee on 
Rules. On February 8, 2011 the Committee on Rules reported an 
original measure, H. Rept. 112-6. On February 11, 2011, the 
resolution passed the House by a recorded vote of 391 yeas to 
28 nays.
    H. Res. 72 requires Committees, including the Committee on 
Agriculture to inventory and review existing, pending, and 
proposed regulations, orders, and other administrative actions 
or procedures by Federal agencies within its jurisdiction. The 
resolution also requires each committee, upon completion of its 
inventory and review to: (1) consider specified matters; (2) 
conduct any hearings and other oversight activities necessary 
in support of the inventory and review, and (3) identify in a 
report on the first session of the 112th Congress any oversight 
or legislative activity conducted in support of, or as a result 
of, such inventory and review. (Note: See the discussion of 
H.R. 872 under ``2 Bills Acted on by the House But Not the 
Senate'', H.R. 1573 under ``4. Bills Ordered Reported, and D. 
Oversight.'')

4. Bills Reported

            H.R. 1505, National Security and Federal Lands Protection 
                    Act
    H.R. 1505 was introduced April 13, 2011, by Representative 
Rob Bishop and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, 
in addition to the Committees on Agriculture and Homeland 
Security. On October 5, 2011, the Committee on Natural 
Resources held a business meeting and ordered reported, H.R. 
1505, amended, by a recorded vote of 26 yeas to 17 nays. The 
Committee on Natural Resources filed a report (H. Rept. 112-
448, Part 1) on April 17, 2012. On the same day, the bill was 
discharged from the Committees on Agriculture and Homeland 
Security and placed on the Union Calendar, No. 312.
    As reported, this measure prohibits the Secretary of the 
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) from 
prohibiting or restricting activities on land under their 
respective jurisdictions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
to achieve operational control over the international land 
borders of the United States.
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection access to such lands is 
granted in order to conduct the following activities: (1) 
construction and maintenance of roads and fences; (2) use of 
patrol vehicles and aircraft; (3) installation, maintenance, 
and operation of surveillance equipment and sensors; and (4) 
deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure, including 
forward operating bases.
    The bill states that a waiver by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security (DHS) of specified laws regarding sections of the 
international border between the United States and Mexico and 
between the United States and Canada shall apply to all land 
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the 
Secretary of Agriculture within 100 miles of the international 
land borders of the United States with respect to U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection activities under this Act.
    It also states that this Act shall not be construed to 
restrict legal use (grazing, hunting, or mining) on, or legal 
access to, land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture.
    Finally, the bill language terminates this Act five years 
after enactment
            H.R. 1573, To facilitate implementation of title VII of the 
                    Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
                    Protection Act, promote regulatory coordination, 
                    and avoid market disruption.
    H.R. 1573 was introduced on April 15, 2011 by Chairman 
Lucas and referred to the Committee on Financial Services and 
in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. On May 4, 2011, 
the Committee on Agriculture held a business meeting and 
ordered reported, H.R. 1573, amended, by a voice vote. On May 
24, 2011, the Committee on Financial Services held a business 
meeting and ordered reported, H.R. 1573, amended, by a recorded 
vote of 30 yeas to 24 nays. On June 11, 2011 both the Committee 
on Financial Services and the Committee on Agriculture filed a 
report, H. Rept. 112-109 pt. 1 and 2.
    The bill as ordered reported extends the statutory deadline 
for the implementation of most provisions of Title VII of the 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) 
by 18 months. The bill does not extend the deadline for the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities 
and Exchange Commission (SEC) to issue final rules further 
defining key terms in Section 712(d)(1) of swap, security based 
swap, swap dealer, security-based swap dealer, major swap 
participant, major security-based swap participant and eligible 
contract participant. The bill also does not extend the 
deadline for the reporting requirements in Sections 2(h)(5) and 
4r of the Commodity Exchange Act and Sections 3C(e) and 13A(a) 
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. To facilitate the 
reporting of swaps data, the bill gives the CFTC and the SEC 
interim authority to designate swap data repositories that meet 
certain criteria. In addition, the bill requires the CFTC and 
SEC, prior to prescribing any final rules required under Title 
VII, to hold additional roundtables and public hearings to 
receive public testimony and factor it into the rule proposals. 
Lastly, H.R. 1573 gives the CFTC and SEC authority to exempt 
certain persons from registration or related regulatory 
requirements if they are subject to comparable regulation by a 
U.S. or foreign regulatory authority.
    Beginning in February, the Committee held 4 hearings, two 
Full Committee and two General Farm Commodities and Risk 
Management Subcommittee hearings to examine the implementation 
of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Committee took 
testimony from witnesses that represented a broad spectrum of 
participants in the derivatives markets. The Committee heard 
from a wide array of end-users, including agricultural 
cooperatives, manufacturers, commercial energy firms and 
electric utilities. The Committee also heard from large 
financial market participants, such as a global exchanges and 
clearinghouses, electronic trading platforms, swap dealers, 
hedge funds and mutual funds. Witnesses also included 
representatives from pension funds, community banks and farm 
credit banks. Across the spectrum of expertise, an overwhelming 
majority of witnesses expressed concerns that the compressed 
statutory deadlines and sheer volume of regulations were having 
a negative impact on the implementation process, particularly 
at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In short, a 
common concern was that the statutory deadlines forced the 
regulatory agencies to prioritize speed over deliberation, 
making it difficult for stakeholders to comment, and 
undermining the economic analysis associated with each proposed 
rule. Witnesses also expressed concerns that many of the CFTC's 
rule proposals exceed or conflict with congressional intent, 
are inconsistent with proposals from other regulatory agencies, 
and may be detrimental for U.S. businesses, for our markets, 
and for our economy. The Committee also heard testimony from 
multiple witnesses about the role of speculation in the 
commodities markets, including the impact on the price of food 
and fuel. When he testified before the Committee, Chairman 
Gensler cited the need for transparency and confidence in 
commodity trading that Dodd-Frank will provide for users of 
energy and food and that is ``critical for our economy.''
    In addition, there are efforts around the world to 
implement financial regulatory reform in the wake of the global 
financial crisis. In September of 2009, the leaders of the G20 
Nations agreed to implement certain OTC derivatives reforms by 
the end of December of 2012. Many of the witnesses, along with 
a broad cross section of industry and academics, have cited 
concerns about the U.S. moving on a much faster timetable than 
the European Union (EU) or Asian regulators, creating the 
potential for regulatory arbitrage and negative consequences to 
the competitiveness of U.S. businesses. The extreme pace of 
rulemaking diminishes the opportunity for regulators to 
coordinate and harmonize international regulatory regimes, 
creates opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, and gives 
foreign countries a ``learn from our mistakes'' advantage. 
While it would not be possible or wise to tie the timing of our 
regulatory reforms to unpredictable deadlines of the EU and 
other jurisdictions, slowing the process down would enhance the 
opportunity for coordination and greater consistency among 
regulatory regimes.
    Last, the CFTC Inspector General (IG) recently issued an 
investigative report of the CFTC's cost-benefit analysis 
performed in connection with Dodd-Frank rulemakings. In 
general, the report found that the CFTC takes a minimalist 
approach to considering the costs and benefits of proposed 
regulations and focuses more on meeting the legal obligation 
under the Commodity Exchange Act than performing a legitimate 
economic analysis. Put simply, the CFTC IG concluded the report 
by saying ``We are mindful of the adage, `just because 
something is legal, doesn't make it right.' And we 
wholeheartedly agree that, `[in] the end, economic analysis is 
more than about satisfying procedural requirements for 
regulatory rulemaking.''' In addition, the report found that 
the irrational sequence of rule proposals that many witnesses 
cited as an impediment to their ability to provide meaningful 
comment was created by the compressed timeframes. Specifically 
the report stated ``Staff and management were aware that market 
participants might refrain from comment on conduct regulations 
in the mistaken belief that they would not fall within the 
definitions. However, at this stage in the process, staff 
indicated the overriding concern was meeting the rule-making 
deadline under Dodd-Frank.''
    H.R. 1573 gives the regulatory agencies an additional 18 
months to promulgate most rules required by Title VII. A common 
concern, particularly among end-users, was that the sequence of 
rule proposals made it difficult for them to comment 
meaningfully. For example, one of the last rules proposed by 
the CFTC in the initial proposing phase was the definition of 
``swap.'' Stakeholders were asked to comment on each rule 
prescribing a regulatory regime without clarification regarding 
the scope of products impacted. For certain industries, such as 
the electric power industry, the definition of swap was a 
significant factor in understanding which regulations they may 
be subject to. In addition, rules were proposed to govern Major 
Swap Participants and Swap Dealers before a rule had been 
proposed to define Major Swap Participant and Swap Dealer. To 
provide for a more rational sequence of rule proposals, H.R. 
1573 does not extend the deadline for the definitions required 
under Section 712(d)(1). This will provide clarity to market 
participants about their regulatory status, and to facilitate 
productive comment on the succeeding rules prescribing the 
relevant regulatory requirements.
    H.R. 1573 also does not extend the deadline for the 
regulatory reporting requirements applicable to swaps in 
Sections 723 and 729 and the similar provisions applicable to 
security-based swaps. This provision will ensure transparency 
and reporting of all swap transactions are not delayed, both to 
give the regulatory agencies access to market data to monitor 
for systemic risk, and to further instruct the rulemaking 
process by providing swap market data that the agencies 
currently do not have. To facilitate the reporting of swaps 
data and encourage further development of swap data 
repositories, H.R. 1573 gives the regulatory agencies interim 
authority to designate swap data repositories during the period 
in which the regulations governing swap data repositories are 
being finalized.
    The bill also requires the CFTC and the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) to hold additional public roundtables 
and hearings to take testimony from affected market 
participants prior to the finalization of any rules. Providing 
stakeholders additional time to offer input will help to 
mitigate unintended consequences of poorly vetted proposals, 
and permit comment once all rules have been proposed and can be 
considered in light of their interdependence and cumulative 
impact on the markets. During consideration of H.R. 1573, 
Representative Joe Courtney offered an amendment to exempt the 
establishment of position limits from the bill in order to 
reduce speculation on food and energy commodities. While the 
amendment was ultimately defeated by one vote, the amendment 
received bipartisan support and highlighted the need for strong 
oversight by the CFTC over the influence of speculation on 
commodity markets. During consideration of H.R. 1573, 
Representative Courtney offered an amendment to exempt the 
establishment of position limits from the bill in order to 
reduce speculation on food and energy commodities. (Note: See 
also the discussion of H. Res. 72 under ``3. House Resolutions 
Considered in the House'' and the discussion of ``D. 
Oversight.'')
            H.R. 1838, Swaps Bailout Prevention Act
    H.R. 1838 was introduced May 11, 2011, by Representative 
Nan Hayworth and referred to the Committee on Financial 
Services in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. On 
November 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and 
Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial 
Services held a mark up and forwarded the measure to the Full 
Committee as amended by a recorded vote of 21 yeas to 12 nays. 
The full Committee on Financial Services held a business 
meeting February 16, 2012, and ordered reported, H.R. 1838, 
amended, by voice vote and filed a report, H. Rept. 112-476, 
Part 1 on May 11, 2012. On November 16, 2012 the Committee on 
Agriculture was discharged and the measure was placed on the 
Union Calendar, No. 508.
     This measure amends the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act to repeal the prohibition against 
Federal government assistance to (bailouts of) registered swap 
dealers, security-based swap dealers, major swap participants, 
or major security-based swap participants with respect to any 
swap, security-based swap, or other activity. (Note: See also 
the discussion under ``D. Oversight.'')
            H.R. 1840, To improve consideration by the Commodity 
                    Futures Trading Commission of the costs and 
                    benefits of its regulations and orders.
    H.R. 1840 was introduced by Representative K. Michael 
Conaway on May 5, 2011, and referred to the House Committee on 
Agriculture. The committee held a business meeting on January 
25, 2102 and ordered reported H.R. 1840, amended, by a voice 
vote. A report, H. Rept. 112-482, was filed by the committee on 
May 16, 2012, and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar, 
No. 337.
    The measure amends the Commodity Exchange Act to revise the 
requirement that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(CFTC), before promulgating a regulation or issuing an order, 
consider the costs and benefits of the action. It also requires 
the CFTC, through the Office of the Chief Economist, to: (1) 
assess the costs and benefits, both qualitative and 
quantitative, of an intended regulation; and (2) propose or 
adopt a regulation only on a reasoned determination that the 
benefits justify the costs.
    Finally, the bill lists additional mandatory considerations 
for the CFTC to evaluate in making a reasoned determination of 
the costs and the benefits, including the impact on market 
liquidity in the futures and swaps markets, as well as 
alternatives to direct regulation. (Note: See also the 
discussion under ``D. Oversight.'')
            H.R. 2172, Utilizing America's Federal Lands for Wind 
                    Energy Act
    H.R. 2172 was introduced by Representative Kristi L. Noem 
June 14, 2011 and referred to the Committee on Natural 
Resources in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. On 
December 1 the measure was discharged by the Committee on 
Agriculture and reported (amended) by the Committee on Natural 
Resources, H. Rept. 112-300, Part 1. It was placed on the Union 
Calendar (Calendar No. 200) the same day.
    This bill exempts projects determined by the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) or the Forest Service to be meteorological 
site testing and monitoring projects from environmental impact 
statement requirements under the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (NEPA).
    ``Meteorological site testing and monitoring project'' is 
defined as a project that is carried out on land administered 
by BLM or the Forest Service to test or monitor weather using 
towers or other devices, that is decommissioned within five 
years of its commencement, that provides meteorological 
information to such agencies, that causes less than one acre of 
soil or vegetation disruption at the location of each 
meteorological tower or other device and no more than five 
acres of soil or disruption within the proposed right-of-way 
for the project, and that is installed: (1) using existing 
access roads; (2) in a manner that does not require off-road 
motorized access other than one installation activity and one 
decommissioning activity along an identified off-road route 
approved by the BLM Director or the Chief of the Forest 
Service; (3) without construction of new roads other than 
upgrading of existing minor drainage crossings for safety 
purposes; and (4) without the use of digging or drilling 
equipment vehicles other than rubber-tired vehicles with gross 
weight ratings under 8,500 pounds.
    The measure requires the BLM Director or Chief of the 
Forest Service to: (1) decide whether to issue a permit for 
such a project within 30 days after receiving an application 
for such permit, and (2) provide to the applicant reasons why 
an application was denied and an opportunity to remedy any 
deficiencies.
            H.R. 2586, Swap Execution Facility Clarification Act
    H.R. 2586 was introduced by Representative Scott Garret 
July 19, 2011 and referred to the Committee on Financial 
Services as in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. The 
Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored 
Enterprises held a business meeting November 15, 2011 and 
forwarded the measure to the full committee by voice vote. On 
November 30, 2011 the Committee on Financial Services held a 
business meeting and ordered reported H.R. 2586, amended, by a 
voice vote. The Committee on Financial Services filed a report, 
H. Rept. 112-345, Part 1 on December 23, 2011. The Committee on 
Agriculture held a business meeting January 25, 2012, and 
ordered reported H.R. 2586, amended, by a voice vote. February 
8, 2012, the Committee on Agriculture filed a report, 112-345, 
Part 2 and the measure was placed on the Union Calendar, No. 
266.
    This measure amends the Commodity Exchange Act and the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit both the Commodity 
Futures Exchange Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC), in interpreting or defining a 
``security-based swap execution facility,'' from requiring one 
to: (1) have a minimum number of participants receive a bid or 
offer or respond to any trading system or platform 
functionality, (2) display or delay bids or offers for any 
period of time, (3) limit the means of interstate commerce used 
by market participants to enter into and execute swap 
transactions on the trading system or platform; or (4) require 
bids or offers on one trading system or platform operated by 
the swap execution facility to interact with bids or offers on 
another trading system or platform operated by the swap 
execution facility. (Note: See also the discussion under ``D. 
Oversight.'')
            H.R. 2834, Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and 
                    Opportunities Act
    H.R. 2834 was introduced in the House on September 2, 2011 
by Representative Dan Benishek and was referred to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, in addition to the Committee on 
Agriculture. On November 17, 2011 the measure was considered 
and ordered reported (amended) by the Committee on Natural 
Resources by a vote of 29 yeas to 14 nays. The bill was 
reported (H. Rept. 112-609) by the Committee on Natural 
Resources on July 19, 2012. On that same date the measure was 
discharged from the Committee on Agriculture and placed on the 
Union Calendar (No. 442).
    The Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and 
Opportunities Act requires Federal public land management 
officials to exercise their authority under existing law, 
including provisions regarding land use planning, to facilitate 
the use of, and access to, Federal public lands and waters for 
fishing, sport hunting, and recreational shooting, except as 
limited by: (1) statutory authority that authorizes or 
withholds action for reasons of national security, public 
safety, or resource conservation; (2) any other Federal statute 
that specifically precludes recreational fishing, hunting, or 
shooting on specific Federal public lands or waters; and (3) 
discretionary limitations on recreational fishing, hunting, and 
shooting determined to be necessary and reasonable as supported 
by the best scientific evidence and advanced through a 
transparent public process.
    The measure also requires the heads of Federal public land 
management agencies to exercise their discretion in a manner 
that supports and facilitates recreational fishing, hunting, 
and shooting opportunities, to the extent authorized under 
applicable Federal and state law.
    It requires public land planning documents to include 
specific evaluations of the effects of such planning documents 
on opportunities to engage in recreational fishing, hunting, or 
shooting.
    It prohibits actions taken under this Act, other than 
certain actions regarding rights-of-way, easements, or 
reservations within the National Wildlife Refuge System or 
enforcement actions concerning the System under the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, from being 
considered to be a major Federal action significantly affecting 
the quality of the human environment.
    It also prohibits Federal public land management officials 
from being required to consider the existence or availability 
of recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting opportunities on 
adjacent or nearby public or private lands in the planning for, 
or determination of, which Federal public lands are open for 
such activities or in the setting of levels of use for such 
activities, unless the combination or coordination of such 
opportunities would enhance the recreational fishing, hunting, 
or shooting opportunities available to the public.
    The bill sets forth provisions concerning the use of 
volunteers in culling or managing wildlife populations on 
public land if hunting is prohibited on such land.
    H.R. 2834 requires Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 
Forest Service lands, excluding lands on the Outer Continental 
Shelf, to be open to recreational fishing, hunting, and 
shooting unless the managing agency acts to close such lands to 
such activity for purposes of resource conservation, public 
safety, energy or mineral production, energy generation or 
transmission infrastructure, water supply facilities, 
protection of other permittees, protection or private property 
rights or interests, national security, or compliance with 
other law.
    It requires the heads of Federal agencies to use their 
authorities consistently with this Act to: (1) lease their 
lands or permit use of their lands for shooting ranges, and (2) 
designate specific lands for recreational shooting activities. 
The bill prohibits such designation from subjecting the United 
States to any civil action or claim for damages for injury or 
loss of property or personal injury or death caused by any 
activity occurring at or on such designated land.
    The measure declares that the provision of opportunities 
for hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, and the 
conservation of fish and wildlife to provide sustainable use 
recreational opportunities on designated wilderness areas on 
Federal public lands constitutes the measures necessary to meet 
the minimum requirements for the administration of such areas.
    It provides that any requirements imposed by the Wilderness 
Act shall be implemented only insofar as they do not prevent 
Federal public land management officials and state fish and 
wildlife officials from carrying out and facilitating the 
original or primary purposes for which the Federal public lands 
or Federal public land unit was established.
    It requires biennial reports on closures of Federal public 
lands to recreational fishing, sport hunting, or shooting. 
Requirements for a permanent or temporary withdrawal, change of 
classification, or change of management status that effectively 
closes or significantly restricts 640 or more contiguous acres 
of Federal public lands for fishing or hunting or related 
activities are set forth. Separate withdrawals or changes, the 
aggregate or cumulative effect of which effectively closes or 
significantly restricts 1280 or more acres of land or water, 
are treated as a single withdrawal or change for purposes of 
such requirements.
    The measure provides that nothing in the Act prohibits a 
Federal land management agency from establishing or 
implementing emergency closures or restrictions of the smallest 
practicable area to provide for public safety, resource 
conservation, national security, or other purposes authorized 
by law. Finally, it requires such an emergency closure to 
terminate after a reasonable period unless converted to a 
permanent closure consistent with this Act.
            H.R. 3283, Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act
    H.R. 3283 was introduced October 31, 2011, by 
Representative James Himes and referred to the Committee on 
Financial Services in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. 
The Committee on Financial Services held a business meeting and 
ordered reported H.R. 3283, amended by a recorded vote of 41 
yeas to 18 nays. The report, H. Rept. 112-477, Part 1 was filed 
by the Committee on Financial Services May 11, 2012. On 
December 14, 2012, H.R. 3283 was placed on Union Calendar, No. 
512.
    This measure amends the Commodity Exchange Act and the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding extra-territorial 
swap transactions to exempt swaps, including security-based 
swaps, from regulation under the Wall Street Transparency and 
Accountability Act of 2010 (WSTAA) (title VII of the Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) as long as the 
swap dealer: (1) is either a U.S. person or a person whose 
parent company is a U.S. person; and (2) reports such swap or 
security-based swap to a swap data repository registered with 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or a security-
based swap data repository registered with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC), as appropriate.
    The language also subjects to WSTAA requirements, any non-
U.S. person that is a registered swaps or security-based swaps 
dealer and that has entered into swaps or security-based swaps 
with a U.S. person who is not a U.S. subsidiary, branch, or 
affiliate of that non-U.S. person.
    Finally, the proposal requires the CFTC and the SEC to 
permit non-U.S. persons that are registered swaps or security-
based swaps dealers to comply with WSTAA capital requirements 
by complying with comparable requirements established by the 
appropriate governmental authorities in their respective home 
countries, so long as those home countries are signatories to 
the Basel Accords. (Note: See also the discussion under ``D. 
Oversight.'')
            H.R. 3527, Protecting Main Street End-Users From Excessive 
                    Regulation
    H.R. 3527 was introduced by Representative Randy Hultgren 
November 30, 2011 and was referred to the House Committee on 
Agriculture. The committee held a business meeting on January 
25, 2012 and ordered reported H.R. 3527, amended, by a voice 
vote. February 8, 2011, the Committee on Agriculture filed a 
report, H. Rept. 112-391 and the measure was placed on the 
Union Calendar, No. 270.
    Section 2 of the bill amends the Commodity Exchange Act to 
revise the current exception to the definition of ``swap 
dealer'' to state that, in determining whether a person is a 
``swap dealer,'' no consideration shall be given to any 
transaction entered into for the person's own account for the 
purpose of hedging or mitigating commercial risk.
    The proposal also directs the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission (CFTC) to adopt standards distinguishing: (1) the 
activities of a swap dealer specified in current law, and (2) 
entering into swaps for a person's own account in order to 
achieve its own trading objectives as determined by the CFTC.
    The CFTC is required to exempt from designation as a swap 
dealer, an entity that enters into swap dealing transactions 
with or on behalf of its customers if the aggregate gross 
notional amount of the outstanding swap dealing transactions 
entered into over the course of the preceding calendar year 
does not exceed $3 billion (or a greater amount, as market 
conditions warrant), adjusted for inflation. (Note: See also 
the discussion under ``D. Oversight.'')
    Section 3 of the proposal states that this Act shall be 
implemented: (1) without regard to Federal law regarding 
coordination of Federal information policy or rulemaking 
requirements concerning notice and comment, and (2) through 
promulgation of an interim final rule.
            H.R. 3685, To amend the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 
                    Group Forest Recovery Act to extend and expand the 
                    scope of the pilot forest management project 
                    required by that Act.
    H.R. 3685 was introduced by Representative Wally Herger on 
December 15, 2011 and referred to the Committee on Natural 
Resources and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. On 
June 7, 2012, the Committee on Natural Resources held a 
business meeting and ordered reported the bill, as amended, by 
a recorded vote of 21 yeas to 16 nays. The Committee on Natural 
Resources reported the bill, amended, H. Rept. 112-524, Part 1 
on June 15, 2012. On that same date the Committee on 
Agriculture was discharged from further consideration and the 
bill was placed on the Union Calendar, No. 372.
    The bill amends the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group 
Forest Recovery Act to extend the term of the pilot forest 
management project for the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National 
Forests in California.
    The measure directs the Regional Forester for Region 5 to 
initiate the process of amending or revising such plans for the 
pilot project area (the Federal lands within the Plumas and 
Lassen National Forests and the Sierraville Ranger District of 
Tahoe National Forest designated as available for group 
selection). Requires such process to include the preparation of 
at least one alternative that incorporates the pilot project 
and area designations, the resource management activities, and 
other aspects of the Quincy Library Group Community Stability 
Proposal.
    The proposal also authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 
to expand the pilot project area to include all of the National 
Forest System lands in California or Nevada that lie within the 
Sierra Nevada and Cascade Province, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 
Unit, and Humboldt-Toiyabe and Inyo National Forests.
            H.R. 4234, Grazing Improvement Act of 2012
    H.R. 4234 was introduced by Representative Raul R. Labrador 
on March 21, 2012 and referred to the Committee on Natural 
Resources and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. On 
June 7, 2012, the Committee on Natural Resources held a 
business meeting and ordered reported the bill, as amended, by 
a recorded vote of 21 yeas to 15 nays. The Committee on Natural 
Resources reported the bill, amended, H. Rept. 112-533, Part 1 
on June 15, 2012. On that same date the Committee on 
Agriculture was discharged from further consideration and the 
bill was placed on the Union Calendar, No. 381.
    H.R. 4234 amends the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 to double from 10 to 20 years the period of a term for 
grazing permits and leases for domestic livestock grazing on 
public lands or lands within national forests in 16 contiguous 
western states. Permits the issuance of permits and leases for 
a period shorter than 20 years (under current law, shorter than 
10 years).
    The bill directs that grazing permits or leases issued by 
the Secretary of the Interior respecting lands under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and grazing 
permits issued by the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) 
respecting National Forest System lands that expire, are 
transferred, or are waived after this Act's enactment be 
renewed or reissued, as appropriate, under the Act, Granger-
Thye Act, Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, or California Desert 
Protection Act of 1994.
    The bill also excludes the renewal, reissuance, or transfer 
of a grazing permit or lease by the Secretary concerned from 
the requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 to prepare an environmental analysis if such decision 
continues current grazing management of the allotment. States 
that crossing and trailing permits are an administrative 
decision and shall be excluded from the requirement to prepare 
an environmental analysis.
    The proposal makes provisions of the Administrative 
Procedure Act applicable to appeals made by grazing permittees 
regarding grazing permits or leases under the Act and the 
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974.
            H.R. 4235, Swap Data Repository and Clearinghouse 
                    Indemnification Correction Act of 2012
    H.R. 4235 was introduced March 21, 2012, by Representative 
Robert Dold and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, in 
addition to the Committee on Financial Services. On March 27, 
2012, the Committee on Financial Services held a business 
meeting and ordered reported H.R. 4235, amended, by a voice 
vote. The Committee on Financial Services filed a report, H. 
Rept. 112-470, Part 1 on May 9, 2012.
    The proposal amends the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), with 
respect to derivatives clearing organizations and swap data 
repositories, to repeal the prerequisite that, before the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) may share 
information with specified regulatory agencies, such agencies 
must agree to indemnify the CFTC for expenses arising from 
litigation relating to information so provided.
    It also amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (SEA) to 
repeal similarly the prerequisite that, before a security-based 
swap data repository may share information with specified 
regulatory entities, such entities must agree to indemnify both 
such repository and the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(SEC) for expenses arising from litigation relating to 
information so provided. (Note: See also the discussion under 
``D. Oversight.'')
            H.R. 4297, Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012
    H.R. 4297 was introduced in the House by Virginia Foxx on 
March 29, 2012 and was referred to Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, 
Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Transportation and 
Infrastructure. On July 7, 2012, the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, held a mark-up of the bill and ordered the 
measure to be reported as amended. The report (H. Rept. 112-
699) was filed on December 5, 2012 and discharged from the 
other committees' on that same day. The measure was placed on 
the Union Calendar (No. 513) on December 14, 2012.
    The Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 amends the 
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) to revise requirements 
and reauthorize appropriations for: (1) WIA title I, workforce 
investment systems for job training and employment services; 
and (2) WIA title II, adult education and family literacy 
education programs.
    The measure revises requirements to: (1) eliminate members 
of the state legislature and representatives of labor 
organizations from state workforce investment boards, and (2) 
specify that representatives of business on a board represent 
large and small businesses with immediate and long-term 
employment opportunities in in-demand industries and other 
occupations important to the state economy.
    H.R. 4297 requires a state board to assist the state 
governor by developing: (1) policies and programs that support 
a comprehensive statewide workforce development system, and (2) 
a statewide workforce and labor market information system.
    It revises requirements for: (1) a state workforce 
development plan; (2) local workforce investment areas, boards, 
and plans; (3) one-stop delivery systems; and (4) the allotment 
of Federal funds among states for employment and training 
activities.
    Specific funding for adult and dislocated worker employment 
and training is eliminated and state use of Federal funds to 
set up a Workforce Investment Fund are specified.
    The measure revises requirements for: (1) within state 
allocations of funds; and (2) the use of funds for state and 
local employment and training activities, including statewide 
rapid response, youth challenge grants, and adults with 
barriers to employment grants.
    It converts the national emergency grants program into a 
national dislocated worker grants program and authorizes the 
Secretary of Labor to award national dislocated worker grants 
to spouses of active duty members of the Armed Forces or full-
time duty members of the National Guard (or members who 
recently separated from such duties) and are in need of 
employment and training assistance to obtain or retain 
employment.
    H.R. 4297 also requires the Employment and Training 
Administration of the Department of Labor to be the principal 
agency to administer WIA title I workforce investment systems 
for job training and employment services and title III (Job 
Corps).
    It revises requirements for the state unified plan for 
adult education and literacy programs.
    The Wagner-Peyser Act is amended to eliminate the U.S. 
Employment Service. The nationwide employment statistics 
system, which the Secretary is required to oversee, with a 
nationwide workforce and labor market information system is 
replaced.
    It repeals the Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 and 
specified other laws.
    H.R. 4297, amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to 
require employment and training services to eligible members of 
households participating in the supplemental nutrition 
assistance program be provided through the statewide workforce 
development system, including the One-Stop delivery system.
    The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA73) is amended to: (1) 
redesignate the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services 
Administration the Director, and (2) require an eligible state 
to use a certain percentage of the Federal share of the cost of 
vocational rehabilitation services to award grants to create 
practical job and career readiness and training programs and 
provide job placements and career advancement.
    It repeals the authority of the Commissioner of the 
Rehabilitation Services Administration in the Department of 
Education to make grants and contracts for: (1) vocational 
rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities who 
are migrant or seasonal farmworkers; (2) recreational programs 
for such individuals; and (3) in-service training of vocational 
rehabilitation personnel.
    Title VI (Employment Opportunities for Individuals with 
Disabilities) of the RA73 is repealed.
    Finally, requirements and reauthorizes appropriations for 
vocational rehabilitation services under the RA73 are revised.
            H.R. 6083, Federal Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012
    H.R. 6083 was introduced in the House by Chairman Frank D. 
Lucas on July 9, 2012 and was referred to the House Committee 
on Agriculture. The Committee held a mark-up on July 11, 2012 
and ordered the bill reported as amended by a recorded vote of 
35 yeas to 11 nays. The bill was officially reported to the 
House on September 13, 2012 (H. Rept. 112-669) and placed on 
the Union Calendar (No. 481) the same day.
    The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act 
(FARRM) is the product of nearly three years of deliberations, 
including 46 House hearings and audits, a joint deficit 
reduction proposal developed between leaders of the House and 
Senate Committees on Agriculture, and, ultimately, Committee 
consideration and passage on an overwhelming and bipartisan 
basis. As measured by the length of the Committee's 
consideration and by the depth of its evaluation, having fully 
examined the purpose and effectiveness of each and every 
authority under the jurisdiction of the Committee, FARRM is the 
product of extensive analysis and research.
    Once enacted into law, the Congressional Budget Office 
(CBO) estimates that FARRM will yield taxpayers more than $35 
billion in deficit reduction. FARRM proposes to achieve these 
substantial budget savings through significant reform. FARRM 
repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs, saves $16 
billion from SNAP by curbing abuse, eliminates Direct Payments 
and reforms commodity policy at a savings of more than $14 
billion, saves another $6 billion by consolidating 23 
conservation programs into 12, and brings about long overdue 
regulatory relief for farmers and ranchers. The Committee 
believes that if all committees of congress and all functions 
of government underwent the review, reform, and reductions that 
this Committee has imposed upon policies under its 
jurisdiction, the United States would be well on its way to a 
smaller government and a balanced budget.

                      Title I--Commodities

    For its share, Title I sustains a 37.5 percent reduction. 
These savings are accomplished through a complete reform of 
U.S. farm policy, repealing all of current policy under Title I 
relative to row crops, except for the marketing loan which is 
maintained with an adjustment to the cotton loan in order to 
address a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute. In lieu of 
current policy, producers are given a choice between two less 
expensive risk management options under Title I as well as some 
additional tools to manage risk that producers may purchase 
under Federal Crop Insurance.
    Upon FARRM's passage, Title I and Federal Crop Insurance 
will have been cut by more than $30 billion over the past seven 
years, contributing $24 billion to deficit reduction. This 
reduction in funding stands in contrast to the rising costs of 
other functions of the U.S. government. Additionally, foreign 
subsidies and tariffs are trending sharply upward according to 
two independent reports issued during the Committee's 
development of FARRM, which serve as prescient reminders of 
both the appropriateness of and need for U.S. farm policy.
    The resilience and strength of the U.S. farm sector over 
much of the past decade, its contribution to two economic 
recoveries and millions of on and off-farm jobs, and its 
positive contribution to the nation's balance of trade have 
been acknowledged by both proponents and opponents of U.S. farm 
policy, but for purposes of advancing very different 
objectives. Relatively strong crop prices and production 
experienced over the past ten years have been viewed by 
opponents as obviating the need for much or even all of farm 
policy, while proponents have pointed to the current policy's 
evident success in creating a positive business environment at 
low cost to the taxpayer--only a small fraction of 1 percent of 
the Federal budget. Ultimately, Mother Nature is weighing in on 
the dispute, imposing a widespread and severe drought that 
currently grips at least 29 states. This serves as a reminder 
of the unique risks farmers and ranchers face that necessitate 
effective U.S. farm policy.
    Robust prices for at least some crops, in part brought on 
by the drought, will undoubtedly serve as a straw man for those 
who might still contend that the significant savings and 
reforms achieved by FARRM are insufficient, that the deficit 
and growing national debt demand even more. Those without the 
benefit of history may find this argument compelling. However, 
the nation's experience with the past three farm bills leads to 
a different conclusion. While the 1996 farm bill was predicated 
on forecasts of high prices that ultimately plunged, resulting 
in billions of dollars in additional costs, the 2002 and 2008 
farm bills were predicated on or at least designed to deal with 
dramatic price declines that ultimately never materialized, 
yielding substantially lower costs to taxpayers. Prudent policy 
and honest budgeting, informed by these experiences, directed 
the Committee to couple the fiscal successes of the previous 
two farm bills with the market-orientation and regulatory 
relief of the 1996 law in order to accomplish significant 
savings and reform.
    It is in the context of these overarching objectives that 
the Committee took into consideration the substantive policy 
priorities of all those impacted by a farm bill, including the 
nation's farmers and ranchers. Relative to the farm safety net, 
despite what seemed at times to be a cacophony of views, 
several key themes constantly emerged.
    The first and most widely shared theme is that Congress 
should do no harm to Federal Crop Insurance. The cuts made in 
the 2008 farm bill, the cuts made unilaterally by the 
Administration just two years later in its renegotiation of the 
Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA), and dramatic policy 
changes elsewhere in the administration of crop insurance, 
raised the alarm that 32 years of progress in making crop 
insurance the cornerstone of U.S. farm policy it is today could 
be jeopardized. One of the most significant challenges the 
Committee faced was honoring producer priority to protect crop 
insurance while also satisfying the wishes of some producers 
who wanted a revenue-based program offered under Title I, goals 
which are to some extent at cross purposes due to interaction.
    The second and third themes--producer choice and price 
protection respectively--are also widely held, though there are 
earnest differences as to approach. From hearings held in all 
regions of the country, it was evident that producers were 
uncomfortable with Washington creating a one-size-fits-all 
approach to Title I. It would be a mistake, however, to 
interpret the concern on the part of these producers as being 
interested in a choice simply for the sake of being allowed to 
make one. Even among producer groups and producers who 
expressed a common preference for revenue-based support under 
the commodity title, differences were sufficient to produce two 
alternate options that farmers could choose from under the 
Senate farm bill.
    However, it is price protection that is at the heart of 
producers' interest in choice. For producers of some crops, 
limited variances in yield from year to year greatly diminished 
the value of a farm policy based on revenue because their peril 
was not revenue but rather price. Although frequently 
mischaracterized as a regional divide separating northern and 
southern producers and crops, omission of a price-based 
alternative to revenue-based programs would disenfranchise 
producers of every crop from every region who contended that 
the farm bill's primary purpose is to address long-term price 
declines.
    In regard to cotton policy, the Committee weighed the 
options carefully in light of ongoing efforts to resolve the 
WTO dispute with Brazil. As the report to the 2008 farm bill 
chronicles, very substantial changes have been made to U.S. 
cotton policy to address the WTO complaint, including in the 
2006 budget reconciliation and the 2008 farm bill. These 
reforms to U.S. cotton policy have occurred alongside major 
changes in cotton prices, reductions in U.S. cotton acreage and 
increases in Brazil cotton acreage, as well as increases in 
Brazilian support for its producers since the time the Brazil 
cotton case was initiated. The fundamental change in U.S. 
cotton policy included in the House farm bill eliminates any 
objectionable remnant of that policy.
    In relation to rules of eligibility, as part of overall 
reform efforts, the Committee reluctantly imposes a lower 
adjusted gross income (AGI) means test that is uniform to all 
income sources for the commodity programs in Title I and for 
Title II conservation programs. AGI rules were sharply lowered 
four years ago in the 2008 farm bill and changed again just 
last year as part of the annual appropriations process. 
However, the Committee does maintain reasonable payment 
limitations and rules that allow producers to share the risks 
of farming with family members and do so without confronting 
new obstacles and added layers of bureaucratic red tape.
    Finally, the Committee considered and rejected proposed 
changes to U.S. sugar policy that would have reverted the 
policy to 1985. U.S. sugar policy has operated at zero cost to 
taxpayers and is projected to remain a zero cost policy into 
the future. Under WTO and NAFTA commitments, the United States 
is the biggest importer of sugar in the world and has a totally 
open market with Mexico. However, heavily subsidized and 
protected foreign sugar producing countries distort global 
markets, alternately shorting world supplies and driving up 
prices or glutting world supplies and depressing prices, 
divorced from real market forces. U.S. sugar policy allows 
highly efficient U.S. producers to remain competitive on a 
lopsided global playing field while providing safe, low cost 
sugar to consumers.

     Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs

    The Committee reported bill maintains existing disaster 
assistance for livestock producers when their livestock die due 
to severe weather, disease, or other acts of nature. It also 
continues assistance for natural disasters that destroy forage 
used for grazing, honey bees, farm fish, orchard trees, and 
nursery trees. The Livestock Indemnity Program, the Livestock 
Forage Disaster Program, Emergency Assistance for Livestock, 
Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised, and the Tree Assistance Program 
are established and proven programs in the livestock and the 
orchard & nursery tree sectors.
    Rapidly rising input costs, volatile export markets, 
natural disasters, and other unpredictable factors present 
production risks to animal agriculture. The emerging drought in 
the summer of 2012 is an example of an unpredictable event with 
the potential to upset business models and adversely affect 
producers and consumers. Many crops have access to insurance 
products that help them manage this production risk. The 
Committee applauds the efforts of the animal agriculture 
community to explore such products as evidenced by a number of 
reports called for in this legislation, including swine 
catastrophic disease loss, poultry business interruption, and 
poultry catastrophic disease loss insurance
    Unless and until additional insurance products can be 
developed and adopted by the livestock sector, these programs 
will be a vital tool to help manage production risks and 
protect animal agriculture, and ultimately consumers, from the 
consequences natural disasters.
    In the case of orchardists and nursery tree growers who 
produce trees, bushes and vines for commercial purposes, the 
Tree Assistance Program helps them replant trees, bushes and 
vines destroyed by natural disasters.

                Dairy Margin Protection Program

    The failure of existing dairy programs to address the 
challenges faced by dairy farmers in recent years led the 
Committee to reconsider the best means for managing price 
volatility and producer risk in the dairy sector.
    Current dairy programs focus on price support. While milk 
prices were mostly stable when these supports were first 
enacted, annual fluctuations in farm milk prices are now 
routine, with milk prices regularly moving between lows and 
record or near-record highs over the past decade. In 2009, the 
dairy industry suffered dramatic losses, as dairy prices fell 
sharply from record highs in 2007-2008 at a time when feed 
costs were rising substantially above long-run averages.
    While milk price is an important factor for the financial 
success of dairy producers, another significant factor is the 
cost of dairy feed, which accounts for about \3/4\ of a dairy 
farm's operating costs or about \1/2\ of total costs.
    In light of these considerations, focus has shifted to a 
safety net that is centered on a ``milk margin.'' The margin is 
the amount available to pay all other costs once the feed bill 
is paid and can be calculated by subtracting a national feed 
cost from the national farm milk price.
    The dairy margin protection program is designed to address 
both catastrophic conditions, which can result in the severe 
loss of equity for dairy farmers, such as those witnessed in 
2009, as well as long periods of low margins, such as those 
experienced in 2002.
    For producers who elect to participate, basic catastrophic 
coverage will be provided at no cost. According to testimony 
from Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) 
dairy economist, Dr. Scott Brown, to the House Agriculture 
Committee's Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, 
``Although base program coverage comes at no cost to producers, 
the probability of receiving a large payment from the base 
program is small.''
    Participating producers who exercise their option to buy 
supplemental margin protection coverage will be able to access 
a specific level and amount of risk management protection that 
is tailored to their farms' risk management needs. By offering 
a lower premium on supplemental coverage for the first 4 
million pounds of production, the Committee has incentivized 
producers of all sizes to utilize this risk management tool on 
at least a portion of their production.

               Dairy Market Stabilization Program

    Voluntary participation in the margin protection program 
requires producers to be subject to the dairy market 
stabilization program. According to testimony from the National 
Milk Producers Federation to the House Agriculture Committee's 
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, ``The purpose of 
the program is to make what occurs naturally in the marketplace 
occur sooner and faster and reducing price volatility. It also 
reduces that cost of the margin program resulting in savings 
compared to current dairy programs. The simple fact of the 
matter is that dairy farmers and the cooperatives they own bear 
the burden of balancing the supply of milk with processor 
demand for that milk.''
    In order to address the concern about the effect a supply 
management program may have on the U.S. dairy industry growing 
export potential, the program incorporates a series of 
qualifiers that would prevent any reduction in domestic supply 
of milk if the U.S. and world prices misaligned.
    According to testimony from FAPRI dairy economist, Dr. 
Scott Brown, to the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee 
on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, when the stabilization 
program operates, it lasts a very short period of time because 
of the world price triggers. Dr. Brown's analysis used a 
stochastic model to draw 500 alternatives for the conditioning 
variables in determining the dairy baseline, which incorporate 
historical distributions of the conditioning factors to make 
certain any historical correlation in these conditioning 
factors is included. None of the 500 potential outcomes show 
long-term multi-year operation of the program.

         Repeal of Dairy Product Price Support Program

    The Dairy Product Price Support Program was created in 1949 
as a means to help provide government support for farm-level 
milk prices through government purchases of dairy products. 
During most of its lifespan, the program targeted a set milk 
price, and later established pricing targets for Federal 
purchases of key products, such as cheese, butter, and nonfat 
milk powder, that would help support that milk price. In the 
2008 Farm Bill, the program was altered to support specific 
product price levels.
    Many in the dairy industry have advocated for the repeal of 
this program for several reasons. First, it supports dairy 
farmers all around the world, including America's competitors. 
The current program helps balance world supplies by encouraging 
the periodic global surplus of milk products to be purchased by 
U.S. taxpayers. As a result, dairy farmers in other countries, 
particularly the Oceania region, enjoy as much price protection 
from the program as our own U.S. farmers.
    Second, the program has reduced total demand for U.S. dairy 
products by diverting some of the U.S. milk products into 
government warehouses, rather than to commercial buyers. It 
creates a dynamic where it is more difficult for the U.S. to be 
a consistent supplier of many products, since sometimes the 
domestic industry has products to export, and at other times, 
it is easier for the domestic industry to just sell its product 
to the government.
    Third, the program disincentivizes product innovation by 
creating a government market for products that the marketplace 
doesn't want. For example, because the government purchases 
nonfat dry milk, too much of this is produced instead of 
protein-standardized skim milk powder, as well as specialty 
milk proteins, such as milk protein concentrates, which are in 
demand both domestically and internationally.
    Also, USDA only buys products of certain size and packaging 
specifications. Once purchased, nonfat dry milk powder 
returning back to the market from government storage also 
presents challenges, dampening the recovery of prices.
    Finally, the program seeks to achieve price levels are no 
longer relevant to farmers, as the price support levels have 
been considerably less than the cost of production for many 
years. As demonstrated by the dairy crisis of 2009, this 
program was not an effective safety net.

          Repeal of Milk Income Loss Contract Program

    The Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program is a price-
based safety net, which is ineffective for today's dairy 
producers.
    Since the inception of MILC, large dairy farm operators 
have expressed concern that the payment limit has negatively 
affected their income. For larger farm operations, their annual 
production is well above the limit, and any in excess of that 
receives no risk protection. Limiting the level of protection 
to a maximum of 2.985 million pounds of milk a year provides a 
safety net for less than 30 percent of the total milk produced 
in the U.S.
    Despite the feed cost adjustor that was added in the 2008 
farm bill, MILC does not adequately offset high feed costs. If 
milk prices are at average levels and feed costs are high, 
farmers can suffer substantial losses and still not receive any 
assistance from MILC. The feed cost adjustment program does not 
go into effect until the standard feed ration reaches $147 per 
ton, and it also only covers about 30 percent of the feed price 
increase above this level.
    The inadequacy of MILC as a safety net was most evident 
through most of 2008, when high feed costs overwhelmed average 
milk prices and put most farmers into a deep hole without the 
help of any MILC payments.

            Repeal of Dairy Export Incentive Program

    The Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) has generally 
been used in concert with the dairy price support program. As 
such, it has only been made available in a very limited way 
after the price support program has begun purchasing and 
storing dairy products.
    Instead of expanding world markets for U.S. dairy products 
which requires a long-term commitment to serving those markets, 
the U.S. government has only used DEIP either in response to 
heavy European subsidization of dairy exports or as an 
alternative to storing products under the price support 
program. The program generates a baseline cost without 
providing any consistent, meaningful return to the U.S. dairy 
sector.

           Extension of Dairy Forward Pricing Program

    The ability for producers and processors to manage price 
risk is limited under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. 
By extending the dairy forward pricing program, producers and 
processors will be able to continue to make use of forward 
contracting to manage price risk, without the practice being 
found a violation of the requirements of marketing orders. The 
program is strictly voluntary and will only apply to Classes 
II, III and IV milk.

              Extension of Dairy Indemnity Program

    The Dairy Indemnity Program provides payments to dairy 
producers who have been directed by a public regulatory agency 
to remove their milk from the commercial market because it has 
been contaminated by pesticides, toxic substances, and/or 
chemical residues. Because such events can be devastating to 
the financial well-being of producers through no fault of their 
own, the Committee proposes to extend the program's 
authorization through FY 2017.

       Extension of Dairy Promotion and Research Program

    The Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 authorized a 
national producer program for dairy product promotion, 
research, and education to increase human consumption of milk 
and dairy products and reduce milk surpluses. Under the 
program, promotion and research is conducted to strengthen the 
dairy industry's position in the marketplace and to maintain 
and expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for fluid milk 
products and dairy products produced in the United States.

              Federal Milk Marketing Order Review

    The 2008 farm bill revised the Federal milk marketing order 
amendment procedures in order to streamline and expedite the 
amendment process. As there continues to be interest in 
marketing order reform, stakeholders are encouraged to make use 
of this administrative process, which allows for petition of 
the Secretary at any time and a hearing process whereby 
producers and processors can provide input. The House 
Agriculture Committee continues to provide oversight of this 
process and refrain from any legislative changes to the order 
system until stakeholders have exhausted their administrative 
remedies.

                     Title II--Conservation

    The conservation title authorizes cost-share and technical 
assistance for farmers, ranchers, foresters, and landowners 
through voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs. 
Through these programs, producers protect and restore water 
quality and quantity, air quality, wildlife habitat and address 
regulatory requirements while providing a safe, abundant, and 
affordable food supply. The conservation programs have grown in 
size and significance in recent farm bills.
    The Food Security Act of 1985 authorized several 
conservation measures intended to address concerns about the 
impact of agricultural production on soil erosion and wetland 
loss. The 1996 Farm Bill took the groundbreaking step of 
consolidating previously discretionary funded programs into one 
new program funded with mandatory money from the Commodity 
Credit Corporation (CCC). The program created, the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), is one of the 
most successful and popular programs among farmers and 
ranchers.
    During consideration of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002, budget circumstances allowed for the 
expansion of conservation programs with the addition of $17.5 
billion to the conservation baseline for the life of the 2002 
Bill and the out-year baseline as well. The Conservation 
Security Program was created.
    Despite budget pressures, the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008 increased conservation spending by nearly 
$4.5 billion during the life of the bill and created new 
targeted conservation programs such as the Chesapeake Bay 
Program, the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative 
(CCPI), and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). 
However, the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), the Grassland 
Reserve Program (GRP), the Small Watershed Rehabilitation 
Program, and the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive 
Program remained without adequate baselines given the demand 
and interest in these programs.
    The Committee recognizes that these programs serve as a 
foundation for improved conservation efforts. The Committee's 
priority to assist farmers and ranchers in addressing 
environmental regulations and conservation needs has not 
changed. The Committee reported bill maintains the core 
functions and goals of the conservation title while eliminating 
or combining 23 duplicative and overlapping programs into 13 
programs to allow for streamlined delivery, while also 
providing $6.1 billion in savings below baseline funding.

               Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

    The Committee strongly supports the Conservation Reserve 
Program as one of the main pillars of cost-effective 
conservation available to farmers and ranchers. However, 
through the hearing process, the Committee recognized that 
market pressures are moving land into production. Maximum 
enrollment of CRP is incrementally stepped down to 25 million 
acres allowing enrollment to focus on the most environmentally 
sensitive lands. Additionally, the Committee reported bill 
further addresses this issue by directing the Secretary to 
conduct a onetime early out of land that is not considered 
environmentally sensitive.
    The reported bill directs the Secretary to reserve two 
million acres under CRP for working grassland contracts to 
capture land that was previously eligible under GRP. The 
reported bill further directs USDA to provide landowners with 
added flexibility to better manage their enrolled acres with 
managed activities such as haying and grazing or in the cases 
of drought or other emergencies.
    To ensure that environmental benefits are maintained, the 
reported bill gives expiring CRP acres priority consideration 
for working grassland contracts, and the Conservation 
Stewardship Program, as well as the ability to enter into 
contracts under working land programs before the CRP contract 
expires. Beginning farmers or ranchers will continue to be 
eligible for greater access to productive land with the 
continuation of the Transition Incentives Program (TIP).
    The Committee is concerned that USDA has not been fully 
utilizing CRP technical assistance authorities and funding 
enacted by the 2008 Farm Bill for agency infrastructure, 
including outreach, training, and other technical services. The 
Committee expects USDA to better utilize this authority for 
internal support and to support outreach and partnership with 
non-governmental organizations and other qualified entities to 
ensure that producers and landowners are fully aware of their 
options under the program.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to, 
within one year of enactment, report to Congress on the quality 
of land currently enrolled in CRP based on the land capability 
classification system, the erodibility index, other eligible 
lands criteria, and natural resource benefits. The report 
should include justification for using the prescribed 
environmental benefits index threshold for any acres enrolled 
into the program after enactment. The Secretary shall complete 
such a report five years thereafter and include the same 
information on land quality and decisions to enroll types of 
acres based on the environmental benefits index. If the 
decision is made to use a different environmental benefits 
index threshold or methodology for making decisions to enroll 
program contracts, reasons for the decision should be included 
in the report.
    Additionally the Committee directs the Secretary of 
Agriculture, within two years of enactment, to complete a 
comprehensive economic impact study that specifically evaluates 
the impact the CRP has had on rural communities. The report 
should include the average county rental rates and rental rates 
paid for CRP land.
    While the Committee agreed to an overall reduction in the 
maximum acres that could be enrolled in CRP, this should not 
serve as an indicator of declining or reduced support for CRP. 
The Committee intends for CRP to be implemented at authorized 
levels, and for the program to continue as one of USDA's key 
conservation programs. Because there are widespread concerns 
that CRP rental rates are below prevailing local market levels, 
USDA shall update rental rates annually and use incentive 
payments for continuous CRP practices to make the program 
competitive with other programs and more economically viable 
for producers.

             Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

    The Conservation Stewardship Program encourages producers 
to adopt new conservation measures while maintaining current 
practices to protect natural resources. The Committee 
encourages the Secretary to place emphasis on adopting new 
practices; with new contracts addressing at least one 
additional priority resource concern and renewing contracts 
that address at least two priority resource concerns.
    The Committee intends for the supplemental payment to 
encourage producers to adopt new, additional beneficial crop 
rotations that provide significant conservation benefits. The 
payments are to be available to producers across the country 
and should not be limited to a particular crop, cropping 
system, or region of the country. In the Southeast, peanuts are 
an example of a crop that responds well to increased rotation 
lengths, which help peanut producers, conserve water, more 
effectively control disease, and reduce inputs to control 
disease and increase productivity. Alfalfa is another important 
rotation crop in many parts of the country and plays a role in 
adding value to a producers' operation as well as providing 
natural resource benefits. The Committee recognizes sorghum's 
very significant contributions to resource conservation as a 
water-conserving crop and expects the Secretary to include 
sorghum in any supplemental payments for resource conserving 
crop rotations made available under the CSP, in addition to 
maximizing sorghum's role in achieving the purposes of the 
Regional Conservation Partnership Program and the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program.
    The Committee believes conservation programs as implemented 
by USDA should recognize the use of innovative technology such 
as enhanced efficiency fertilizers. Enhanced efficiency 
fertilizers, which reduce nitrate losses to the environment, 
help protect water quality, and reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, include slow- and controlled-release fertilizers 
(absorbed, coated, occluded or reacted) and stabilized nitrogen 
fertilizers (nitrification inhibitors and nitrogen stabilizers) 
and are recognized by NRCS' 590 National Nutrient Standard and 
by State regulators of fertilizers.

        Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

    The Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides cost 
share incentives to producers to meet or avoid the need for 
national, state, or local regulation. Under the Committee 
reported bill, EQIP will provide additional incentives for 
wildlife by consolidating the functions of the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program (WHIP) and requiring 5% of the program 
funding to go towards wildlife habitat incentives.
    The Committee addresses the concerns heard in hearings and 
field hearings regarding beginning farmers by maintaining set-
asides for beginning farmers or ranchers and socially 
disadvantaged producers while including a priority for veteran 
farmers. Producers under these set-asides would also be 
eligible to have up to 50% of up-front project costs covered in 
advance
    The Committee recognizes the broad responsibilities of the 
EQIP program and the great work that it does in promoting 
environmental stewardship among livestock and poultry farmers 
around the country and maintains that 60% of allocation go 
towards these producers. Within six months of enactment, the 
Committee requests from USDA a report on funds spent over the 
duration of the last Farm Bill and on whether NRCS has met its 
statutory obligations. Additionally, the Committee encourages 
NRCS to evaluate its education program and make sure that it is 
providing all potential users within each state an opportunity 
to become educated about the EQIP program and how each farmer 
can incorporate EQIP into their farm stewardship management 
plans. . The Committee also requests a comprehensive breakdown 
of practices used and how each state spent its allocated funds 
to also be included in the report.
    The program maintains the Conservation Innovation Grant 
(CIG) subprogram to promote new and innovative conservation 
practices. The reported bill directs the secretary to report to 
the Committee every two years on project funding and results of 
projects authorized under CIG. The Committee intends for 
increased transparency over innovative conservation projects 
and monitoring that these innovative conservation practices are 
later incorporated into common conservation practices.
    The Committee reported bill does not reauthorize the Air 
Quality Initiative; however, the Committee intends for EQIP to 
continue to provide financial assistance to producers operating 
in nonattainment areas to make air quality improvements, 
including reducing emissions from mobile or stationary sources, 
to help them comply with Federal air quality standards and 
associated requirements or regulations.

        Agriculture Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)

    The Committee reported bill addresses duplication and 
funding issues identified with FRPP, WRP, and GRP by 
consolidating their functions into one easement program for 
streamlined and flexible administration. ACEP consolidates all 
easement programs into one umbrella program with two legs: (1) 
Agriculture Land Easements (ALE) to protect grasslands or 
farmland from non-agriculture development and (2) Wetlands 
Easements to restore, maintain, and protect wetlands.
    The reported bill establishes that the Federal match of ALE 
will not exceed 50% of the eligible land's fair market value. 
However, the Committee recognizes that historically the 
purchase of grasslands easements have occurred with a higher 
Federal match. The reported bill gives the Secretary the 
authority to pay up to 75% of the fair market value to address 
the purchase of grassland easements.
    The Committee directs the Secretary, at a national level, 
to reserve 40% of allocations for agriculture land easements 
until 2016 and 50% in 2017. The Committee intends that states 
will have the flexibility to allocate funding as appropriate to 
address the eligible lands in their region.

        Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)

    The Committee understands that a targeted approach to 
conservation practices can achieve a greater conservation 
benefit. The Committee is also cognizant of specific regions of 
the country that are under significant regulatory pressure or 
have serious concerns regarding specific natural resources. The 
Committee reported bill creates the Regional Conservation 
Partnership Program by consolidating four programs into one 
targeted initiative that leverages USDA funding and resources 
by partnering with private organizations to address natural 
resource concerns.
    The Committee eliminates the Agricultural Water Enhancement 
(AWEP) Program, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, the 
Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiatives (CCPI) 
Program, and the Great Lakes Basin Program. However, the 
functions of each of these programs are still necessary and the 
Committee intends for the Secretary to capture their functions 
in the implementation of the RCPP. Eligible conservation 
practices implemented currently through these programs should 
be continued under the new consolidated program.
    Targeted conservation initiatives will be developed on the 
local level and selected by USDA through a competitive, merit 
based application process. All resource concerns should hold 
equal weighting. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
distribute funding equitably across the nation and to not 
ignore different natural resource concerns that may be unique 
to each region.
    The Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to only 
choose partners who have a successful history of working with 
agriculture producers.
    Additionally, USDA may designate Critical Conservation 
Areas to target conservation programs in regions under 
significant regulatory pressure. The Committee reported bill 
has set allocation levels for the state and national levels in 
addition to the Critical Conservation areas to help address 
priorities.

                  Funding and Administration.

    Section 2607 of the Committee reported bill combines 
language on improved administrative efficiency and streamlining 
from individual programs and places it here to apply to all 
conservation programs. It expands and clarifies requirements 
for developing a streamlined conservation application process. 
It clarifies that any payment received under this title is in 
addition to and does not affect total payments that an owner or 
operator is otherwise eligible to receive. The Committee 
encourages the Secretary to significantly increase the use of 
computer-based conservation practice planning tools that 
incorporate Light Detection and Ranging elevation data to 
modernize and simplify conservation planning, improve 
efficiency of technical assistance, and improve service to 
private landowners.

                        Title III--Trade

 Humanitarian Assistance and Agricultural Development Programs

    The United States provides nearly half of all food aid 
provided around the world through emergency humanitarian 
responses and non-emergency, agricultural development programs. 
The Committee reported bill modifies the general authorities in 
Title II of the Food for Peace Act to place a greater emphasis 
on projects which focus on building resiliency in the recipient 
population where food shortfalls and droughts are common.
    The Committee reported bill adjusts the maximum allowable 
level of cash assistance for administrative and programmatic 
costs in Title II of the Food for Peace Act to ensure that 
scarce cash resources are made available only for costs and 
expenses which cannot be readily funded through the 
monetization process in the first period of a new project. The 
Committee expects USAID to closely evaluate its guidance and 
approval process to ensure that direct and indirect program 
costs are clearly defined and to ensure that administrative 
costs in the programs are minimized.
    In May 2011 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
completed a report which cites deficiencies in the nutrition 
and quality controls of U.S. food aid commodities. Included in 
this report are recommendations that USAID review food aid 
packaging, track food aid quality throughout the supply chain, 
and ensure that available food aid commodities meet the 
nutritional needs of recipients. The Committee notes that USAID 
has sufficient and specific authority to address the 
recommendations made by GAO, and expects USAID to build strong 
public-private partnerships with food manufacturers and other 
stakeholders to more quickly address the deficiencies 
highlighted in the May 2011 report using currently available 
studies on food aid quality and nutrition. The Committee 
reported bill reauthorizes funding at a lower level for these 
activities to encourage USAID to focus on deploying food aid 
products already developed under this authority.
    The Committee reported bill directs USDA and USAID to 
establish a formal mechanism by which new products will be 
approved through both agencies in a timely manner. In the view 
of the Committee, USDA and USAID are not coordinating 
sufficiently and should quickly modify the interagency process 
to ensure new food aid commodities are made available to 
appropriately target recipient populations. In support of 
efforts to provide appropriate commodities to vulnerable 
populations, authority is extended for shelf-stable, 
prepackaged foods and micronutrient fortification of food aid 
commodities.
    The Committee notes that while USAID places significant 
burdens for success of programs upon implementing partners and 
other stakeholders, feedback from these groups through the Food 
Aid Consultative Group (FACG) is not adequately incorporated 
into program guidelines. The Committee reported bill instructs 
USAID to give sufficient notice of changes to the FACG before 
new guidance is finalized, and requires new guidance to be 
promulgated in a timely manner after any changes to the Food 
for Peace Act.
    Authority is extended for the Famine Early Warning System 
Network to provide advance information to more quickly and 
effectively respond to an emerging crisis. However, the 
Committee is disappointed in efforts by USAID to complete 
implementation of new information technology systems authorized 
in previous legislation. No additional funding is provided for 
new information technology systems, and the Committee fully 
expects USAID to complete development and management of those 
systems without additional Food for Peace resources.
    Funding is continued for additional monitoring and 
evaluation of programs at a level which reflects resources 
available for Food for Peace programs. The Committee reported 
bill also requires that USAID report on the monitoring and 
evaluation activities actually conducted. In 2009 GAO concluded 
that monitoring of programs was inconsistent and that program 
management was not modified to reflect information gained from 
the monitoring and evaluation conducted by or for USAID. 
Through provisions in the Committee reported bill, the 
Committee expects USAID to make significant improvements in 
program guidance based on the monitoring and evaluation 
conducted.
    In June 2011 GAO reported on inefficiencies and adverse 
impacts of monetization. The Committee agrees that both USDA 
and USAID should have consistent policies governing both 
agencies monetization activities. The Committee reported bill 
requires that USAID consider the benefits of monetization when 
considering a proposal under Food for Peace. The Committee 
notes existing requirements for USDA and USAID to approve only 
those sales which will not disrupt the usual marketing and 
processing of commodities in the recipient country, and 
clarifies that commodities should be sold at a fair market 
value.
    Recognizing the necessity of responding quickly to 
humanitarian emergencies, authority is increased for the 
prepositioning of food aid commodities which allows USAID to 
increase the number of prepositioning sites, as appropriate.
    The Committee reported bill reduces the authorized level of 
funding for the Food for Peace Act while extending sufficient 
authority to provide funding above the ten year average 
appropriation. The Committee recognizes the importance of non-
emergency agricultural development programs to create resilient 
communities in vulnerable populations, and extends minimum 
levels of funding to support development activities.
    The Committee is disappointed that the report on local and 
regional purchase of food aid commodities, which was required 
under previous legislation, was not made available to the 
Committee prior to consideration of the bill as introduced. The 
report was expected to quantify the challenges associated with 
relying on purchases of foreign commodities to address acute 
humanitarian needs. The Committee also recognizes that more 
than $300 million in local purchases of commodities is 
routinely carried out under authorities contained in other 
legislation.
    The Committee reported bill increases authority for the 
John Ogonowski and Doug Bereuter Farmer-to-Farmer Program 
contained in the Food for Peace Act to extend the program which 
mobilizes U.S. volunteers from the agricultural industry, 
universities, and nonprofit organizations to assist their 
counterparts in developing and emerging economies.

                         Trade Programs

    The U.S. agricultural industry is highly dependent on 
exports, with nearly \1/3\ of all cash receipts generated from 
international markets. The Committee reported bill ensures that 
U.S. producers are able to capitalize on these opportunities by 
making strategic investments in programs designed to address 
foreign barriers to U.S. exports. Increased margins for U.S. 
farm output translates to greater capital flows back to rural 
America, supporting farms and their rural communities.
    The Market Access Program is reauthorized to provide 
assistance on a cost-share basis, targeting small businesses, 
farmer cooperatives, and nonprofit trade organizations. Private 
contributions are estimated at 60 percent of total annual 
spending on trade promotion and market development, further 
increasing the effectiveness of promotional activities.
    Additional programs which are reauthorized include the 
Foreign Market Development Program which gives preference to 
trade groups which represent an entire industry, Technical 
Assistance for Specialty Crops to address non-tariff trade 
barriers for specialty crop exports, and the Emerging Markets 
Program to promote generic U.S. exports in emerging economies.
    The Committee reported bill also reauthorizes the GSM-102 
program while preserving USDA's authority to manage usage of 
the program to meet certain administrative goals, including the 
ability to adjust tenor and fees associated with guarantees 
made available under the program.
    The Committee recognizes that exports are vitally important 
to the U.S. economy. Given the need to spur economic growth and 
job creation the Committee reported bill amends the Department 
of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to provide for the 
establishment of an Under Secretary of Agriculture for Foreign 
Agricultural Services. The agricultural sector has been and 
continues to be a major contributor to the nation's overall 
level of exports and is one of only a few sectors of the 
economy that traditionally has had a positive net trade 
balance. However, U.S. agricultural exports face increased 
barriers overseas.
    The Committee addresses the need to address tariff and non-
tariff trade barriers for U.S. agricultural exports by 
providing a full time, singular focus on trade and foreign 
agricultural. The Committee expects this new focus to allow 
more effective coordination and to provide a single point of 
contact for resolving internal and external trade and foreign 
agricultural affairs issues through a high level of 
representation for agricultural trade issues within the 
Executive Branch and with Congress, stakeholders, foreign 
governments and international bodies. The Committee does not 
intend for this provision to create the need for additional 
personnel or appropriations for USDA.

                      Title IV--Nutrition

        Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 
formerly known as the food stamp program, has seen 
unprecedented growth over the past ten years and today accounts 
for almost 80 percent of the Committee's mandatory spending. 
Consequently, the Committee agreed to make reforms in SNAP that 
resulted in a reduction of $16 billion over ten years, which is 
a two percent reduction to the program.
    The Committee views these changes as part of its ongoing 
responsibility to ensure that SNAP is of the highest integrity. 
The provisions passed by the Committee will close program 
loopholes; reduce waste, fraud and abuse; and ensure that the 
program continues to serve those who are in need of food 
assistance according to the rule of law. It is the Committee's 
clear intent that families who lawfully qualify for assistance 
under SNAP law are not prevented from receiving their benefits. 
The changes made to SNAP in the 2008 farm bill remain fully 
intact and will continue to benefit SNAP participants.
    The Committee agrees that SNAP provides important support 
for many Americans and these reported provisions further 
protect the program. In order to ensure the integrity of this 
program, the Committee will continue to refine SNAP to better 
target valuable benefits to serve those in need, while making a 
reasonable reduction in the deficit.

   Making Common Sense Reforms and Closing Program Loopholes

    The FARRM Act makes common sense reforms to SNAP 
eligibility. Since passage of the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, states have had 
the option of using ``categorical eligibility,'' or automatic 
eligibility, to streamline SNAP administration for those 
receiving benefits from other low-income assistance programs. 
These other programs are Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or other 
state general assistance programs. TANF assistance can be in 
the form of cash or non-cash benefits (i.e., informational 
brochures, or access to an informational (800) number). When 
states implement ``broad-based'' categorical eligibility, they 
may permit households to use the asset and gross income test of 
the alternate assistance program. As of May 2012, 43 
jurisdictions (40 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and 
the U.S. Virgin Islands) have implemented broad-based 
categorical eligibility. These jurisdictions generally make all 
households with incomes below a state-determined income 
threshold eligible for SNAP.
    The bill would restrict categorical eligibility to only 
those households receiving cash assistance from SSI, TANF, or a 
state-run general assistance program, saving taxpayers $11.5 
billion over ten years. This would disqualify those merely 
receiving a TANF-funded brochure, a referral to an (800) number 
telephone hotline, as well as other non-cash assistance. It is 
estimated that 3.9 percent of the 46.2 million people currently 
enrolled in SNAP would be affected by this provision. Those who 
no longer have categorical eligibility status under the amended 
provision would have the opportunity to be reviewed for SNAP 
eligibility independent of their status as a TANF beneficiary. 
And those who receive cash assistance from SSI, TANF, or a 
state-run general assistance program will still be 
categorically eligible for SNAP.
    Next, the FARRM Act closes a loophole in SNAP regarding how 
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) payments 
interact with SNAP benefit calculation. Current law allows low-
income households receiving any amount of LIHEAP assistance, 
even a nominal payment, to automatically qualify for the SNAP 
Standard Utility Allowance (SUA). In the last several years, 
recipients in approximately 16 states and the District of 
Columbia have qualified for the SNAP SUA under this provision.
    Under current law, if a participant received $1 in LIHEAP, 
they can automatically deduct the SUA from their income. 
Therefore, their net income was reduced, and they subsequently 
received a higher amount in SNAP benefits. Under the 
Committee's reported bill, a household must receive a minimum 
LIHEAP payment of $10 per year to qualify for the SUA 
deduction, thus saving the taxpayers $4.5 billion over ten 
years. The revised provision will not affect any household 
receiving traditional LIHEAP assistance or any household that 
can demonstrate an out-of-pocket utility cost.
    The Committee also eliminated state performance bonuses, 
saving $480 million over ten years. States are responsible for 
administering the SNAP program and are legally bound to process 
applications in a timely manner, ensure households receive the 
accurate amount of SNAP benefits, and make certain the program 
is administered in the most effective and efficient manner. In 
this economic climate the Committee believes it is very 
difficult to justify awarding states bonuses for practices that 
should be the daily operating procedure.

            Cracking Down on Waste, Fraud and Abuse

    The FARRM Act makes significant strides to crack down on 
waste, fraud and abuse within SNAP. The Committee was concerned 
by press reports of two lottery winners, both receiving more 
than $1 million in winnings, who were also found to have been 
receiving SNAP assistance. The bill includes a provision that 
would put an end to millionaire lottery winners receiving SNAP, 
and will prevent them from receiving any benefits if they do 
not meet SNAP eligibility requirements. The Committee is aware 
that the Secretary must define the terms ``substantial lottery 
or gambling winnings'' in order to carry out this provision. 
The Committee intends for the Secretary to establish a 
reasonable threshold for such winnings that balances the need 
to maintain strong program integrity, the ability of states to 
administer the provision, and the burden on SNAP households.
    Furthermore, the legislation requires that state SNAP 
Employment and Training (E&T) programs be limited to assisting 
only those college students enrolled in specific career and 
technical education courses or basic adult education, remedial, 
and literacy courses. The Committee was alarmed to learn that 
some states were taking great liberty in administering their 
SNAP E&T programs; therefore, the Committee took steps to 
ensure only those college students meeting the specified 
criteria could be served by a state's SNAP E&T program. To 
further improve the accountability of the SNAP E&T program, the 
bill requires states to report on how their programs are 
assisting SNAP participants in gaining skills, training, and 
work, or experience that leads to employment.
    The legislation also reduces fraud at retail stores by 
requiring a more rigorous standard for stores to become 
eligible to process SNAP benefits. Retailers will be required 
to stock more foods like fruits and vegetables, with the 
Committee's expectation that retailers can meet this 
requirement by providing products that are fresh, frozen or 
canned. Retailers will be required to pay 100 percent of the 
costs for acquiring and implementing EBT point-of-sale 
equipment. By including this provision, the Committee is 
targeting fraud within the program, and does not intend for 
credit card companies, banks, or others to impose any 
additional fees in regard to the acceptance of SNAP EBT 
benefits. The bill terminates the use of manual vouchers except 
in such circumstances as a disaster or EBT system failure. 
Manual vouchers can serve as a quick-response in emergency 
situations, and the Committee expects vouchers to be used in 
the event of a disaster when power is unavailable for an 
extended period of time.
    The legislation bans stores from participating in SNAP if 
they have significant sales of prohibited items like alcohol 
and tobacco. The Committee is aware that some stores are 
concerned about remaining eligible for the program under this 
change; however, the Committee provides the Secretary with 
discretion to exempt stores from this provision if the store is 
deemed necessary to serve SNAP recipients. The Committee 
expects the Secretary to ensure participants have a choice of 
stores and that there are sufficient options in under-served 
areas.
    Additionally, the Committee expects the Secretary to work 
with retailers and relevant stakeholders in developing 
regulations to implement a unique terminal identification 
system. Credit card associations are considering implementation 
of this practice across the entire retail industry in the near 
future, and it is imperative that the Secretary work with SNAP-
approved retailers to ensure there are no additional costs or 
burdens that are duplicative or inconsistent with common 
commercial practices.
    Recognizing that issuance of SNAP benefits to all 
participants on the same date within a month creates many 
challenges both for suppliers and retailers, the Committee 
directs the Secretary to begin working with states to stagger 
the monthly issuance of SNAP benefits across an entire month 
for new beneficiaries. To prevent disruption, the Committee 
does not expect states to make immediate changes for current 
beneficiaries nor does the Committee suggest a change in 
current policy to allow for more than once-per-month issuance 
of benefits. The Committee encourages the Secretary to work 
with all stakeholders, particularly those within states that 
are in the process of staggering SNAP benefits, to ensure 
distribution is of the greatest benefit to the economy at the 
least cost.
    The FARRM Act recognizes the need to increase the 
Secretary's oversight of those states and territories choosing 
to operate a Restaurant Meals Program strictly for the purpose 
of serving homeless, elderly and disabled participants. 
Currently, states and territories have the option of running 
this program without seeking approval from the Department, 
which has raised the Committee's concern over proper use and 
implementation of this authority. The bill requires those 
states and territories to submit their request as part of their 
state plan and gain approval from the Department before 
implementing a Restaurant Meals Program. The plan must 
demonstrate a need for such a program along with effective 
control measures. If states and territories are found not 
operating the program in a proper manner or do not provide 
sufficient justification for establishing a program, it is the 
Committee's expectation that the Secretary will suspend or not 
approve such programs.
    The Committee is concerned about the use of funds to 
advertise and promote the use of SNAP through the use of 
national outreach funds. Recent news articles have described 
SNAP advertisements airing on the radio and television as well 
as information on the Department's website encouraging the 
enrollment of participants by suggesting that community 
outreach partners ``throw a great party.'' With historically 
high SNAP enrollments, the Committee directs these outreach 
funds to be used towards The Emergency Food Assistance Program 
(TEFAP).
    The bill also expands upon the bipartisan work begun by the 
Committee on Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee to 
allow data both within and across key Federal assistance 
programs to operate more efficiently. These standardization 
activities promote transparency, flexibility, and consistency 
so data can be shared across the various information technology 
platforms established by Federal and state agencies, increasing 
administrative efficiency and reducing improper payments. This 
provision is not intended to provide additional authority to 
standardize data, but to drive the process to occur across 
multiple Federal agencies.
    The bill includes a provision that allows SNAP benefits to 
be used for the purchase of community-supported agriculture 
(CSA) shares. The Committee is aware that the Secretary 
currently permits CSA businesses to participate in SNAP. 
Farmers organized as a CSA can participate in a manner similar 
to farmers' markets; SNAP recipients use SNAP benefits and 
receive eligible food items from the CSA at the time product is 
delivered (i.e., at the point-of-sale). Nonprofit CSAs are 
permitted to accept SNAP benefit payment up to 14 days in 
advance of product delivery. The Committee expects that the 
Secretary will administer this provision in accordance with 
current practice and procedures for authorized community-
supported agriculture businesses.

                 Additional Nutrition Programs

    Food banks have been successful in effectively utilizing 
Federal commodities and securing private sector donations in 
order to feed hungry Americans. However, local food banks have 
been struggling to provide enough food to needy families in the 
current economic climate. Recognizing the challenges food banks 
are facing, the FARRM Act provides an additional $25 million 
per year for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
    Furthermore, it is the intent of the Committee that the 
Secretary purchase and deliver emergency foods so as to 
maximize the continuity of food product flow to emergency 
feeding organizations throughout the year to better enable them 
to meet the need for assistance in local communities, 
particularly in times of high demand. To meet this objective, 
the Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to review 
potential bonus and surplus removal purchases on a real-time 
basis and adjust the timing of mandatory food purchases and 
deliveries to address periods when bonus and specialty crop 
deliveries are expected to be low. Having a more balanced 
delivery of both mandatory and bonus food purchases will enable 
emergency feeding organizations to better serve those in need. 
The Committee also intends for the Secretary to consider the 
cost of regulatory changes on the operation of emergency 
feeding operations in order to prevent such regulatory changes 
from adversely affecting the services provided by the emergency 
feeding organizations. The Committee encourages the Secretary 
to work with emergency feeding organizations to address these 
concerns.
    The FARRM Act makes changes to the Commodity Supplemental 
Food Program (CSFP) that will transition this program into 
serving only the elderly while allowing the small percentage of 
women and children currently enrolled in the program to 
continue to receive services until they have exceeded the age 
of eligibility. The Committee intends that individuals 
participating in CSFP on the day immediately prior to the 
effective date of this provision shall remain eligible until 
such time as an individual is no longer eligible for the 
program in any age or category. For example, a participating 
infant on effective date may remain in the program as he or she 
ages into subsequent age/categories, if otherwise eligible. 
Women and children will all continue to be served by the 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children (WIC), which is more suited to their dietary needs.
    The Committee agreed to increase funding for Community Food 
Projects by an additional $10 million per fiscal year, with \1/
2\ of this increased funding being designated to projects that 
help communities provide incentives for low-income individuals 
to purchase fruits and vegetables. The Committee recognizes 
that there has been tremendous growth in the purchase of 
locally grown fruits and vegetables. Rather than duplicate 
programs, the Committee increased funding for an existing 
program that is flexible and has been successful in helping 
communities address the food and nutritional needs of its 
citizens.
    The FARRM Act also removes the word ``fresh'' from the 
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The purpose of the program 
is to encourage the increased consumption of fruits and 
vegetables in a variety of forms in elementary schools with a 
high number of low-income students. This change will allow 
elementary schools participating in this program to maximize 
their funding by having the option of purchasing fresh, frozen, 
canned, and dried fruits and vegetables. Fruits and vegetables 
in all forms, as emphasized by the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans, provide a variety of micronutrients and fiber that 
are important to maintaining overall health. The Committee 
recognizes the challenges schools face in the storage and 
preparation of fresh foods, and to accommodate those needs, the 
bill provides schools with greater flexibility while still 
serving school children with a variety of nutritious produce. 
The Committee expects the Secretary to inform states and 
schools of this change to the program through notification.
    Additionally, the Committee believes that participants in 
all federally funded nutrition assistance programs deserve 
access to a variety of safe and nutritious food. The 2010 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans recognized that Americans' 
consumption of fruits, vegetables, and fiber is below target, 
and all forms of these products increase the intake of 
essential vitamins and nutrients. The Committee encourages the 
Secretary to include all forms of fruits, vegetables and 
beans--canned, fresh, frozen, and dried--in nutrition 
assistance programs, and to educate program participants that 
all forms of these foods can help them meet the Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans.
    The bill includes a pilot program within the Department of 
Defense (DOD) Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. This pilot 
would allow up to five states to use their DOD Fresh funding 
allocation to source local produce. The Committee expects 
states that are selected to participate in this pilot to use 
this funding solely for the procurement of local fresh fruits 
and vegetables for school children. The Committee also intends 
for the pilots to be carefully evaluated in order to help 
inform future national policy.

                        Title V--Credit

    The House Agriculture Committee understands that access to 
credit is crucial to America's economy as a whole, but more 
importantly to the health and success of family farms, ranches, 
and the entire agricultural sector. To that end, the FARRM Act 
provides greater flexibility to the Farm Service Agency (FSA) 
in facilitating credit programs.
    Under current law, FSA provides Farm Ownership Loans to 
owners of farms. However, when a family forms a separate entity 
for transition or liability reasons, Farm Ownership Loans are 
no longer available to them. By adding ``other legal entities'' 
to the list of eligible borrowers, the Committee reported bill 
enables FSA to assist qualified operating entities with Farm 
Ownership Loans even when the entity does not own real estate 
or is a member of the operating entity thus providing 
flexibility and greater participation to the program.
    The Committee reported bill provides clarification and 
flexibility to the Secretary to adjust experience requirements 
to avoid excluding those who are qualified, but may not be able 
to meet the current 3 year farming or ranching experience 
requirement, thus enabling more young or beginning farmers and 
ranchers to participate in the program.
    The Committee reported bill increases the Conservation Loan 
guarantee amount from 75 to 90 percent (a percentage similar to 
other loan programs), encouraging a larger participation rate 
for beginning farmers and ranchers, while continuing to protect 
priority for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers.
    In an effort to provide greater participation for beginning 
farmers and ranchers and increased flexibility to FSA, the 
Committee reported bill increases the maximum loan value for 
the Down Payment Loan Program from 45 percent of $500,000 to 45 
percent of $667,000.
    Throughout last summer's audit hearings the Committee found 
several areas in which FSA could streamline certain 
administrative mandates. As a result, the Committee repealed 
the Mineral Rights Appraisals requirement for real estate 
loans. Moving forward, this change should reduce costs for both 
the borrower and FSA as third party appraisals could be used in 
some cases instead of FSA having to obtain a new appraisal that 
specifically includes the mineral value.
    Under the current statute, delinquent youth loan borrowers 
are subject to provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement 
Act. This can result in undue hardship, as a youth loan 
recipient could be rendered ineligible for student loans and 
grants, which may prevent them from obtaining higher education. 
The Committee reported bill directs the Secretary, on a case-
by-case basis, to waive the personal liability and cancel any 
remaining debt in situations in which failure was beyond the 
youth's control (i.e., project failure due to disease or 
natural disaster).
    The Committee reported bill directs the Secretary to 
establish a microloan program to better serve young, beginning, 
veteran and urban farmers and ranchers.
    The Committee reported bill directs FSA to prioritize joint 
financing agreements and Down Payment Loans within the Direct 
Farm Ownership Loan program in order to maximize the number of 
borrowers served for a given level of appropriations.
    Under current law, beginning farmer ownership loans are 
limited to applicants who do not own real estate in excess of 
30 percent of the median farm size in the county. In some 
counties however, the median size is so small that an applicant 
cannot qualify if they own any real estate. To that end, the 
Committee reported bill reconciles the median farm size 
limitation by replacing ``median'' with ``average''. In almost 
every county, the average is greater than the median farm size. 
This allows more otherwise qualified applicants to receive 
beginning farmer ownership loans.
    Most FSA loans are available to all agriculture producers, 
no matter if they reside in rural, suburban, or urban areas. 
However, FSA Youth Operating Loans are currently only available 
to youth (ages 10-20) who live in rural areas (areas with 
50,000 or less residents). The Committee reported bill removes 
the ``rural residents'' requirement allowing all youth the 
opportunity to receive a Youth Operating Loan similar to all 
other FSA loans, while continuing to require that youth 
borrowers would need to be under the supervision of an 
organization, such as 4-H, FFA or Boys/Girls Clubs.
    The Committee reported bill makes changes to the loan 
program for purchasers of highly fractionated tribal land to 
ensure that the program meets the needs of tribal members.

                  Title VI--Rural Development

    The Committee reported bill addresses fiscal constraints by 
reducing authorizations for appropriations by more than $1.5 
billion over five years. Based on discussions with 
stakeholders, and in conjunction with the reduced number of 
programs, the Committee expects this action will ensure scarce 
funds are concentrated in the most effective programs.
    In testimony before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on 
Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign 
Agriculture the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
responded to several critical issues in programs operated by 
USDA. Among these was the impact that funding set-asides have 
on the fragmentation of rural development programs, and the 
overlap or duplication across programs. Additional testimony by 
witnesses representing counties, municipalities, and nonprofit 
rural development organizations cited both the confusing number 
of programs and the burden of applying for assistance as a 
major impediment to accessing rural development funding at 
USDA. The Committee agrees with a number of the GAO's 
conclusions and the concerns of municipal organizations. The 
Committee reported bill addresses these concerns by eliminating 
thirteen programs, requiring the Secretary to collect 
information on the success of loans and grants over time, and 
requiring the Secretary to create simplified applications.
    GAO also highlighted a need for measuring the effectiveness 
of rural development programs. Committee passed bill addresses 
this need by requiring the Secretary to collect data regarding 
economic activity created through the loans and grants provided 
to rural communities. The Committee expects these efforts will 
create a harmonized baseline of information for effective use 
by USDA and Congress. It is the intent of the Committee to 
integrate this collected information with program changes and 
rulemaking.
    In testimony reviewing rural development programs in 
advance of formulating the Committee reported bill, 
stakeholders spoke to the importance of regional collaboration 
to create effective outcomes. The Committee recognizes that the 
Secretary can coordinate the efforts of USDA with other Federal 
agencies, and expects the Secretary to ensure rural development 
funds are carefully targeted for the greatest impact possible. 
The Committee reported bill also addresses regional 
collaboration through the reauthorization of the Delta Regional 
Authority, the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority, and 
the State Rural Development Councils.
    Testimony presented to review broadband programs clearly 
indicated a need for transparency through the application 
process for incumbent providers to respond appropriately to 
applications for new funding in their service territory. The 
Committee reported bill addresses this need by authorizing the 
Secretary to establish a process by which incumbent providers 
may submit comments.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of ``Main Street'' 
businesses to rural communities, and that the recent economic 
downturn has reduced the affordability of credit in rural 
areas, putting considerable strain on these small businesses. 
The Committee reported bill addresses this issue through 
changes to the Business & Industry (B&I) Loan Program intended 
to ensure working capital is an eligible use of funds. The 
Committee reported bill also provides flexibility for the 
Secretary to consider accounts receivable for the purposes of 
collateral to allow lenders to help meet the capital needs of 
small businesses in rural areas. The Committee encourages USDA 
to examine additional ways to guarantee lending to small brick-
and-mortar, community-owned businesses, such as an increased 
loan guarantee percentage for smaller loans, a streamlined 
process for making B&I loans of less than $250,000, and making 
operating lines of credit eligible as a program use. 
Additionally, the Committee encourages USDA to better 
coordinate with the Small Business Administration on outreach 
related to the B&I loan guarantee program to rural lenders.
    The Committee recognizes that with over $3 billion in 
pending applications for water and wastewater projects 
throughout rural America, reauthorization of water 
infrastructure programs is a vital component to rural economic 
development. Access to water systems promotes the health of 
rural communities and attracts businesses to invest in 
communities which are well supported by critical 
infrastructure. To address the current backlog, the Committee 
passed bill directs USDA to maximize the use of guarantees 
through private or cooperative lenders for projects for larger 
communities. The Committee expects these provisions to leverage 
available funds to serve more communities than might otherwise 
be served solely through direct loans.

      Title VII--Research, Extension, and Related Matters

  Option To Not Be Included as Hispanic-Serving Agricultural 
                     College or University

    The Committee recognizes that for institutions with degree 
programs in the agricultural sciences that qualify as a 
Hispanic Serving Institution under the Higher Education Act of 
1965, the subsequent automatic qualification as a Hispanic 
Serving Agricultural College or University then precludes that 
institution from qualification as a Non-Land-Grant College of 
Agriculture. The Committee does not take a position on how an 
institution should be designated, but has provided that 
Hispanic Serving Institutions with degree programs in the 
agricultural sciences may choose which designation they wish to 
be considered under for purposes of access to program funding 
eligibility.

   National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and 
                    Economics Advisory Board

    The National Agricultural Research, Education, Extension, 
and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB) was created in 1996. 
The NAREEEAB replaced an existing user's advisory board and 
consolidated the functions of numerous other boards, task 
forces and counsels. This advisory board has since served as 
the principal advisory mechanism to the Secretary, Under 
Secretary, agency administrators and the Congress on all 
aspects of the Research, Education and Economics (REE) mission 
area.
    In creating the NAREEEAB, the Congress intended for this 
board to recommend policies, identify short and long term 
national priorities for REE programs, and to evaluate program 
results and effectiveness among other assigned duties. The 
Congress has since added multiple duties and consultative 
functions to the Board's mandate. In doing so, the Committee is 
aware that the work load and learning curve of the volunteer 
members is high. It has become apparent to the Committee that 
it can take several years for new board members to become 
comfortable not only with the diverse subject matter under 
review, but likewise the law and administrative functions they 
are required to evaluate. While the statute defines the length 
of a Board members' individual term, the Congress has never 
included nor intended for board members to be subject to a 
limit on the number of terms they can serve. Unfortunately, the 
Committee has become aware that USDA has instituted an 
arbitrary term limit policy on Board members that inhibits the 
individual members and the overall Board's effectiveness. The 
Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to reverse this 
policy.
    Among the duties of the Board previously assigned was the 
responsibility to review and make recommendations on procedures 
for merit review of competitive grant proposals. The Committee 
has become aware that the USDA initially requested comments of 
the NAREEEAB following enactment of the merit review 
requirement in 1998 but has never revisited the question. The 
Committee is concerned that the USDA has misunderstood the 
legal mandate for merit review and has included clarification 
that for purposes of this review, merit is to be equated with 
the relevancy of the research or extension project to the 
community it is meant to serve. The Committee envisions that 
the process of evaluating a grant application would start with 
scientific peer review, and those applications deemed to be of 
sufficient scientific quality would then be reviewed and 
awarded on the basis of merit and relevancy. The Committee has 
further required that the NAREEEAB consult with industry 
stakeholders in developing their guidance and that the USDA 
consult on an ongoing basis with the NAREEEAB to ensure that 
these reviews are functioning as intended.
    The Committee recognizes the interest in growing 
agricultural commodities in less traditional production areas. 
As such, the Committee encourages the Secretary in consultation 
with the NAREEEAB, in both the intramural research carried out 
by the Agricultural Research Service and in the competitive 
grants programs carried out through AFRI and other authorities, 
to carry out and fund research into the unique situations 
facing producers in urban areas. These unique situations may 
include reclaiming land previously used for industrial purposes 
or neglected residential areas, and addressing needs such as 
the remediation of soils to make them capable of producing 
agricultural commodities for human consumption.

               Veterinary Services Grant Program

    Our veterinary workforce is responsible for ensuring that 
the food we eat is safe, but they are facing a critical 
shortage in the public, private, industrial and academic 
sectors, and the problem is growing. Our Nation's large-animal 
vets are truly on the front lines of food safety, public 
health, animal health and national security. The demand for 
large-animal veterinarians is increasing, and lack of these 
specialists in many areas of the country will continue to put 
our agricultural economy and the safety of our food supply at 
risk.
    Since the fall of 2000, the Committee on Agriculture has 
worked on ways of resolving the serious veterinary shortage 
problem confronting many rural communities. With the passage of 
the National Veterinary Medical Service Act in December of 
2003, a program was finally authorized to incentivize large 
animal veterinarians to practice in communities that USDA 
designated as veterinarian shortage areas. With this program in 
place, large animal veterinarians are able to apply on a 
competitive basis for educational loan repayment assistance in 
exchange for their commitment to practice in shortage
    To the extent that the loan program is successful, it's 
important to consider that this was just the first step. While 
this assistance will be very helpful in attracting 
veterinarians to these communities, there remain gaps in 
veterinarian recruitment, attracting and training technical 
support staff, and simply meeting the long-term costs of 
operating veterinarian practices in these communities.
    The Veterinarian Services Investment Act is meant to 
address these secondary needs and is designed to complement the 
loan repayment program to help large animal veterinarians 
become established in these rural communities.
    This bill recognizes and addresses a real problem in rural 
America. This legislation will authorize grants to address 
workforce shortages based on the needs of under-served areas. 
For example, grants could be used to recruit veterinarians and 
veterinary technicians in shortage areas and communities. It 
could add veterinarians expanding and establishing practices in 
high-need areas. It could establish mobile portable clinics and 
televet services and establish education programs, including 
continuing education, distance education, and factor 
recruitment in veterinary science.

   Grants and Fellowships for Food and Agriculture Sciences 
                           Education

    The Norman E. Borlaug International Agricultural Science 
and Technology Fellowship Program (Borlaug Fellowship Program) 
helps developing countries strengthen agricultural practices by 
providing scientific training and collaborative research 
opportunities to visiting researchers, policymakers, and 
university faculty. The Borlaug Fellowship Program has provided 
over 500 fellowships for agricultural professional from 64 
developing countries worldwide. Currently, Fellowships can run 
from six to twelve weeks depending on research topic and 
funding availability. The Committee is concerned that the 
length of the fellowships currently offered may be too brief in 
term in some instances to provide real training and research 
opportunities. The Committee understands that a brief short 
term fellowship is an effective method to provide certain 
specific training and research opportunities. However, the 
Committee would urge the Secretary to modify the implementation 
of the program to also provide longer term training and 
collaborative research opportunities to address those instances 
where a long term fellowship would allow greater in depth 
training and research.

                       Extension Research

    The Cooperative Extension System is a nationwide, non-
formal educational network. Each state, territory, and the 
District of Columbia has an office at its land-grant 
universities and a network of local or regional offices which 
are staffed by experts who provide practical, research-based 
education to agricultural producers, small business owners, 
youth, consumers, and others in rural and urban communities. 
The Committee encourages the Secretary to ensure that 
Cooperative Extension is effectively utilized to deliver the 
educational component of USDA programs. The Secretary is also 
encouraged to engage in discussions with other Federal 
departments and agencies to consider ways to use the 
Cooperative Extension to deliver education for other Federal 
programs as practicable.

     Auditing, Reporting, Bookkeeping, and Administrative 
                          Requirements

    The Committee is concerned about the increasing use of 
assessments, fees, and higher indirect costs rates imposed on 
its university partners by the Agricultural Research Service 
(ARS). These university partners play a major role in achieving 
ARS research priorities and objectives. In a time of scarce 
budgetary resources, ARS must ensure limited research dollars 
are maximized and administrative costs are reduced to the 
fullest extent possible. In recent years, ARS has imposed a 
variety of administrative assessments on its university 
partners, effectively reducing funds intended for important 
research projects. The Committee expects ARS to operate within 
historical administrative cost parameters, namely by imposing a 
total indirect cost rate not exceeding four percent. All 
administrative assessments, fees, dues, or charges, of any 
type, must be included within this overall administrative cost 
cap. ARS must administer its programs more efficiently to 
ensure valuable research funds are maximized so it may continue 
to maintain a robust agricultural research enterprise. The 
Committee encourages ARS to continue university research 
partnerships to ensure our nation's premier educational and 
clinical institutions play a major role in achieving ARS and 
congressional research objectives.

                   Matching Funds Requirement

    The use of matching funds has proven to be an effective 
tool in leveraging limited Federal resources with commitments 
from those benefitting from agricultural research and 
extension. Unfortunately, the application of these policies by 
the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been arbitrary and 
inconsistent.
    Efforts by the Committee to develop a comprehensive policy 
on research and extension matching funds originated during the 
development of the 2008 farm bill. At the time, it was noted 
that as research programs have been authorized or modified, the 
incorporation of matching requirements was done in a subjective 
manner. An effort was initiated during the 2008 farm bill 
conference to harmonize the matching requirements, but due to 
the complexity of the task and time constraints, the effort was 
dropped with the understanding that the Committees and USDA 
would undertake a stakeholder process designed to provide 
recommendations in advance of the 2012 farm bill. Unfortunately 
that process never materialized after the 2008 bill.
    The House Agriculture Committee has maintained an interest 
in engaging stakeholders in a discussion about how to harmonize 
these policies to improve consistency and transparency in their 
application. Several requests have been made for suggestions on 
how best to approach this issue and the consensus seemed to be 
that the Committee should propose a discussion draft. The 
language included in Committee legislation was the result of 
technical assistance received by the USDA and is meant to begin 
this discussion.
    As part of the discussion that has already commenced, it is 
important to highlight what the provision does, as well as what 
it does not do.
    The provision, once implemented would apply to competitive 
grants for extension or applied agricultural research. These 
grants would be subject to a 100 percent match of cash or in-
kind support from any other source, but only if the grant is 
specific to a state or commodity. The Secretary would have the 
authority to waive the matching requirement if the grant is 
deemed to be a national priority using the process established 
for priority setting conducted as part of the statutory mandate 
of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and 
Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB). The use of the NAREEEAB in 
this way is not without precedent. Under the Organic Food 
Production Act, the authority of the Secretary to create a 
National List of approved and prohibited substances that shall 
be included in the standards for organic production and 
handling is limited to the advice of the National Organic 
Standards Board.
    Current matching fund policies, such as that under the 
Agricultural and Food Research Initiative impose a requirement 
of a non-Federal match to commodity specific grants that are 
not of national scope, but under a plain reading of the law 
would apply to regional collaborative grants involving multiple 
States.
    It is the intent of the Committee that the match policy 
allow for cash or support from ``any'' other source, including 
other Federal funds. However, we are aware that under this 
statutory language such funds would have to be consistent with 
the purpose of both grants. As stated above, this language is 
meant to begin discussions on important issues surround a 
universal match policy.
    The Committee is aware of both the difficulty in meeting 
these requirements and the inconsistency in which they are 
applied and has attempted to develop a policy that is 
reasonable, transparent and consistently applied across the 
universe of USDA competitive agricultural research and 
extension grant programs.

   Repeal of National Agricultural Weather Information System

    The Committee is aware that advanced weather forecasts 
using Tropospheric Airborne Meteorological Data Reporting 
(TAMDAR) systems have been used by the Federal Aviation 
Administration, the U.S. Weather Service, and the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for over seven years. 
The Committee supports advanced forecasting employing TAMDAR in 
that it enhances U.S. and allied meteorological forecasting 
systems, thus providing improved reliability and situational 
awareness, which is particularly useful in agricultural 
forecasts. The Committee therefore encourages continued use of 
this system by the Department of Agriculture.

                 Regional Centers of Excellence

    With limited resources to invest in critical programs, the 
Committee has considered multiple options by which Federal 
funds can be leveraged to improve overall program 
effectiveness. With the recognition that multiple institutions 
and organizations participate in projects of similar interest, 
the Committee has sought to incentivize the formation of formal 
partnerships and other organizational structures as Regional 
Centers of Excellence. The Committee reported bill directs that 
such centers that meet established criteria be granted priority 
in receipt of competitive research and extension grants.
    The Committee would recommend USDA to promulgate 
regulations implementing section 1673 in accordance with 
appropriate regulatory procedures in order to allow interested 
stakeholders to gain a firm understanding of USDA's 
implementation of the provision.

               Specialty Crop Research Initiative

    The Committee is aware of concerns that the required merit 
review process under the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and 
other competitive grants programs is not functioning as 
intended. Congress established the merit review requirement to 
ensure that grant applications that are of sufficient 
scientific quality as determined through a process of peer 
review shall then be evaluated and final awards be made based 
on the merit and relevancy of the grant request with respect to 
the constituency being served. In carrying out the merit and 
relevancy review process under the Specialty Crop Research 
Initiative, the Committee expects that the review and ranking 
for impact to be conducted by a panel of specialty crop 
industry representatives for the specific specialty crop. The 
Committee further encourages the Secretary to prioritize 
competitive grants to address imminent threats which may impact 
the future of specialty crop production in this country.

    Competitive, Special, and facilities Research Grant Act

    The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) is the 
premier competitive research and extension grants program 
within the USDA. The AFRI program was established in 2008 as a 
successor program to the National Research Initiative 
Competitive Grants Program and the Initiative for Future 
Agriculture and Food Systems. The statutory priorities for the 
AFRI program are purposefully broad. In developing these 
priorities, the Congress was aware that as science evolves, a 
balance needed to be achieved between the need for flexibility 
to respond to new and emerging threats and opportunities, and 
the need for transparency and accountability in the expenditure 
of taxpayer funds.
    Concerns are periodically raised regarding the annual 
allocations among the various statutory programmatic priorities 
and sub priorities. The Committee was aware of these 
qualitative concerns but lacked quantitative information on 
which to base any policy modifications. As a continuation of 
the programmatic audit carried out by the Committee in 
preparation for developing the FARRM Act, the Committee 
requested USDA provide a listing of recent awards under the 
AFRI program sorted according the corresponding statutory 
priorities and sub priorities. USDA initially responded to the 
Committee that it had no means by which to track grants in 
relationship to the statutory authority upon which they are 
awarded. The Committee ultimately received a partial response 
to the oversight request after a delay of more than 3 months, 
but only days prior to consideration of the FARRM Act. The data 
reveal a dramatic shift in awards funding away from traditional 
areas of production agriculture. For instance, awards for 
research in plant systems dropped from 38.7% of available funds 
in fiscal year 2007, the final full year under of the 
predecessor programs, to 18.4% in 2011. Awards for research in 
animal systems fell from 22.4% to 9.4% over the same time 
period.
    The Committee is concerned that the allocation of research 
and extension awards under the AFRI program is inconsistent 
with our national priorities. This same concern was raised by 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
in their report for the fiscal year 2012 appropriations when 
the subcommittee stated that ``over the past few years, 
numerous reports from Federal agencies and private 
philanthropic and scientific organizations have highlighted the 
need for the United States to invest in agricultural research, 
particularly to ensure productivity growth and to develop and 
refine sound natural resources management practices for U.S. 
farmers and ranchers and others around the world. In light of 
this advice and the nation's serious budget deficit and debt 
problems, the agency should be focusing its research efforts on 
only the highest priority, scientifically merited research. 
While there are many interesting research topics and a 
multitude of issues that could be researched, the Committee 
expects the agency to focus on its core mission of agricultural 
research by setting a very high standard for research funded by 
the agency and requiring a rigorous peer review.''
    The Committee agrees with the concerns raised by the 
Appropriations Subcommittee and has included language related 
to the President's annual budget submission to both improve the 
transparency and the accountability for the funding 
administered by the USDA under AFRI and other competitive 
agricultural research and extension grants programs.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of basic animal 
health research to support the farmed cervidae industry, and as 
such, supports research focusing on the development of viable 
strategies for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of 
infectious, parasitic and toxic diseases of farmed deer and the 
mapping of the deer genome.
    The Committee recognizes the growing importance of and need 
for comprehensive and practical scientific and economic 
assessments of agricultural practices and technologies intended 
to improve agriculture's water quality and quantity 
performance. This is particularly the case as states work with 
producers on high priority or high profile water quality 
challenges. Such scientific and economic assessments are needed 
for the major crop producing regions of the country, taking 
into account soils, climate, crops grown, and the technologies 
and agricultural practices in use. The goal of such assessments 
should be to develop information and continue to build on the 
tools already in place. The assessments should continue to 
develop new and innovative approaches to help producers and 
policy makers in states understand what is affordable, 
achievable and sustainable for producers. The assessment can 
then he used to consider how different water quality policy 
choices relate to other important societal objectives involving 
agriculture. The Committee encourages the Secretary to initiate 
a multi-year effort to help the states and USDA continue to 
develop this base of science and knowledge through the funding 
of proposals from qualified institutions capable of supporting 
interdisciplinary teams of researchers and experts to carry out 
such efforts.
    The Committee recognizes the success of the Conservation 
Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) and the cross collaborative 
approach between multiple agencies at USDA, and strongly 
encourages USDA to continue and expand on those efforts. The 
Committee does not intend for this provision to be a 
replacement for or duplication of CEAP, but rather as a source 
of sound, complimentary economic and technical information that 
could be used in conjunction with CEAP to create more accurate 
assessments of the effects of prospective conservation measures 
on agricultural land.
    The Committee recognizes that maintaining and enhancing 
wild rice, a uniquely American specialty crop, depends on 
continued use of traditional breeding methods, along with the 
application of new genetic tools to make conventional breeding 
more efficient. Genetic analysis of shattering, disease 
resistance, reduced plant height, and other traits require not 
only development of new genetic markers for wild rice, but also 
new methods for gathering accurate phenotypic information on 
the plants. The use of these improved genetic resources in the 
future depends on their continued availability through reliable 
seed storage methods. Some research has been done on 
maintaining viability of stored seeds, but these need to be 
translated into reliable and useful methods at the local level 
to ensure breeding progress.
    The Committee would hope that the Secretary would consider 
the following research objectives regarding wild rice genetic 
resources: preserving and enhancing wild rice breeding lines 
for testing and release as future varieties; developing 
phenotyping methods and genotypic markers for various traits; 
using genotypic and phenotypic information to identify superior 
genetic resources for breeding and to develop more efficient 
breeding methods; evaluating and maintaining the genetic 
distinctiveness of wild rice breeding lines and populations; 
and developing improved methods for short- and medium-term 
storage of wild rice breeding lines and populations.

           Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978

    The National Association of University Forest Resources 
Programs (NAUFRP), (formerly the National Association of 
Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges) represents 69 of 
our nation's universities and their respective scientists, 
educators and extension specialists. NAUFRP's purpose is to 
advance the health, productivity, and sustainability of 
America's forests by providing university-based natural 
resource education, research, science, extension and 
international programs. The Committee would encourage USDA to 
engage in discussions with NAUFRP to ensure that their 
proposals for ecosystem services, invasive species management, 
and innovative biobased products are appropriately addressed.

                 Budget Submission and Funding

    The Committee is aware of the need for the statutory 
priorities for the various agricultural research, education and 
extension programs to be written with sufficient flexibility so 
that the Administrators of the USDA research agencies can 
respond quickly and efficiently to emerging problems and 
opportunities. The Committee is equally cognizant of the need 
for taxpayer funds to be used in a transparent and accountable 
manner.
    Recent changes that have occurred in Congressional 
appropriations procedures have empowered USDA bureaucrats to 
direct spending seemingly without regard to statutory 
priorities. Coupling the extraordinary spending discretion 
granted to the agencies with a lack of transparency relating to 
the priority setting process exposes these critical programs to 
allegations of waste, fraud and abuse.
    As a follow up to a series of programmatic audits conducted 
by the Committee, a request was submitted for the Department to 
provide a listing of grants awarded by the USDA under one 
principal competitive grants program sorted according to the 
statutory priorities for which the funding was appropriated. 
The Department was unable to provide this information for more 
than 3 months due to what was at the time a lack of ability by 
the Department to track program funding according to the 
authorized priorities.
    A review of the data ultimately provided by the Department 
demonstrates a significant reduction in funding provided for 
research related to core production agricultural programs. The 
Committee reported bill does not significantly alter the 
priorities for the various competitive research and extension 
programs. Nor does the Committee draft adopt specific across 
the board set asides. In order to increase the ability of 
Congress to oversee funding allocations, the Committee reported 
bill instead creates a new requirement on the Secretary to 
provide transparency and accountability with regard to the 
research, extension and education budget. It is the intent of 
the Committee that USDA provide increasingly detailed spending 
plans to Congress in advance of the development of annual 
appropriations measures so that the legislature and interested 
constituencies can weigh the merits of these allocations 
against evolving priorities, and as a representative body the 
Congress can approve or disapprove of the proposed allocations.
    Working cooperatively between the branches and fully 
involving interested stakeholders in the priority setting 
process will likely result in better understanding of the need 
and benefits of investment in agricultural research, extension 
and education programs.

                       Sun grant program

    The Committee reported bill directs the Secretary to 
utilize and leverage the investment, resources and capacities 
of the current regional Sun Grant Program Centers and Sub-
center to continue their leadership and management of the 
regional Sun Grant competitive grants program.

                      Title VIII--Forestry

    The Committee believes that healthy national, state, and 
private forests should be a high priority for the Department. 
Healthy forests are an important component of helping sustain 
fire-resistant communities and promoting economic health across 
rural America. The Committee reported bill reflects the 
priorities of the Committee by providing the Forest Service the 
tools necessary to improve forest management over the course of 
the bill.

             Forest Service Decision Making Process

    The Committee reported bill includes language that 
clarifies that the Forest Service does not need to engage in a 
notice, comment, and appeal process for routine actions. This 
language came as a result of a Federal court decision in March 
2012 that the agency must engage in this process for 
noncontroversial actions such as planting trees after wildfire, 
trail maintenance, or one-time events such as races. The 
Committee believes this is a burdensome requirement for the 
Forest Service when no other Federal agency is required to 
engage in a similar process. The Committee is also concerned 
that this requirement will have an adverse impact on rural 
economies by virtue of restricting the number of revenue-
generating activities that may occur on National Forest lands.

                    Stewardship Contracting

    The Committee provided the Forest Service with a 4 year 
extension of authority to conduct Stewardship contracting. This 
approach to land management has proved effective nationwide 
since it was first authorized in 1999 and extended in 2003. 
Stewardship contracting allows the Forest Service to conduct 
important forest restoration work by allowing the value of wood 
removed to help offset the cost of needed restoration 
treatments, like forest thinning, introduction of prescribed 
fire, and habitat improvements for a variety of species. It is 
important to note that Stewardship contracting is not intended 
to replace the existing timber sale contract. Where there are 
robust wood markets, the Forest Service can frequently achieve 
its forest restoration and habitat goals simply by offering 
carefully designed timber sales. The Committee asks the Chief 
to work with purchasers of Forest Service timber to address 
concerns they have raised about methods of selecting the 
winning bidders on Stewardship contracts, and to provide 
feedback to losing bidders to help increase their understanding 
of the process to become more effective in the future. The 
Committee asks the Chief to include liability limitations for 
operations fires in all types of Stewardship Contracts and 
Stewardship Agreements. These liability limitations should be 
substantially similar to the protections in existing timber 
sale contracts.

                        Pine Bark Beetle

    The outbreak of the pine bark beetle afflicting states 
across the nation is a great concern to the Committee. To date, 
an estimated 41 million acres have been affected, creating 
potentially hazardous fuel loads in several western states. The 
Committee reported bill includes provisions to provide the 
Forest Service with increased flexibility to address this issue 
and work with partners to mitigate the potential damage. The 
Committee wishes to clarify that the Secretary has the 
authority to designate critical areas at any point beyond the 
initial 60 day deadline specified in Sec. 8302. In reviewing 
the threat maps for designation of possible critical areas, the 
Secretary has the authority to treat those areas that are not 
immediately threatened by a disease outbreak in order to reduce 
the threat of future outbreak.

                 Forest Inventory and Analysis

    The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the 
nation's only comprehensive forest inventory system for 
assessing the health and sustainability of the nation's forests 
across all ownerships. FIA provides essential data related to 
forest species composition, forest growth rates, and forest 
health data and is the baseline inventory estimate used in the 
State-wide Assessments and Strategies for Forest Resources. The 
program provides unbiased information that has immediate 
utility to foresters, landowners and many other users by 
serving as the basis for monitoring trends in wildlife habitat, 
wildfire risk, insect and disease threats, predicting spread of 
invasive species and for responding to contemporary forest 
issues such as estimating sustainable woody biomass supplies 
for renewable energy production, forest carbon inventories, and 
determining the timber supply available to support local mills 
and local jobs. The Committee recognizes the critical 
importance of the FIA program and directs the Forest Service to 
place increased emphasis within the agency's Research and 
Development program to implement the strategic plan called for 
in Sec. 8401.

                Forest Service Retired Employees

    The Committee is concerned about the increasing number of 
retired Forest Service employees in recent years. Section 8402 
included language to allow the Forest Service to hire retired 
employees under the Agriculture Conservation Experienced 
Services (ACES) program. The Forest Service will continue to 
see a large number of retirements in the comings years. 
Allowing the Forest Service to participate in the ACES program 
allows the agency to retain the institutional knowledge 
acquired through the years by these senior employees.

                        Title IX--Energy

    The Committee continued the efforts of the 2002 and 2008 
Farm Bills in drafting the energy title of the Committee 
reported bill. The Committee recognized rural America's 
important role in contributing to America's energy needs. The 
Committee focus in drafting the energy title was to continue to 
facilitate the establishment of new types of renewable energy 
feedstocks across rural America and to assist agriculture 
producers and rural small business to become more energy 
efficient.
    With the exception of the Flexible Feedstock program, the 
programs under the energy title did not have a budget baseline 
beyond the expiration of the 2008 Farm Bill. Given the 
difficult budgetary decisions already affecting the drafting of 
a new bill, the Committee did not include mandatory funding for 
programs in the energy title. The Committee chose to keep the 
framework for renewable energy in place by reauthorizing 
several programs with discretionary funding and modifications 
to the underlying statutory authority. Despite the lack of 
mandatory funding, the Committee expects to see significant 
progress in the development of advanced biofuel feedstocks over 
the course of the Farm Bill.

                      BioPreferred Program

    The Biobased Market Program is intended to stimulate the 
production of new biobased products and to energize emerging 
markets for those products. While the focus of the program is 
to promote new products and emerging markets, the program shall 
not create market disadvantages for certain biobased products 
relative to other biobased products. The Committee would hope 
that in its current rulemaking process, that mature markets for 
biobased products, including products made from forestry and 
cotton materials, are not put at a competitive disadvantage, 
particularly in comparison to products that may be imported 
into the United States. The Committee has heard concerns from a 
variety of sources within the forest products industry, 
including lumber producers, about their eligibility to 
participate in this program. And as such, the Committee 
reported bill amends the definition of a biobased product in 
order to clarify that forest products should be included in the 
BioPreferred program.

                Rural Energy for America Program

    The Committee reported bill amends the definition of a 
``renewable energy system'' to clarify what is eligible for 
financial assistance under the Renewable Energy for America 
Program (REAP). The Department announced an initiative in 
October 2010 to assist in the installation of 10,000 blender 
pumps over a five year period. The intent of the program has 
been to promote energy efficiency and the production of 
renewable energy, rather than energy delivery. Therefore, 
blender pumps or other mechanisms to dispense fuel on a retail 
level are not a use of the program consistent with this 
purpose.
    The Committee reported bill also streamlines the 
application process for REAP to create a three-tiered 
application process. The Committee believes that due to the 
wide range of projects funded under the program, those 
producers seeking smaller amounts of assistance should not be 
required to submit the same volume of information as those 
seeking larger amounts.

                Biomass Crop Assistance Program

    The Biomass Crop Assistance Program was reauthorized with 
modifications. The program as written in the 2008 Farm Bill was 
not implemented in a manner consistent with the Committee's 
vision. Initial estimates of the program projected spending of 
$70 million on the program over the course of the Farm Bill. 
However, approximately $924 million has been spent on the 
program through the end of FY11. After issuance of the final 
rule in October 2010, the Committee believes the program is now 
being run in a manner consistent with Congressional intent. To 
ensure that the purpose of the program continued to be carried 
out, the Committee removed the authorization of payments for 
the collection, harvesting, storage, and transportation of 
eligible materials to a biomass conversion facility. The 
Committee intends that the purpose should be on the 
establishment of new crops, rather than funding existing crops.

                     Title X--Horticulture

                          Horticulture

    Specialty crops--fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery 
plants--account for almost half of the domestic crop value in 
the United States.
    The Committee believes that the specialty crop industry can 
be best served through Federal and State efforts that help 
producers increase their respective competitive positions 
through marketing, promotion, plant pest and disease pressures, 
and research programs. The FARRM Act builds upon the popular 
and successful programs established in the 2008 Farm Bill with 
this notion in mind. Expanding export markets and increasing 
access to locally produced products is a priority in the FARRM 
Act.

               Specialty Crop Block Grant Program

    The bill makes several changes to the Specialty Crop Block 
Grant program, which has been successful in enhancing the 
competitiveness of specialty crops by promoting increased 
consumption of fruits, vegetables, and nuts, fostering local 
and regional economic development, and enhancing research on 
specialty crops. The FARRM Act increases funding for the 
Specialty Crop Block Grant program to $70,000,000 for each 
fiscal year. The Committee also adjusts the grant allocation 
formula in a manner that balances the value of specialty crops 
with the number of acres devoted to specialty crop production 
within states. The Committee directs both USDA and the states 
to limit the administrative funds at 3 and 8 percent 
respectively to capitalize on the funds available to growers.
    The Committee recognizes the difficulty in coordinating and 
funding multi-state projects within the block grant program, 
and the Committee expects the USDA to issue guidance and work 
with states in making grants available for such projects. These 
multi-state projects may include food safety, research, plant 
pest and disease, and crop specific projects. These projects 
have the ability to link growers across state lines and promote 
much needed collaborative research. In the Secretary's 
guidance, effective multi-state collaborative research should 
not limit needed equipment and facilities if it is found they 
are essential to research advancements.

                     Plant Pest and Disease

    To ensure the continued availability of funding for the 
important work of the National Clean Plant Network, the 
Committee has combined this program with the Pest and Disease 
program and increased baseline funding for both. The Committee 
expects that annual funding for the important work of the 
National Clean Plant Network will not be less than the level 
provided in FY 2012 and may be provided to the Network without 
regard to the process for distributing funds to address the 
other provisions of Section 420 of the Plant Protection Act.
    The Committee recognizes that Disease Management and 
Disaster Prevention Programs as previously authorized in the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 includes imminent 
pressing and persistent threats from pests and disease, such as 
Citrus Greening, to agriculture production.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of the Federal 
government, specifically the USDA, developing and maintaining 
the highest technological capability of identifying plant pests 
and invasive species. Further, the Committee believes that the 
advanced technological capabilities acquired through 
development of plant pest and invasive species detection 
technologies should facilitate the development of a 
coordinated, interagency response plan for the Federal 
Government to effectively mitigate plant pests and invasive 
species. The Committee encourages USDA to take the appropriate 
steps to facilitate information and technology sharing with 
other appropriate agencies of the Federal government involved 
in invasive species management such as Department of the 
Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard and 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

                        Farmers Markets

    The Committee recognizes the growing interest among 
producers and consumers to provide and purchase locally-grown 
agricultural products. The FARRM Act expands the Farmers Market 
Promotion Program to include food system infrastructure and 
increases funding for competitive grants to expand farmers 
markets and other direct-to-consumer market opportunities.

                   Olive Oil Marketing Order

    The Committee has taken steps to permit the establishment 
of a marketing order for domestically produced olive oil. 
Should this marketing order be established, the Committee 
expects USDA, in conjunction with the U.S. Trade 
Representative's office, to ensure the marketing order is 
implemented in a manner that will not cause undue trade 
disruption.

                   Honey Standard of Identity

    The Committee is concerned with the Food and Drug 
Administration's denial of the honey industry's 2006 citizen's 
petition calling for a Federal standard of identity for honey. 
Consequently, the Committee directs USDA to submit a report to 
the Commissioner of the FDA on the importance of establishing 
such a standard. The Committee recognizes that inconsistent 
standards can cause confusion in the market place and legal 
challenges. The Committee instructs the USDA to take into 
consideration the honey industry's petition filed with the Food 
and Drug Administration.

                            Organics

    Organic agriculture and its products continue to occupy a 
prominent place in the minds of American consumers. Recent 
surveys show that seventy-eight percent of U.S. families say 
they choose organic food, up from seventy three percent in 
2009. Further, seventy-two percent of survey respondents say 
they are familiar with the USDA organic seal and its meaning.
    Consumer confidence in the integrity of USDA National 
Organic Program (NOP) is fundamental to the continued growth of 
the organic sector. An essential element of strong consumer 
confidence is the ability of the NOP to efficiently administer 
enforcement actions against producers and handlers who violate 
NOP regulations.
    The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act 
strengthens the ability of the NOP to bring enforcement actions 
against violators of the NOP regulations by permitting the 
Secretary to administer oaths, affirmations, subpoena witness, 
compel their attendance, take evidence and require the 
production of records during the course of an NOP 
investigation. The Act also ensures due process is afforded to 
organic producers and handlers by affirming the right to 
judicial review of USDA orders suspending organic 
certification.

                  Importance of Biotechnology

    Since its introduction in the late 1990's Agricultural 
biotechnology has been embraced by American farmers with 94% of 
soybeans, 88% of corn and 90% of cotton grown in the U.S. 
through varieties improved by modern biotechnology.
    Currently, nearly two billion people in our global 
community are malnourished, and the need to sustain a rapidly 
growing global population places an imperative on finding ways 
to meet daily life needs in an environmentally sustainable way. 
According to the U.S. State Department, it will be necessary to 
produce as much food in the next 50 years as was produced 
during the previous 10,000 years combined. Science and 
innovation in agriculture will be required to produce this 
amount of food, feed and fiber in an environmentally 
sustainable way. U.S. consumers must be assured of the 
availability of an adequate, wholesome and economical food 
supply.
    The wide spread adoption of agricultural biotechnology has 
resulted in several environmental improvements. Because of no-
till and reduced-till practices associated with the use of 
biotechnology crops, soil quality and carbon storage has 
improved, on-farm fuel use has declined, and greenhouse gas 
emissions have been reduced. In 2009, the aggregate 
environmental effect of these benefits was equivalent to 
removing of 17.7 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the 
atmosphere or removing 7.8 million cars from the road for one 
year.

                        Legal Challenges

    The Committee is aware that many industry and academic 
experts agree that frivolous legal challenges have made the 
U.S. regulatory process for agricultural biotechnology products 
an impediment to the timely review and commercialization of 
valuable new products. While administrative reforms have been 
introduced at USDA in an effort to produce decisions better 
able to withstand procedural challenges in Federal court, the 
Committee is concerned that expenditure of the limited 
resources available to the USDA should be based on the 
prioritization of risk, not responding to questionable 
procedural claims. The numerous oversight activities carried 
out by the Committee have all led to the conclusion that 
targeted legislation is needed to ensure advances in modern 
agriculture will be available in the future.
    Opponents of technology filing lawsuits once agricultural 
biotechnology products are approved by USDA, claim that the 
Department experts have not conducted proper environmental 
analyses despite the rigorous environmental reviews conducted 
by USDA and the lack of evidence that previously approved crops 
are harmful to health or the environment. Lawsuits dramatically 
slow USDA's review of new products and cost the Department 
millions of dollars each year, slows down the entire process 
and stigmatizes the technology without any scientific basis. 
The delay in regulatory approvals creates uncertainty for 
farmers, researchers and companies.

                          Implications

    Conducting extensive reviews of products with a history of 
safe use diverts scarce resources from higher priority 
applications. When researchers are prohibited from studying new 
technologies because of costs associated with regulation, it 
reduces farmer choice and threatens discoveries of scientific 
breakthroughs that could help feed a rapidly growing world 
population.
    Other countries recognize the value of efficient 
agricultural biotechnology regulation. Brazil, for example, has 
accelerated its regulatory processes while continuing to 
rigorously evaluate environmental safety concerns. In a six 
year period beginning with 2005, Brazil completed the review of 
28 biotech crops and the USDA completed its review of 15. The 
average time to review a product in Brazil is 27 months 
compared to the average time in the U.S. of 38.4 months (as of 
2010). According to USDA, between 1992 and 1999, USDA, on 
average, took 178 days to complete a review of a biotech crop. 
Currently, that process takes two to five years. The Committee 
has acted to ensure that U.S. farmers and businesses are not at 
a competitive disadvantage when it comes to our foreign trading 
partners. Such a disadvantage makes it more difficult for the 
U.S. to grow a 21st Century bio-economy.

    Legislation to Address Current Regulatory Review Process

    The Committee has taken note of the enormous challenges 
confronting the current USDA review process for innovative new 
agricultural products and the serious hardships that prolonged 
litigation has had on growers and others who rely on the review 
to be efficient, transparent and science-based. The FARRM Act 
provisions are intended to address those challenges by 
consolidating the Secretary's review of potential adverse 
environmental effects and potential plant pest risk under one 
statute, the Plant Protection Act, with clearly defined time 
tables.
    The Committee is likewise aware of potential procedural 
challenges brought against the USDA related to the issuance of 
confined field test permits for new and novel traits that meet 
well defined regulatory criteria. The Committee would like to 
reiterate that the purpose of confined field test permits 
authorized by the Secretary is to accumulate the information 
needed to properly assess potential environmental effects and 
plant pest risk at such time as a petition for nonregulated 
status is submitted for review by the Secretary.
    The Committee recognizes that the regulations that would be 
in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection currently 
provide USDA flexibility to forego environmental assessments 
under certain circumstances through the use of categorical 
exclusions. As noted in International Center for Technology 
Assessment v. Johanns (473 F.Supp.2d 9) (D.D.C. 2007), 
generally, APHIS's regulations require environmental assessment 
preparation for field trials (7 CFR 372.5(b)(5)(i)). The 
regulations also set forth, however, a series of 
``categorically excluded actions'' that do not require the 
preparation of an EA or EIS. These excluded actions include 
``[p]ermitting, or acknowledgment of notifications for, 
confined field releases of genetically engineered organisms and 
products.'' It is the intent of the Committee to preserve that 
flexibility and apply this Act's environmental analysis 
requirements in the instances where the Department has 
previously determined that an environmental assessment or, in 
certain cases, an environmental impact statement is required. 
The Secretary would be expected to tailor the level of detail 
in the environmental analysis to the scope and complexity of 
the action under review.
    The current environmental review process has proven to be 
very cumbersome. The Secretary must attempt to comply with a 
variety of different statutory requirements and regulatory 
procedures in order to address the likely environmental effects 
of actions taken under the Plant Protection Act. The amendment 
ensures that those environmental effects, including effects on 
threatened and endangered species, will be addressed in a 
consistent, timely manner under a single statutory mandate and 
set of procedures.
    The Committee also presumes that the current regulatory 
definition of ``organism'' would be used as the basis for any 
new rulemaking; however, we intend to give the Secretary 
flexibility in this matter.

                  Failure to Meet Time Period

    If the Secretary has failed to act on a petition within the 
requisite time period under paragraph (3), the Committee 
expects that, should the environmental analysis required under 
paragraph (1) not be completed on the date the organism is 
deemed not to be a plant pest by operation of law, the analysis 
will be completed within no more than 90 days after such date.

              Background on Establishment of PRIA

    The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) is a 
landmark law enacted on January 23, 2004. Congress reauthorized 
PRIA (now known as ``PRIA 2'') for another five years on 
October 9, 2007. The law is intended to provide additional 
resources for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
registration activities and more predictable service for 
pesticide registrants.
    PRIA created an entirely new paradigm for EPA to process 
applications for pesticide registrations and other related 
actions, including establishing specific timelines with 
corresponding fee schedules. Under PRIA 1, the Agency's Office 
of Pesticide Programs was required to process applications 
within timeframes specified for each of the 50 categories of 
registration actions. PRIA 1 also established specific fees for 
each of the 50 categories. Under PRIA 2, the number of 
categories increased to 140 and PRIA 3 would establish 189 
categories.
    PRIA legislation retained and increased the product 
maintenance fees that support reregistration and tolerance 
reassessment authorized under the Food Quality Protection Act. 
Pesticide registrants paid $110 million in maintenance fees 
during the authorization of PRIA (which expires in October 
2012) and registrants are scheduled to pay $139 million in 
maintenance fees for the five year period to be covered by the 
proposed ``PRIA 3.''
    PRIA established a prohibition against the collection of 
other registration fees (as distinct from registration service 
fees) authorized under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). PRIA also suspended the Agency's 
authority to collect tolerance fees which had been authorized 
by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

   Implications of Additional Fees Proposed by Administration

    Since 1989, various White House Administrations have sought 
to reinstate old and prohibited fees and the current 
administration is no exception. In Fiscal Year 2013, industry 
registrants have already agreed to revenues ranging from $31 
million to $38 million for maintenance and registration service 
fees. For Fiscal Year 2013, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has proposed an additional $27 million in maintenance 
fees and an additional $24 million in registration service 
fees.
    If these proposed fees are enacted, the revenue would go to 
the U.S. Treasury where it would be unavailable to EPA's 
Pesticide Program. Moreover, enactment of these fees would 
require amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA, thus undermining the 
letter and intent of PRIA. Congress has repeatedly barred 
collection of increased fees proposed by OMB and rejected White 
House proposals to modify FIFRA and FFDCA accordingly. To enact 
pesticide fee increases beyond those authorized by PRIA would 
jeopardize the many gains in EPA's pesticide registration 
program to the many stakeholders that benefit from EPA's 
scientifically rigorous regulation of this industry.

 EPA and USDA Coordination for Decisions on Plant Incorporated 
                       Protectants (PIPs)

    Congress has previously directed the Administrator to 
expedite the review of reduced-risk pesticides, FIFRA Section 
3(c)(10), 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(10). In reauthorizing PRIA, the 
Committee is troubled by apparent inefficiencies in the EPA's 
registration process for two categories of reduced-risk 
pesticides: plant-incorporated protectants, both individual and 
combined trait products, and herbicides used over the top of 
herbicide-tolerant crops, both individually and in combination. 
Both categories of pesticide products involve a parallel, 
albeit independent, review of the relevant plant products by 
the Secretary under the Plant Protection Act and implementing 
regulations.
    The Committee expects that the Administrator and the 
Secretary will coordinate and otherwise conduct their 
respective reviews in such a manner as not to cause any undue 
delay in action being taken on the particular application, 
petition or other request pending before them. Nor should any 
provision of PRIA be used to delay action by the Administrator 
on an application submitted under FIFRA without good cause 
shown.

                   Provisions Under `PRIA 3'

    The following provisions are included in the third 
reauthorization of PRIA:

  
 extends the authority of EPA to collect maintenance 
        fees until 2017;

  
 extends the prohibition on collection of other 
        registration and tolerance fees to 2019 and 2017, 
        respectively;

  
 establishes a small business cap;

  
 allocates funds for EPA to use for the enhancement 
        and improvement of IT systems for the registration of 
        pesticides and tracking of key information;

  
 amends the percentage of maintenance fees devoted to 
        review of inerts and fast track amendments;

  
 increases registration service fees during the life 
        of PRIA 3 by 2.5%;

  
 provides that the Administrator shall identify 
        reforms in processing that would allow it to improve 
        decision times beyond those provided for in the Act; 
        and

  
 cites new schedule of decision review times.

                        `PRIA 3' Tables

    Included in the Committee report (112-669) is an Appendix 
that contains `PRIA 3' Tables with the applicable schedules of 
covered pesticide registrations applications and corresponding 
registration service fees and decision time review periods.

                 Pesticide Biological Opinions

    The Committee has been made aware of the dramatically 
different views on approaches to assessing and managing 
potential risks to fish, wildlife and plant species between the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, 
the Services). Consequently, these agencies disagree on 
fundamental legal and science policy matters related to their 
respective obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA). These scientific disagreements, along with inability 
to develop a sound and workable process for consultation under 
ESA, threaten public health, agricultural productivity, and 
global competitiveness with no commensurate benefit to 
threatened and endangered species.
    FIFRA requires EPA to evaluate unreasonable risk of harm to 
human health or the environment (including fish, wildlife and 
``non-target'' plants) before granting pesticide registrations 
or amendments to existing pesticide registrations.
    FIFRA requires applicants for pesticide registration 
actions (registrants) to submit to EPA a robust set of 
scientific data to ensure the protection of the environment. 
EPA also considers other available data and has the authority 
to require additional data from pesticide registrants to ensure 
decisions are scientifically sound. EPA's Office of Pesticide 
Programs is uniquely staffed to critically evaluate the 
voluminous available data on the potential pesticide effects.
    ESA provides for an additional level of scrutiny by 
requiring Federal agencies, such as EPA, to consult with the 
Services on ``agency actions'' (such as a pesticide 
registration) that could impact threatened or endangered 
species or their critical habitats. As part of the consultation 
process, the Services issue a ``biological opinion'' which may 
recommend additional modifications or restrictions to ``agency 
actions.''
    In the last decade, EPA has been sued to compel 
consultations with the Services for hundreds of products 
throughout the nation, and has agreed to do so. These lawsuits 
are ``procedural'' in nature citing a lack of ``consultation'' 
with the Services and rarely attack EPA's underlying analysis 
of the science-based record. Most importantly, however, such 
lawsuits divert precious government resources from actually 
protecting endangered species. Several of the lawsuits filed 
have resulted in Court-ordered ``interim'' restrictions on the 
use of critical pesticides. In January 2011, an activist group 
filed a suit against EPA involving more than 380 pesticides and 
214 threatened or endangered species. A suit of this magnitude 
could seriously jeopardize agriculture and pest control 
activities in 49 states.
    The EPA has made significant efforts to meet obligations 
under FIFRA and ESA, while the Services have produced 
biological opinions that many observers find grossly flawed, 
ignore pertinent data, and rely on outdated and irrelevant 
studies. Therefore, the five consultations conducted since 2002 
have not been fully implemented. As a result, EPA has not found 
the Service's recommendations sufficiently based on sound 
science to compel registrants to adopt them.
    This inability to resolve fundamental scientific issues at 
the heart of a consultation involving pesticides led EPA 
Administrator Lisa Jackson and the Secretaries of the United 
States Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior and 
Department of Commerce to recently ask the National Research 
Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to 
provide guidance on six key scientific issues. This action, 
however, does not stop the litigation, nor will it impede 
courts from unilaterally imposing unwarranted pesticide 
restrictions. In a joint oversight hearing held on May 4, 2011, 
between the Committee's on Agriculture and Natural Resources, 
it became clear to many of the Committee's respective Members 
that the requested NRC study was incomplete and lacking in the 
scope necessary to critically review existing biological 
opinions in their entirety.

             Response For Why Legislation is Needed

    Committee Members have therefore raised numerous concerns 
with the failure of the NRC study contract to include unbiased 
scientific peer review of the Services' biological opinions as 
well as an analysis of the technological and economic 
feasibility of the proposed ``Reasonable and Prudent Measures'' 
or ``Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives''.
    To ensure the NRC study addresses the concerns raised by 
interested parties during the hearing, the Committee continues 
to strongly assert that the following scientific questions must 
be included in the NRC study to properly examine the numerous 
issues raised by the Services' biological opinions to date. 
Questions that the Committee has asked the agency to include in 
the NRC contract include:
    The NAS recently provided guidance on evaluation of data 
quality for EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 
evaluations. What criteria should the EPA and the Services be 
using in evaluating data for acceptability and relative quality 
in regulatory decision-making? How should decisions on data 
acceptability be documented?
    A well defined weight-of-evidence framework would provide 
some structure and transparency to the objective assessment of 
information relied upon for regulatory decision-making. Is 
there a recommended framework for a ``weight-of-evidence'' 
approach for evaluation of all relevant available data and how 
should that framework be applied?
    Were apparent incongruities or inconsistencies in available 
data appropriately addressed and clearly described in the 
Services' biological opinions? Were the implications of the 
inconsistencies considered in describing the uncertainty in the 
assessment?
    Were the rationales used to support jeopardy or adverse 
modification determinations well-grounded in empirical 
observations? Have the Services clearly articulately the 
limitations and uncertainties associated with the effects 
determinations?
    When worst-case assumptions are made, how should they be 
documented to make the level of conservatism apparent, 
consistent with Presidential memoranda?
    Should uncertainty factors be reduced or eliminated as more 
recent empirical data are made available? If so, have the 
Services adopted this principle in their effects determinations 
conducted to date?
    Were the assumptions used to fill data gaps supported by 
empirical data, reasonable and clearly articulated?
    Were the specific assumptions and inferences used to 
support jeopardy and adverse modification determinations 
plausible? That is, did the Services include an assessment of 
the a priori likelihood that critical assumptions and 
inferences would prove true if tested?
    Where in the assessment process should the Services involve 
the expertise of other Federal and state Agencies, as well as 
non-Federal entities such as growers and other stakeholders, in 
the risk assessment process?
    The problem formulation includes a description of the 
different stressors that are influential on species survival. 
How are considerations of key stressors for endangered and 
threatened species and the relative significance of their known 
or potential impacts incorporated into a jeopardy finding as 
part of the Biological Opinion?
    How should consideration of key stressors inform the 
Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) or Reasonable and 
Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) suggested at the end of the 
consultation process? For example, if habitat loss is 
identified as the predominant factor impacting a species in 
question, how will measures to lessen impact include 
consideration of mitigation options that increase or improve 
habitat?
    How should the Services consider the human health 
implications of the impact of proposed mitigation measures on 
mosquito population control efforts?
    The Committee is likewise concerned that the scope of work 
of the NRC must cover direct and indirect economic impacts. 
Therefore, it is imperative that any review of these biological 
opinions be comprehensive in nature, and address the following 
issues pertaining to economic feasibility, consistent with 50 
CFR 402.02 before moving forward with implementation of any 
pending or future biological opinions related to FIFRA 
registered products.
    What factors should the Services consider to make the 
determination that proposals are ``technologically feasible''?
    What factors should the Services consider to make the 
determination that the proposals a are ``economically 
feasible''?
    Can you recommend an appropriate framework for conducting a 
benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for determining and documenting 
economic and technical feasibility?
    In addition to a BCA, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) 
can provide a rigorous way to identify and evaluate options 
that achieve the most effective use of the resources available. 
Can you recommend an appropriate framework for conducting a CEA 
to evaluate a range of possible alternatives under 
consideration?
    For both BCAs and CEAs how should the Services document and 
analyze important uncertainties associated with proposed RPAs? 
Furthermore, to what extent is it recommended that the Services 
provide a sensitivity analysis to reveal whether, and to what 
extent, the results of the analysis are sensitive to plausible 
changes in the main assumptions and inputs?
    To what extent is it recommended that the Services identify 
and consider important ancillary benefits and countervailing 
risks related to proposed RPAs? (For example, potential 
reduction in habitat resulting from changes in land management 
practices in response to proposed restrictions.)
    Taken together, these questions represent a reasonable 
basis on which to achieve scientific consensus. The Committee 
urges the EPA, USDA and Services' to take such action as is 
necessary to amend, supplement or reinitiate the request to the 
NRC to ensure that their work, once completed will be thorough 
and defensible.

    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(`FIFRA') is a regulatory statute that governs the sale and use 
of pesticides in the United States through the registration and 
labeling of such products. Its objective is to protect human 
health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of 
pesticides, taking into account the costs and benefits of 
various product uses. Pesticides regulated under FIFRA include 
insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, and other 
designated substances. The Environmental Protection Agency 
(`EPA') reviews scientific data submitted by chemical 
manufacturers on toxicity and behavior in the environment to 
evaluate risks and exposure associated with a product's use.
    FIFRA prohibits the sale of any pesticide unless it is 
registered and labeled indicating approved uses and 
restrictions. It is a violation of Federal law to use such a 
chemical in a manner that is inconsistent with the label 
instructions. If a registration is granted, EPA makes a finding 
that the chemical `when used in accordance with widespread and 
commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause 
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.' (7 
U.S.C.136a(c)(5)(D).) EPA then specifies the approved uses and 
conditions of use of the pesticide, and this is required to be 
explained on the product label.

                      The Clean Water Act

    The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(commonly known as the `Clean Water Act' or the `CWA') is to 
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 
integrity of the nation's waters. The primary mechanism for 
achieving this objective is the CWA's prohibition on the 
discharge of any pollutant without a National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (`NPDES') permit. EPA has the 
authority to regulate the discharge of pollutants either 
through general permits or through individual permits. NPDES 
permits specify limits on what pollutants may be discharged 
from point sources and in what amounts. Under the CWA, 47 
states and territories have been authorized to implement NPDES 
permits and enforce permits. EPA manages the Clean Water Act 
program in the remaining states and territories.
    NPDES permits are the basic regulatory tool of the CWA. EPA 
or an authorized state may issue compliance orders, or file 
civil suits against those who violate the terms of a permit. In 
addition, in the absence of Federal or state action, 
individuals may bring a citizen suit in United States district 
court against those who violate the terms of an NPDES permit, 
or against those who discharge without a valid permit.

                           Litigation

    In over 30 years of administering the CWA, EPA had never 
required an NPDES permit for the application of a pesticide, 
when the pesticide is applied in a manner consistent with FIFRA 
and its regulations. While the CWA contains a provision 
granting citizen suits against those who violate permit 
conditions or those who discharge without an NPDES permit, 
FIFRA has no citizen suit provision. As a result, beginning in 
the late 1990s, a series of citizen lawsuits were filed by 
parties, contending that an NPDES permit is necessary when 
applying a FIFRA-regulated product over, into, or near 
waterbodies. These cases generated several Court of Appeals 
decisions that created confusion and concern among pesticide 
users regarding the applicability of the CWA with regard to 
pesticide use.
    As the litigation continued, concern and confusion grew 
among farmers, forest landowners, and public health officials, 
prompting EPA to issue interim, and later final, interpretive 
guidance in August 2003 and January 2005, and then to undertake 
a rulemaking to clarify and formalize the Agency's 
interpretation of the CWA as it applied to pesticide use. The 
EPA rule was finalized in November 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 68483 
(Nov. 27, 2006)), and was the culmination of a three year 
participatory rulemaking process that began with the interim 
interpretive statement in 2003 and involved two rounds of 
public comment.
    The 2006 EPA rule codified EPA's long-standing 
interpretation that the application of chemical and biological 
pesticides for their intended purpose and in compliance with 
pesticide label restrictions is not a discharge of a 
`pollutant' under the CWA, and therefore, that an NPDES permit 
is not required. The rule clearly defined specific 
circumstances in which the use of pesticides in accordance with 
all relevant requirements under FIFRA is not a CWA `discharge 
of a pollutant,' explaining in detail the rationale for the 
Agency's interpretation.
    When the rule was finalized, environmental groups, as well 
as farm and pesticide industry groups, filed petitions for 
review of the rule in several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. 
The petitions were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth 
Circuit ultimately vacated the rule on January 7, 2009 in 
National Cotton Council v. EPA (553 F.3d 927; hereinafter, 
National Cotton Council), concluding that the final rule was 
not a reasonable interpretation of the CWA's permitting 
requirements. The court rejected EPA's contention that, when 
pesticides are applied over, into, or near waterbodies to 
control pests, they are not considered pollutants as long as 
they comply with FIFRA, and held that NPDES permits are 
required for all pesticide applications that may leave a 
residue in water.
    EPA estimated that the ruling would affect approximately 
365,000 pesticide applicators that perform some 5.6 million 
pesticide applications annually. The court's decision, which 
would apply nationally, was to be effective seven days after 
the deadline for rehearing expired or seven days after a denial 
of any petition for rehearing. Parties had until April 9, 2009 
to seek rehearing.
    On April 9, 2009, the government chose not to seek 
rehearing in the National Cotton Council case. The government 
instead filed a motion to stay issuance of the court's mandate 
for two years to provide EPA time to develop an entirely new 
NPDES permitting process to cover pesticide use. As part of 
this, EPA needed to propose and issue a final NPDES general 
permit for pesticide applications, for states to develop 
permits, and for EPA to provide outreach and education to the 
regulated community. Industry groups filed a petition seeking 
en banc review, asking the full Sixth Circuit to reconsider the 
decision from the three-judge panel.
    On June 8, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted EPA a two year 
stay of the court's mandate, in response to their earlier 
request. The Sixth Circuit denied the industry groups' petition 
for rehearing in August 2009. The court-ordered deadline for 
EPA to promulgate a new permitting process for pesticides under 
the Clean Water Act was April 9, 2011. On March 3, 2011, EPA 
filed another request for an extension with the court. On March 
28, 2011, the Sixth Circuit granted an extension through 
October 31, 2011. The Court's extension only temporarily 
postponed the need for an NPDES permit for pesticide use, and 
did not obviate the need for this legislation.
    Two petitions were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in 
December 2009 by representatives of the agriculture community 
and the pesticide industry, requesting that the U.S. Supreme 
Court review the National Cotton Council case. A number of 
parties, including numerous Members of Congress, filed amicus 
briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of or opposition 
to the petitions. On February 22, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court 
denied the petitioners' request without comment.

EPA Development of a New Permitting Process To Cover Pesticide 
                              Use

    EPA continued to move ahead and developed a new NPDES 
permitting process to cover pesticide use, and on October 31, 
2011, EPA issued a final NPDES Pesticide General Permit for 
point source discharges from the application of pesticides to 
waters of the United States. The permit covers four pesticide 
uses: (1) mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) 
aquatic weed and algae control; (3) aquatic nuisance animal 
control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. It does not cover 
terrestrial applications to control pests on agricultural crops 
or forest floors, and does not cover activities exempt from 
permitting under the CWA (irrigation return flow, agricultural 
stormwater runoff) and discharges that will require coverage 
under an individual permit, such as discharges of pesticides to 
waterbodies that are considered impaired under CWA Sec. 303(d) 
for that discharged pesticide. This general permit provides 
coverage for discharges in the states where EPA is the NPDES 
permitting authority. In the remaining states, the states are 
authorized to develop and issue the NPDES pesticide permits.

                          Implications

    The Committee has received testimony and other information 
on the implications of the Sixth Circuit's holding in the 
National Cotton Council case, and the new permitting process 
that EPA has had to develop under the CWA as a result of that 
holding, on state and local agencies, mosquito control 
districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, agriculture, 
forest managers, and other stakeholders. On February 16, 2011, 
the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the 
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a 
joint hearing with the Nutrition and Horticulture Subcommittee 
of the House Committee on Agriculture to consider means for 
reducing the regulatory burdens posed by the case, National 
Cotton Council v. EPA (6th Cir. 2009), and to consider related 
draft legislation.
    Despite being limited to four categories of pesticide uses, 
EPA's new general permit for covered pesticides stands to be 
the single greatest expansion of the permitting process in the 
history of the NPDES program. EPA has estimated that it can 
expect approximately 5.6 million covered pesticide applications 
per year by approximately 365,000 applicators--virtually 
doubling the number of entities currently subject to NPDES 
permitting. (U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet for 2010 Public Notice of: 
Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
Pesticides General Permit (PGP) for Discharges from the 
Application of Pesticides to or over, including near Waters of 
the U.S., at 14, available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
proposed_pgp_fs.pdf.)
    With this unprecedented expansion comes real and tangible 
burdens for EPA and the states that will have to issue the 
permits, those whose livelihoods depend on the use of 
pesticides, and even everyday citizens going about their daily 
lives.
    EPA has said that they will be able to conform the current 
process to meet the Sixth Circuit's mandate. Even so, much of 
the responsibility of developing and issuing general permits 
falls on the states. Forty-five states (and the Virgin Islands) 
are now facing increased financial and administrative burdens 
in order to comply with the new permitting process. In a time 
when too many states are being forced to make difficult 
budgetary cuts, the nation cannot afford to impose more 
financial burdens.
    The expanded permitting process also imposes enormous 
burdens on pesticide users who encompass a wide range of 
individuals from state agencies, city and county 
municipalities, mosquito control districts, water districts, 
pesticide applicators, farmers, ranchers, forest managers, 
scientists and others. The new and duplicative permitting 
process is increasing both the administrative difficulty and 
costs for pesticide applicators to come into compliance with 
the law. Compliance no longer means simply following 
instructions on a pesticide label. Instead, applicators have to 
navigate a complex process of identifying the relevant permit, 
filing with the regulatory authority a valid notice of intent 
to comply with the permit and having a familiarity with all of 
the permit's conditions and restrictions. Along with increased 
administrative burdens comes an increased monetary burden. 
Estimates are that the cost associated with the EPA permit 
scheme to small businesses could be as high as $50,000 per 
business, annually.
    In addition to the costs of coming into compliance, 
pesticide users are subject to an increased risk of litigation 
and exorbitant fines. Applicators not in compliance face fines 
of up to $37,500 per day per violation, not including 
attorney's fees. Given the fact that a large number of 
applicators have never been subject to NPDES and its permitting 
process, even a good faith effort to be in compliance could 
fall short. Moreover, the CWA allows for private actions 
against individuals who may or may not have committed a 
violation. Thus, while EPA may exercise its judgment and 
refrain from prosecuting certain applicators, they remain 
vulnerable to citizen suits. Unless Congress acts, hundreds of 
thousands of farmers, foresters, and public health pesticide 
users will remain under the constant threat of lawsuits, now 
that the Sixth Circuit's April 9, 2011 deadline has past.
    It is not only pesticide regulators and applicators who are 
being affected by the new permitting requirements. Rather, the 
Sixth Circuit's decision is affecting everyday citizens, who 
rely on the benefits provided by pesticides and their 
responsible application. Pesticide use is an essential part of 
agriculture. Imposing a burdensome and duplicative permitting 
process on our nation's farmers threatens their ability to 
continue to provide the country with a safe and reliable food 
supply. Many family farmers and small applicators lack the 
resources to ensure compliance with a cumbersome and detailed 
permit scheme. Moreover, for those farmers who are able to 
comply, delays that are inherent in permitting schemes are ill-
suited for prompt pest control actions necessary in 
agriculture. Failure to apply a pesticide soon after a pest is 
first detected could result in recurring and greater pest 
damage in subsequent years if a prolific insect were to become 
established in plant hosts. The Secretary of Agriculture, Hon. 
Thomas J. Vilsack, has said that a permitting system under the 
CWA for pesticide use `is ill-suited to the demands of 
agricultural production.' (Letter, Hon. Thomas J. Vilsack, 
Secretary of Agriculture, to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson, 
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Subject: 
The National Cotton Council of America, et al., v. United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (Mar. 6, 2009)).
    Forest landowners also stand to suffer under the new permit 
scheme. EPA's permit scheme stands to result in a reduction in 
the use of forest pest control as a forest management tool, 
resulting in the acceleration of tree mortality and general 
decline in overall forest health. It also is erecting barriers 
for the control of pests, such as Gypsy Moth and Forest Tent 
Caterpillar. This may result in a higher incidence of 
preventable tree kills and defoliated landscapes.
    The Committee also recognizes the importance of the aerial 
application of pest control tools. These tools are useful not 
only to ensure overall food safety and food security, but also 
to promote public health through improved mosquito control 
techniques. The ARS Aerial Application Technology Program 
conducts innovative research making aerial applications more 
efficient, effective, and precise. This program has yielded 
more effective public health control programs, as well as 
increased efficiencies and greater crop production. Research 
for aerial application serves the public interest as a vital 
tool for the future.
    Finally, the Sixth Circuit's holding could have significant 
implications for public health. The National Centers for 
Disease Control officially recognizes the following as a 
partial list of mosquito-borne diseases--Eastern Equine 
Encephalitis, Japanese Encephalitis, La Crosse Encephalitis, 
St. Louis Encephalitis, West Nile Virus, Western Equine 
Encephalitis, Dengue Fever, Malaria, Rift Valley Fever, and 
Yellow Fever. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/list_mosquitoborne.htm.) 
EPA's permit program poses the possibility of critical delays 
in emergency responses to insect and disease outbreaks and 
stands to divert resources from controlling environmental pests 
to litigation and administrative burdens.

  Development of Legislation in Response to the Sixth Circuit 
                            decision

    As a result of concerns raised by Federal, state, local, 
and private stakeholders regarding the interrelationship 
between FIFRA and the CWA and the concerns posed by the new and 
duplicative permitting process under the CWA, the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and House 
Committee on Agriculture sought technical assistance from EPA 
to draft very narrow legislation targeted only at addressing 
the Sixth Circuit's holding in National Cotton Council and 
return the state of pesticide regulation to the status quo--
before the courts got involved. The Provisions of Section 10017 
are based on the technical assistance that EPA provided to the 
Committees, and is intended to be consistent with EPA's final 
rule from November 2006. The bill amends FIFRA and the CWA to 
eliminate the requirement of an NPDES permit for applications 
of pesticides authorized for sale, distribution, or use under 
FIFRA.

                       Sulfuryl Fluoride

    On May 1, 2012, EPA published a Federal Register notice 77 
Fed. Reg. 25661 requesting additional comment on several issues 
raised during the agency's January 19, 2011, request for 
comments on the proposed tolerance revocation and stay request 
for the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride. In its latest request, EPA 
asked the public to provide additional information on several 
issues that were raised by commenters on EPA's earlier 
proposal, including certain legal issues regarding the 
implementation of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act section 
408 and factual issues regarding the availability of 
alternatives to sulfuryl fluoride and impacts that would result 
if it were no longer available as a fumigant.
    The Committee appreciates the EPA's efforts to come to 
terms with what the Agency admits are ``the unusual 
circumstances'' surrounding the application of certain risk 
assessment policies in a situation where the vast majority of 
exposure results from fluoride sources other than sulfuryl 
fluoride, including naturally occurring sources. The current 
proposal continues however to cast doubt over the use of an 
important pesticide that, with the strong encouragement of the 
EPA, was adopted by the agriculture and food industries. The 
Committee is concerned that the reluctance to use sulfuryl 
fluoride by producers and related businesses during a lengthy 
administrative process may contribute to higher food costs and 
pose considerable challenges to maintaining food safety. For 
that reason, the Committee urges the EPA Administrator to 
withdraw the proposed order until such time as the relevant 
legal and factual issues have been resolved.

                    Title XI--Crop Insurance

    Over the course of the past 20 years, the United States has 
gone from ensuring 83 million acres to 264 million acres, a 218 
percent increase. Over that same period, the value of 
production protected by crop insurance has risen from roughly 
$11.3 billion in 1992 to $113.5 billion in 2011. Vast 
improvements in crop insurance over the past 20 years have 
resulted in growers taking up this tool as the cornerstone of 
their risk management strategy. With crop insurance, farmers 
have ``skin'' in the game, paying in a record $4.5 billion in 
crop insurance premiums in 2011.
    Through several audit, field, and Washington-based hearings 
in preparation for writing the farm bill--along with countless 
meetings with farmers and farm groups--the resounding message 
the Committee heard was that we should do no harm to crop 
insurance.
    The Committee heeded the message of not harming crop 
insurance and has used the opportunity to make several 
improvements, building on the tool that has become the 
cornerstone of the risk management framework for our nation's 
farmers.

                      Information Sharing

    The Committee recognizes that many of the errors discovered 
in the delivery of crop insurance are due to the agent or the 
approved insurance provider not receiving information from the 
Farm Service Agency or not receiving that information in a 
timely manner. The Committee expects the Department of 
Agriculture to ensure that the Farm Service Agency (FSA) shares 
information with agents and approved insurance providers (AIPs) 
in a timely manner to ensure effective coverage for producers 
and to reduce errors.

  Publication of Information on Violations of Prohibition on 
                      Premium Adjustments

    The Committee has consistently sought to enjoin rebating 
under Federal crop insurance. The Committee remains concerned 
about inadequate enforcement, as well as overly broad 
interpretations of the very limited exceptions that have been 
statutorily granted. The Committee expects the Department to 
enhance enforcement efforts, give the narrowest application to 
the exceptions granted, and to publish violations as required 
by this section in order to provide clear guidance on what is 
permissible under the statute. That being said, finite 
enforcement resources and judgment require the Department to 
focus on activities that are serious and plain violations 
rather than discovering ``rebates'' in long-standing business 
practices that have, heretofore, existed in harmony alongside 
anti-rebating rules without a detrimental effect on crop 
insurance.

                  Supplemental Coverage Option

    The Committee recognizes that budget conditions have 
greatly limited the resources available under Title I of the 
Farm Bill and that this requires the Department to use 
authorities granted under the Federal Crop Insurance Act to 
help fill at least a part of the void. The Supplemental 
Coverage Option (SCO), which statutorily requires that 
producers be allowed to supplement individual yield or revenue 
policies with area-based yield or revenue policies on the same 
acreage, is an essential part of this effort and, as such, must 
be made available for the 2013 crop year for all producers in 
all counties seeking such coverage.
    The Committee understands that the Department has cited 
limited data as a possible reason to delay availability in 
certain counties and for certain crops. However, the Committee 
observes that this section and section 11008 of this Act 
greatly enhances the Department's capacity to gather and use 
the necessary data for timely implementation for the 2013 crop 
year. The Committee particularly expects that SCO will also be 
implemented for the 2013 crop year for crops that have a 
history of low participation and coverage levels under crop 
insurance, including rice and peanuts in all counties where 
these crops are produced. The Committee encourages the 
Department to work to ensure that price discovery issues do not 
impede availability of SCO to any producer, including producers 
of medium grain rice.
    Finally, the Committee would note that the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act is a broad grant of statutory authority which 
already authorizes SCO even without the express grant now 
provided under this section. The Committee is concerned that 
specific legislation is frequently required to address producer 
needs that could and should be met under the general grant of 
authority and urges the Department to exercise its authority to 
meet producer needs under this general grant rather than wait 
for Congress to require it. This is both in the interest of 
producers and to ensure that the broad, organic statute does 
not become a patchwork of specific requirements.
    The Committee also expects that the Department will approve 
margin coverage in time for the 2013 crop year and specifically 
grants legal authority to offer such coverage under the Act.
    The Committee would note in this instance as well as in the 
case of SCO that such legal authority already exists without 
the express approval of margin coverage under this section. 
Moreover, the Committee is concerned that the Department is 
applying the limitations imposed under the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act, generally, on the development of new policies 
under section 508(h) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act when the 
Act expressly instructs the Department not to do so. Section 
508(h)(2) specifically excuses section 508(h) submissions from 
limitations generally applicable under the statute, yet the 
Department has applied these limitations nevertheless. The 
Committee expects the Department to give meaning to the 
statutory instruction that ``a policy or other material 
submitted to the Board under this subsection may be prepared 
without regard to the limitations contained in this subtitle'' 
without the need for a statutory restatement. Finally, the 
Committee expects that a producer may purchase additional 
coverage, margin coverage, and SCO on the same acreage since 
margin coverage is meant to be a supplement to additional 
coverage.

              Repeal of Performance-Based Discount

    The Committee notes that any number of discounts or rebates 
have been tested in previous years and have failed. Amendments 
to the statute made in this Act and previous Acts have largely 
eliminated the authority for discounts and rebates and the 
inequities on produces and increased burdens on delivery that 
these schemes tend to generate. For this reason, the Committee 
expects the Department to avoid the expansion of activities 
operating under any authorities that remain.

               Permanent Enterprise Unit Subsidy.

    The Committee would observe that the Department has the 
authority to carry out the enhanced premium support of 
Enterprise Units without the express authority the Committee 
now grants in this section. The Committee expects the 
Department to continue to carry out the enhanced premium 
support of Enterprise Units in a manner that makes such an 
election at least as cost-effective to producers as it was 
prior to enactment of this legislation.

     Enterprise Units for Irrigated and Non-Irrigated Crops

    The Committee restates that authority already exists to 
achieve this important goal for producers and expects the 
Department to implement this section in time for the 2013 crop 
year as required by this amendment to the statute.

                        Data Collection

    The authority granted under this section is to ensure, 
among other things, that SCO and the Stacked Income Protection 
Plan for Upland Cotton (STAX) are offered in all counties for 
the 2013 crop year.

Adjustment in Actual Production History To Establish Insurance 
                            Yields.

    The Committee intends to reduce the double deductible 
producers face due to actual deductibles and those unintended 
deductibles created by artificially low Actual Production 
Histories (APHs). The Committee urges an aggressive effort to 
address this problem through the use of the authorities under 
this section and other authorities, including through a greatly 
expanded use of personal T-Yields and other effective 
approaches.

  Submission and Approval of Pilot Programs and Other Policies

    For the same reason, the Committee elected not to make 
changes to the private submission process established under 
section 508(h) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act in order to 
foster the greatest possible flexibility in the development of 
policies that will effectively serve producers. The Committee 
expects that a revenue policy for peanut producers as well as 
margin coverage and downed rice coverage for rice producers 
will be made available to producers in time for the 2013 crop 
year. The Committee further expects the Department to approve 
the separating of enterprise units by risk rating so that such 
enterprise unit coverage is available in time for the 2013 crop 
year.

         Equitable Relief for Specialty Crop Producers

    The Committee recognizes that specialty crop contracts were 
especially and unfairly impacted by the Standard Reinsurance 
Agreement (SRA) and provides $41 million for each of the 2011 
through 2015 reinsurance years in order to mitigate the adverse 
impacts. With respect to future reinsurance years to which this 
section applies, the Committee intends that the additional 
amounts provided to approved insurance providers be paid to 
agents at the same time as amounts paid pursuant to the ``soft 
cap'' on administrative and operating expenses.
    The Committee further intends that the disbursements made 
under this section be paid without regard to the conditions 
imposed on the payment of administrative and operating expense 
amounts above the ``soft cap.'' Finally, the Committee expects 
the Department to ensure that amounts made available with 
respect to previous or current reinsurance years are disbursed 
by approved insurance providers to agents in a manner 
consistent with payments made in those years under the ``soft 
cap.''
    The Committee underscores that the provision of this 
equitable relief does not in any way provide statutory assent 
to the administrative imposition of limits on administrative 
and operating expenses or compensation to agents under the SRA.

Budget Limitations on Renegotiation of the Standard Reinsurance 
                           Agreement

    The Committee expects the Department to negotiate budget 
neutral Standard Reinsurance Agreements. To the extent that 
there are any savings from such an agreement, such savings must 
be used to increase premium assistance to producers, enhance 
administrative and operating expense reimbursement to ensure 
effective delivery, or fund pilot programs. The Committee notes 
the extraordinary cuts made in the last SRA, much through 
administratively imposed restrictions on administrative and 
operating expense reimbursement and on agent compensation 
although authority for such restrictions is not to be found in 
statute. While the statute is broad, it expressly states 
administrative and operating expense reimbursement rates, and 
had never before been construed to authorize government 
intervention into private contracts between approved insurance 
providers and agents.
    The Committee recognizes the covenants not to sue over 
these provisions, imposed on approved insurance providers who 
are privy to a contract with the Federal Government and on 
agents who are not privy to contract, as an acknowledgement by 
the Department of these issues. The Committee expects that the 
Department will consult the committees of jurisdiction more 
closely in future negotiations of the SRA, correct the 
overreaches of the 2011 SRA, and consult with agent 
representatives in such negotiations given the impact the SRA 
now has on agents both in terms of finances and workload. The 
Committee also recognizes that agents are the eyes and ears of 
crop insurance on the ground and encourages the Department to 
involve agents in the promulgation of rules, regulations, and 
policies of crop insurance in order to preempt program 
vulnerabilities before they occur.

                 Crop Production on Native Sod

    The Committee considered this issue carefully and opted to 
confine the section's reach to the Prairie Pothole National 
Priority Area. The section contains prescriptive requirements 
and also broader authority to effectuate its purpose. The 
Committee expects the Department to exercise any discretion it 
may have in carrying out this section in a manner that is 
balanced and not overly onerous on producers.

                  Coverage Levels by Practice

    The Committee expects the Department to allow producers to 
elect different coverage levels by irrigation practice 
beginning with the 2014 crop year as provided for in this 
section. However, the Committee encourages the Department to 
implement this section earlier if practicable.

            Beginning Farmer and Rancher Provisions

    The Committee expects the Department to carry out this 
section in a manner that imposes minimal burden on beginning 
farmers and ranchers, producers, approved insurance providers, 
and agents.

 Stacked Income Protection Plan for Producers of Upland Cotton 
                             (STAX)

    In order to address a World Trade Organization (WTO) 
dispute, U.S. cotton policy is fundamentally altered under the 
provisions of this Act, sharply limiting cotton producer 
support under the commodity title to the marketing loan. The 
Committee expects such coverage to be offered to all cotton 
producers in all counties in time for the 2013 crop year. The 
section would provide the bulwark of risk management for cotton 
producers through crop insurance and so this section's 
implementation in 2013 is essential. Provisions in this section 
and section 11008 enable the Department to implement this 
policy for cotton producers in a timely manner. The Committee 
expects the Corporation to cover the costs of that portion of 
indemnities attributable to the reference price.

                 Peanut Revenue Crop Insurance

    The Committee expects the peanut revenue policy required 
under this section to be made available in time for the 2013 
crop year. With substantially declining support under the 
commodity title, producers are expected to assume greater 
responsibility in managing price and production risks on the 
farm. In order to achieve this, all producers of all crops in 
all regions need access to risk management tools that they can 
purchase that are cost-effective on their operations.

                  Authority To Correct Errors

    The Committee views the sharing of information required 
under section 11001 and the authority to correct errors as key 
components to ensuring that producers have effective coverage 
in place at the time of a loss and to protecting program 
integrity. The Committee expects the Department to implement 
this section in a manner that does not eliminate any 
authorities or practices preexisting the enactment of this Act 
that permit the correction of errors but rather as additive 
authority.
    The Committee relied heavily upon the Department for its 
drafting and policy expertise in crafting this section, the 
spirit of which is intended by the Committee to allow the 
correction of unintentional errors to the maximum extent 
practicable. Neither program nor producer is served if coming 
forward with unintentional errors is punished as it may chill 
attempts at correction while leaving the producer without 
coverage if and when the error is discovered.

                         Implementation

    The Committee expects the Department to work closely with 
the FSA, the RMA, approved insurance providers, and agent and 
producer representatives in developing any acreage report 
streamlining initiative project to ensure that the best 
interests of the producer are served.

              Research and Development Priorities

    The Committee expects the Department to make the 
development of policies that increase the participation of 
under-served commodities a priority, particularly policies 
serving sweet sorghum, biomass sorghum, rice, peanuts, and 
sugarcane.

  Additional Research and Development Contracting Requirements

    The Committee expects the Department to develop effective 
margin coverage for catfish producers and further emphasizes 
the need for the development of policies that effectively serve 
energy-dedicated biomass sorghum and sweet sorghum, as is 
required under this Act.

                         Pilot Programs

    The Committee expects this provision to further remove 
unnecessary impediments to the initiation of pilot programs 
designed to test the effectiveness of risk management tools for 
producers.

            Noninsured Crop Assistance Program (NAP)

    The Committee is concerned that the improvements to NAP not 
impede the development of crop insurance policies for crops 
served by NAP. The Committee affirms the goal of developing 
effective crop insurance policies for all producers, crops, and 
regions so that producers meaningfully pay for the risk 
management coverage on their operations. Reliance on NAP should 
be a last resort.
    The Committee recognizes the need for NAP to provide 
financial assistance to producers of non-insured crops, such as 
fern fronds, when low yields, loss of inventory, or prevented 
planting occurs due to natural disasters. With respect to NAP 
coverage, the Committee expects the inventory values of fern 
fronds to be counted separately from rooted fern plants.

                    Title XII--Miscellaneous

          Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling Report

    On June 29, 2010 the World Trade Organization finalized the 
ruling on Canadian and Mexican challenges to the United States' 
mandatory country of origin law with respect to beef and pork. 
The decision was adverse to elements of mandatory country of 
origin labeling. A question remains as to whether or not the 
issue can be resolved administratively or require changes in 
the statute. The Committee expects that the Secretary will 
report to Congress how the Administration will bring the 
Administration into compliance with this decision. The 
Committee does not intend this provision to presuppose that 
determination.

                             GIPSA

    The Committee addresses regulations prompted by Section 
11006 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which 
were proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on June 22, 
2010 and titled ``Implementation of Regulations Required Under 
Title XI, of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008''. 
On July 20, 2010, the Livestock, Dairy & Poultry Subcommittee 
of the House Committee on Agriculture conducted a hearing on 
Farm Bill programs under its jurisdiction administered by USDA. 
During the hearing a broad array of concerns were expressed by 
Members of the Committee. Members asserted that the proposed 
rule went far beyond the scope of the Farm Bill, lacked a sound 
economic analysis necessary to judge both the need and utility 
of the proposed rule and may have been the result of a flawed 
rulemaking process.
    On October 1, 2010,115 Members of the House wrote the 
Secretary of Agriculture requesting a cost benefit analysis 
that has yet to be conducted. On April 6, April 13, and May 4, 
2011 the Livestock, Dairy & Poultry Subcommittee conducted 
hearings on the beef, pork, and poultry sectors respectively. 
During these hearings, representatives from the beef, poultry 
and pork sectors testified about the challenges facing their 
communities, including the proposed GIPSA regulation. On May 
18, 2011, 147 Members wrote the Secretary requesting him to 
withdraw the rule and repropose with an economic analysis.
    The FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations, H.R. 2112, 
contained Section 721 barring USDA work on major portions of 
proposed rule. The Appropriations Committee-reported 
appropriations for FY 2013, H.R. 5973, contains Section 719, 
barring USDA action on these same components of the proposed 
rule and repealing three items on which the Administration had 
completed rulemaking.
    The Committee asserts that the Packers and Stockyards Act 
has an important role to play in our livestock markets. That 
said, the Committee continues to express its concerns with 
actions taken thus far to implement the 2008 amendments. The 
Committee action seeks to codify language similar to that 
adopted in 2011 with Section 721 of H.R. 2112 as modified by 
Section 719 of H.R. 5973, except that the Committee reported 
bill would prohibit the Secretary from issuing similar 
regulations or adopting similar policies in the future.

               Meat and Poultry Processing Report

    The Committee reported bill directs the Secretary to submit 
a report to Congress detailing steps that the Department can 
take to better meet the needs of federally and State inspected 
small and very small meat and poultry slaughter and processing 
plants, and to improve the electronic submission and approval 
process for labels. As it weights various options to improve 
public access to label approval process information, the 
Committee suggests the Department consider publishing a user-
friendly web page that includes relevant information.
    The Committee intends that in developing the report, the 
Secretary will include input from niche market livestock and 
poultry producers. The report should build upon and update, as 
appropriate, the 2006-2007 FSIS Strategic Implementation Plan 
for Strengthening Small and Very Small Plant Outreach, and 
should focus on assistance that can be offered to meet the 
requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act. In addition, the Committee intends 
that the Secretary will consider the needs of custom and mobile 
slaughter and processing plants in meeting the requirements for 
receiving USDA official marks of inspection.

5. Bills Acted on by the Committee Included in the Other Laws Enacted

    None.

6. Bills Vetoed

    None.

7. Bills Acted on by Both Houses But Not Enacted

            H.R. 1, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
    H.R. 1 was introduced on February 11, 2011 by 
Representative Harold Rogers and referred to the Committee on 
Appropriations and in addition to the Committee on the Budget. 
On February 19, 2011 the bill passed the House by a recorded 
vote of 235 yeas to 189 nays. On February 28, 2011, the bill 
was received in the Senate and placed on the Legislative 
Calendar. On March 9, 2011 the bill not having achieved 60 
votes in the affirmative, failed passage by a vote of 44 yeas 
to 56 nays and was returned to the Calendar, No. 14. On 
December 18, 2012 the bill was considered in the Senate and 
passed with an amendment and an amendment to the title by a 
vote of 62 yeas to 32 nays.
    The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 makes FY 
2011 appropriations for the Department of Defense, with some 
specified items at levels reduced from FY 2010 levels. The bill 
makes FY 2011 appropriations for other Federal departments and 
agencies, with many specified programs at levels reduced from 
FY 2010 levels and funding for certain programs eliminated 
entirely.
    Specifically division B of the Act appropriates FY 2011 
amounts at the FY 2010 level for such continuing operations, 
projects, or activities as were conducted in FY 2010 and for 
which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made 
available in: (1) the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2010 (P.L. 111-80); (2) the Energy and Water Development and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-85); (3) 
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 
(P.L. 111-83); (4) the Department of the Interior, Environment, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (division A of 
P.L. 111-88); (5) the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 
2010 (division A of P.L. 111-68); (6) the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117); (7) chapter 1 of title 
I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-212), 
addressing guaranteed loans in the rural housing insurance 
fund; and (8) the United States Patent and Trademark Office 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-224) for the 
United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Note: See also the 
discussion of P.L. 112-10 under ``1. Bills Enacted into Law.'')
    Recent action in the Senate considered amendments to extend 
supplemental agriculture disaster assistance programs and to 
ensure that Federal disaster assistance is available for the 
most severe disasters.

8. Concurrent Resolutions Approved

    None.

9. Bills Ordered Reported But Not Reported

    None.

10. Bills Defeated

    None.

                              d. oversight

    The Committee on Agriculture and its Subcommittees were 
active in their oversight functions, holding a number of 
oversight hearings and activities during the first quarter of 
the 112th Congress. The hearings related to the application, 
administration, and effectiveness of laws that lie within the 
Committee's jurisdiction as well as the organization and 
operation of the Department of Agriculture and other Federal 
agencies having responsibility for the administration of such 
laws. The hearings often result in recommendations for 
improvements in the administration of the laws, regulations and 
policies in effect in the Executive Branch as they relate to 
the Committee's jurisdiction. Information gathered at these 
hearings was useful in preparing legislation for consideration 
in the House of Representatives.
    As part of its hearings, the Committee and its 
Subcommittees reviewed the way the particular Federal agency or 
department (usually the Department of Agriculture) administered 
existing laws related to the subject matter of the legislation 
before, or to be considered by, the Committee. In some cases, 
legislation favorably reported to the House carries a 
termination date (a ``sunset'') to ensure that in the future 
Congress will again review the effectiveness and the methods 
with which the Executive Branch of Government has carried out 
the letter and the spirit of that statute.
    In keeping with the objective of the Oversight Plan as 
submitted to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
and House Administration, H.J. Res. 72, and Rule XI, clause 2 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee and its 
subcommittees conducted the following chronological oversight 
hearings during the first quarter of the 112th Congress (Note: 
To see a copy of the Oversight Plan as submitted, see ``I. 
Summary of Organization, Jurisdiction, and Oversight Plan of 
the Committee on Agriculture'' and to see the description of 
H.J. Res. 72, see ``3. House Resolutions Considered in the 
House''.):

1. Oversight Hearings

    January 20, 2011: Public Forum To Review the Biotechnology 
Product Regulatory Approval Process. Full Committee. Committee 
Print No. 112-00.
    The purpose of this forum was to review the biotechnology 
product regulatory approval process. The forum was held prior 
to an expected announcement by the USDA regarding genetically 
engineered alfalfa. The USDA has proposed an option that would 
be a departure from existing policy and would partially 
deregulate the product and impose geographic restrictions and 
isolation distances. Testimony was heard from two witnesses on 
two panels, including Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. (Note: See also the discussion of 
H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House Resolutions Considered in the 
House.'')
    February 10, 2011: Hearing to review implementation of 
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act, Part I. Full Committee. Hearing Serial No. 112-
01.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review implementations 
of title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act. Many expressed concerns that the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission is issuing too many rules too 
quickly to the detriment of adequate cost benefit analysis, 
deliberation and meaningful public comment. The subcommittee 
heard testimony from six witnesses on two panels, including 
Chairman Gary Gensler of the Commodity Futures trading 
Commission, as well as buyers and sellers of derivatives, and 
providers of clearing and execution platforms. (Note: See also 
the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House Resolutions 
Considered in the House'' and the discussion of H.R. 1573 under 
``4. Bills Reported.'')
    February 15, 2011: Hearing to review the Various 
Definitions of Rural Applied Under Programs Operated by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Subcommittee on Rural 
Development, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture. 
Hearing Serial No. 112-02.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the various 
definitions of rural applied under programs operated by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The definition of rural plays a 
key role in targeting scarce Federal dollars to communities in 
need. The 2008 Farm Bill made several changes to these 
definitions to ensure that funds are not used in and around 
urban areas. The 2008 Farm Bill also directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to submit a report on the various definitions of 
rural as used by the USDA within two years of passage of the 
bill. Concern was expressed because the report has not been 
completed. There were five witnesses on two panels, including 
Ms. Cheryl Cook, Deputy Under Secretary, Rural Development, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (Note: See also the discussion 
of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House Resolutions Considered in the 
House'' and the discussion of H.R. 1573 under ``4. Bills 
Reported.'')
    February 15, 2011: Hearing to review implementation of 
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act, Part II. Subcommittee on General Farm 
Commodities and Risk Management. Hearing Serial No. 112-01.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the 
implementation of title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This was part two of last 
weeks hearing to further review the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission's effort to write rules that will implement a new 
regulatory regime for the derivatives market. Topics discussed 
were the potential impact of the more than thirty new 
regulatory proposals the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
has issued since September. Testimony was heard from six 
witnesses on a single panel. (Note: See also the discussion of 
H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House Resolutions Considered in the 
House'' and the discussion of H.R. 1573 under ``4. Bills 
Reported.'')
    February 17, 2011: Hearing to review the state of the farm 
economy. Full Committee. Hearing Serial No. 112-04.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the state of the 
farm economy. Topics discussed include the many regulatory 
burdens affecting the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers, 
economic trends in prices, input costs, and farm output. The 
committee heard testimony from the Honorable Thomas J. Vilsack, 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    March 10, 2011: Hearing to review the impact of EPA 
Regulation on Agriculture. Full Committee. Hearing Serial No. 
112-05.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the impact of EPA 
regulations on agriculture. The committee discussed the 
aggressive regulatory agenda the agency is pursing at the 
expense of the livelihoods of America's farmers and ranchers. 
Testimony was heard from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. (Note: See also the discussion 
of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House Resolutions Considered in the 
House.'')
    March 16, 2011: Hearing to review the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, 
Agricultural Conservation Practices, and Their Implications on 
National Watersheds. Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and 
Forestry. Hearing Serial No. 112-06.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the Chesapeake 
Bay TMDL, agriculture conservation practices, and their 
implications on national watersheds. Topics discussed were the 
importance of conservation programs and their impacts on the 
health of the Chesapeake Bay, as well as the steps farmers have 
taken to preserve and protect the watershed. Many expressed 
concerns that the EPA is not recognizing the contributions 
producers have made to ensuring a healthy bay, that the EPA is 
not considering the economic consequences of its Chesapeake Bay 
cleanup program on the agricultural community, and that the EPA 
could use the process from this effort and eventually apply it 
to other watersheds across the country which would subject 
farmers there to heavy regulations. The subcommittee heard 
testimony from seven witnesses on two panels. (Note: See also 
the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House Resolutions 
Considered in the House.'')
    March 31, 2011: Defining the market: Entity and product 
classifications under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Full Committee. Hearing 
Serial No. 112-07.
    The purpose of this hearing, titled ``Define the Market: 
Entity and Product Classifications under Title VII of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,'' was to 
review the definitions of key terms included in Dodd-Frank, 
such as ``swap,'' ``swap dealer,'' and ``major swap 
participant.'' Members of the committee considered how end-
users will be impacted by these definitions and regulatory 
designations. There were six witnesses on two panels, including 
the Honorable Gary Gensler, Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission. (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 
under ``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House'' and the 
discussion of H.R. 1573 under ``4. Bills Reported.'')
    April 6, 2011: Hearing to review the state of the beef 
industry. Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. 
Hearing Serial No. 112-08.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the state of the 
beef industry. Topics discussed included the structure and 
economic conditions of the beef sector and a range of issues 
impacting the beef industry such as environmental policies, 
feed availability, input process, trade, and the proposed Grain 
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rule. 
The subcommittee heard testimony from three witnesses on one 
panel.
    April 7, 2011: Hearing to review market promotion programs 
and their effectiveness on expanding exports of U.S. 
agricultural products. Subcommittee on Rural Development, 
Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture. Hearing 
Serial No. 112-09.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review market promotion 
programs and their effectiveness on expanding exports of U.S. 
agricultural products. Topics discussed included the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service which 
operates five market promotion programs. These programs are all 
designed to facilitate exports and include the Market Access 
Program, Foreign Market Development Program, Emerging Markets 
Program, Quality Samples Program, and the Technical Assistance 
for Specialty Crops program. Testimony was heard from six 
witnesses on two panels, including John Brewer, Administrator, 
Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    April 13, 2011: Implementing Dodd-Frank: A review of the 
CFTC's rulemaking process. Subcommittee on General Farm 
Commodities and Risk Management. Hearing Serial No. 112-10.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review CFTC's Rulemaking 
Process for implementing title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This was the third 
hearing in a series of hearings to review the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Testimony was heard 
from six witnesses on two panels.
    April 13, 2011: Hearing to review the state of the poultry 
industry. Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. 
Hearing Serial No. 112-11.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the state of the 
poultry industry. The subcommittee heard testimony from a 
chicken grower, a chicken integrator, and a turkey grower on 
the structure and economic conditions of the poultry sector. 
Testimony from three witnesses was heard on a single panel. 
(Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House 
Resolutions Considered in the House'' and the discussion of 
H.R. 1573 under ``4. Bills Reported.'')
    April 14, 2011: Hearing to review credit conditions in 
rural America. Subcommittee on Department Operations, 
Oversight, and Credit. Hearing Serial No. 112-12.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review credit conditions 
in rural America. Many expressed concern over credit being 
readily available through institutions that are fundamentally 
sound, since a number of institutions provide credit to our 
nations farmers, ranchers, and rural constituents. The 
subcommittee heard testimony from seven witnesses from two 
panels. Witnesses included representatives from the FSA, FCA, 
Farmer Mac, the Federal Reserve Bank, local banks, and the 
agricultural community.
    May 3, 2011: Joint hearing to review the costs of Federal 
regulatory dysfunction to American jobs, agriculture, health & 
species. Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Natural 
Resources. Hearing Serial No. 112-13.
    The purpose of this hearing was to bring together the 
Agriculture and Natural Resources Committees to focus on 
pesticide registration consultations under section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) carried out between the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and either the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the Department of Commerce, 
or the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the 
Interior (FWS).
    Committee members encouraged Federal agencies to include a 
transparent analysis of the economic impacts to production 
agriculture and forestry in the scope of work of the recently 
requested review by the National Academies of Science (NAS) and 
to commit to re-initiating consultation on the first several 
biological opinions following completion of the review by the 
NAS of the scientific models and economic impacts used by the 
Federal agencies. The Committees heard from ten witnesses on 
two panels including USDA Chief Economist Dr. Joseph Glauber. 
(Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House 
Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    May 4, 2011: Hearing to review the state of the pork 
industry. Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. 
Hearing Serial No. 112-14.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the state of the 
pork industry. The subcommittee discussed the economic and 
policy issues currently affecting the pork industry. These 
included international trade, feed availability, animal health 
and welfare, environmental policies, and the proposed Grain 
Inspection. The subcommittee heard testimony from three 
witnesses, including a small farrow-to-finish producer, a 
packer, and an owner of a large family-owned pork farming 
network.
    May 5, 2011: Hearing to review the U.S. Forest Service's 
proposed forest planning rule. Subcommittee on Conservation, 
Energy, and Forestry. Hearing Serial No. 112-15.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review U.S. Forest 
Service's proposed Forest Planning Rule. The proposed planning 
rule was issued on February 14, 2011 and has a public comment 
period open until May 16, 2011. The rule revises the Forest 
Service's current planning process for its 155 national 
forests, 20 grasslands, and 1 prairie. Many expressed concerns 
that the rule is too complex, does nothing to reduce the 
regulatory burden on those working in the forest products 
industry, and does not adequately promote forestry job growth. 
The subcommittee heard testimony from five witnesses on two 
panels.
    May 12, 2011: Hearing to review pending free trade 
agreements. Full Committee. Hearing Serial No. 112-16.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review pending free 
trade agreements. The Committee examined pending free trade 
agreements between the U.S. and Colombia, Panama, and South 
Korea. Witnesses discussed the potential benefits of reducing 
tariffs under the three pending agreements and the U.S. 
experience with past trade agreements. The Committee heard 
testimony from two panels with eight witnesses, including Hon. 
Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture 
and Hon. Ron Kirk, United States Trade Representative.
    May 25, 2011: Harmonizing global derivatives reform: Impact 
on U.S. competitiveness and market stability Subcommittee on 
General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. Hearing Serial 
No. 112-17.
    The purpose of this hearing was to explore the need to 
harmonize reforms with other G20 nations, perform cost-benefit 
analysis, and avoid opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. The 
subcommittee heard testimony from eight witnesses on two panels 
including two commissioners from the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission.
    June 2, 2011: Hearing to review recent investigations and 
audits conducted by the USDA Inspector General. Subcommittee on 
Department Operations, Oversight, and Credit. Hearing Serial 
No. 112-18.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the work of the 
USDA Office of the Inspector General. Members of the 
subcommittee discussed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program misuse, the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
audit, minority programs investigations, Biomass Crop 
Assistance Program implementation oversight, and USDA 
information technology improvement progress. Members heard 
testimony from a single panel of one witness, The Honorable 
Phyllis K. Fong, who was accompanied by three other OIG staff 
members. (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under 
``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    June 23, 2011: Hearing to review the opportunities and 
benefits of agricultural biotechnology. Subcommittee on Rural 
Development, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture. 
Hearing Serial No. 112-19.
    The purpose of this hearing was to explore the current 
issues and trends in biotechnology research, results, and 
regulation. Members of the Subcommittee discussed the use of 
science-based agriculture in relation to food security, reduced 
chemicals use, and global development. The costs of 
deregulation and the use of Environmental Impact Statements 
were also discussed. The subcommittee heard testimony from 
three witnesses on one panel.
    June 24, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of 
the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Subcommittee on General 
Farm Commodities and Risk Management. Hearing Serial No. 112-
20.
    The purpose of this hearing was to audit the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program as overseen by the Risk Management Agency in 
preparation for future Farm Bill reauthorization. Subcommittee 
members discussed the status of the Standard Reinsurance 
Agreement, maintaining public-private policy liability 
partnerships, available products for dairy and livestock, 
service gaps, and effects of severe weather in 2011. Data 
sharing and mining to streamline services and prevent fraud 
were also discussed. The Subcommittee heard testimony from one 
witness, the Administrator of the Risk Management Agency. 
(Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House 
Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    July 7, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of 
Conservation Programs. Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, 
and Forestry. Hearing Serial No. 112-20.
    The purpose of this hearing was to audit the currently-
implemented conservation programs as overseen by the USDA Farm 
Service Agency and Natural Resource Conservation Service in 
preparation for future Farm Bill reauthorization. Subcommittee 
members talked about the distinct roles and levels of 
effectiveness of the more than 20 existing conservation 
programs. Ways to streamline and prioritize program outcomes 
were also discussed. The Subcommittee heard testimony from two 
witnesses, the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency and the 
Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, on one 
panel. (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under 
``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    July 7, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of 
Specialty Crop Programs. Subcommittee on Nutrition and 
Horticulture. Hearing Serial No. 112-20.
    The purpose of this hearing was to audit the specialty crop 
programs, including those for horticulture and organic 
agriculture found in Title X of the 2008 Farm Bill and in 
Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935, in 
preparation for future farm bill reauthorization. Subcommittee 
members talked about the need to support specialty crops such 
as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and 
horticulture and nursery crops, including floriculture through 
targeted nutrition, conservation, research, crop insurance, 
disaster assistance, and trade promotion programs. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from two witnesses on one panel 
including the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing 
Service. (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under 
``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    July 8, 2011: Joint hearing to examine the challenges 
facing Domestic Oil and Gas Development and review the Bureau 
of Land Management/U.S. Forest Service Ban on Horizontal 
Drilling on Federal Lands. Subcommittee on Conservation, 
Energy, and Forestry with the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Mineral Resources of the Committee on Natural Resources. 
Hearing Serial No. 112-21.
    The purpose of this hearing was to explore the reasoning 
and implications of a potential ban on horizontal drilling and 
fracking in the George Washington National Forest. Subcommittee 
Members discussed potential economic and environmental concerns 
related to drilling and potential administrative bans. The 
subcommittees heard testimony from eight witnesses on two 
panels.
    July 13, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of 
Foreign Agriculture and Food Aid Programs. Subcommittee on 
Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign 
Agriculture. Hearing Serial No. 112-20.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the efficiency 
and effectiveness of foreign agriculture and food aid programs 
as administered by the United States Agency for International 
Development and the United States Department of Agriculture 
through the Foreign Agricultural Service before writing a new 
farm bill. Subcommittee Members discussed the impacts of 
existing market development and trade programs as well as the 
need for and budget implications of foreign food assistance 
programs. The Subcommittee heard testimony from two witnesses 
on one panel, the acting Administrator of the Foreign 
Agriculture Service (USDA) and the Assistant Administrator for 
the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance 
(USAID). (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under 
``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    July 14, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of 
USDA Farm Loan Programs. Subcommittee on Department Operations, 
Oversight, and Credit. Hearing Serial No. 112-20.
    The purpose of this audit hearing was to examine USDA Farm 
Loan programs before future farm bill reauthorization. 
Subcommittee Members discussed credit availability and urban 
program eligibility as well as the need to transition borrowers 
to commercial lenders when possible. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from one witness, the Administrator of the Farm 
Service Agency. (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 
under ``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    July 20, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of 
USDA Energy and Forestry Programs. Subcommittee on 
Conservation, Energy, and Forestry. Hearing Serial No. 112-20.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review current energy 
and forestry programs as administered by the USDA in 
preparation for writing a new farm bill. Members of the 
Subcommittee discussed technical innovation and industry growth 
as well as current project-area implementations. Subcommittee 
Members also questioned the panel on the programs' relationship 
to agriculture and their current relevance to the general 
public. The Subcommittee heard testimony from three witnesses 
on one panel: the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, the 
Administrator of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and 
the Deputy Administrator of the Farm Service Agency. (Note: See 
also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House 
Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    July 21, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of 
Title IV Nutrition Programs. Subcommittee on Nutrition and 
Horticulture. Hearing Serial No. 112-20.
    The purpose of this audit hearing was to evaluate the Title 
IV nutrition assistance programs of the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008 as administered by the USDA's Food and 
Nutrition Service. Subcommittee Members discussed Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program enrollment, categorical 
eligibility, improper payments, benefits trafficking, program 
overlaps, and state accountability. Question topics also 
included healthy food availability, farmers' markets 
eligibility, and Pacific Islands aid requirements. Testimony 
was given by the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition 
Service. (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under 
``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    July 21, 2011: Derivatives reform: The View from Main 
Street. Full Committee. Hearing Serial No. 112-22.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the impact of 
derivatives reform on end-users and small financial 
institutions and to examine implementation progress of Title 
VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Committee Members discussed the 
definition of ``swaps dealer'' as well as the derivatives title 
implementation responsibility for regulators outside of the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Proposed regulations and 
the current rule-making timeline were also discussed. The 
Committee heard testimony from seven witnesses on two panels 
including The Honorable Gary Gensler, Chairman of the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission.
    July 27, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of 
Title I and the SURE Program. Subcommittee on General Farm 
Commodities and Risk Management. Hearing Serial No. 112-20.
    The purpose of this audit hearing was to review the 
effectiveness of the Title I programs of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 including the Supplemental 
Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) program and Average Crop 
Revenue Election (ACRE). Subcommittee Members discussed the 
advantages and disadvantages of crop insurance, direct 
payments, countercyclical payments, and the marketing loan 
assistance program in preparation for likely cuts mandated 
before the writing of the next farm bill. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from the Administrator of the Farm Service 
Agency. (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under 
``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    July 28, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of 
USDA Research Programs. Subcommittee on Rural Development, 
Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture. Hearing 
Serial No. 112-20.
    The purpose of this audit hearing was to provide 
Subcommittee Members a better understanding of the Research, 
Education, and Economics division of the USDA which is divided 
into four specialized branches: Agriculture Research Service 
(ARS), Economic Research Service (ERS), National Agricultural 
Statistics Service (NASS), and the National Institute of Food 
and Agriculture (NIFA). Specific research areas and monetary 
costs of each branch were discussed in preparation for the 
writing of the next farm bill. The Subcommittee heard testimony 
from the Administrator of ARS, Acting Director of NIFA, 
Administrator of NASS, and Acting Administrator of ERS. (Note: 
See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House 
Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    September 8, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination 
of USDA Dairy Programs. Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and 
Poultry. Hearing Serial No. 112-20.
    The purpose of this audit hearing was to examine the 
effectiveness of USDA's dairy support programs including the 
Dairy Product Price Support Program (DPPSP), Milk Income Loss 
Contract Program (MILC), Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP), 
Livestock Gross Margin Insurance for Dairy (LGM-Dairy), and 
Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMOs). The Subcommittee Members 
discussed the dairy crisis of 2009 and ways to prevent such 
issues in the future. Testimony was heard from the Acting 
Deputy Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, and the Deputy 
Administrator for Dairy Programs through the Agricultural 
Marketing Service. (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 
72 under ``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    September 13, 2011: Agricultural Program Audit: Examination 
of USDA Rural Development Programs. Subcommittee on Rural 
Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture. 
Hearing Serial No. 112-20.
    The purpose of this audit hearing was to review the 
effectiveness of programs administered by USDA's Rural 
Development Agency including the Rural Business-Cooperative 
Service (RBS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and the Rural 
Utilities Service (RUS). Subcommittee Members discussed ways to 
streamline and improve these programs in preparation for the 
upcoming farm bill. Testimony was provided by the Administrator 
for Rural Utilities Service, Administrator for Rural Business-
Cooperative Services, and Administrator for Rural Housing 
Services. (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under 
``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    September 14, 2011: Examination of the issue of feed 
availability and its effect on the livestock and poultry 
industries. Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. 
Hearing Serial No. 112-23.
    The purpose of this hearing was to provide Members a better 
understanding of the causes and effects of the nation's 
currently tight feed supply. Subcommittee Members heard 
testimony from a panel of six witnesses representing all 
sectors of the animal agriculture industry. Ethanol and its 
effect on corn prices and supplies was one of the main topics 
of debate. All witnesses agreed that feed availability was a 
top concern that significantly impacted their respective 
operations.
    September 24, 2011: Public field hearing to review the role 
of broadband access in rural economic development. Subcommittee 
on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign 
Agriculture. Hearing Serial No. 112-24.
    The purpose of this public field hearing was to provide 
Members a better understanding of the benefits of broadband 
access in rural areas. Subcommittee Members discussed ways of 
streamlining current programs in efforts to connect rural 
America to the global economy. The Subcommittee heard testimony 
from one panel comprised of five witnesses representing various 
companies with vested interests in the progression of broadband 
access in their respective regions.
    October 12, 2011: Hearing to review legislative proposals 
amending Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act. Full Committee. Hearing Serial No. 
112-25.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the pros and 
cons of seven different legislative proposals to amend Title 
VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act: four bills already before the House and three 
discussion drafts. The Members heard testimony from a panel of 
six witnesses representing a variety of market participation 
who voiced concerns that the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission (CFTC) is overreaching in its rulemaking and will 
have a negative impact on business and the economy if current 
legislation is not amended. (Note: See also the discussion of 
H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House Resolutions Considered in the 
House.'')
    November 3, 2011: Hearing to review implementation of Phase 
II of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plans 
and their impacts on rural communities. Subcommittee on 
Conservation Energy and Forestry. Hearing Serial No. 112-26.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss concerns 
regarding the cost and regulatory burden surrounding cities and 
states are faced with in the second stage of a three-part 
process to limit discharge into the Chesapeake Bay. Members 
heard testimony from the Region 3 EPA Administrator on the 
first panel of witnesses, and from four additional witnesses on 
the second panel. (Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 
72 under ``3. House Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    December 1, 2011: Hearing to review updates on USDA 
Inspector General audits, including SNAP fraud detection 
efforts and IT compliance. Subcommittee on Department 
Operations, Oversight, and Credit. Hearing Serial No. 112-27.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the progress of 
reports from the USDA Office of the Inspector General on 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) fraud 
detection and USDA's use of additional funding for information 
technology to improve program delivery. Members of the 
Subcommittee heard testimony from the USDA Inspector General 
and questioned her and two of her assistant Inspectors General 
regarding four recently released reports. Members emphasized 
the necessity of timely and accurate reports from the Inspector 
General in order to help them make sound policy decisions. 
(Note: See also the discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House 
Resolutions Considered in the House.'')
    February 29, 2012: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
2012 Agenda. Full Committee. Hearing Serial No. 112-29.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review the 2012 agenda 
of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission including the 
agency's investigations of the collapse of MF Global and 
announcement of rules regarding the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Members of the Committee 
questioned the strength of customer protections as well as the 
status of the rulemaking process. Despite 28 finalized rules, 
more than 20 rules related to the Dodd-Frank Act remain 
unfinalized by the CFTC. Vague definitions included in the 
finalized rules for terms such as ``swap,'' ``swap dealer,'' 
and ``major swap participant,'' have caused participants 
trouble in comprehending the rules' influence. Testimony was 
heard from the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, The Honorable Gary Gensler. (Note: See also the 
discussion of H.R. 2682, H.R. 2779, and H.R. 3336 under ``2. 
Bills Acted on by the House but not the Senate'' and the 
discussion of H.R. 1838, H.R. 1840, H.R. 2586, H.R. 3283, H.R. 
3527, and H.R. 4235 under ``4. Bills Reported.'')
    March 09, 2012: The Future of U.S. Farm Policy: Formulation 
of the 2012 Farm Bill--Field Hearing--Saranac Lake, NY. Full 
Committee. Hearing Serial No. 112-30, Pt. 1.
    The purpose of this hearing was to gather insight from 
producers in the northeastern portion of the United States in 
regards to what policies they felt should be included in the 
2012 Farm Bill. Policies impacting specialty crops and major 
agricultural industries in New York were of top concern amongst 
the eight witnesses who testified on two panels. This hearing 
marked the first in a series of field hearings targeted at 
gathering information from farmers and ranchers across the 
nation in an effort to develop a comprehensive package of 
reforms that are financially responsible and balanced in their 
approach to meeting the needs of a wide array of producers in a 
variety of regions.
    March 21, 2012: Hearing to Identify Duplicative Federal 
Rural Development Programs. Subcommittee on Rural Development, 
Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture. Hearing 
Serial No. 112-31.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the need to 
streamline duplicative programs and improve agency coordination 
through the USDA and other agricultural related government 
entities. Two witnesses testified before the subcommittee 
discussing government accountability office findings and the 
increased need for government efficiency. A key topic of 
discussion was how modernization and efficiency can further 
serve rural communities.
    March 23, 2012: The Future of U.S. Farm Policy: Formulation 
of the 2012 Farm Bill--Field Hearing--Galesburg, IL. Full 
Committee. Hearing Serial No. 112-30, Pt. 1.
    The purpose of this hearing was to continue gathering 
producer input on recommended farm policy changes in advance of 
the 2012 Farm Bill. Members of the Committee heard testimony 
from 10 witnesses divided amongst two panels. The witnesses 
represented the views of corn, rice, soybean, wheat, sorghum, 
specialty crop and beef producers throughout the Midwest. They 
expressed the need for an effective safety net and a choice of 
risk management tools in order to continue producing a safe, 
affordable and stable food supply.
    March 27, 2012: Hearing to review the U.S. Forest Service 
Land Management: Challenges and Opportunities. Subcommittee on 
Conservation, Energy, and Forestry. Hearing Serial No. 112-32.
    The purpose of this hearing was to review multiple areas of 
forest management and discuss job creation in rural forested 
areas. Five witnesses testified regarding the Forest Service 
and work regarding conservation, maintenance and recreation. 
The public hearing covered topics including forest health, 
wildlife management, and invasive species.
    March 30, 2012: The Future of U.S. Farm Policy: Formulation 
of the 2012 Farm Bill--Field Hearing--State University, AR. 
Full Committee. Hearing Serial No. 112-30, Pt.1.
    The purpose of this hearing was to continue gaining 
producer insight in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. Committee 
members heard testimony from 10 witnesses divided amongst two 
panels, including producers of aquaculture, beef and multiple 
commodities, including rice and cotton, from the southeast 
region of the United States. The producers discussed the 
hardships they face, such as catastrophic weather, and the 
importance of maintaining an adequate safety net, especially 
during difficult economic conditions.
    April 20, 2012: The Future of U.S. Farm Policy: Formulation 
of the 2012 Farm Bill--Field Hearing--Dodge City, KS. Full 
Committee. Hearing Serial No. 112-30, Pt. 1.
    The purpose of this hearing was to continue gaining 
producer insight regarding recommended farm policy changes in 
advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. Members of the Committee heard 
testimony from 10 witnesses divided amongst two panels 
representing commodity and beef producers. They testified about 
the importance of effective risk management opportunities in 
the upcoming 2012 Farm Bill.
    April 25, 2012: Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Rural 
Development Programs. Subcommittee on Rural Development, 
Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture. Hearing 
Serial No. 112-30, Pt. 2.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the 
effectiveness of existing programs and potential changes in 
rural development programs for the 2012 Farm Bill. Subcommittee 
members heard testimony from two public panels comprised of 
seven total witnesses representing rural development entities 
across the United States. They provided feedback on the 
programs administered by USDA's Rural Development agency, 
including the Rural Business and Cooperative Service (RBS), the 
Rural Housing Service (RHS), and the Rural Utilities Service 
(RUS). Witnesses testified that continued investments in water, 
energy and broadband infrastructure are vital for economic 
development in rural communities.
    April 26, 2012: Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: 
Conservation Programs. Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, 
and Forestry. Hearing Serial No. 112-30, Pt. 2.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the 
effectiveness of current programs and potential changes in 
conservation programs for the 2012 Farm Bill. The Subcommittee 
heard testimony from ten witnesses divided amongst two panels 
representing conservationists and agricultural producers from 
around the United States. They acknowledged the difficult 
circumstances for reauthorizing budget provisions of Farm Bill 
programs, but reiterated the importance of conservation 
programs to assist produces with voluntary conservation 
initiatives.
    April 26, 2012: Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Dairy 
Programs. Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. 
Hearing Serial No. 112-30, Pt. 2.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the 
effectiveness of current programs and potential changes to 
dairy programs for the upcoming 2012 Farm Bill. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from five witnesses representing 
dairy organizations from across the United States. They 
testified about existing problems with dairy policy and 
provided feedback on possible Farm Bill changes to address 
those issues.
    May 8, 2012: Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Specialty 
Crop and Nutrition Programs. Subcommittee on Nutrition and 
Horticulture. Hearing Serial No. 112-30, Pt. 2.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the 
effectiveness of current programs and potential changes to 
specialty crop and nutrition programs in the 2012 Farm Bill. 
The Subcommittee heard testimony from two public panels 
comprised of nine total witnesses. The first panel included 
representatives of the specialty crop community and explained 
how government programs enhance the competitiveness of 
specialty crop promotion. The second panel discussed nutrition 
programs under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction, such as the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which all 
together, account for almost 80 percent of Farm Bill spending.
    May 10, 2012: Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Credit 
Programs. Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and 
Credit. Hearing Serial No. 112-30, Pt. 2.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the 
effectiveness of current programs and potential changes to 
credit programs in the 2012 Farm Bill. The Subcommittee heard 
testimony from five witnesses regarding the impact of credit on 
agricultural producers and their operations. They explained the 
importance of both initial and sustained support because of the 
inherent risks of production agriculture and discussed the role 
commercial lenders play in rural economic growth.
    May 16-17, 2012: Hearing to review the Formulation of 2012 
Farm Bill: Commodity Programs and Crop Insurance. Subcommittee 
on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. Hearing Serial 
No. 112-30, Pt. 2.
    The purpose of this hearing was to explore the agricultural 
safety net created through Title I programs and crop insurance. 
Members heard from four public panels comprised of 18 total 
witnesses who included economists and leaders from various 
commodity and agricultural groups highlighting the diversity of 
agriculture across the country. Witnesses described how 
programs are working under current law and how reforms can be 
made while stressing the need for a fair and effective safety 
net and a strong crop insurance program which ultimately ensure 
that consumers have a stable food and fiber supply.
    May 18, 2012: Hearing to review the Formation of 2012 Farm 
Bill: Energy and Forestry Programs. Subcommittee on 
Conservation, Energy, and Forestry. Hearing Serial No. 112-30, 
Pt. 2
    The purpose of this hearing was to allow subcommittee 
members and public witnesses share policy goals for the 
upcoming Farm Bill related to energy and forestry programs. Two 
panels of five members testified before the subcommittee about 
their industry experiences in energy and forestry. Testimony 
centered on the energy titles of the past two Farm Bills and 
potential changes for the 2012 version. The energy and forestry 
budget, biomass programs and rural energy were prominent topics 
of discussion as was the need to develop forestry provisions 
that promote healthier and better managed Federal, state, and 
private forests.
    May 16-17, 2012: Hearing to review the Formulation of 2012 
Farm Bill: Commodity Programs and Crop Insurance. Subcommittee 
on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. Hearing Serial 
No. 112-30, Pt. 2.
    The purpose of this hearing was to explore the agricultural 
safety net created through Title I programs and crop insurance. 
Members heard from four public panels comprised of 18 total 
witnesses who included economists and leaders from various 
commodity and agricultural groups highlighting the diversity of 
agriculture across the country. Witnesses described how 
programs are working under current law and how reforms can be 
made while stressing the need for a fair and effective safety 
net and a strong crop insurance program which ultimately ensure 
that consumers have a stable food and fiber supply.
    May 18, 2012: Hearing to review the Formation of 2012 Farm 
Bill: Energy and Forestry Programs. Subcommittee on 
Conservation, Energy, and Forestry. Hearing Serial No. 112-30, 
Pt. 2.
    The purpose of this hearing was to allow subcommittee 
members and public witnesses to share policy goals for the 
upcoming Farm Bill related to energy and forestry programs. Two 
panels of five members testified before the subcommittee about 
their industry experiences in energy and forestry. Testimony 
centered on the energy titles of the past two Farm Bills and 
potential changes for the 2012 version. The energy and forestry 
budget, biomass programs and rural energy were prominent topics 
of discussion as was the need to develop forestry provisions 
that promote healthier and better managed Federal, state, and 
private forests.
    July 25, 2012: Hearing to review Oversight of the Swaps and 
Futures Markets: Recent Events and Impending Regulatory 
Reforms. Full Committee on Agriculture. Hearing Serial No. 112-
34.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the collapse of 
Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., the LIBOR manipulation, and 
receive an update from CFTC on MF Global and Dodd-Frank 
implementation. PFGBest filed for bankruptcy shortly after 
regulators froze their operations through emergency enforcement 
actions. More than $200 million in customer funds were missing 
at the time of the hearing. Testimony was heard from the 
Honorable Gary Gensler, Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission and an additional six panelists from the 
financial industry.
    December 13, 2012: Hearing to review Dodd-Frank Derivatives 
Reform: Challenges Facing U.S. and International Markets. 
Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. 
Hearing Serial No. 112-35.
    The purpose of this hearing was to examine the challenges 
facing the United States and international regulators as they 
attempt to balance various derivatives reforms across a global 
marketplace. Appearing for the first time before a 
Congressional committee, regulators from the European Union and 
Japan cautioned that U.S. markets were at risk if due care was 
not taken to complement regulatory structures across foreign 
jurisdictions. Testimony was also heard from The Honorable Jill 
Sommers and The Honorable Bart Chilton, commissioners of the 
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

2. Legislative Hearings

    February 16, 2011: Joint Hearing To Consider Reducing the 
Regulatory Burdens Posed by the Case, National Cotton Council 
v. EPA (6th Cir. 2009) and To Review Related Draft Legislation. 
Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture of the Committee on 
Agriculture and Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Hearing 
Serial No. 112-03.
    The purpose of this hearing was to consider reducing the 
regulatory burdens posed by the case National Cotton Council v. 
EPA (6th Cir. 2009) and to review related draft legislation. 
Members of the subcommittee considered draft legislation 
targeted at addressing the 6th Circuit Court ruling under 
which, pesticide users would have to obtain a duplicate permit 
under the Clean Water Act for the use of pesticides. Pesticides 
are used by farmers, ranchers, forest managers, mosquito 
control districts, water districts, and others and pesticide 
applications are highly regulated under the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act. Testimony was heard 
from five witnesses on two panels. (Note: See also the 
discussion of H.J. Res. 72 under ``3. House Resolutions 
Considered in the House'' and the discussion of the H.R. 872 
under ``2. Bills Acted on by the House But Not the Senate.'')
    March 28, 2012: Hearing to review H.R. 3283, H.R. 1838, and 
H.R. 4235. Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk 
Management. Hearing Serial No. 112-33.
    The purpose of this hearing was to consider three bills 
intended to mitigate unintended consequences from Title VII of 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
and to make clarifications of requirements for trading outside 
of the United States. A panel of four testified to the 
subcommittee regarding the possible impact of these pieces of 
legislation.
    H.R. 3283, the Swap Jurisdiction Act, would limit the 
extraterritorial scope of Title VII by defining key terms. H.R. 
1838 would modify Dodd-Frank to limit risk and costs to 
producers. H.R. 4235, the Swap Data Repository & Clearinghouse 
Indemnification Correction Act of 2012, removes provisions from 
Dodd-Frank to increase market transparency and monitor for 
risk. (Note: See also the discussion of H.R. 2682, H.R. 2779, 
and H.R. 3336 under ``2. Bills Acted on by the House but not 
the Senate'' and the discussion of H.R. 1838, H.R. 1840, H.R. 
2586, H.R. 3283, H.R. 3527, and H.R. 4235 under ``4. Bills 
Reported.'')

3. Investigative Hearings

    December 8, 2011: Examination of the MF Global bankruptcy. 
Full Committee. Hearing Serial No. 112-28.
    The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the details and 
implications of the MF Global bankruptcy and reports of as much 
as $1.2 billion in missing customer funds. Members of the 
Committee heard testimony from nine witnesses divided amongst 
three panels--one of which was a single-witness panel comprised 
of the Honorable Jon S. Corzine, former CEO of MF Global. The 
hearing marked the first public comments about the 
circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy from Mr. Corzine.

                          e. printed hearings





     112-1   Hearing To Review Implementation of Title VII of the Dodd-
              Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Part
              I--Full Committee, February 10, 2011. Part II--
              Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk
              Management, February 15, 2011.
     112-2   Hearing To Review the Various Definitions of Rural Applied
              Under Programs Operated by the U.S. Department of
              Agriculture. Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research,
              Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture. February 15, 2011.
     112-3   Hearing To Consider Reducing the Regulatory Burdens Posed
              by the Case, National Cotton Council v. EPA (6th Cir.
              2009) and To Review Related Draft Legislation. Joint
              Hearing_Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture,
              Committee on Agriculture and the Subcommittee on Water
              Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and
              Infrastructure. February 16, 2011.
     112-4   Hearing To Review the State of the Farm Economy. Full
              Committee. February 17, 2011.
     112-5   Hearing To Review the Impact of EPA Regulation on
              Agriculture. Full Committee. March 10, 2011.
    112.-6   Hearing To Review the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, Agricultural
              Conservation Practices, and Their Implications on National
              Watersheds. Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and
              Forestry. March 16.2011.
     112-7   Defining the Market: Entity and Product Classifications
              Under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
              Consumer Protection Act. Full Committee, March 31, 2011.
     112-8   Hearing To Review the State of the Beef Industry.
              Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. April 6,
              2011.
     112-9   Hearing To Review Market Promotion Programs and Their
              Effectiveness on Expanding Exports of U.S. Agricultural
              Products. Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research,
              Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture. April 7, 2011.
    112-10   Implementing Dodd-Frank: A Review of the CFTC's Rulemaking
              Process. Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk
              Management. April 13, 2011.
    112-11   Hearing To Review the State of the Poultry Industry.
              Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. April 13,
              2011.
    112-12   Hearing To Review Credit Conditions in Rural America.
              Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and
              Credit. April 14, 2011.
    112-13   At Risk: American Jobs, Agriculture, Health and Species--
              the Costs of Federal Regulatory Dysfunction. Joint
              Hearing--Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee
              on Agriculture. May 3, 2011.
    112-14   Hearing To Review the State of the Pork Industry.
              Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. May 4,
              2011.
    112-15   Hearing To Review the U.S. Forest Service's Proposed Forest
              Planning Rule. Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and
              Forestry. May 5, 2011.
    112-16   Hearing To Review Pending Free Trade Agreements. Full
              Committee. May 12, 2011.
    112-17   Harmonizing Global Derivatives Reform: Impact on U.S.
              Competitiveness and Market Stability. Subcommittee on
              General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. May 25,
              2011.
    112-18   Hearing To Review Recent Investigations and Audits
              Conducted by the USDA Inspector General. Subcommittee on
              Department Operations, Oversight, and Credit. June 2,
              2011.
    112-19   Hearing To Review the Opportunities and Benefits of
              Agricultural Biotechnology. Subcommittee on Rural
              Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign
              Agriculture. June 23, 2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of the Federal Crop
              Insurance Program, Part I. Subcommittee on General Farm
              Commodities and Risk Management. June 24, 2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of Conservation
              Programs, Part II. Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy,
              and Forestry. July 7, 2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of Specialty Crop
              Programs, Part III. Subcommittee on Nutrition and
              Horticulture. July 7, 2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of Foreign
              Agriculture and Food Aid Programs, Part IV. Subcommittee
              on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign
              Agriculture. July 13, 2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of USDA Farm Loan
              Programs, Part V. Subcommittee on Department Operations,
              Oversight, and Credit. July 14, 2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of USDA Energy and
              Forestry Programs, Part VI. Subcommittee on Conservation,
              Energy, and Forestry. July 20, 2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of Title IV
              Nutrition Programs, Part VII. Subcommittee on Nutrition
              and Horticulture. July 21, 2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of Title I and the
              SURE Program, Part VIII. Subcommittee on General Farm
              Commodities and Risk Management. July 27, 2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of USDA Research
              Programs, Part IX. Subcommittee on Rural Development,
              Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture. July 28,
              2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of USDA Dairy
              Programs, Part X, Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and
              Poultry, September 8, 2011.
    112-20   Agricultural Program Audit: Examination of USDA Rural
              Development Programs, Part XI, Subcommittee on Rural
              Development, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture.
              September 13, 2011.
    112-21   Challenges Facing Domestic Oil and Gas Development: Review
              of Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Forest Service Ban on
              Horizontal Drilling on Federal Lands. Joint Hearing--
              Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry,
              Committee on Agriculture and the Subcommittee on Energy
              and Mineral Resources, Committee on Natural Resources.
              July 8, 2011.
    112-22   Derivatives Reform: The View From Main Street. Full
              Committee, July 21, 2011.
    112-23   Hearing To Examine the Issue of Feed Availability and its
              Effect on the Livestock and Poultry Industries.
              Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. September
              14, 2011.
    112-24   Hearing To Review the Role of Broadband Access in Rural
              Economic Development. Public Field Hearing--Subcommittee
              on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign
              Agriculture. (Springfield, IL) September 24, 2011.
    112-25   Hearing To Review Legislative Proposals Amending Title VII
              of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
              Protection Act. Full Committee. October 12, 2011.
    112-26   Hearing To Review the Implementation of Phase II of the
              Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plans and
              Their Impacts on Rural Communities. Subcommittee on
              Conservation, Energy, and Forestry. November 3, 2011.
    112-27   Hearing To Review Updates on USDA Inspector General Audits,
              Including SNAP Fraud Detection Efforts and IT Compliance.
              Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and
              Credit. December 1, 2011.
    112-28   Hearing To Examine the MF Global Bankruptcy. Full
              Committee. December 1, 2011.
    112-29   The Commodity Futures Trading Commission 2012 Agenda. Full
              Committee. February 29, 2012.
112-30, Pt.  The Future of U.S. Farm Policy: Formulation of the 2012
          1   Farm Bill. Full Committee. March 9, 2012 (Saranac Lake,
              NY), March 23, 2012 (Galesburg, IL), March 30, 2012 (State
              University, AR), April 20, 2012 (Dodge City, KS).
112-30, Pt.  Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Rural Development
          2   Programs. Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research,
              Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture. April 25, 2012.
112-30, Pt.  Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Conservation Programs.
          2   Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry. April
              26, 2012.
112-30, Pt.  Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Dairy Programs.
          2   Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. April 26,
              2012.
112-30, Pt.  Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Specialty Crop and
          2   Nutrition Programs. Subcommittee on Nutrition and
              Horticulture. May 8, 2012.
112-30, Pt.  Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Credit Programs.
          2   Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and
              Credit. May 10, 2012.
112-30, Pt.  Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Commodity Programs and
          2   Crop Insurance. Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities
              and Risk Management. May 16 and May 17, 2012.
112-30, Pt.  Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Energy and Forestry
          2   Programs. Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and
              Forestry. May 18, 2012.
    112-31   Hearing To Identify Duplicative Federal Rural Development
              Programs. Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research,
              Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture. March 21, 2012.
    112-32   U.S. Forest Service Land Management: Challenges and
              Opportunities. Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and
              Forestry. March 27, 2012.
    112-33   Hearing To Review H.R. 3283, H.R. 1838, and H.R. 4235.
              Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk
              Management. March 28, 2012.
    112-34   Oversight of the Swaps and Futures Markets: Recent Events
              and Impending Regulatory Reforms. Full Committee. July 25,
              2012.
    112-35   Dodd-Frank Derivatives Reform: Challenges Facing U.S. and
              International Markets. Subcommittee on General Farm
              Commodities and Risk Management. December 13, 2012.


                        f. meetings not printed

    January 25, 2011--Full Committee open business meeting. 
Organizational meeting for the 112th Congress. Approval by 
voice vote of the Committee Rules.
    February 10, 2011--Full Committee open business meeting. 
Approval by voice vote of the Oversight Plan for the 112th 
Congress.
    March 9, 2011--Full Committee open business meeting. 
Approval by voice vote of H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory 
Burdens Act of 2011.
    March 15, 2011--Full Committee open business meeting. 
Approval by voice vote of the Budget Views and Estimates Letter 
for FY 2012, offering budget recommendations of the Committee 
on Agriculture for the agencies and programs under its 
jurisdiction.
    May 4, 2011--Full Committee open business meeting. Approval 
by voice vote H.R. 1573, to facilitate implementation of title 
VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act, promote regulatory coordination, and avoid 
market disruption.
    June 23, 2011--Full Committee open business meeting. 
Approval by voice vote of the Activity Report of the Committee 
on Agriculture for the 1st Quarter of the 112th Congress as 
required by House Rule XI, clause 1(d).
    December 2, 2011--Full Committee open business meeting. 
Approval by voice vote of the authorization and the issuance of 
a subpoena to compel the attendance of a witness at the 
subsequent hearing to examine the MF Global Bankruptcy.
    January 25, 2012--Full Committee open business meeting. To 
consider: H.R. 1840, to improve consideration by the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission of the costs and benefits of its 
regulations and orders; H.R. 2682, Swap Execution Facility 
Clarification Act; H.R. 2779, to exempt inter-affiliate swaps 
from certain regulatory requirements put in place by the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; H.R. 
2586, Swap Execution Facility Clarification Act; H.R. 3336, 
Small Business Credit Availability Act; and H.R. 3527, 
Protecting Main Street End-Users From Excessive Regulation.
    March 7, 2012--Full Committee open business meeting. 
Approval by a voice vote of the Budget Views and Estimates 
Letter for FY 2013, offering budget recommendations of the 
Committee on Agriculture for the agencies and programs under 
its jurisdiction
    April 18, 2012--Full Committee open business meeting. To 
consider a proposal to satisfy the Committee's reconciliation 
instructions required by H. Con. Res. 112, the Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for FY 2013.
    June 27, 2012--Full Committee open business meeting. 
Approval by a voice vote of the Activity Report of the 
Committee on Agriculture for the 3rd Quarter of the 112th 
Congress as required by House Rule XI, clause 1(d).
    July 11, 2012--Full Committee open business meeting. 
Approval by a recorded vote of 35 yeas to 11 nays, H.R. 6083, 
the Federal Agricultural Reform and Risk Management Act of 
2012.

                          g. committee prints

    Public Forum To Review the Biotechnology Product Regulatory 
Approval Process. January 20, 2011. Print No. 112-1.
    Committee on Agriculture Rules. Print. No. 112-2.
    Ceremony Unveiling the Portrait of the Honorable Collin C. 
Peterson. April 5, 2011. Print No. 112-3.

                             h. watersheds

    None.

                             III. Appendix


                      a. executive communications

    E.C. 25--Jan. 6, 2011: A letter from the Office of Research 
and Analysis, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP): Clarifications and Corrections to Recipient 
Claim Establishment and Collection Standards [FNS-2008-0034] 
(RIN: 0584-AD25) received January 4, 2011.
    E.C. 44--Jan. 7, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Tobacco Transition 
Payment Program; Tobacco Transition Assessments (RIN: 0560-
AH30) received January 4, 2011.
    E.C. 119--Jan. 19, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Tobacco Transition 
Payment Program; Tobacco Transition Assessments (RIN: 0560-
AH30) received January 6, 2011.
    E.C. 172--Jan. 24, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Emerald Ash Borer; Quarantined Areas; 
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, 
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin [Doc. No.: APHIS-2008-
0072] received January 11, 2011.
    E.C. 173--Jan. 24, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Pine Shoot Beetle; Additions to 
Quarantined Areas [Doc. No.: APHIS-2008-0111] received January 
11, 2011.
    E.C. 174--Jan. 24, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Asian Longhorned Beetle; Additions to 
Quarantined Areas in Massachusetts and New York [Doc. No.: 
APHIS-2009-0014] received January 11, 2011.
    E.C. 193--Jan. 25, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's ``Major'' final rule--Subpart B--
Advanced Biofuel Payment Program (RIN: 0570-AA75) received 
January 21, 2011.
    E.C. 194--Jan. 25, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's ``Major'' final rule--Biorefinery 
Assistance Guaranteed Loans (RIN: 0570-AA73) received January 
21, 2011.
    E.C. 257--Feb. 8, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--2-Propenoic Acid, 
Methyl Ester, Polymer with Ethenyl Acetate, Hydrolyzed, Sodium 
Salts; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0603 FRL-8114-9] 
received January 13, 2011.
    E.C. 335--Feb. 9, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting a report entitled 
``Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act 
Pilot Project''; jointly to the Committees on Natural Resources 
and Agriculture.
    E.C. 336--Feb. 10, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluazinam; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0032; FRL-8859-3] 
received January 14, 2011.
    E.C. 416--Feb. 14, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Black Stem Rust; Additions of Rust-
Resistant Varieties [Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0088] received 
January 21, 2011.
    E.C. 478--Feb. 14, 2011: A letter from the Management 
Analyst, Directives and Regulations Branch, Forest Service, 
transmitting the Service's final rule--Prohibitions in Areas 
Designated by Order Closure of National Forest System Lands to 
Protect Privacy of Tribal Activities (RIN: 0596-AC93) received 
January 21, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); jointly to 
the Committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture.
    E.C. 508--Feb. 16, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Emerald Ash Borer; 
Addition of Quarantined Areas in Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, 
New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin [Doc. No.: 
APHIS-2009-0098] received February 4, 2011.
    E.C. 509--Feb. 16, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Prevention of 
Payments to Deceased Persons (RIN: 0560-AH91) received January 
19, 2011.
    E.C. 510--Feb. 16, 2011: A letter from the Chief Planning 
and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, Regulation Restructuring: 
Issuance Regulation Update and Reorganization To Reflect the 
End of Coupon Issuance Systems (RIN: 0584-AD48) received 
January 21, 2011.
    E.C. 511--Feb. 16, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 
[Doc. No.: APHIS-2006-0074] (RIN: 0579-AC36) received January 
25, 2011.
    E.C. 512--Feb. 16, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Loan Servicing; Farm 
Loan Programs (RIN: 0560-AI05) received February 4, 2011.
    E.C. 538--Feb. 17, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's ``Major'' final rule--Subpart A--
Repowering Assistance Payments to Eligible Biorefineries (RIN: 
0570-AA74) received January 24, 2011.
    E.C. 539--Feb. 17, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluazifop-P-
butyl; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0980; FRL-8861-1] 
received January 25, 2011.
    E.C. 540--Feb. 17, 2011:A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Sulfentrazone; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0125; FRL-8860-1] 
received January 25, 2011.
    E.C. 558--Feb. 18, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Sodium and 
Potassium salts of N-alkyl (C8-C18)-beta-iminodipropionic acid; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-
0098; FRL-8861-9] received January 31, 2011.
    E.C. 559--Feb. 18, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fludioxonil; 
Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [EPA-Q-OPP-2010-
0982; FRL-8859-6] received January 31, 2011.
    E.C. 560--Feb. 18, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--n-Octyl alcohol 
and n-Decyl alcohol; Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0181; FRL-8860-7] received January 
31, 2011.
    E.C. 561--Feb. 18, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--(S,S)-
Ethylenediamine Disuccinic Acid Trisodium Salt; Exemption from 
the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0733; FRL-8860-
6] received January 31, 2011.
    E.C. 562--Feb. 18, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Cyprodinil; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0385; FRL-8860-3] 
received January 31, 2011.
    E.C. 563--Feb. 18, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Isobutane; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-
0676; FRL-8860-4] received January 31, 2011.
    E.C. 564--Feb. 18, 2011:A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bispyribac-
sodium; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0796; FRL-8860-2] 
received January 31, 2011.
    E.C. 597--Mar. 1, 2011: A letter from the Regulatory 
Officer, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Adjustment of Appendices to the Dairy 
Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation for the 2010 
Tariff-Rate Quota Year received January 19, 2011.
    E.C. 598--Mar. 1, 2011:A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Mefenoxam; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0713; FRL-8855-1] 
received January 28, 2011.
    E.C. 717--Mar. 3, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Polymerized Fatty 
Acid Esters with Aminoalcohol Alkoxylates; Exemption from the 
Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0275; FRL-8860-8] 
received February 11, 2011.
    E.C. 718--Mar. 3, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Clothianidin; 
Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0217; FRL-
8858-3] received February 11, 2011.
    E.C. 719--Mar. 3, 2011:A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--1,4-
Benzenedicarboxylic Acid, Dimethyl Ester, Polymer with 1,4-
Butanediol, Adipic Acid, and Hexamethylene Diisocyanate; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-
0838; FRL-8863-9] received February 11, 2011.
    E.C. 762--Mar. 8, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Difenoconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0823; FRL-8864-9] 
received February 28, 2011.
    E.C. 763--Mar. 8, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Potassium 
hypochlorite; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0996; FRL-8859-5] received February 28, 2011.
    E.C. 802--Mar. 10, 2011: A letter from the Director, Policy 
Issuances Division, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Nutrition Labeling of Single-
Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry 
Products [Doc. No.: FSIS-2005-0018] (RIN: 0583-AC60) received 
February 18, 2011.
    E.C. 803--Mar. 10, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Citrus Seed Imports; Citrus Greening 
and Citrus Variegated Chlorosis [Doc. No.: APHIS-2008-0052] 
(RIN: 0579-AD07) received February 16, 2011.
    E.C. 842--Mar. 14, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Asparagus Revenue 
Market Loss Assistant Payment Program (RIN: 0560-AI02) received 
February 18, 2011.
    E.C. 881--Mar. 15, 2011: A letter from the Commissioner, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting a letter 
regarding the current budget deliberations for the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission; jointly to the Committees on 
Agriculture and Appropriations.
    E.C. 903--Mar. 17, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's report 
entitled, ``2010 Packers and Stockyards Program Annual 
Report'', pursuant to the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, 
as amended.
    E.C. 1002--Apr. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Potassium 
benzoate; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2011-0117; FRL-8863-2] received March 3, 2011.
    E.C. 1003--Apr. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Peroxyacetic 
Acid; Amendment to an Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0021; FRL-8865-3] received March 3, 
2011.
    E.C. 1004--Apr. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fomesafen; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0122; FRL-8858-5] 
received March 3, 2011.
    E.C. 1065--Apr. 6, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bacillus 
thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab Protein in Corn; Temporary Exemption 
from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0609; FRL-
8866-5] received March 10, 2011.
    E.C. 1148--Apr. 8, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Changes in Disease Status of the 
Brazilian State of Santa Catarina With Regard to Certain 
Ruminant and Swine Diseases; Technical Amendment [Doc. No.: 
APHIS-2009-0034] (RIN: 0579-AD12) received March 23, 2011.
    E.C. 1149--Apr. 8, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--National Poultry Improvement Plan and 
Auxiliary Provisions [Doc. No.: APHIS-2009-0031] (RIN: 0579-
AD21) received March 24, 2011.
    E.C. 1106--Apr. 7, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Removal of the List of Ports of 
Embarkation and Export Inspection Facilities From the 
Regulations [Doc. No.: APHIS-2009-0078] (RIN: 0579-AD25) 
received April 4.
    E.C. 1107--Apr. 7, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Dichlormid; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0477; FRL-8866-2] 
received March 16, 2011.
    E.C. 1188--Apr. 11, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Sodium Ferric 
Ethylenediaminetetraacetate; Exemption from the Requirement of 
a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0097; FRL-8867-7] received March 
29, 2011.
    E.C. 1189--Apr. 11, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Mancozeb; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0307; FRL-8864-1] 
received March 29, 2011.
    E.C. 1190--Apr. 11, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, 
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Indaziflam; Pesticide 
Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0636; FRL-8864-3] received March 
29, 2011.
    E.C. 1218--Apr. 12, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Importation of Horses 
From Contagious Equine Metritis-Affected Countries [Doc. No.: 
APHIS-2008-0112] (RIN: 0579-AD31) received March 29, 2011.
    E.C. 1285--Apr. 15, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--U.S. Honey Producer Research, Promotion, and Consumer 
Information Order; Termination of Referendum Procedures [Doc. 
No.: AMS-FV-07-0091; FV-07-706-FR] (RIN: 0581-AC78) received 
March 23, 2011.
    E.C. 1286--Apr. 15, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--National Organic Program; Amendment to the National List 
of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (Livestock) [Document No.: 
AMS-NOP-10-0051; NOP-10-04FR] (RIN: 0581-AD04) received March 
23, 2011.
    E.C. 1287--Apr. 15, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Walnuts Grown in California; Decreased Assessment Rate 
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0060; FV-10-984-1FIR] received March 23, 
2011.
    E.C. 1288--Apr. 15, 2011: A letter from the Assistant 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Marketing Order Regulating the 
Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of 
the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 3 
(Native) Spearmint Oil for the 2010-2011 Marketing Year [Docket 
Nos.: AMS-FV-09-0082; FV-10-985-1A IR] received March 23, 2011.
    E.C. 1289--Apr. 15, 2011:A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Country of Origin Labeling of Packed Honey [Document No.: 
AMS-FV-08-0075] (RIN: 0581-AC89) received March 23, 2011.
    E.C. 1290--Apr. 15, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order; 
Section 610 Review [Docket Number: AMS-FV-10-0006] received 
March 23, 2011.
    E.C. 1291--Apr. 15, 2011:A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Avocados Grown in South Florida; Increased Assessment 
Rate [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0067; FV-10915-1FIR] received March 
23, 2011.
    E.C. 1292--Apr. 15, 2011:A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; 
Final Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2010-2011 Crop 
Year for Tart Cherries [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-930-4FR] received 
March 23, 2011.
    E.C. 1306--May 2, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Kiwifruit Grown in California; Order Amending Marketing 
Order No. 920; Correction [Doc. No.: AO-FV-08-0174; AMS-FV-08-
0085; FV-08-920-3 C] received April 19, 2011.
    E.C. 1363--May 3, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Flubendiamide; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0099; FRL-8863-8] 
received March 22, 2011.
    E.C. 1364--May 3, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Aspergillus 
flavus AF36; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0101; FRL-8868-7] received March 22, 2011.
    E.C. 1365--May 3, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Hexythiazox; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325; FRL-8868-6] 
received April 4, 2011.
    E.C. 1366--May 3, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Ethiprole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0493; FRL-8863-1] 
received April 4, 2011.
    E.C. 1424--May 5, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Minimum Quality and Handling Standards for Domestic and 
Imported Peanuts Marketed in the United States; Section 610 
Review [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0030; FV10-996-610 Review] received 
March 23, 2011.
    E.C. 1425--May 5, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Olives Grown in California; Decreased Assessment Rate 
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0115; FV11-932-1 IR] received March 23, 
2011.
    E.C. 1426--May 5, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; Amendment To Allow 
Additional Exemptions [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0072; FV10-927-1 IR] 
received March 23, 2011.
    E.C. 1427--May 5, 2011: A letter from the Director, Program 
Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Development 
Utilities Programs, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan 
Guarantees (RIN: 0572-AC06) received April 6, 2011.
    E.C. 1480--May 10, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Etoxazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0063; FRL-8867-5] 
received April 8, 2011.
    E.C. 1481--May 10, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Escherichia coli 
O157:H7 Specific Bacteriophages; Temporary Exemption From the 
Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0274; FRL-8868-4] 
received April 8, 2011.
    E.C. 1482--May 10, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, 
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Glyphosate (N-
(phosphonomethyl)glycine; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0988; FRL-8866-8] received April 8, 2011.
    E.C. 1552--May 12, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Gypsy Moth Generally Infested Areas; 
Additions in Indiana, Maine, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, and 
Wisconsin [Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0075] received April 20, 2011.
    E.C. 1553--May 12, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Citrus Canker, Citrus Greening, and 
Asian Citrus Psyllid; Interstate Movement of Regulated Nursery 
Stock [Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0048] (RIN: 0579-AD29) received May 
2, 2011.
    E.C. 1598--May 23, 2011: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--General 
Provisions; Operating and Strategic Business Planning (RIN: 
3052-AC66) received May 3, 2011.
    E.C. 1635--May 24, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Metiram; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0308; FRL-8869-1] 
received April 26, 2011.
    E.C. 1636--May 24, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Mefenpyr-diethyl; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0267; FRL-8870-9] 
received April 26, 2011.
    E.C. 1637--May 24, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pyrasulfotole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0266; FRL-8869-5] 
received April 26, 2011.
    E.C. 1706--May 27, 2011: A letter from the Chief, Planning 
& Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Food Distribution 
Program on Indian Reservations: Amendments Related to the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 [FNS-2009-0006] (RIN: 
0584-AD95) received May 2, 2011.
    E.C. 1707--May 27, 2011: A letter from the Director of 
Legislative Affairs, NRCS, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Wetland Conservation 
[Doc. No.: NRCS-2011-0010] (RIN: 0578-AA58) received May 2, 
2011.
    E.C. 1713--May 31, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Aluminum 
tris(Oethylphosphonate), Butylate, Chlorethoxyfos, Clethodim, 
et al.; Tolerance Actions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0490; FRL-8869-6] 
received April 12, 2011.
    E.C. 1714--May 31, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Carbon Dioxide; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
1077; FRL-0873-1] received May 2, 2011.
    E.C. 1715--May 31, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Clothianidin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0771; FRL-8873-3] 
received May 26, 2011.
    E.C. 1716--May 31, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Metarhizium 
anisopliae strain F52; Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0194; FRL-8872-3] received May 2, 
2011.
    E.C. 1717--May 31, 2011: A letter from the Chairman and 
CEO, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the 
Administration's final rule--Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
Corporation Governance and Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
Corporation Funding and Fiscal Affairs; Risk-Based Capital 
Requirements (RIN: 3052-AC51) received May 3, 2011.
    E.C. 1745--Jun. 1, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Glyphosate; 
Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0938; FRL-8872-6] received 
May 6, 2011.
    E.C. 1746--Jun. 1, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Propiconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1009; FRL-8873-2] 
received May 6, 2011.
    E.C. 1747--Jun. 1, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Saflufenacil; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0755; FRL-8872-7] 
received May 6, 2011.
    E.C. 1748--Jun. 1, 2011: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's 2011 compensation program 
adjustments, including the Agency's current salary range 
structure and the performance-based merit pay matrix, in 
accordance with section 1206 of the Financial Institutions, 
Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.
    E.C. 1812--Jun. 3, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Triflusulfuron-
methyl; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0102; FRL-8871-4] 
received April 19, 2011.
    E.C. 1813--Jun. 3, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Data Requirements 
for Antimicrobial Pesticides; notification to the Secretaries 
of Agriculture and Health and Human Services [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-
0110; FRL-8861-7] (RIN: 2010-AD30) received April 19, 2011.
    E.C. 1814--Jun. 3, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluopicolide; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0481; FRL-8859-9] 
received April 19, 2011.
    E.C. 1872--Jun. 9, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Spirotetramat; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0263; FRL-8865-8] 
received May 12, 2011.
    E.C. 1903--Jun. 14, 2011: A letter from the Chief, Planning 
and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Geographic Preference Option for 
the Procurement of Unprocessed Agricultural Products in Child 
Nutrition Programs (RIN: 0584-AE03) received May 24, 2011.
    E.C. 1904--Jun. 14, 2011: A letter from the Regulatory 
Contact, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Export Inspection and Weighing Waiver 
for High Quality Specialty Grains Transported in Containers 
[Doc. No.: GIPSA-2010-FGIS-0002] (RIN: 0580-AB18) received May 
5, 2011.
    E.C. 1962--Jun. 14, 2011: A letter from the Fiscal 
Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting 
the annual reports that appear on pages 120-147 of the March 
2011 ``Treasury Bulletin'', pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 9602(a); 
jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means, Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Natural Resources, Agriculture, Education and 
the Workforce, and Energy and Commerce.
    E.C. 1963--Jun. 15, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Swine Hides and Skins, 
Bird Trophies, and Ruminant Hides and Skins; Technical 
Amendment [Doc. No.: APHIS-2006-0113] (RIN: 0579-AC11) received 
May 23, 2011.
    E.C. 1964--Jun. 15, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Brucellosis in Swine; Add Texas to 
List of Validated Brucellosis-Free States [Doc. No.: APHIS-
2011-0005] received May 23, 2011.
    E.C. 2024--Jun. 16, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Plum Pox Virus; Update of Quarantined 
Areas [Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0089] received May 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2025--Jun. 16, 2011: A letter from the Chairman and 
CEO, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the 
Administration's final rule--Loan Policies and Operations; Loan 
Purchases from FDIC (RIN: 3052-AC62) received May 31, 2011.
    E.C. 2067--Jun. 20, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Plants for Planting; 
Establishing a Category of Plants for Planting Not Authorized 
for Importation Pending Pest Risk Analysis [Doc. No.: APHIS-
2006-0011] (RIN: 0579-AC03) received May 31, 2011.
    E.C. 2068--Jun. 20, 2011: A letter from the Chief Planning 
and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program: Civil Rights Protections for SNAP 
Households (RIN: 0584-AD89) received May 31, 2011.
    E.C. 2069--Jun. 20, 2011: A letter from the Chairman and 
CEO, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the 
Administration's final rule--Loan Policies and Operations; 
Lending and Leasing Limits and Risk Management (RIN: 3052-AC60) 
received May 31, 2011.
    E.C. 2086--Jun. 21, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bromoxzynil; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0268; FRL-8873-9] 
received June 2, 2011.
    E.C. 2087--Jun. 21, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulation Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Ethylene Glycol; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0361; FRL-8870-7] received June 2, 2011.
    E.C. 2088--Jun. 21, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pyraflufen-ethyl; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0426; FRL-8873-5] 
received June 2, 2011.
    E.C. 2260--Jul. 6, 2011: A letter from the Director, Policy 
Issuances Division, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Cooperative Inspection Programs: 
Interstate Shipment of Meat and Poultry Products [Doc. No.: 
FSIS-2008-0039] (RIN: 0538-AD37) received June 15, 2011.
    E.C. 2261--Jul. 6, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Diethylene Glycol 
MonoEthyl Ether (DEGEE); Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474; FRL-8877-1] received June 15, 
2011.
    E.C. 2262--Jul. 6, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--C9 Rich Aromatic 
Hydrocarbons, C10-11 Rich Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and C11-12 
Rich Aromatic Hydrocarbons; Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0517; FRL-8876-2] received June 15, 
2011.
    E.C. 2302--Jul. 7, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Difenoconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0296; FRL-8876-4] 
received June 10, 2011.
    E.C. 2303--Jul. 7, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pesticide 
Tolerances; Technical Amendments [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1081; FRL-
8875-4] received June 10, 2011.
    E.C. 2338--Jul. 8, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Modification of the 
Rules and Regulations [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0024; FV11-946-31R] 
received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2339--Jul. 8, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Sorghum Promotion, Research and 
Information Program; State Referendum Results [AMS-LS-11-0040] 
received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2340--Jul. 8, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil 
Produced in the Far West; Salable Quantities and Allotment 
Percentages for the 2011-2012 Marketing Year [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-
10-0094; FV11-985-1 FR] received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2341--Jul. 8, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--United States Standards for Grades of Potatoes [Doc. No.: 
AMS-FV-08-0023] received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2342--Jul. 8, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--National Organic Program; Amendment to the National List 
of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (Livestock) [Doc. No.: 
AMS-NOP-10-005; NOP-10-04FR] (RIN: 0581-AD04) received June 13, 
2011.
    E.C. 2343--Jul. 8, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, Consumer Education 
and Industry Information Order [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0015; PR-
A2] (RIN: 0581-AD03) received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2344--Jul. 8, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Fresh Prunes Grown in Designated Counties in Washington 
and in Umatilla County, OR; Termination of Marketing Order 924 
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0053; FV10-924-1 FR] received June 13, 
2011.
    E.C. 2367--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; Amendment To Allow 
Additional Exemptions [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0072; FV10-927-1 
FIR] received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2368--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--User Fees for 2011 Crop Cotton Classification Services to 
Growers [AMS-CN-10-0111; CN-11-001] (RIN: 0581-AD11) received 
June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2369--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Nectarines and Peaches Grown in California; Suspension of 
Handling Requirements [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0019; FV11-916/917-5 
IR] received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2370--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Grapes Grown in Designated Area of Southeastern 
California; Increases Assessment Rate [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-
0104; FV11-925-1 FR] received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2371--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Olives Grown in California; Decreased Assessment Rate 
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0115; FV11-932-1 IR] received June 13, 
201.
    E.C. 2372--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; 
Increased Assessment Rate [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0090; FV10989-3 
FR] received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2373--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Federal Seed Act Regulations [Doc. No.: AMS-LS-08-0002] 
(RIN: 0581-AC74) received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2374--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Regulations Issued Under the Export Grape and Plum Act; 
Revision to the Minimum Requirements [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0091; 
FV1135-1 FR] received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2375--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Decreased Assessment 
Rate [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0012; FV11-946-2 IR] received June 
13, 2011.
    E.C. 2376--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order; 
Section 610 Review [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0006] received June 13, 
2011.
    E.C. 2377--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Deputy 
Director, Food and Community Resources, Department of 
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-Formula Federal Assistance 
Programs--Specific Administrative Provisions for the Beginning 
Farmer and Rancher Development Program (RIN: 0524-AA59) 
received June 20, 2011.
    E.C. 2378--Jul. 11, 2011: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Federal 
Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Funding and Fiscal Affairs; 
Farmer Mac Risk-Based Capital Stress Test, Version 5.0 (RIN: 
3052-AC70) received June 24, 2011.
    E.C. 2393--Jul. 12, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Cloquintocet-
mexyl; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0980; FRL-8877-2] 
received June 24, 2011.
    E.C. 2394--Jul. 12, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Diethylene glycol 
mono butyl ether; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474; FRL-8876-5] received June 24, 2011.
    E.C. 2395--Jul. 12, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Propylene Oxide; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0253; FRL-8877-7] 
received June 24, 2011.
    E.C. 2416--Jul. 12, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 
transmitting the 2010 annual report on the operation of the 
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative and the Tropical Forest 
Conservation Act; jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs 
and Agriculture.
    E.C. 2418--Jul. 13, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act: Impact of Post-
Default Agreements on Trust Protection Eligibility [Doc. No.: 
AMS-FV-09-0047] received June 13, 2011.
    E.C. 2419--Jul. 13, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--2-meghyl-2,4-
pentanediol; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0330; FRL-8875-9] received June 20, 2011.
    E.C. 2554--Jul. 20, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Director, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-Formula Federal 
Assistance Programs--Administrative Provisions for the Sun 
Grant Program (RIN: 0524-AA64) received July 8, 2011.
    E.C. 2595--Jul. 25, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Risk Management Agency, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Common Crop Insurance Regulations; 
Extra Long Staple Cotton Crop Provisions [Doc. No.: FCIC-10-
0002] (RIN: 0563-AC27) received June 28, 2011.
    E.C. 2627--Jul. 27, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting proposed 
legislation to collect certain fees under the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA); jointly to the Committees on Agriculture 
and Energy and Commerce.
    E.C. 2631--Jul. 28, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--2-Propenoic acid, 
2-methyl-, phenylmethyl ester, polymer with 2-propenoic acid 
and sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-
propanesulfonate(1:1), peroxydisulfuric acid ([HO)S(O)2]202) 
sodium salt (1:2)-initiated; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2011-0327; FRL-8878-4] received July 7, 2011.
    E.C. 2632--Jul. 28, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Maneb; Tolerance 
Actions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0327; FRL-8878-6] received July 7, 
2011.
    E.C. 2650--Jul. 29, 2011: A letter from the Deputy 
Director, Food and Community Resources, Department of 
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Competitive and Noncompetitive Nonformula Federal Assistance 
Programs--Administrative Provisions for Biomass Research and 
Development Initiative (0524-AA61) received June 20, 2011.
    E.C. 2665--Jul. 30, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Decreased Assessment 
Rate [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0012; FV11-946-2 FIR] received July 
25, 2011.
    E.C. 2666--Jul. 30, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Redistricting and 
Importer Representation [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0093] received 
July 25, 2011.
    E.C. 2667--Jul. 30, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Beef Promotion and Research; Reapportionment [Doc. No.: 
MSLS-10-0086] received July 25, 2011.
    E.C. 2668--Jul. 30, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown In California; 
Increase in Desirable Carryout Used To Compute Trade Demand 
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0013; FV11-989-1 FR] received July 25, 
2011.
    E.C. 2669--Jul. 30, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Mango Promotion, Research, and Information Order; 
Reapportionment [Doc. No.: AMSFV-10-0092] received July 25, 
2011.
    E.C. 2670--Jul. 30, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Vidalia Onions Grown in Georgia; Change in Late Payment 
and Interest Requirements on Past Due Assessments [Doc. No.: 
AMS-FV-11-0016; FV11-955-1 FR] received July 25, 2011.
    E.C. 2671--Jul. 30, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil 
Produced in the Far West; Revision of the Salable Quantity and 
Allotment Percentage for Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 
2010-2011 Marketing Year [Doc. Nos.: AMS-FV-09-0082; FV10-985-
1A FIR] received July 25, 2011.
    E.C. 2672--Jul. 30, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Olives Grown in California; Decreased Assessment Rate 
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0115; FV11-932-1 FIR] received July 25, 
2011.
    E.C. 2673--Jul. 30, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Nectarines and Peaches Grown in California; Suspension of 
Handling Requirements [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0019; FV11-916/917-5 
FIR] received July 25, 2011.
    E.C. 2679--Aug. 1, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern 
California; Section 610 Review [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-06-0185; FV06-
925-610 Review] received July 25, 2011.
    E.C. 2680--Aug. 1, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Conditions of Guarantee (RIN: 0570-AA81) received July 
18, 2011.
    E.C. 2699--Aug. 2, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Movement of Hass Avocados From Areas 
Where Mediterranean Fruit Fly or South American Fruit Fly Exist 
[Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0127] (RIN: 0579-AD34) received July 25, 
2011.
    E.C. 2700--Aug. 2, 2011: A letter from the Manager, 
BioPreferred Program, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Designation of Biobased Items for 
Federal Procurement (RIN: 0503-AA36) received July 25, 2011.
    E.C. 2778--Aug. 19, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--U.S. Honey Producer Research, Promotion, and Consumer 
Information Order; Termination of Referendum Procedures [Doc. 
No.: AMS-FV-07-0091; FV-07-706-FR] (RIN: 0581-AC78) received 
July 28, 2011.
    E.C. 2779--Aug. 23, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--
Chlorantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-
0888; FRL-8875-5] received July 25, 2011.
    E.C. 2884--Sep. 2, 2011: A letter from the Secretary to the 
Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting 
the Commission's final rule--Removing Any Reference to or 
Reliance on Credit Ratings in Commission Regulations; Proposing 
Alternatives to the Use of Credit Ratings (RIN: 3038-AD11) 
received August 3, 2011.
    E.C. 2885--Sep. 2, 2011: A letter from the Secretary of the 
Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting 
the Commission's final rule--Process for Review of Swaps for 
Mandatory Clearing (RIN: 3038-AD00) received August 3, 2011.
    E.C. 2886--Sep. 2, 2011: A letter from the Secretary of the 
Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting 
the Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Swap Data Repositories: 
Registration Standards, Duties, and Core Principles (RIN: 3038-
AD20) received August 24, 2011.
    E.C. 2887--Sep. 2, 2011: A letter from the Secretary of the 
Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting 
the Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Final Rules for 
Implementing the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 23 of the 
Commodity Exchange Act (RIN: 3038-AD04) received August 24, 
2011.
    E.C. 2888--Sep. 2, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Provisions Common to Registered 
Entities (RIN: 3038-AD07) received August 3, 2011.
    E.C. 2889--Sep. 2, 2011: A letter from the Regulatory 
Analyst, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Export Inspection and Weighting Waiver 
for High Quality Specialty Grain Transported in Containers 
(RIN: 0580-AB18) received August 1, 2011.
    E.C. 2946--Sep. 6, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Large Trader Reporting for Physical 
Commodity Swaps (RIN: 3038-AD17) received July 28, 2011.
    E.C. 2947--Sep. 6, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Prohibition on the Employment, or 
Attempted Employment, of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices and 
Prohibition on Price Manipulation (RIN: 3038-AD27) received 
July 28, 2011.
    E.C. 2948--Sep. 6, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Privacy of Consumer Financial 
Information; Conforming Amendments Under Dodd-Frank Act (RIN: 
3038-AD13) received July 28, 2011.
    E.C. 2949--Sep. 6, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Effective Date for Swap Regulation 
received July 28, 2011.
    E.C. 2950--Sep. 6, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Agricultural Commodity Definition 
(RIN: 3038-AD23) received July 28, 2011.
    E.C. 2951--Sep. 6, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Business Affiliate Marketing and 
Disposal of Consumer Information Rules (RIN: 3038-AD12) 
received July 28, 2011.
    E.C. 2996--Sep. 9, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Shepherd's Purse With 
Roots From the Republic of Korea Into the United States [Doc. 
No.: APHIS-2009-0086] (RIN: 0579-AD26) received July 29, 2011.
    E.C. 2997--Sep. 9, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Karnal Bunt; Regulated Areas in 
Arizona, California, and Texas [Doc. No.: APHIS-2009-0079] 
received July 29, 2011.
    E.C. 2998--Sep. 9, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Carboxymenthyl 
guar gum sodium salt and Carboxymethylhydroxyproyl guar; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0531; FRL-8880-5] received July 20, 2011.
    E.C. 2999--Sep. 9, 2011: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Funding and 
Fiscal Affairs, Loan Policies and Operations, and Funding 
Operations; Investment Management (RIN: 3052-AC50) received 
August 2, 2011.
    E.C. 3035--Sep. 12, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluoxastrobin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0725; FRL-8884-4] 
received August 15, 2011.
    E.C. 3036--Sep. 12, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Metconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0621; FRL-8882-7] 
received August 15, 2011
    E.C. 3037--Sep. 12, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Thiamethoxam; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0481; FRL-A8874-9] 
received August 15, 2011
    E.C. 3038--Sep. 12, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Tetraconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0583; FRL-8885-1] 
received August 25, 2011.
    E.C. 3187--Sep. 22, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Agricultural Swaps (RIN: 3038-AD21) 
received August 23, 2011.
    E.C. 3188--Sep. 22, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--National Dairy Promotion and Research 
Program; Final Rule on Amendments to the Order [Doc. No.: DA-
08-07; AMS-DA-08-0050] (RIN: 0581-AC87) received August 22, 
2011.
    E.C. 3189--Sep. 22, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; 
Modifications of the Rules and Regulations [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-
11-0024; FV11-946-3 FIR] received August 22, 2011.
    E.C. 3190--Sep. 22, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--National Organic Program (NOP); Sunset 
Review (2011) [Doc. No.: AMS-TM-07-0136; TM-07-14FR] (RIN: 
0581-AC77) received August 22, 2011.
    E.C. 3191--Sep. 22, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, 
Consumer Education and Industry Information Order [Doc. No.: 
AMS-FV-10-0015; FR] (RIN: 0581-AD03) received August 22, 2011.
    E.C. 3217--Sep. 23, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--National Veterinary Accreditation 
Program; Currently Accredited Veterinarians Performing 
Accredited Duties and Electing To Participate [Doc. No.: APHIS-
2006-0093] (RIN: 0579-AC04) received August 29, 2011.
    E.C. 3218--Sep. 23, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Peppers From Panama 
[Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0002] (RIN: 0579-AD16) received August 
29, 2011.
    E.C. 3219--Sep. 23, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--European Larch Canker; Expansion of 
Regulated Areas [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-0029] received August 29, 
2011.
    E.C. 3220--Sep. 23, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Asian Longhorned Beetle; Quarantined 
Areas and Regulated Articles [Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0128] 
received August 29, 2011.
    E.C. 3221--Sep. 23, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Horses From Contagious 
Equine Metritis-Affected Countries [Doc. No.: APHIS-2008-0112] 
(RIN: 0579-AD31) received August 29, 2011.
    E.C. 3267--Sep. 29, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Commercial 
Transportation of Equines to Slaughter [Doc. No.: APHIS-2006-
0168] (RIN: 0579-AC49) received September 8, 2011.
    E.C. 3268--Sep. 29, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Tebuconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0120; FRL-8885-4] 
received September 12, 2011.
    E.C. 3269--Sep. 29, 2011: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Funding and 
Fiscal Affairs, Loan Policies and Operations, and Funding 
Operations; Capital Adequacy Risk-Weighting Revisions: 
Alternatives to Credit Ratings (RIN: 3052-AC71) received 
September 6, 2011.
    E.C. 3297--Oct. 3, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities 
Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--Emergency 
Restoration Plan (ERP) (RIN: 0572-AC16) received September 6, 
2011.
    E.C. 3329--Oct. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Atrazine, 
Chloroneb, Chlorpyrifos, Clofencent, Endosulfan, et al.; 
Tolerance Actions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0104; FRL-8883-9] received 
September 12, 2011.
    E.C. 3330--Oct. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Sulfur Dioxide; 
Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0684; FRL-8887-2] received September 12, 2011.
    E.C. 3331--Oct. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--2,4-D; Pesticide 
Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0905; FRL-8881-7] received 
September 12, 2011.
    E.C. 3332--Oct. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Chromobacterium 
subtsugae strain PRAA4-1T; Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0054; FRL-8887-4] received September 
12, 2011.
    E.C. 3333--Oct. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Dicamba; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0496; FRL-8881-6] 
received September 12, 2011.
    E.C. 3334--Oct. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Flubendiamide; 
Pesticide Tolerances; Technical Amendment [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
0099; FRL-8870-8] received September 12, 2011.
    E.C. 3335--Oct. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Lipase, 
Triacylglycerol; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0271; FRL-8882-4] received September 12, 2011.
    E.C. 3336--Oct. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Mandipropamid; 
Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0639; FRL-8886-8] received September 12, 2011.
    E.C. 3337--Oct. 4, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Novaluron; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0466; FRL-8882-1] 
received September 12, 2011.
    E.C. 3380--Oct. 6, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluazifop-P-
butyl; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0849; FRL-8889-1] 
received September 20, 2011.
    E.C. 3381--Oct. 6, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--
Chlorantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances; Correction [EPA-HQ-
OPP-2010-0888; FRL-8888-3] received September 20, 2011.
    E.C. 3410--Oct. 7, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Cotton Board Rules and Regulations: 
Adjusting Supplemental Assessment on Imports [Doc. No.: AMS-CN-
11-0026; CN-11-002] received September 16, 2011.
    E.C. 3411--Oct. 7, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, 
Consumer Education and Industry Information Order; Correction 
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0015C; FR] (RIN: 0581-AD03) received 
September 16, 2011.
    E.C. 3412--Oct. 7, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; 
Assessment Rate Decrease for Processed Pears [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-
11-0070 FV11-927-3 IR] received September 16, 2011.
    E.C. 3413--Oct. 7, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; 
Assessment Rate Decrease for Fresh Pears [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-
0060; FV11-927-2 IR] received September 16, 2011.
    E.C. 3414--Oct. 7, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Dried Prunes Produced in California; 
Decreased Assessment Rate [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0068; FV11-993-1 
IR] received September 16, 2011.
    E.C. 3425--Oct. 11, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Emergency Assistance 
for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program, 
Livestock Indemnity Program, and General Provisions for 
Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs (RIN: 
0560-AH95) received September 16, 2011.
    E.C. 3426--Oct. 11, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bacillus 
thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab Protein in Corn; Temporary Exemption 
From the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0609; FRL-
8889-2] received September 15, 2011.
    E.C. 3427--Oct. 11, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--
Tetrachlorvinphos; Extension of Time-Limited Interim Pesticide 
Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0360; FRL-8887-5] received 
September 15, 2011.
    E.C. 3445--Oct. 12, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison; 
State and Zone Designations; Michigan [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-
0075] received September 14, 2011.
    E.C. 3465--Oct. 13, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Rural Housing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Intergovernmental Review received 
September 16, 2011.
    E.C. 3495--Oct. 14, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Program Development & Regulatory Analysis, Department of 
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Expansion of 911 Access; Telecommunications Loan Program (RIN: 
0572-AC24) received October 5, 2011.
    E.C. 3496--Oct. 14, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Gypsy Moth Generally Infested Areas; 
Additions in Indiana, Maine, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, and 
Wisconsin [Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0075] received October 3, 2011.
    E.C. 3497--Oct. 14, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Golden Nematode; Removal of Regulated 
Areas [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-0036] received October 3, 2011.
    E.C. 3498--Oct. 14, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Phytosanitary Treatments; Location of 
and Process for Updating Treatment Schedules; Technical 
Amendment [Doc. No.: APHIS-2008-0022] (RIN: 0579-AC94) received 
October 3, 2011.
    E.C. 3511--Oct. 18, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--2-Propenoic acid, 
polymer with ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, 
sodium salt; Tolerance exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0430; FRL-
8888-5] received August 18, 2011.
    E.C. 3541--Oct. 21, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison; 
State and Zone Designations; New Mexico [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-
0093] received October 5, 2011.
    E.C. 3542--Oct. 21, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pseudomonas 
fluorescens strain CL145; Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0087; FRL-8884-6] received August 
18, 2011.
    E.C. 3561--Oct. 24, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison; 
State and Zone Designations; Minnesota [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-
0100] received October 5, 2011.
    E.C. 3562--Oct. 24, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Amisulbron; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0186; FRL-8885-3] 
received September 26, 2011.
    E.C. 3563--Oct. 24, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Isaria 
fumosorosea Apopka strain 97; Exemption from the Requirement of 
a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0087; FRL-8889-8] received 
September 26, 2011.
    E.C. 3617--Oct. 27, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Foreign Futures and Options Contracts 
on a Non-Narrow-Based Security Index; Commission Certification 
Procedures (RIN: 3038-AC54) received September 27, 2011.
    E.C. 3618--Oct. 27, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Isopyrazam; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0906; FRL-8874-6] 
received October 6, 2011.
    E.C. 3619--Oct. 27, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Prothicocnazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0053; FRL-8884-2] 
received October 4, 2011.
    E.C. 3689--Nov. 1, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Retail Foreign Exchange Transactions; 
Conforming Changes to Existing Regulations in Response to the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
received September 27, 2011.
    E.C. 3690--Nov. 1, 2011: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Intergovernmental Review received October 4, 2011.
    E.C. 3691--Nov. 1, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Guaranteed Loan Fees 
(RIN: 0560-AH41) received September 27, 2011.
    E.C. 3692--Nov. 1, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Biomass Crop 
Assistance Program: Corrections (RIN: 0560-AI13) received 
September 27, 2011.
    E.C. 3730--Nov. 3, 2011: A letter from the Chief, Planning 
and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Special Supplemental 
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): 
Implementation of Nondiscretionary, Non-Electronic Benefits 
Transfer-Related Provisions (RIN: 0584-AE13) received October 
12, 2011.
    E.C. 3731--Nov. 3, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Tomatoes With Stems 
From the Republic of Korea Into the United States [Doc. No.: 
APHIS-2010-0020] (RIN: 0579-AD33) received October 31, 2011.
    E.C. 3766--Nov. 7, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Fresh Baby Kiwi From 
Chile Under a Systems Approach [Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0018] 
(RIN: 0579-AD37) received October 27, 2011.
    E.C. 3767--Nov. 7, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--National Poultry Improvement Plan and 
Auxiliary Provisions; Correction [Doc. No.: APHIS-2009-0031] 
(RIN: 0579-AD21) received October 27, 2011.
    E.C. 3806--Nov. 14, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Brucellosis in Swine; Add Texas to 
List of Validated Brucellosis-Free States [Doc. No.: APHIS-
2011-0005] received October 27, 2011.
    E.C. 3869--Nov. 16, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bacteriophage of 
Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies michiganensis; Exemption 
from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0538; FRL-
8891-3] received October 18, 2011.
    E.C. 3930--Nov. 18, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Bromeliad Plants in 
Growing Media From Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands [Doc. 
No.: APHIS-2010-0005] (RIN: 0579-AD36) received November 3, 
2011.
    E.C. 3931--Nov. 18, 2011: A letter from the Regulatory 
Officer, Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's 
final rule--Adjustment of Appendices to the Dairy Tariff-Rate 
Import Quota Licensing Regulation for the 2011 Tariff-Rate 
Quota Year received October 31, 2011.
    E.C. 3968--Nov. 25, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Reporting by Investment 
Advisers to Private Funds and Certain Commodity Pool Operators 
and Commodity Trading Advisors on Form PF [Release No.: IA-
3308; File No. S7-05-11] (RIN: 3235-AK92) received November 17, 
2011.
    E.C. 3969--Nov. 25, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Position Limits for Futures 
and Swaps (RIN: 3038-AD17) received November 16, 2011.
    E.C. 4067--Dec. 1, 2011: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of French Beans and Runner 
Beans From the Republic of Kenya Into the United States [Doc. 
No.: APHIS-2010-0101] (RIN: 0579-AD39) received November 4, 
2011.
    E.C. 4088--Dec. 2, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fenamidone; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0866; FRL-9325-4] 
received November 16, 2011.
    E.C. 4089--Dec. 2, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Polyethylene 
glycol; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0606; FRL-8892-1] 
received November 16, 2011.
    E.C. 4090--Dec. 2, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Prohexadione 
Calcium; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0780; FRL-9326-
4] received November 16, 2011.
    E.C. 4176--Dec. 7, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, 
and Information Order [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0008-FR-1A] (RIN: 
0581-AD00) received November 15, 2011.
    E.C. 4177--Dec. 7, 2011: A letter from the Management and 
Program Analyst, Directives and Regulations, Forest Service, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program 
(RIN: 0596-AC84) received November 15, 2011.
    E.C. 4205--Dec. 7, 2011: A letter from the Management and 
Program Analyst, Directives and Regulations, Forest Service, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Prohibitions--Developed Recreation Sites (RIN: 0596-AC98) 
received November 15, 2011; jointly to the Committees on 
Agriculture and Natural Resources.
    E.C. 4206--Dec. 8, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Walnuts Grown in California; Increased 
Assessment Rate [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0062; FV11-984-1 FR] 
received November 17, 2011.
    E.C. 4207--Dec. 8, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Onions Grown in Certain Designated 
Counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, OR; Modification of 
Handling Regulations [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0025; FV11-958-1 FR] 
received November 17, 2011.
    E.C. 4208--Dec. 8, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Abamectin 
(avermectin); Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0619; FRL-
8890-2] received November 4, 2011.
    E.C. 4209--Dec. 8, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Amides, C5-C9, N-
[3-(dimethylamino)propyl] and amides, C6-C12, N-[3-
(dimethylamino)propyl]; Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0093; FRL-8890-8] received November 
4, 2011.
    E.C. 4210--Dec. 8, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Flutriafol; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0876; FRL-9325-6] 
received November 4, 2011.
    E.C. 4211--Dec. 8, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Methacrylic acid-
methy methacrylate-polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether 
methacrylate graft copolymer; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2011-0583; FRL-8891-4] received November 4, 2011.
    E.C. 4212--Dec. 8, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Methacrylic 
Polymer; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0333; FRL-8891-1] 
received November 4, 2011.
    E.C. 4213--Dec. 8, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Trifloxystrobin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0456; FRL-8890-1] 
received November 4, 2011.
    E.C. 4236--Dec. 9, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Nectarines and Fresh Peaches Grown in 
California; Termination of Marketing Order 916 and the Peach 
Provision of Marketing Order 917 [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0018; 
FV11-916/917-4 FR] received November 17, 2011.
    E.C. 4237--Dec. 9, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Cotton Board Rules and Regulations: 
Adjusting Supplemental Assessment on Imports; Corrections [Doc. 
No.: AMS-CN-11-0026C; CN-11-002] received November 17, 2011.
    E.C. 4238--Dec. 9, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, 
and Information Order; Referendum Procedures [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-
10-0008-FR] (RIN: 0581-AD00) received November 17, 2011.
    E.C. 4276--Dec. 13, 2011: A letter from the Secretary of 
the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
transmitting the Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Derivatives 
Clearing Organization General Provisions and Core Principles 
(RIN: 3038-AC98) received November 29, 2011.
    E.C. 4277--Dec. 13, 2011: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Saflufenacil; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1026; FRL-9325-2] 
received December 2, 2011.
    E.C. 4307--Dec. 15, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, 
and Information Order; Stay of Regulations [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-
10-0008-1A] (RIN: 0581-AD00) received December 2, 2011.
    E.C. 4317--Dec. 16, 2011: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting proposed amendments to title 12, chapter VI of the 
Code of Federal Regulations.
    E.C. 4327--Dec. 19, 2011: A letter from the Acting Deputy 
Associate Administrator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program: Quality Control Error Tolerance 
Threshold [FNS-2011-0060] (RIN: 0584-AE24) received November 
30, 2011.
    E.C. 4328--Dec. 19, 2011: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Karnal Bunt; 
Regulated Areas in California [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-0074] 
received November 30, 2011.
    E.C. 4366--Dec. 21, 2011: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Investment of Customer Funds 
and Funds Held in an Account for Foreign Futures and Foreign 
Options Transactions (RIN: 3038-AC79) received December 19, 
2011.
    E.C. 4367--Dec. 21, 2011: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Funding and 
Fiscal Affairs, Loan Policies and Operations, and Funding 
Operations; Liquidity and Funding (RIN: 3052-AC54) received 
December 7, 2011.
    E.C. 4386--Dec. 22, 2011: A letter from the Management 
Analyst, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Implementation of Regulations Required 
Under Title XI of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 
2008; Suspension of Delivery of Birds, Additional Capital 
Investment Criteria, Breach of Contract, and Arbitration (RIN: 
0580-AB07) received December 14, 2011.
    E.C. 4458--Jan. 17, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Registration of Foreign Boards of 
Trade (RIN: 3038-AD19) received December 19, 2011.
    E.C. 4459--Jan. 17, 2012: A letter from the Program 
Development and Regulatory Analysis, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Standards and 
Specifications for Timber Products Acceptable for Use by Rural 
Utilities Service Electric and Telecommunications Borrowers 
received December 14, 2011.
    E.C. 4460--Jan. 17, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Farm Loan Programs 
Loan Making Activities (RIN: 0560-AI03) received December 13, 
2011.
    E.C. 4461--Jan. 17, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Department 
of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Amending 7 CFR Part 4290, Rural Business Investment Program, 
and 7 CFR Part 1940, General (RIN: 0570-AA80) received December 
19, 2011.
    E.C. 4462--Jan. 17, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Extension of 
Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions (Multiple Chemicals) [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2011-0972; FRL-9329-9] received December 22, 2011.
    E.C. 4463--Jan. 17, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Isoxaflutole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0845; FRL-8885-8] 
received December 7, 2011.
    E.C. 4464--Jan. 17, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Butyl acrylate-
methacrylic acid-styrene polymer; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-
OPP-2011-0732; FRL-9327-6] received December 14, 2011.
    E.C. 4465--Jan. 17, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Hexythiazox; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0916; FRL-9327-7] 
received December 14, 2011.
    E.C. 4618--Jan. 19, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Real-Time Public Reporting 
of Swap Transaction Data (RIN: 3038-AD08) received January 9, 
2012.
    E.C. 4630--Jan. 23, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Cyhalofop-butyl; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0283; FRL-9330-1] 
received December 28, 2011.
    E.C. 4631--Jan. 23, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Difenoconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0959; FRL-9328-6] 
received December 28, 2011.
    E.C. 4632--Jan. 23, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Tepraloxydim; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0865; FRL-9330-2] 
received December 28, 2011.
    E.C. 4661--Jan. 24, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Live Swine, Swine 
Semen, Pork and Pork Products from Liechtenstein and 
Switzerland [Doc. No.: APHIS-2009-0093] received December 21, 
2011.
    E.C. 4691--Jan. 25, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower 
Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Increased Assessment Rate [Doc. 
No.: AMS-FV-11-0057; FV11-906-1 FR] received January 3, 2012.
    E.C. 4692--Jan. 25, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bacillus 
amyloliquefaciens strain D747; Exemption from the Requirement 
of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0944; FRL-9330-4] received 
January 4, 2012.
    E.C. 4721--Jan. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Highly Erodible Land 
and Wetland Conservation (RIN: 0560-AH97) received January 6, 
2012.
    E.C. 4732--Jan. 31, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Irish Potatoes Grown in Southeastern 
States; Suspension of Marketing Order Provisions [Doc. No.: 
AMS-FV-11-0027; FV11-953-1 FR] received January 3, 2012.
    E.C. 4733--Jan. 31, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Pistachios Grown in California, 
Arizona, and New Mexico; Decreased Assessment Rate [Doc. No.: 
AMS-FV-11-0077; FV-983-2 IR] received January 3, 2012.
    E.C. 4734--Jan. 31, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--United States Standards for Grades of 
Frozen Okra [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-07-0100, FV-11-327] received 
January 3, 2012.
    E.C. 4735--Jan. 31, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Marketing Order Regulating the 
Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of 
the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 1 
(Scotch) and Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 2011-2012 
Marketing Year [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0094; FV11-985-1A IR] 
received January 3, 2012.
    E.C. 4763--Feb. 1, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Irish Potatoes Grown in Southeastern 
States; Suspension of Marketing Order Provisions [Doc. No.: 
AMS-FV-11-0027; FV11-953-1 FR] received January 3, 2012.
    E.C. 4801--Feb. 2, 2012: A letter from the Acting Director, 
Policy Issuances Division, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Classes of Poultry 
[Doc. No.: FSIS-2007-0048] (RIN: 0583-AC83) received January 3, 
2012.
    E.C. 4802--Feb. 2, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Lists of Regions Classified With 
Respect to Certain Animal Diseases and States Approved To 
Receive Certain Imported Horses [Doc. No.: APHIS-2009-0035] 
(RIN: 0579-AD05) received January 10, 2012.
    E.C. 4803--Feb. 2, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bacillus subtilis 
strain CX-9060; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0104; FRL-9330-9] received January 11, 2012.
    E.C. 4856--Feb. 6, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--European Larch Canker; Expansion of 
Regulated Areas [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-0029] received January 
10, 2012.
    E.C. 4876--Feb. 7, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Real-Time Public Reporting 
of Swap Transaction Data (RIN: 3038-AD08) received February 7, 
2012.
    E.C. 4877--Feb. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bacillus 
amyloliquefaciens strain D747; Exemption from the Requirement 
of a Tolerance; Technical Correction [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0944; 
FRL-9334-3] received January 17, 2012.
    E.C. 4905--Feb. 8, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Swap Data record-keeping and Reporting 
Requirements (RIN: 3038-AD19) received January 12, 2012.
    E.C. 4906--Feb. 8, 2012: A letter from the Deputy Director, 
Regulations Policy and Management Staff, Department of Health 
and Human Services, transmitting the Department's final rule--
New Animal Drugs; Cephalosporin Drugs; Extralabel Animal Drug 
Use; Order of Prohibition [Doc. No.: FDA-2008-N-0326] received 
January 17, 2012.
    E.C. 4935--Feb. 9, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Registration of Swap Dealers and Major 
Swap Participants (RIN: 3038-AC95) received January 19, 2012.
    E.C. 4936--Feb. 9, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Definitions and 
Abbreviations (RIN: 0570-AA87) received January 17, 2012.
    E.C. 4937--Feb. 9, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Credit, Travel and Grants Policy Division, Department of 
Agriculture, transmitting the Administration's final rule--
Implementation of Office of Management and Budget Guidance on 
Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (RIN: 0505-AA14) received 
January 10, 2012.
    E.C. 4938--Feb. 9, 2012: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Organization; 
Standards of Conduct and Referral of Known or Suspected 
Criminal Violations; Definitions; Disclosure to Shareholders; 
and Disclosure to Investors in System-wide and Consolidated 
Bank Debt Obligations of the Farm Credit System; Compensation, 
Retirement Programs, and Related Benefits (RIN: 3052-AC41) 
received January 17, 2012.
    E.C. 4985--Feb. 14, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Cyazofamid; 
Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0697; FRL-9332-5] received January 24, 2012.
    E.C. 4986--Feb. 14, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Etoxazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0968; FRL-9334-9] 
received January 24, 2012.
    E.C. 4987--Feb. 14, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Rimsulfuron; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1017; FRL-9332-1] 
received January 24, 2012.
    E.C. 5004--Feb. 15, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Trichoderma 
virens strain G-41; Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0053; FRL-9333-5] received January 
30, 2012.
    E.C. 5055--Feb. 21, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Registration of Swap Dealers and Major 
Swap Participants (RIN: 3038-AC95) January 26, 2012.
    E.C. 5056--Feb. 21, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Protection of Cleared Swaps 
Customer Contracts and Collateral; Conforming Amendments to the 
Commodity Broker Bankruptcy Provisions (RIN: Number 3038-AC99) 
received February 7, 2012.
    E.C. 5057--Feb. 21, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Program Dev. and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Development 
Utilities Program, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Electric Engineering, Architectural 
Services, Design Policies and Construction Standards (RIN: 
0572-AC20) received January 31, 2012.
    E.C. 5058--Feb. 21, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--National Dairy Promotion and Research 
Program; Amendments to the Order [Doc. No.: AMS-DA-11-0007; DA-
11-02] received January 31, 2012.
    E.C. 5059--Feb. 21, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Irish potatoes Grown in Colorado; 
Modification of the Handling Regulation for Area No. 3 [Doc. 
No.: AMS-FV-11-0051; FV11-948-1 FR] received January 31, 2012.
    E.C. 5060--Feb. 21, 2012: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Disclosure to 
Investors in Systemwide and Consolidated Bank Debt Obligations 
of the Farm Credit System (RIN: 3052-AC77) received January 31, 
2012.
    E.C. 5196--Mar. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Indoxacarb; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0578; FRL-9336-7] 
received February 7, 2012.
    E.C. 5217--Mar. 8, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Business Conduct Standards 
for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants With 
Counterparties (RIN: 3038-AD25) received February 17, 2012.
    E.C. 5218--Mar. 8, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluopyram; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0364; FRL-9336-9] 
received February 11, 2012.
    E.C. 5219--Mar. 8, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Metaflumizone; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0168; FRL-9333-4] 
received February 11, 2012.
    E.C. 5220--Mar. 8, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Mevinphos; Order 
Revoking Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0423; FRL-9338-3] received 
February 11, 2012.
    E.C. 5221--Mar. 8, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Flazasulfuron; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0494; FRL-8883-1] 
received February 11, 2012.
    E.C. 5252--Mar. 13, 2012: A letter from the Manager, 
BioPreferred Program, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Designation of Biobased Items for 
Federal Procurement (RIN: 0503-AA39) received February 13, 
2012.
    E.C. 5253--Mar. 13, 2012: A letter from the Manager, 
BioPreferred Program, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--BioPreferred Program (RIN: 0503-
AA41) received February 13, 2012.
    E.C. 5254--Mar. 13, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Kiwifruit Grown in California; Change 
in Reporting Requirements and New Information Collection [Doc. 
No.: AMS-FV-11-0041; FV11-920-1 FR] received March 2, 2012.
    E.C. 5255--Mar. 13, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bacillus 
thuringiensis Cry2Ae Protein in Cotton; Exemption from the 
Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0573; FRL-9333-7] 
received February 2, 2012.
    E.C. 5273--Mar. 16, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Aureobasidium 
pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941; Exemption from the 
Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0099; FRL-9337-3] 
received February 14, 2012.
    E.C. 5274--Mar. 16, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pasteuria 
nishizawae-Pn1; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0807; FRL-9337-2] received February 14, 2012.
    E.C. 5275--Mar. 16, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Spirotetramat; 
Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0783; FRL-9332-9] received February 14, 2012.
    E.C. 5341--Mar. 20, 2012: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting a report on the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget; 
jointly to the Committees on Agriculture and Oversight and 
Government Reform.
    E.C. 5343--Mar. 21, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting 
[Doc. No.: AMSDA-10-0089; DA-11-01] (RIN: 0581-AD12) received 
February 17, 2012.
    E.C. 5344--Mar. 21, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Marketing Order Regulating the 
Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of 
the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 1 
(Scotch) and Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 2011-2012 
Marketing Year [Doc. Nos.: AMS-FV-10-0094; FV11-985-1A FIR] 
received February 17, 2012.
    E.C. 5345--Mar. 21, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--National Organic Program (NOP); 
Amendments to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited 
Substances (Crops and Processing) [Doc. No.: AMS-NOP-10-0079; 
NOP-09-02FR] (RIN: 0581-AD06) received February 17, 2012.
    E.C. 5346--Mar. 21, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Revision of Cotton Futures 
Classification Procedures [Doc. No.: AMS-CN-10-0073; CN-10-005] 
(RIN: 0581-AD16) received February 17, 2012.
    E.C. 5367--Mar. 22, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pyroxasulfone; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0717; FRL-9334-2] 
received February 13, 2012.
    E.C. 5427--Mar. 27, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Wooden Handicrafts From 
China [Doc. No.: APHIS-2007-0117] (RIN: 0597-AC90) received 
March 2, 2012.
    E.C. 5428--Mar. 27, 2012: A letter from the Management and 
Program Analyst, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Community Forest and Open Space 
Conservation Program (RIN: 0596-AC84) received March 14, 2012.
    E.C. 5502--Mar. 30, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's report 
entitled, ``2011 Packers and Stockyards Program Annual 
Report''; to the Committee on Agriculture.
    E.C. 5503--Mar. 30, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Penthiopyrad; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0349; FRL-9335-7] 
received March 7, 2012.
    E.C. 5504--Mar. 30, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Aspergillus 
flavus AF36; Amendment to an Exemption from the Requirement of 
a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0158; FRL-9341-5] received March 
9, 2012.
    E.C. 5505--Mar. 30, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pyriofenone; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0659; FRL-9336-6] 
received March 9, 2012.
    E.C. 5522--Apr. 16, 2012: A letter from the Chief 
Information Officer, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Modification of Interlibrary Loan 
Fee Schedule (RIN: 0518-AA04) received March 22, 2012.
    E.C. 5523--Apr. 16, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--2-Propenoic acid, 
2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl ester, telomere with 1-dodecanethiol, 
ethenylbenzene and 2-methyloxiraine polymer with oxirane 
monoether with 1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2-propenoate), 
hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt, 2, 2-(1,2-
diazenediyl)bis[[2-ethylpropanenitrile] initiated; Tolerance 
Exception [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0975; FRL-9339-9] received March 28, 
2012.
    E.C. 5524--Apr. 16, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Acetamiprid; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0403; FRL-9340-7] 
received March 28, 2012.
    E.C. 5658--Apr. 17, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Policy Issuances Division, Office of Policy and Program 
Development, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Changes to the Schedule of Operations 
Regulations [Doc. No.: FSIS-2010-0014] (RIN: 0583-AD35) 
received March 28, 2012.
    E.C. 5659--Apr. 17, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bacillus pumilus 
strain GHA 180; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0536; FRL-9343-1] received March 23, 2012.
    E.C. 5689--Apr. 19, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Customer Clearing 
Documentation, Timing of Acceptance for Clearing, and Clearing 
Member Risk Management (RIN: 3038-0092, -0094) received April 
10, 2012.
    E.C. 5690--Apr. 19, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity 
Trading Advisors: Compliance Obligations (RIN: 3038-AD30) 
received March 26, 2012.
    E.C. 5691--Apr. 19, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Tuberculosis in 
Cattle and Bison; State and Zone Designations; NM; Correction 
[Doc. No.: APHIS-2008-0124] received March 26, 2012.
    E.C. 5692--Apr. 19, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Risk Management Agency, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Common Crop Insurance Regulations; 
Onion Crop Insurance Provisions [Doc. No.: FCIC-11-0004] (RIN: 
0563-AC29) received March 26, 2012.
    E.C. 5766--Apr. 25, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Silicic Acid, 
Sodium Salt etc.; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0934; 
FRL-9333-6] received April 11, 2012.
    E.C. 5797--Apr. 26, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Swap Dealer and Major Swap 
Participant record-keeping, Reporting, and Duties Rules; 
Futures Commission Merchant and Introducing Broker Conflicts of 
Interest Rules; and Chief Compliance Officer Rules for Swap 
Participants, and Futures Commission Merchants (RIN: 3038-AC96) 
received April 3, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
the Committee on Agriculture.
    E.C. 5827--Apr. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--2-Ethyl-1-
hexanol; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-
OPP-2011-0604; FRL-9342-5] received April 4, 2012.
    E.C. 5828--Apr. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Acibenzolar-S-
methyl; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0086; FRL-9343-3] 
received April 4, 2012.
    E.C. 5858--May 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Conservation Loan 
Program (RIN: 0560-AI04) received April 2, 2012.
    E.C. 5917--May 8, 2012: A letter from the Management and 
Program Analyst, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--National Forest System Land Management 
Planning (RIN: 0596-AD02) received April 19, 2012.
    E.C. 5945--May 10, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Thiamethoxam; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1079; FRL-9331-8] 
received February 18, 2012.
    E.C. 5946--May 10, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Trifloxystrobin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0138; FRL-9336-5] 
received February 18, 2012.
    E.C. 5947--May 10, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Trinexapac-ethyl; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0524; FRL-9337-9] 
received February 18, 2012.
    E.C. 6021--May 16, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Pomegranates From Chile 
Under a Systems Approach [Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0024] (RIN: 
0579-AD38) received April 18, 2012.
    E.C. 6022--May 16, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Fresh Pitaya Fruit From 
Central America Into the Continental United States [Doc. No.: 
APHIS-2010-0113] (RIN: 0579-AD40) received April 18, 2012.
    E.C. 6023--May 16, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Clementines From Spain; 
Amendment to Inspection Provisions [Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0036] 
(RIN: 0579-AD27) received April 18, 2012.
    E.C. 6026--May 16, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Asian Longhorned Beetle; Additions to 
Quarantined Areas in Massachusetts [Doc. No.: APHIS-2010-0128] 
received April 18, 2012.
    E.C. 6048--May 17, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Quizalofop Ethyl: 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1018; FRL-9340-5] 
received April 18, 2012.
    E.C. 6069--May 18, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Golden Nematode; Removal of Regulated 
Areas [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-0036] received April 19, 2012.
    E.C. 6070--May 18, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Karnal Bunt; Regulated Areas in 
California [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-0074] received April 19, 2012.
    E.C. 6103--May 25, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Director--National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities 
(HSACU) Certification Process (RIN: 0524-AA39) received April 
26, 2012.
    E.C. 6133--May 29, 2012: A letter from the Manager, 
BioPreferred Program, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Designation of Product Categories 
for Federal Procurement (RIN: 0599-AA14) received April 13, 
2012.
    E.C. 6134--May 29, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Dried Prunes Produced in California; 
Decreased Assessment Rate [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0068; FV11-993-1 
FIR] received April 27, 2012.
    E.C. 6135--May 29, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Revision of Cotton Classification 
Procedures for Determining Cotton Leaf Grade [Doc. No.: AMSCN-
11-0066] (RIN: 0581-AD19) received April 24, 2012.
    E.C. 6136--May 29, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Upland Cotton Base 
Quality (RIN: 0560-AI16) received April 11, 2012.
    E.C. 6137--May 29, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Mango Promotion, Research, and 
Information Order; Assessment Increase [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-
0021] received April 27, 2012.
    E.C. 6138--May 29, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Marketing Order Regulating the 
Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of 
the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 1 
(Scotch) Spearmint Oil for the 2011-2012 Marketing Year [Doc. 
No.: AMS-FV-10-0094; FV11-985-1B 1R] received April 27, 2012.
    E.C. 6139--May 29, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Pistachios Grown in California, 
Arizona, and New Mexico; Decreased Assessment Rate [Doc. No.: 
AMS-FV-11-0077; FV11-983-2 FIR] received April 27, 2012.
    E.C. 6140--May 29, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; 
Assessment Rate Decrease for Fresh Pears [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-
0060; FV11-927-2 FIR] received April 27, 2012.
    E.C. 6141--May 29, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; 
Assessment Rate Decrease for Processed Pears [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-
11-0070 FV11-927-3 FIR] received April 27, 2012.
    E.C. 6281--Jun. 5, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Further Definition of ``Swap 
Dealer'', ``Security-Based Swap Dealer'', ``Major Swap 
Participant'', ``Major Security-Based Swap Participant'' and 
``Eligible Contract Participant'' [Release No.: 34-66868; File 
No. S7-39-10] (RIN: 3235-AK65) received May 23, 2012.
    E.C. 6321--Jun. 6, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Commodity Options (RIN: 3038-AD62) 
received April 30, 2012.
    E.C. 6322--Jun. 6, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Rural Housing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Community Facility Loans (RIN: 
0575-AC78) received May 9, 2012.
    E.C. 6323--Jun. 6, 2012: A letter from the Deputy 
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, Department of 
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Specification for 15 kV and 25 kV Primary Underground Power 
Cable received May 1, 2012.
    E.C. 6324--Jun. 6, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Acequinocyl; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0449; FRL-9346-4] 
received May 1, 2012.
    E.C. 6325--Jun. 6, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Thiamethoxam; 
Pesticide Tolerances; Technical Correction [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-
1079; FRL-9344-9] received May 1, 2012.
    E.C. 6326--Jun. 6, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluoxastrobin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0677; FRL-9345-3] 
received May 1, 2012.
    E.C. 6327--Jun. 6, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Dimethomorph; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-2011-0388; FRL-9346-6] 
received May 1, 2012.
    E.C. 6328--Jun. 6, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Metconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0179; FRL-9345-6] 
received May 1, 2012.
    E.C. 6329--Jun. 6, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Carfentrazone-
ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0428; FRL-9346-5] 
received May 1, 2012.
    E.C. 6330--Jun. 6, 2012: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--General 
Provisions; Operating and Strategic Business Planning (RIN: 
3052-AC66) received May 9, 2012.
    E.C. 6381--Jun. 8, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Acetone; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-
0039; FRL-3944-2] received May 11, 2012.
    E.C. 6382--Jun. 8, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluxapyroxad; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0421; FRL-9346-7] 
received May 11, 2012.
    E.C. 6383--Jun. 8, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Penflufen; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0425; FRL-9341-8] 
received May 11, 2012.
    E.C. 6384--Jun. 8, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Propylene oxide; 
Tolerance Actions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0253; FRL-9346-8] (RIN: 
2070-ZA16) received May 11, 2012.
    E.C. 6476--Jun. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Office of Procurement and Property Management, Department of 
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Guidelines for the Transfer of Excess Computers or Other 
Technical Equipment Pursuant to Section 14220 of the 2008 Farm 
Bill (RIN: 0599-AA13) received May 15, 2012.
    E.C. 6477--Jun. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--1-
Naphthaleneacetic acid; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-
0144; FRL-9346-9] (RIN: 2070-ZA16) received May 8, 2012.
    E.C. 6478--Jun. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--a-(p-
Nonylphenol)-whydroxypoly(oxyethylene) Sulfate and Phosphate 
Esters; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-
OPP-2011-0526; FRL-9340-2] received May 8, 2012.
    E.C. 6479--Jun. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--a-[p-(1,1,3,3-
Tetramethylbutyl)phenyl]-whydroxypoly(oxyethylene) Exemption 
from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0525; FRL-
9340-1] received May 8, 2012.
    E.C. 6480--Jun. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Ametoctradin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0261; FRL-9339-7] 
received May 8, 2012.
    E.C. 6555--Jun. 21, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Department's final rule--Acibenzolar-
S-methyl; Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0674; FRL-9349-3] received May 22, 2012.
    E.C. 6575--Jun. 25, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Horse Protection Act; Requiring Horse 
Industry Organizations To Assess and Enforce Minimum Penalties 
for Violations [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-0030] (RIN: 0579-AD43) 
received June 12, 2012.
    E.C. 6576--Jun. 25, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Asian Longhorned 
Beetle; Quarantined Areas in Massachusetts, Ohio, and New York 
[Doc. No.: APHIS-2012-0003] received June 4, 2012.
    E.C. 6577--Jun. 25, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fenamidone; 
Pesticide Tolerance; Technical Amendment [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0848; 
FRL-9351-5] received June 1, 2012.
    E.C. 6658--Jun. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Killed, nonviable 
Streptomyces acidiscabies strain RL-110T; Exemption from the 
Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0078; FRL-9348-7] 
received June 8, 2012.
    E.C. 6738--Jul. 9, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Core Principles and Other 
Requirements for Designated Contract Markets (RIN: 3038-AD09) 
received June 19, 2012.
    E.C. 6792--Jul. 10, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Development 
Utilities Programs, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Substantially under-served Trust Areas 
(SUTA) (RIN: 0572-AC23) received June 21, 2012.
    E.C. 6793--Jul. 10, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Director, Legislative Affairs Division, Department of 
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--Appeal 
Procedures [Doc. No.: NRCS-2011-0017] (RIN: 0578-AA59) received 
June 13, 2012.
    E.C. 6794--Jul. 10, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Section and Functions 
of Farm Service Agency State and County Committees (RIN: 0560-
AG90) received June 13, 2012.
    E.C. 6795--Jul. 10, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Methyl bromide; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0245; FRL-9352-4] (RIN: 
2070-ZA16) received June 13, 2012.
    E.C. 6832--Jul. 11, 2012: A letter from the Secretary of 
the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Customer Clearing 
Documentation, Timing of Acceptance for Clearing, and Clearing 
Member Risk Management; Core Principles and Other Requirements 
for Designated Contract Markets; Correction (RIN: 3038-0092, -
0094) received June 25, 2012.
    E.C. 6833--Jul. 11, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Swap Data record-keeping and Reporting 
Requirements: Pre-Enactment and Transition Swaps [3038-AD48] 
received June 15, 2012.
    E.C. 6834--Jul. 11, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 
[Doc. No.: APHIS-2006-0074] (RIN: 0579-AC36) received June 14, 
2012.
    E.C. 6835--Jul. 11, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Tomatoes From the 
Economic Community of West African States Into the Continental 
United States [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-0012] (RIN: 0579-AD48) 
received June 14, 2012.
    E.C. 6836--Jul. 11, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Cyflufenamid; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0029; FRL-9352-5] 
received June 27, 2012.
    E.C. 6837--Jul. 11, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Propiconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0397; FRL-9350-9] 
received June 27, 2012.
    E.C. 6912--Jul. 13, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Chronic Wasting Disease Herd 
Certification Program and Interstate Movement of Farmed or 
Captive Deer, Elk, and Moose [Doc. No.: 00-108-8] (RIN: 0579-
AB35) received June 14, 2012.
    E.C. 6932--Jul. 17, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Importation of Dracaena Plants From 
Costa Rica [Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-0073] (RIN: 0579-AD54) 
received June 28, 2012.
    E.C. 6933--Jul. 17, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; 
Final Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2011-12 Crop Year 
for Tart Cherries [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0085; FV11-930-3 FR] 
received June 28, 2012.
    E.C. 6934--Jul. 17, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Pistachios Grown in California, 
Arizona, and New Mexico; Order Amending Marketing Order No. 983 
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0099; FV11-983-1 FR] received June 28, 
2012.
    E.C. 6935--Jul. 17, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in Riverside County, 
CA: Order Amending Marketing Order 987 [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-
0025; FV10-987-1 FR] received June 28, 2012.
    E.C. 6947--Jul. 18, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--1,2-
Ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2, 4-
diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0014; FRL-9349-1] received June 29, 2012.
    E.C. 6948--Jul. 18, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--2,6-
Diisopropylnaphthalene (2,6-DIPN) and its metabolites and 
degradates; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0802; FRL-
9350-4] received June 29, 2012.
    E.C. 6949--Jul. 18, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Natamycin; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-
0727; FRL-9349-2] received June 29, 2012.
    E.C. 6950--Jul. 18, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Prohydrojasmon; 
Amendment of Temporary Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0048; FRL-9347-9] received June 29, 
2012.
    E.C. 6977--Jul. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Sedaxane; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0615; FRL-9345-8] 
received June 10, 2012.
    E.C. 7011--Jul. 23, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Azoxystrobin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0398; FRL-9352-2] 
received June 10, 2012.
    E.C. 7012--Jul. 23, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Dicloran and 
Formetanate; Tolerance Actions [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0507; FRL-
9353-7] (RIN: 2070-ZA16) received June 10, 2012.
    E.C. 7013--Jul. 23, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Methoxyfenozide; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0343; FRL-9354-1] 
received June 10, 2012.
    E.C. 7014--Jul. 23, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Sulfentrazone; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0758; FRL-9353-8] 
received June 10, 2012.
    E.C. 7031--Jul. 24, 2012: A letter from the Under Secretary 
Rural Housing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Single Family Housing Guaranteed 
Loan Program (RIN: 0575-AC90) received July 9, 2012.
    E.C. 7032--Jul. 24, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; 
Increasing the Primary Reserve Capacity and Revising Exemption 
Requirements [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0092; FV12-930-1 FR] received 
July 12, 2012.
    E.C. 7033--Jul. 24, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Avocados Grown in South Florida; Decreased Assessment 
Rate [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0094; FV12-915-1 IR] received July 
12, 2012.
    E.C. 7069--Jul. 25, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pasteuria spp. 
(Rotylenchulus reniformis nematode)-Pr3; Exemption from the 
Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0805; FRL-9353-5] 
received July 3, 2012.
    E.C. 7070--Jul. 25, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Synchronizing the 
Expiration Dates of the Pesticide Applicator Certificate with 
the Underlying State or Tribal Certificate [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0049; FRL-9334-4] (RIN: 2070-AJ00) received July 3, 2012.
    E.C. 7135--Jul. 31, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Trifloxystrobin; 
Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0458; FRL-9354-8] received 
July 19, 2012.
    E.C. 7136--Jul. 31, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Difenoconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0300; FRL-9354-9] 
received July 19, 2012.
    E.C. 7205--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Swap Transaction Compliance and 
Implementation Schedule: Clearing Requirement Under Section 
2(h) of the CEA (RIN: 3038-AD60) received July 30, 2012.
    E.C. 7206--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--End-User Exception to the Clearing 
Requirement for Swaps (RIN: 3038-AD10) received July 3, 2012.
    E.C. 7207--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Under Secretary, 
Rural Development, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
Limit Change (RIN: 0575-AC94) received July 23, 2012.
    E.C. 7208--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule Disaster Designation 
Process (RIN: 0560-AH17) received July 23, 2012.
    E.C. 7209--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Irradiation Treatment; Location of 
Facilities in the Southern United States [Doc. No.: APHIS-2009-
0100] (RIN: 0579-AD35) received July 23, 2012.
    E.C. 7210--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Information From 
Foreign Regions Applying for Recognition of Animal Health 
Status [Doc. No.: APHIS-2007-0158] (RIN: 0579-AD30) received 
August 1, 2012.
    E.C. 7211--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Acetamiprid; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0792; FRL-9352-8] 
received July 25, 2012.
    E.C. 7212--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pyrimethanil; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0477; FRL-9354-7] 
received July 25, 2012.
    E.C. 7213--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Titanium Dioxide; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0829; FRL-9354-6] received July 25, 2012.
    E.C. 7214--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--2-Methyl-1,3-
propanediol; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0031; FRL-9352-6] received August 1, 2012.
    E.C. 7215--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluxapyroxad; 
Pesticide Tolerances Technical Amendment [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0421; 
FRL-9355-6] received August 1, 2012.
    E.C. 7216--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Rimsulfuron; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0563; FRL-9355-5] 
received August 1, 2012.
    E.C. 7217--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--2-Methyl-1,3-
propanediol; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0031; FRL-9352-6] received August 2, 2012.
    E.C. 7218--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluxapyroxad; 
Pesticide Tolerances Technical Amendment [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0421; 
FRL-9355-6] received August 2, 2012.
    E.C. 7219--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Rimsulfuron; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0563; FRL-9355-5] 
received August 2, 2012.
    E.C. 7426--Aug. 7, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Technical 
Correction to Organizational Names, Addresses, and OMB Control 
Numbers [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0629; FRL-8846-7] received August 2, 
2012.
    E.C. 7439--Sep. 10, 2012: A letter from the Branch Chief, 
Planning and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program: Disqualified Recipient Reporting 
and Computer Matching Requirements received August 28, 2012.
    E.C. 7440--Sep. 10, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bacillus 
thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab Protein in Corn; Exemption from the 
Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0109; FRL-9357-4] 
received August 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7441--Sep. 10, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Flutriafol; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0875; FRL-9348-8] 
received August 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7442--Sep. 10, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Paraquat 
Dichloride; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0637; FRL-
9357-1] received August 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7443--Sep. 10, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Residues of 
Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride; Exemption from the 
Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0139; FRL-9356-6] 
received August 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7444--Sep. 10, 2012: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Farm Credit 
Administration Board Meetings; Organization; Standards of 
Conduct and Referral of Suspected or Known Criminal Violations; 
Definitions; Disclosure to Shareholders; Accounting and 
Reporting Requirements; Rules of Practice and Procedure; 
Practice Before the Farm Credit Administration; and Disclosure 
to Investors in System-wide and Consolidated Bank Debt 
Obligations of the Farm Credit System; Unincorporated Business 
Entities (RIN: 3052-AC65) received August 28, 2012.
    E.C. 7635--Sep. 13, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Department of 
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--Water 
and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants (RIN: 0572-AC26) received 
August 20, 2012.
    E.C. 7674--Sep. 13, 2012: A letter from the Assistant 
Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 
transmitting the 2011 annual report on the operation of the 
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative and the Tropical Forest 
Conservation Act; jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs 
and Agriculture.
    E.C. 7715--Sep. 18, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Registration of 
Intermediaries (RIN: 3038-AC96) received September 4, 2012.
    E.C. 7716--Sep. 18, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's ``Major'' final rule--Further Definition of 
``Swap'', ''Security-Based Swap'', and ''Security-Based Swap 
Agreement'': Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement record-
keeping [Release No.: 33-9338; 34-67453; File No. S7-16-11] 
(RIN: 3235-AK65) received August 13, 2012.
    E.C. 7717--Sep. 18, 2012: A letter from the Chief, Planning 
and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Food Distribution 
Program on Indian Reservations: Administrative Funding 
Allocations [FNS-2012-0020] (RIN: 0584-AD85) received September 
12, 2012.
    E.C. 7718--Sep. 18, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Nitric Acid; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0116; FRL-9338-2] received August 28, 2012.
    E.C. 7719--Sep. 18, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pendimethalin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0521; FRL-9360-5] 
received August 28, 2012.
    E.C. 7720--Sep. 18, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pesticides; 
Microbial Pesticide Definitions and Applicability; 
Clarification and Availability of Test Guideline [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0670; FRL-9338-9] (RIN: 2070-AJ80) received August 28, 
2012.
    E.C. 7721--Sep. 18, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Thifensulfuron 
Methyl; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0564; FRL-9360-2] 
received August 28, 2012.
    E.C. 7722--Sep. 18, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Bifenthrin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1008; FRL-9361-6] 
received September 13, 2012.
    E.C. 7723--Sep. 18, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Cloyralid; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0569; FRL-9361-5] 
received September 13, 2012.
    E.C. 7847--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Beef Promotion and Research; Amendment to the Order [Doc. 
No.: AMS-LS-11-0086] received September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7848--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Cranberries Grown in States of 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, 
Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long 
Island in the State of New York; Changing Reporting 
Requirements [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-12-0002; FV12-929-1 IR] received 
September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7849--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Clothianidin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0217; FRL-9360-4] 
received August 24, 2012.
    E.C. 7850--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fludioxonil; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0395; FRL-9357-5] 
received August 24, 2012.
    E.C. 7851--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Flutriafol; 
Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0324; FRL-9349-6] received August 24, 2012.
    E.C. 7852--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--S-Metolachlor; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0657; FRL-9356-9] 
received August 24, 2012.September 20, 2012
    E.C. 7904--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--End-User Exception to the Clearing 
Requirement for Swaps (RIN: 3038-AD10) received August 13, 
2012.
    E.C. 7905--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Secretary, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's final rule--Swap Transaction Compliance and 
Implementation Schedule: Clearing Requirement Under Section 
2(h) of the CEA (RIN: 3038-AD60) received August 13, 2012.
    E.C. 7906--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Olives Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate 
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0093; FV12-932-1 FR] received September 7, 
2012.
    E.C. 7907--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Milk in the Mideast Marketing Area; Order Amending the 
Order [Doc. No.: AO-11-0333; AMS-DA-11-0067; DA-11-04] received 
September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7908--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Specialty Crops; Import Regulations; New Pistachio Import 
Requirements [Doc. No.: AMS-FV-09-0064; FV09-999-1 FR] received 
September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7909--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Cotton Board Rules and Regulations: Adjusting 
Supplemental Assessment on Imports [Doc. No.: AMS-CN-11-0091] 
received September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7910--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--National Organic Program (NOP); Sunset Review (2012); 
Correction [Doc. No.: AMS-NOP-09-0074; NOP-09-01FR] (RIN: 0581-
AC96) received September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7911--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--National Organic Program; Amendments to the National List 
of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (Crops, Livestock and 
Processing) [Doc. No.: AMS-NOP-11-0058; NOP-11-09FR] (RIN: 
0581-AD15) received September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7912--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Increased Assessment Rate 
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-11-0080; FV11-966-1 FR] received September 7, 
2012.
    E.C. 7913--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Livestock Mandatory Reporting Program; Establishment of 
the Reporting Regulation for Wholesale Pork [Doc. No.: AMS-LS-
11-0049] (RIN: 0581-AD07) received September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7914--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Dinotefuran; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0433; FRL-9359-6] 
received September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7915--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Polyoxin D zinc 
salt; Amendment to an Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1028; FRL-9360-6] (RIN: 2070) 
received September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7916--Sep. 19, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Cyprodinil; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0394; FRL-9359-7] 
received September 7, 2012.
    E.C. 7963--Sep. 21, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Flumioxazin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593; FRL-9358-3] 
received September 20, 2012.
    E.C. 7964--Sep. 21, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Cyazofamid; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0906; FRL-9361-8] 
received September 20, 2012.
    E.C. 7965--Sep. 21, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Didecyl Dimethyl 
Ammonium Carbonate and Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Bicarbonate; 
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0950; FRL-9359-5] received August 21, 2012.
    E.C. 7966--Sep. 21, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pesticide 
Tolerance Crop Grouping Program III; Revisions to General 
Tolerance Regulations [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0766; FRL-9354-3] (RIN: 
2070-AJ28) received August 21, 2012.
    E.C. 8021--Sep. 28, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Asian Longhorned 
Beetle; Quarantined Areas in Massachusetts, Ohio and New York 
[Doc. No.: APHIS-2012-0003] received September 25, 2012.
    E.C. 8028--Oct. 2, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Plum Pox Compensation 
[Doc. No.: APHIS-2011-0004] (RIN: 0579-AD58) received September 
25, 2012.
    E.C. 8029--Oct. 2, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Glufosinate 
ammonium; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0813; FRL-9363-
6] received September 25, 2012.
    E.C. 8048--Oct. 9, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Irradiation Treatment; Location of 
Facilities in the Southern United States; Technical Amendment 
[Doc. No.: APHIS-2009-0100] (RIN: 0579-AD35) received September 
27, 2012.
    E.C. 8049--Oct. 9, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's 
``Major'' final rule--National Organic Program (NOP); Sunset 
Review (2012) for Nutrient Vitamins and Minerals [Doc. No.: 
AMS-NOP-10-0083; NOP-10-091R] (RIN: 0581-AD17) received October 
2, 2012.
    E.C. 8050--Oct. 9, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--
Chlorantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0029; FRL-9362-5] received September 28, 2012.
    E.C. 8051--Oct. 9, 2012: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Disclosure to 
Investors in System-wide and Consolidated Bank Debt Obligations 
of the Farm Credit System; System Audit Committee (RIN: 3052-
AC77) received October 2, 2012.
    E.C. 8068--Oct. 9, 2012: A letter from the Management and 
Program Analyst, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Prohibitions Governing Fire (RIN: 
0596-AD08) received September 27, 2012.
    E.C. 8069--Oct. 12, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Butylate, 
Clethodim, Dichlorvos, Dicofol, Isopropyl carbanilate, et al.; 
Tolerance Actions [EPA-EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0171; FRL-9358-8] (RIN: 
2070-ZA16) received September 26, 2012.
    E.C. 8070--Oct. 12, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Sulfoxaflor; 
Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0493; FRL-9361-4] received September 26, 2012.
    E.C. 8071--Oct. 12, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Sulfentrazone; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0758; FRL-9363-3] 
received September 26, 2012.
    E.C. 8088--Oct. 16, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--National Organic Program (NPO); Amendment to the National 
List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (Livestock) [Doc. 
No.: AMS-NOP-11-0063; NOP-11-11FR] (RIN: 0581-AD018) received 
October 2, 2012.
    E.C. 8089--Oct. 16, 2012: A letter from the Administrator, 
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final 
rule--Grading and Inspection, General Specifications for 
Approved Plants and Standards for Grades of Dairy Products; 
General Specifications for Dairy Plants Approved for USDA 
Inspection and Grading Service [AMS-DA-10-0055] received 
October 2, 2012.
    E.C. 8090--Oct. 16, 2012: A letter from the Congressional 
Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus 
Psyllid; Quarantine and Interstate Movement Regulations [Doc. 
No.: APHIS-2008-0015] (RIN: 0579-AC85) received October 2, 
2012.
    E.C. 8296--Nov. 14, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Agricultural 
Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002; Biennial Review and 
Republication of the Select Agent and Toxin List; Amendments to 
the Select Agent and Toxin Regulations [Doc. No.: APHIS-2009-
0070] (RIN: 0579-AD09) received October 4, 2012.
    E.C. 8297--Nov. 14, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Buprofezin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0759; FRL-9364-9] 
received October 15, 2012.
    E.C. 8298--Nov. 14, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Trinexapac-ethyl; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0524; FRL-9363-4] (RIN: 
2070-ZA16) received October 2, 2012.
    E.C. 8299--Nov. 14, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Alkyl Amines 
Polyalkoxylates; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0949; FRL-9361-7] received October 2, 2012.
    E.C. 8337--Nov. 15, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Policy Issuance Division, Office of Policy and Program 
Development, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
Department's final rule--Summary of the Final Rule, Additional 
Changes to the Schedule of Operations Regulations received 
October 13, 2012.
    E.C. 8338--Nov. 15, 2012: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Funding and 
Fiscal Affairs, Loan Policies and Operations, and Funding 
Operations; Investment Management (RIN: 3052-AC50) received 
November 7, 2012.
    E.C. 8378--Nov. 16, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Calcium 
Gluconate; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-
HQ-OPP-2012-0131; FRL-9362-4] received October 31, 2012.
    E.C. 8379--Nov. 16, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Residues of Fatty 
Acids, Tall-Oil, Ethoxylated Propoxylated; Tolerance Exemption 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0278; FRL-9365-4] received October 31, 2012.
    E.C. 8380--Nov. 16, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Trifloxystrobin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0225; FRL-9360-9] 
received October 31, 2012.
    E.C. 8381--Nov. 16, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluoxastrobin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0677; FRL-9365-7] 
received October 22, 2012.
    E.C. 8382--Nov. 16, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--a-(p-
Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with 
poly(oxyethylene); Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0279; 
FRL-9365-3] received October 25, 2012.
    E.C. 8431--Nov. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Policy Issuances Division, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Requirements for 
Official Establishments to Notify FSIS of Adulterated or 
Misbranded Product, Prepare and Maintain Written Recall 
Procedures, and Document Certain Hazard Analysis and Critical 
Control Point System Plan Reassessments [FDMS Doc. No.: FSIS-
2008-0025] (RIN: 0583-AC34) received November 7, 2012.
    E.C. 8432--Nov. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Dinotefuran; 
Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0755; FRL-9366-3] received November 8, 2012.
    E.C. 8433--Nov. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Xylenesulfonic 
acid, sodium salt; Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0951; FRL-9361-3] received November 
8, 2012.
    E.C. 8434--Nov. 27, 2012: A letter from the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, 
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Federal 
Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Funding and Fiscal Affairs; 
Farmer Mac Investment Management (RIN: 3052-AC56) received 
November 7, 2012.
    E.C. 8469--Nov. 28, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluazinam; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0009; FRL-9366-6] 
received November 2, 2012.
    E.C. 8470--Nov. 28, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fluridone; 
Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0756; FRL-9366-8] received November 2, 2012.
    E.C. 8471--Nov. 28, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Metconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0455; FRL-9364-8] 
received November 2, 2012.
    E.C. 8495--Nov. 29, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Dinotefuran; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0060; FRL-9365-1] 
received November 14, 2012.
    E.C. 8496--Nov. 29, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Flonicamid; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0985; FRL-9368-7] 
received November 14, 2012.
    E.C. 8534--Dec. 3, 2012: A letter from the Director--
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Department of 
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities (HSACU) 
(RIN: 0524-AA39) received November 13, 2012.
    E.C. 8568--Dec. 4, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fenpropathrin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0644; FRL-9366-1] 
received November 28, 2012.
    E.C. 8589--Dec. 5, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Halosulfuron-
methyl; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0781; FRL-9370-6] 
received November 29, 2012.
    E.C. 8590--Dec. 5, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Alkyl(C8-C18) 
dimethylamidopropylamines; Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0106; FRL-9369-2] received November 
29, 2012.
    E.C. 8707--Dec. 12, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Clodinafop-
propargyl; Pesticide Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0202; FRL-9371-
6] received December 4, 2012.
    E.C. 8708--Dec. 12, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Picoxystrobin; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0458; FRL-9370-8] 
received December 4, 2012.
    E.C. 8709--Dec. 12, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Dodine; Pesticide 
Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0743; FRL-9364-7] received December 
4, 2012.
    E.C. 8747--Dec. 13, 2012: A letter from the Manager, 
BioPreferred Program, Department of Agriculture, transmitting 
the Department's final rule--Designation of Product Categories 
for Federal Procurement, Round 9 (RIN: 0599-AA15) received 
December 5, 2012.
    E.C. 8748--Dec. 13, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fenpyroximate; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0514; FRL-9360-3] 
received December 6, 2012.
    E.C. 8749--Dec. 13, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Buprofezin 
Pesticide Tolerances; Technical Correction [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0759; FRL-9371-3] received December 6, 2012.
    E.C. 8750--Dec. 13, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Spirodiclofen; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0326; FRL-9371-5] 
received December 6, 2012.
    E.C. 8751--Dec. 13, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Zeta 
Cypermethrin; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0472; FRL-
9371-7] received December 6, 2012.
    8856--Dec. 20, 2012: A letter from the Director, Regulatory 
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Extension of Tolerances 
for Emergency Exemptions (Multiple Chemicals) [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0825; FRL-9372-1] received December 12, 2012.
    8857--Dec. 20, 2012: A letter from the Director, Regulatory 
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Flubendiamide; Pesticide 
Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0099; FRL-9373-3] received December 
11, 2012.
    8858--Dec. 20, 2012: A letter from the Director, Regulatory 
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pyriproxyfen; Pesticide 
Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1012; FRL-9365-6] received December 
11, 2012.
    E.C. 8896--Dec. 21, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Pyraflufen-ethyl; 
Extension of Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0750; FRL-9373-5] received December 10, 2012.
    E.C. 8919--Dec. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--
Chlorantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances, Technical Correction 
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0029; FRL-9367-6] received December 18, 2012.
    E.C. 8920--Dec. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Difenzoquat; Data 
Call-in Order for Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0441; 
FRL-9372-9] received December 18, 2012.
    E.C. 8921--Dec. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Propiconazole; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0772; FRL-9369-5] 
received December 18, 2012.
    E.C. 8922--Dec. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Quinclorac; 
Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0010; FRL-9372-4] 
received December 18, 2012.
    E.C. 8923--Dec. 27, 2012: A letter from the Director, 
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--Spirotetramat; 
Pesticide Tolerance for Emergency Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0900; FRL-9373-2] received December 18, 2012.
    E.C. 8960--Dec. 31, 2012: A letter from the Acting 
Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 
transmitting the Department's final rule--Importation of Live 
Swine, Swine Semen, Pork, and Pork Products; Estonia, Hungary, 
Slovakia, and Slovenia [Doc. No.: APHIS-2008-0043] (RIN: 0579-
AD20) received December 20, 2012.

                    b. statutory and special reports

    USDA: Report on the plans developed by the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for funding provided under 
Section 10201 of the Act for Plant Pest and Disease Management 
and Disaster Prevention as requested by the Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act of 2008. Submitted by USDA, January 11, 2011.
    USDA: List of statutory reporting requirements that USDA 
would like to prioritize or eliminate in order to reduce their 
administrative burden. Submitted by USDA, January 21, 2011.
    USDA: Record of Decision on Glyphosate--Tolerant Alfalfa 
Events J101 and J163: Request for Nonregulated Status (APHIS 
decision to fully deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa). Submitted 
by USDA, January 28, 2011.
    USDA: Annual report describing the activities of the 
Consultative Group to Eliminate the Use of Child Labor and 
Forced Labor in Imported Agricultural Products as required by 
Section 3205(h) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy act of 
2008. Submitted by USDA, January 28, 2011.
    USDA: Report titled as the ``Equitable Relief Report'' as 
required by Section 1613 of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002. Submitted by USDA, February 2, 2011.
    USDA: Report on implementation of concluded appeals to the 
National Appeals Division (NAD) fro the Farm Service Agency as 
required by Section 14009 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
Act of 2008. Submitted by USDA January 27, 2011.
    FCA: Farm Credit Administration's Proposed Fiscal Year 2012 
Budget and Performance Budget. Submitted by FCA, February 14, 
2011.
    USDA: Termination notice of Marketing Order 924 (order) 
regulating the handling of fresh prunes grown in designated 
counties in Washington and in Umatilla County, Oregon, pursuant 
to section 8c(16)(A) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement 
Act of 1937. Submitted by USDA, February 2, 2011.
    USDC: Quarterly Report to Congress on activities undertaken 
by the Department of Commerce pursuant to Section 906(b) of the 
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. 
Submitted by the U.S. Department of Commerce, February 7, 2011.
    USDA: Charter for the Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory 
Committee in compliance with P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act. Submitted by USDA, February 15, 2011.
    USDA: Charter for the Forest Research Advisory Committee in 
compliance with P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act. Submitted by USDA, February 16, 2011.
    GAO: Report on a major rule promulgated by the USDA, Rural 
Business Cooperative Service and Rural Utilities Service, 
entitled ``Advanced Biofuel Payment Program'', pursuant to 
section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, U.S.C. Submitted by GAO, 
February 28, 2011.
    EPA: Report titled ``FY2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan'', as 
required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. 
Submitted by EPA, March 1, 2011.
    USDA: Report titled ``Rural Development Housing and 
community Facilities Programs for July through December, 2010'' 
as required by Section 14009 of the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act. Submitted by USDA, February 23, 2011.
    USDA: The ``2010 Packers and Stockyards Program Annual 
Report''. Submitted by USDA, March 1, 2011.
    GAO: Report on a major rule promulgated by the USDA, Rural 
Business Cooperative and Rural Utilities Service, ``Biorefinery 
Assistance Guaranteed Loans'', pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) 
of title 5, U.S.C. Submitted by GAO, March 1, 2011.
    USDA: Charter for the U.S. Forest Service's Recreation 
Resources Advisory Committee and Forest Resource Coordinating 
Committee, in compliance with P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act. Submitted by USDA, March 2, 2011.
    USDA: Charter for the National Wildlife Services Advisory 
Committee, in compliance with P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act. Submitted by USDA, March 2, 2011.
    USDA: The ``Annual Crops and the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program'' report as required by section 12030 of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Submitted by USDA, March 
3, 2011.
    EPA: Draft copy of a proposed rule entitled ``Pesticides 
Data Requirements for Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) and 
Certain Exemptions for PIPS'' as required by section 25(a)(3) 
of the FIFRA Act. Submitted by EPA, March 4, 2011.
    USDA: Report on the ``Global Effort to Reduce Child Hunger 
and Increase School Attendance'' as directed by Section 3107 of 
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Submitted 
by USDA, March 16, 2011.
    USDA: Fiscal Year 2010 Report to Congress on State Payment 
Statistics Related to Enrollments in Selected Conservation 
Programs as Required by Section 1241(h) of the Food Security 
Act of 1985. Submitted by USDA, March 17, 2011.
    USDA: Report on the activities of the Agricultural Research 
Service as required by section 7409 of the 2008 Farm Bill (P.L. 
110-246). Submitted by USDA, March 18, 2011.
    USDA: Letter to Chairman Lucas from Secretary Thomas J. 
Vilsack concerning the Department's of Agriculture's final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the petition to grant 
nonregulated status for Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa. Submitted 
by USDA, March 17, 2011.
    USDA: Letter approving the proposed McChesney and Steed 
land purchase referred to as Submission No. 011/03-11. In 
accordance with requirements in Section 17(b) of the National 
Forest Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-588 (90 Stat. 2949). 
Submitted by USDA, March 18, 2011.
    USDI: Two reports: ``A National Cohesive Wildland Fire 
Management Strategy'' and ``The Federal Land Assistance, 
Management and Enhancement Act of 2009--Report to Congress'' as 
required by Title V, section 503, of the 2010 Department of the 
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 
Submitted by the U.S. Department of the Interior, March 25, 
2011.
    EPA: Draft copy of proposed rule that will provide several 
changes and corrections to the Microbial Pesticides data 
requirements at 40 CFR part 158, subpart V. Section 25(a)(3) of 
the FIFRA Act. Submitted by EPA, March 11, 2011.
    USDA: Letter approving the proposed John Hoskins land 
exchange referred to as Submission No. 011/3-11. In accordance 
with the requirements in Section 17(b) of the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-588 (90 Stat. 2949). Submitted 
by USDA, March 18, 2011.
    USDA: Letter approving the proposed South Appalachian 
Highlands Conservancy land purchase referred to as Submission 
No. 07/02-11. In accordance with the requirements in Section 
17(b) of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-
588 (90 Stat. 2949). Submitted by USDA, March 22, 2011.
    USDA: Letter to Chairman Lucas from Secretary Thomas J. 
Vilsack advising that the Department of Agriculture's Office of 
the Chief Economist will close its one-person weather office in 
Stoneville, Mississippi. Submitted by USDA, March 24, 2011.
    FCSIC: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation 2011 annual 
report demonstrating FCSIC's commitment to equal employment 
opportunity while fulfilling its mission to insure the timely 
payment of principal and interest on System-wide and 
consolidated bonds and obligations as required under the 
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 
Retaliation Act of 2002. Submitted by FCSIC, March 28, 2011.
    FCA: Fiscal year 2011 annual report describing the Farm 
Credit Administration's many advancements in incorporating 
equal employment opportunity in the performance of its mission 
to serve U.S. agriculture and rural America as required by the 
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 
Retaliation Act of 2002. Submitted by FCA, March 28, 2011.
    USDA: Appraisal of the status and trends of natural 
resources on non-Federal lands pursuant to the Soil and Water 
Resources Conservation Act of 1977. Submitted by USDA, March 
30, 2011.
    CBO: Review of CBO's activities in 2010 under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act. Submitted by CBO, March 2011.
    CFTC: Report transmitting the fiscal year 2010 Federal 
Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 for the 
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Submitted by CFTC, 
March 30, 2011.
    USDA: Letter approving the proposed Sumter National Forest 
Tripartite Exchange, using timber receipts for a land purchase 
referred to as Submission No. 04/01-11. Pursuant under the 
authority of the Act of March 1, 1911 (P.L. 61-435; 90 Stat. 
2756, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 516); Act of August 20, 1988 (P.L. 
100-409; 102 Stat. 1086; 43 U.S.C. 1716, 43 U.S.C. 751.) in 
accordance with the requirements in Section 17(b) of the 
National Forest Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-588 (90 Stat. 
2949). Submitted by USDA, March 31, 2011.
    EPA: Draft final rule entitled ``Data Requirements for 
Antimicrobial Pesticides'' identified in the Regulatory Agenda 
under RIN 2070-AD30 as required by Section 25(a)(4) of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Submitted 
by EPA, April 7, 2011.
    GAO: Report on a major rule promulgated by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, entailed 
``Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees'' pursuant 
to section 801 (a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code. 
Submitted by GAO, April 7, 2011.
    FCA: Letter notifying that the Farm Credit Administration 
is currently working with several agencies to issue a proposed 
joint regulation for which they are unable to provide an 
advance copy of, as required by the Farm Credit Act of 1971. 
Submitted by FCA, April 7, 2011.
    USDA: A report which describes the expenditures for each 
State under the National Organic Certification Cost-Share 
Program as required by Section 10301 of the Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246). Submitted by USDA, April 
8, 2011.
    CFTC: Joint Study on the Feasibility of Mandating 
Algorithmic Descriptions for Derivatives pursuant to the 
requirements of section 719 (b)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Submitted by CFTC, 
April 8, 2011.
    USDA: Annual report for Fiscal Year 2010 required by the 
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 
Retaliation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-174). Submitted by 
USDA, April 12, 2011.
    USHR: Letter from Representatives Frank D. Lucas, Fred 
Upton, and Sam Graves to the FDA regarding potential regulatory 
action by the Food and Drug Administration that are of 
significant concern to the nation's producers, veterinarians 
and consumers. Submitted by United State House of 
Representatives, April 12, 2011.
    USDA: Letter to Congressmen Kurt Schrader and Tim Holden 
thanking them and responding to one which they sent that was 
cosigned on February 16, 2011, supporting the use of 
domestically grown and produced wood products across the United 
States. Submitted by USDA, April 20, 2011.
    USDC: Report to the Congress the export licensing actions 
taken by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and 
Security relating to exports of agricultural commodities to 
Cuba during January through March 2011 required by Section 
906(b) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act 
of 2000 (TSRA) (Title IX of Pub. L. 106-387). Submitted by 
USDC, April 21, 2011.
    FCA: Final rule adopted by the Farm Credit Administration 
Board under the provisions of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, 
amending Title 12, Chapter VI of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Submitted by FCA, April 21, 2011.
    FCA: Proposed amendments to title 12, chapter VI of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as promulgated by the Farm Credit 
Administration. Submitted by FCA, April 21, 2011.
    USDA: Report pursuant to Section 154 of the Farmland 
Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. 4207. Submitted by USDA, April 
27, 2011.
    SEC: Letter to Chairman Lucas from U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission concerning the implementation of Title VII 
of the Dodd-Frank Act. Submitted by USSEC, April 26, 2011.
    CFTC: Most recent charter of the Commission's Agricultural 
Advisory Committee pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 9(c). Submitted by 
CFTC, April 27, 2011.
    USHR: Letter to Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack concerning 
improving the nutritional profiles of meals severed in schools 
and maintaining participation rates. Submitted by the United 
States House of Representatives, May 5, 2011.
    USHR: Letter to Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack concerning 
improving the nutritional profiles of meals severed in schools 
and maintaining participation rates. Submitted by the United 
States House of Representatives, May 5, 2011.
    USAID: Report titled ``Fiscal Year 2010 Report on U.S. 
Humanitarian Assistance to North Korea'' pursuant to Section 
201 of the North Korean Human Rights Act Reauthorization Act of 
2008 (P.L. 110-346). Submitted by USAID, May 12, 2011.
    Embassy of Mauritius: Letter from Ambassador Somduth 
Soburun to Chairman Frank D. Lucas informing him of the pivotal 
economic role the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, has 
on sub Saharan Africa, including Mauritius. In particular, the 
Ambassador wishes to inform the Chairman of the impending 
expiration of the Third Country Fabric Provision in September 
2012. Submitted on May 11, 2011.
    USDC: Copy of the Department of Commerce's Performance and 
Accountability Report for fiscal year 2010. It highlights the 
Department's efforts to maximize U.S. competitiveness and 
foster science leadership. Submitted on May 16, 2011.
    FCA: Copy of a final rule adopted by the Farm Credit 
Administration Board under the provisions of the Farm Credit 
Act of 1971. The rule amends Title 12, Chapter VI of the Code 
of Federal Regulations, which now allows Farm Credit 
institutions to directly purchase loans to Farmers and other 
agriculturists from the FDIC. Submitted on May 19, 2011. (056)
    FCA: Copy of a final rule adopted by the Farm Credit 
Administration Board under the provisions of the Farm Credit 
Act of 1971. The rule amends Title 12, Chapter VI of the Code 
of Federal Regulations, which now permits a lower minimum 
lending limit on extensions of credit from a Federal Credit 
System Institution. Submitted on May 19, 2011.
    EPA: Draft copy of a proposed rule entitled ''Synchronizing 
the Expiration Dates of EPA Pesticide Applicator Certificates 
with the Underlying State or Tribal Applicator Certificate'' 
identified with Regulatory Agenda under RIN 2070-AJ77 Section 
25(a)(3). Submitted on May 25, 2011.
    USDOT: Letter informing Chairman Frank D. Lucas of the 
activities of the Department under a one year licensing 
agreement set forth under the Trade Sanctions reform and Export 
Enhancement Act of 2000. The enclosed report details 
Exportation activities to Iran and the Sudan from the period 
between April 1 and June 30, 2010. Submitted on June 1, 2011.
    USDA: Report informing Chairman Lucas of the most recent 
Semi Annual Report to Congress published by the Office of the 
Inspector General at the Department of Agriculture. The report 
spans the Department's accomplishments from October 1, 2010, 
through March 31, 2011. Submitted on June 14, 2011.
    USDA: The report contains the appeals to the National 
Appeals Division from the Risk Management Agency, as is 
required by Section 14009(b) of the Food, Energy, and 
Conservation Act of 2008. Submitted on June 14, 2011.
    CFTC: Letter to Members of the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committee regarding the reorganization to 
structure its staff for implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to oversee an 
increasingly electronic marketplace, and plan for, manage and 
utilize agency resources pursuant to the Department of Defense 
and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. Submitted on 
May 6, 2011.
    USDA: An Analysis of the Limited Base Acre Provision of the 
2008 Farm Act, prepared by the Economic Research Service in 
cooperation with Farm Service Agency. Submitted May 24, 2011.
    FCA: Farm Credit Administration Strategic Plan, 2011-2016, 
which was approved by the FCA Board on May 25, 2011. The plan 
was updated in accordance with the requirements of the 
Government Performance and Results Act and supersedes the FCA 
Strategic Plan, 2008-2013, which was approved in 2008. 
Submitted June 9, 2011.
    FCA: An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) by 
the Farm Credit Administration. The purpose of this ANPRM is to 
gather information for revising existing Federal Agricultural 
Mortgage Corporation Risk-Based Capital Stress Test regulation 
to remove or reduce the reliance on data from credit rating 
agencies. Submitted June 10, 2011.
    USDA: Charters for the following committees: Agricultural 
Policy Committee Trade, Agricultural Technical Advisory 
Committee for Trade in Animal and Animal Products; Agricultural 
Technical Advisory Committee for Trade in Fruits and 
Vegetables; Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee for Trade 
in Grain, Feed, and Oilseeds; Agricultural Technical Advisory 
Committee for Trade in Processed Foods; Agricultural Technical 
Advisory Committee for Trade in Sweeteners; Agricultural 
Technical Advisory Committee for Trade in Tobacco, Cotton, and 
Peanuts National Genetic Resources Advisory Council. Submitted 
June 17, 2011.
    USDA: Recommendation of moving forward with the proposed 
Laurence Rom purchase referred to as Submission No. 18/6-27. In 
accordance with the requirements in Section 17(b) of the 
National Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-588 (90 Stat. 2949). 
Submitted June 27, 2011.
    USDA: Recommendation of moving forward with the proposed 
Belleview School District purchase to as Submission No. 17/16-
17. In accordance with the requirements in Section 17(b) of the 
National Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-588 (90 Stat. 2949). 
Submitted June 27, 2011.
    USDA: Report ``Grassland to Cropland Conversion in the 
Northern Plains; The Role of Crop Insurance, Commodity, and 
Disaster Programs'' as required by Manager's Report 
accompanying H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
of 2008. Submitted June 22, 2011.
    FDA: Letter requesting a response on FDA's possible ban of 
extralabel use of cephalosporin. Submitted June 24, 2011.
    USDA: Letter regarding USDA's Forest Service efforts to 
develop regulations for activities associated with the 
development of non-Federal mineral interests underlying 
National Forest System (NFS) lands. Submitted June 27, 2011.
    National Academy of Sciences: Letter to EPA with concerns 
to further expand its regulatory coverage over transgenic 
crops. Submitted July 5, 2011.
    FCA: Letter addressing the financial regulatory agencies 
regarding the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act implementation process. Submitted July 7, 2011.
    USDA: In compliance with P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, enclosed are copies of 2 recent approved 
committee charters: Re-establishment of the Northwest Forest 
Plan Provincial Advisory Committees; and Agricultural Marketing 
Service, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. Submitted June 25, 2011.
    FDIC: Thank you letter for comments to Chairman Bair 
regarding the Joint Agency Proposed Rule to implement Section 
941 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act concerning credit risk retention. Submitted June 
30, 2011.
    CFTC: Report on enhanced supervision of systemically 
important clearing entities as required by Title VIII, Section 
813 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act of 2010. Submitted July 1, 2011.
    USDA: Notification of AMS intention to terminate Marketing 
Order 916 and certain provisions of Marketing Order 917. The 
orders regulate the handling of nectarines and peaches grown in 
California. Submitted July 5, 2011.
    USDA: As required by section 14216 of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008--reporting on 
``Consideration of Proposed Recommendations of Study on Use of 
Cats and Dogs in Federal Research.'' Submitted July 8, 2011.
    SEC: Letter regarding the implementation of Title VII of 
the Dodd-Frank Act. Submitted July 8, 2011. Submitted July 8, 
2011.
    USAID: Formal response for the USAID to the GAO report 
entitled ``International Food Assistance: Better Nutrition and 
Quality Control Can Further Improve U.S. Food Aid.'' Submitted 
July 14, 2011.
    EPA: FACA Charter renewing the Environmental Laboratory 
Advisory Board. Submitted July 15, 2011.
    Senate of South Carolina Committee on Agriculture and 
Natural Resources: Letter regarding South Carolina tobacco 
farmers and the Trans Pacific Pact Free Trade Agreement. 
Submitted July 18, 2011.
    FCA: Proposed amendments to title 12, chapter VI of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as promulgated by the Farm Credit 
Administration. Submitted July 18, 2011.
    GAO: Acknowledging request for the GAO to review the 
implications of categorical eligibility for the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Programs. Submitted July 19, 2011.
    DHHS: Report entitled as ``Organic Content Claims.'' 
Submitted July 20, 2011.
    FCA: Report as required by section 939A of the Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Submitted July 
21, 2011.
    EPA: As required by section 25(a) of FIFRA a draft rule 
entitled ``Prions; Proposed Amendment to Clarify Product 
Performance Data for Products with Prion-Related Claims and 
Availability of Draft Test Guidelines.'' Submitted July 27, 
2011.
    EPA: Charter Renewal of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 2. Submitted July 29, 
2011.
    USDA: Recommendation of moving forward with the proposed 
Monroe County Board of Education purchase referred to as 
Submission No. 22/7-27. Submitted August 2, 2011.
    USDA: Letter regarding the ongoing study that requires the 
Department of Agriculture to conduct a study of the efficacy 
and accuracy of the application s of pact factors regarding the 
measurement of farm-stored production for purposes of insurance 
under the Federal Crop Insurance Act. Submitted August 3, 2011.
    USDA: Letter recommending moving forward with the proposed 
Sugar Pine Ridge purchase referred to as Submission No. 21/7-19 
within Laurel County, Kentucky on the Daniel Boone National 
Forest. Submitted August 9, 2011.
    USDA: Pursuant to Senate Report 111-221 accompanying the 
Appropriations Bill of 2011, a report on FSIS's implementation 
of the catfish inspection program. Submitted August 10, 2011.
    Department of the Treasury: Quarterly report for the period 
July 1 thru September 20, 2011 submitted under section 906(b) 
of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 
2011. Submitted August 10, 2011.
    CFTC: Report Titled as the ``Financial Stability Oversight 
Council, 2011 Annual Report.'' Submitted August10, 2011.
    USAID: Formal response to GAO report entitled 
``International Food Assistance: Funding Development Projects 
through the Purchase and Sale of U.S. Commodities is 
Inefficient and Can Cause Adverse Market Impacts'', including 
four recommendations. Submitted August 29, 2011.
    GAO: Notice of a major rule promulgated by the CFTC 
entitled ``Whistleblower Incentives and Protection''. Published 
in the Federal Register as a final rule on August 25, 2011, 
with an effective date of October 24, 2011. Letter submitted 
September 9, 2011.
    New Mexico Department of Agriculture: Letter of support for 
Kingston and Calvert amendments to Interior and Environment 
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bills that address 
challenges associated with the Endangered Species Act. 
Submitted September 14, 2011.
    EPA: Letter from Administrator Jackson announcing the 
renewal of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee 
in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act. Submitted September 16, 2011.
    GAO: Notice of a major rule promulgated by the CFTC 
entitled ``Swap Data Repositories: Registration Standards, 
Duties, and Core Principles.'' Published in the Federal 
Register as a final rule on September 1, 2011. Submitted 
September 16, 2011.
    Department of the Treasury: Quarterly report for the period 
October 1-December 31, 2010 submitter under section 906(b) of 
the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. 
Submitted September 19, 2011.
    EPA: Letter sending a draft copy of a final rule entitled 
``Protections for Subjects in Human Research Involving 
Pesticides'' as required by section 25(a) of FIFRA. Submitted 
November 3, 2011.
    USDA: Notice of moving forward with the proposed Susan 
Miller purchase referred to as Submission No. 01/11-1. A 78.39 
acre tract of land located in Taylor County, Wisconsin. 
Submitted November 1, 2011.
    USDA: Submission of a draft report from the Farm Service 
Agency entitled ``A Report to Congress on Base Acre Reduction 
When Base Acres are Converted to a Non-Agricultural Use'' in 
accordance with Section 1101(c) of the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008. Submitted September 22, 2011.
    USDA: Submission of a report from the Farm Service Agency 
entitled ``A Report to Congress on Base Acre Reduction When 
Base Acres are Converted to a Non-Agricultural Use'' in 
accordance with Section 1101(c) of the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008. Submitted September 29, 2011.
    USDA: Submission of an annual as required by section 
3205(h) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
describing the activities of the Consultative Group to 
Eliminate the Use of Child Labor and Forced Labor in Imported 
Agricultural Products. Submitted November 22, 2011.
    USDA: Letter informing of the actions taken at USDA in 
light of the funding reductions in the FY 2012 Agriculture 
Appropriations Act. Submitted October 4, 2011.
    USDA: Notice of moving forward with the proposed Bear 
Canyon/Trail Creek Land Exchange referred to as No. 23/8-24. A 
land exchange located on the Gallatin National Forest within 
Gallatin County, Montana. Submitted October 17, 2011.
    USAID: Submission of a report entitled as ``U.S. 
International Food Assistance Report 2010'' as required by 
Section 407 of the Food for Peace Act. Submitted October 19, 
2011.
    USDA: Submission of a report entitled as ``Direct 
Certification in the National School Lunch Program: State 
Implementation Progress School Year 2010-2011'' as required by 
section 4301 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 
Submitted November 1, 2011.
    USDC: Submission of report on export licensing actions 
taken by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and 
Security (BIS) relating to exports of agricultural commodities 
to Cuba, as required by the Trade Sanctions Reform and 
Enhancement Act of 2000. Submitted November 3, 2011.
    EPA: Submission of draft proposed rule entitled 
``Pesticides; Revisions to Minimum Risk Exemption'' as required 
by section 25(a)(3) of FIFRA. Submitted November 28, 2011.
    USDA: Notice of moving forward with the proposed Mulberry 
Creek purchase referred to as Submission No. 25/9-28. A 517.27 
acre tract of land located within Caldwell County, NC on the 
Pisgah National Forest. Submitted November 4, 2011.
    USDA: Notice of moving forward with the proposed B&F Realty 
purchase referred to Submission No. 24/9-7. A 121.33 acre tract 
of land located in Bennington County, Vermont on the Green 
Mountain National Forest. Submitted November 4, 2011.
    USDA: Submission of the USDA 2011 Conference Transparency 
Report as required by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
2008. Submitted November 21, 2011.
    OMB: Submission of a report to Congress on the 
Implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, and the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Submitted November 23, 
2011.
    FCA: Submission of proposed amendment to title 12, chapter 
VI of the Code of Federal Regulations as promulgated by the 
Farm Credit Administration. Submitted November 18, 2011.
    FCA: Submission of the semiannual report by the Inspector 
General of the FCA for the period of April 1, 2011 through 
September 30, 2011, pursuant to section 5 of the Inspector 
General Act of 1978. Submitted November 18, 2011.
    USDA: Submission of a report to Congress titled as 
``Biobased Economy Indicators'', as required by section 948 of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Submitted November 30, 2011.
    USDA: Semiannual Report to Congress published by the Office 
of Inspector General. Submitted December 2, 2011.
    GAO: Report on Commodity Futures Trading Commission: 
Position Limits for Futures and Swaps, pursuant to section 
801(a)(2)(A) of title 5 U.S.C. Submitted December 5, 2011.
    USDA: Submission of proposed University of New Hampshire 
purchase referred to as Submission No. 02/12/1 as required by 
section 17(b) of the National Forest management Act of 1976. 
The two tracts of land are located within Carroll County, New 
Hampshire on White Mountain National Forest. Submitted December 
13, 2011.
    CFTC: Semiannual Report of the Office of the Inspector 
General (OIG) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for 
the period from April 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010. 
Submitted December 15, 2011.
    EPA: Charter Renewal of the Local Government Advisory 
Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 2. Submitted December 30, 
2011. Submitted December 30, 2011.
    USDC: Department of Commerce's Performance and 
Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2011. Submitted December 
22, 2011.
    GAO: Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Investment of 
Consumer Funds and Funds Held in an Account for Foreign Options 
Transactions. Submitted January 3, 2012.
    GAO: GAO Study on State Use of Broad-Based Categorical 
Eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP). Submitted January 5, 2012.
    USDA: Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) Annual Report 
to the U.S. Congress. Submitted January 5, 2012.
    CFTC: Letter from Commissioner Bart Chilton regarding 
protection of customer funds in the MF Global operation. 
Submitted December 15, 2011.
    USDA: In compliance with P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, enclosed is copy of the Committee Charter: 
National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National 
Forest System Land Management Planning Rule. Submitted January 
20, 2012.
    GAO: Report on Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Real-
Time Public Reporting of Swap Transaction Data, pursuant to 
section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5 U.S.C. Submitted January 23, 
2012.
    NRCS: Report titled ``Implementation Report for Natural 
Resources Conservation Services National Appeals Division 
Cases'' as required by Section 14009 of Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act. Submitted January 26, 2012.
    GAO: Report on Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Swap 
Data record-keeping and Reporting Requirements, pursuant to 
section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5 U.S.C. Submitted January 27, 
2012.
    U.S. Treasury: Submission of a quarterly report by section 
906(b) of the Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act 
of 2000 describing the activities of the Department of 
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Submitted January 
31, 2012.
    CFTC: Joint Study of International Swap Regulation pursuant 
to the requirements of section 719(c) of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Submitted February 
1, 2012.
    USDA: In compliance with P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, enclosed is a copy of a recently approved 
Committee Charter: National Urban and Community Forestry 
Advisory Council. Submitted February 1, 2012.
    GAO: Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, U.S.C., a 
report on a major rule promulgated by the Dept. of Agriculture, 
Food and Nutrition Service: Nutrition Standards in the National 
School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Submitted February 
15, 2012.
    GAO: Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, U.S.C., a 
report on a major rule promulgated by the CFTC, entitled 
``Business Conduct Standards for Swap Dealers and Major Swap 
Participants With Counterparties.'' Submitted March 5, 2012.
    GAO: Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, U.S.C., a 
report on a major rule promulgated by the CFTC, entitled ``CFTC 
Protection of Cleared Swaps Customer Contracts and Collateral; 
Conforming Amendments to the Commodity Broker Bankruptcy 
Provisions.'' Submitted February 22, 2012.
    USDA: In compliance with P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act approved Charter: Black Hills National Forestry 
Advisory Board. Submitted February 29, 2012.
    EPA: Charter of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board 
in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee, 5 U.S.C. App 2. Submitted March 9, 2012.
    USDA: The 2011 Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 
as required by the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as 
amended. Submitted March 1, 2012.
    EPA: Draft copy of a final rule entitled ``Synchronizing 
the Expiration Dates of EPA Pesticide Applicator Certificates 
with the Underlying State or Tribal Applicator Certificate'' as 
required by FIFRA. Submitted March 12, 2012.
    USDA: Report on the Evaluation of the Rural Development, 
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program Financing of 
Locally or Regionally Produced Food Products. Submitted March 
15, 2012.
    USDA: AMS National Organic Program Cost-Share Programs 2012 
Report to Congress as required by section 10301 of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Submitted March 19, 2012.
    USDA: Colony Collapse Disorder 2010 Annual Report as 
required by section 7204(h)(4) of the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008. Submitted March 23, 2012.
    USDA: The Federal Information Security Management Act 
Report for fiscal year 2011. Submitted March 23, 2012.
    USDA: Review and recommendation of moving forward with the 
Sugar Creek Gap Land Exchange, referred to as Submission No. 
03/12-13 located in the Nantahala National Forest. Submitted 
March 29, 2012.
    USDA: Review and Recommendation of moving forward with the 
Estep/Wangelin purchase referred to as Submission No. 05/01-30 
located in Ripley County, Missouri on the Mark Twain National 
Forest. Submitted March 29, 2012.
    GAO: Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, U.S.C., a 
report on a major rule promulgated by the CFTC entitled ``CFTC 
Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant record-keeping, 
Reporting, and Duties Rules; Futures Commission Merchant and 
Introducing Broker Conflicts of Interest Rules; and Chief 
Compliance Officer Rules for Swap Dealers, Major Swap 
Participants, and Futures Commission Merchants.'' Submitted 
April 18, 2012.
    USDC: Report to Congress relating to exports of 
agricultural commodities to Cuba from October through December 
20122. Submitted February 2, 2012.
    USDA: Pursuant to 17.108(a) of the Federal Acquisition 
Regulations stipulates that any multi-year contract with a 
cancellation ceiling in excess of $12.5 million may not be 
awarded until the head of the Agency gives written notification 
of the proposed contract and cancellation. Submitted May 25, 
2012.
    USDA: Report of the status and disposition of cases 
returned to the agency by the National appeal Division (NAD) as 
required by section 14009 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
Act of 2008. Submitted March 12, 2012.
    USDA: Letter to Chairman Lucas in response to issues raised 
regarding placing a moratorium on the implementation of the ski 
area water clause. Submitted April 2, 2012.
    USDA: Letter to Chairman Lucas in response regarding 
Taiwan's unwarranted restrictions on meat imports from the 
United States. Submitted April 27, 2012.
    FCA: Semiannual report by the Inspector General of the FCA 
for the period of October 1, 2011 thru March 31, 2012. 
Submitted May 7, 2012.
    CFTC: Charter for the Commission's renewal of the Joint 
CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee pursuant to section 14 of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 14 
relevant implementing regulations and guidelines. Submitted May 
8, 2012.
    USDA: Recommendation on moving forward with the proposed 
Land Trust for the Little TN purchase referred to as Submission 
No. 08/05-09. Submitted May 11, 2012.
    GAO: Report on major rule promulgated by the USDA Food and 
Nutrition Service entitled ``Certification of Compliance With 
Meal Requirements for the National School Program Under the 
Healthy-Hunger Kids Act of 2010.'' Submitted May 15, 2012.
    USDA: Copy of USDA's annual report on civil rights 
complaints, resolutions, and actions, corresponding to Fiscal 
Year 2011, in accordance with the requirements of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Submitted May 30, 2012.
    USDA: Copy of Administrative Expenses for Programs 
Established under the Commodity Promotion Laws as required by 
section 501(d) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996. Submitted June 4, 2012.
    GAO: Copy of the CFTC and SEC report entitled ``Further 
Definition of `Swap Dealer,' `Security-Based Swap Dealer,' 
`Major Swap Participant,' `Major Security-Based Swap 
Participant' and 'Eligible Contract Participant''' as required 
by section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5 U.S.C. Submitted June 7, 
2012.
    USDA: Charter titled as the ``National Agricultural 
Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board'' in 
compliance with P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act. Submitted June 4, 2012.
    EPA: Charter titled as the ``Great Lakes Advisory Board'' 
in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Submitted June 15, 2012.
    USDA: Report on implementation of concluded appeals to the 
National Appeals Division (NAD) from the Risk Management Agency 
(RMA) as required by section 14009(b) of the Food, Energy, and 
Conservation Act of 2008. Submitted June 15, 2012.
    USDC: Report relating to exports of agricultural 
commodities to Cuba from April through June 2012, as required 
by the section 906(b) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
Enhancement Act of 2000. Submitted June 1, 2012.
    USDA: Committee Charter on the Secure Rural Schools Act 
Resource Advisory Committee as required by P.L. 92-463, the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act. Submitted June 8, 2012.
    USDA: Committee Charter on the Collaborative Forest 
Restoration Program Technical Advisory Panel as required by 
P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Submitted June 
14, 2012.
    CFTC: Charter of the Agricultural Advisory Committee 
pursuant to section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
5 U.S. C. App. 2, section 9(c). Submitted July 18, 2012.
    USDA: Proposed Eagle Valley land Exchange, referred to as 
Submission No. 11/6-14 as required by section 17(b) of the 
National Forest Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-588. Submitted 
June 21, 2012.
    CFTC:Charter of the Global Markets Advisory Committee 
pursuant to section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. App 2. Section 14. Submitted June 27, 2012.
    Office of the Special Counsel: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 
1213(e)(3) a agency report based on a disclosure from a 
employee of the USDA, Rural Development (RD) Minot, North 
Dakota. Submitted July 13, 2012.
    USDA: Report title ``U.S. Specialty Crops Trade Issues'' as 
directed by section 3203(d) of the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008. Submitted July 2, 2012
    GAO: Report on a major rule promulgated by the CFTC titled 
``Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated 
Contract Markets'' pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 
5,U.S.C. Submitted July 3, 2012.
    USDA: Report titled ``Foreign Holdings of U.S. Agricultural 
Land Through December 31, 2010'' compiled by the Farm Service 
Agency. Submitted July 3, 2012.
    EPA: Final Rule entitled ``Declaration of Prion as Pest 
Under FIFRA'' as required by section 25(a)(3) of FIFRA. 
Submitted August 2, 2012.
    EPA: Final Rule entitled ``Pesticides; Regulation to 
Clarify Labeling of Pesticides for Export'' and identified in 
the Regulatory Agency under RIN 2070-AJ53. Submitted August 2, 
2012.
    USDA: Proposed Purchase of the Georgia Mountain and Rivers 
project located in Gilmer County, Georgia on the 
Chattachoochee-Oconee National Forest. Submitted August 2, 
2012.
    USDA: Proposed Purchase of the Lawrence E. White referred 
to as Submission No. 14/06-27 located within Bennington County, 
Vermont on the Green Mountain National Forest. Submitted August 
2, 2012.
    Department of Treasury: Two Reports titled ``Biennial 
Report of Licensing Activities'' pursuant to section 906(c) of 
the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. 
Submitted August 7, 2012.
    USDA: Report titled ``Office of the Inspector General USDA 
Management Challenges'' . Submitted August 16, 2012.
    EPA: Charter of the National Advisory Committee in 
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 with the Library of Congress. 
Submitted August 24, 2012.
    GAO: Report on major rule promulgated by the CFTC and SEC 
entitled ``Further Definition of ``Swap,'' and ``Security-Based 
Swap agreement''; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap agreement 
record-keeping'. Submitted August 28, 2012.
    CFTC: Letter to House and Senate Committee on Agriculture 
from Commissioner Bart Chilton regarding futures customer 
losses. Submitted July 23, 2012.
    GAO: Report on the internal controls created to carry out 
the terms of the settlement of In re Black Farmers 
Discrimination Litigation (Pigford II) as directed by the 
Claims Resolution Act of 2012. Submitted July 31, 2012.
    USDA: Notice of the Agricultural Marketing Service to 
release a copy of the current list of California pistachio 
growers covered by a Federal Marketing Order, as required by 
section 1663 of the Food Security Act of 1985. Submitted August 
7, 2012.
    FCA: Proposed amendments to title 12, chapter VI of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as promulgated by the Farm Credit 
Administration. Submitted August 9, 2012.
    USDA: Charter Act on the National Advisory Council on 
Material, Infant and Fetal Nutrition in compliance with P.L. 
92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Submitted August 
14, 2012.
    USDA: Charter Act on the Advisory Committee on Animal 
Health and the General Conference Committee of the National 
Poultry Improvement Plan in compliance with P.L. 92-463, the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act. Submitted August 21, 2012.
    USDI: Letter pursuant to the FLAME Ac of 2009 which directs 
the Secretary of the Interior to notify relevant congressional 
committees if the Secretary estimates that only 60 days worth 
of funds remain in the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund. 
Submitted August 23, 2012.
    GAO: Report on a major rule promulgated by the CFTC and the 
SEC entitled Further Definition of Swap, Security-Based Swap, 
Security-Based Swap Agreement, Mixed Swaps, and Security-Based 
Swap Agreement record-keeping. Submitted August 28, 2012.
    NRCS: Report entitled ``State Payment Statistics Related to 
Enrollments in Selected Conservation Programs'' as requires by 
section 1241(4) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
2008. Submitted August 28, 2012.
    USDA: Report ``Ensuring Access to Nutrition Information for 
School Food Authorities: A Report to Congress'' as required by 
section 9(a)(4)(C) of the Richard B. Russell National School 
Lunch Act. Submitted August 31, 2012.
    EPA: FACA Charter Renewing the Good Neighbor Environmental 
Board in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Submitted September 2012.
    USDA: Report on the National Dairy Promotion and Research 
Program and the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program 
as required by the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983. 
Submitted September 12, 2012.
    USDA: Forest Service purchase of the Board Commissioners 
Whiting Creek located within Forest County, Wisconsin on 
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in accordance with the 
requirements in Section 17(b) of the National Forest Management 
Act of 1976.Submitted September 12, 2012.
    USDA: Forest Service purchase of the Delta Plantation Land 
Exchange located within Union County, South Carolina on the 
Sumter Mountain National Forest in accordance with the 
requirements in Section 17(b) of the National Forest Management 
Act of 1976. Submitted September 13, 2012.
    USDA: Forest Service purchase of the Davis Land Exchange 
located on the Francis Marion and the Sumter National Forests 
within Edgefield County, South Carolina in accordance with the 
requirements in Section 17(b) of the National Forest Management 
Act of 1976. Submitted September 13, 2012.
    USDI: Copy of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee 
charter as required by the GSA regulation at 41 CFR part 102-3. 
Submitted September 14, 2012.
    EPA: Charter renewal of the Gulf of Mexico Citizen Advisory 
Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Submitted September 
14, 2012.
    FCA: Final Rule adopted by the Farm Credit Administration 
Board under provisions of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as 
amended . Disclosure to Investors in System-wide and 
Consolidated Bank Debt Obligations of the Farm Credit System, 
System Committee. Submitted September 20, 2012.
    FCA: Final Rule adopted by the Farm Credit Administration 
Board under of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended. 
Compensation, Retirement Programs, and Related Benefits. 
Submitted September 20, 2012.
    USDA: Report on the Activities of the Foreign Market 
Development Cooperator Program as required by section 702 of 
the agricultural Trade Act of 1978. Submitted September 24, 
2012.
    USDA: Forest Service purchase of the Thunderstruck Phase II 
located within Randolph County, West Virginia on the 
Monongahela National Forest in accordance with the requirements 
in Section 17(b) of the National Forest Management Act of 1976. 
Submitted September 26, 2012.
    USDT: Quarterly report of Licensing Activities for the 
period January 1 thru March 31, 2012, as required by section 
906(b) of the Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act 
of 2000. Submitted October 4, 2012. (
    USDT: Quarterly report of Licensing Activities for the 
period April 1, thru June 20, 2012, as required by section 
906(b) of the Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act 
of 2000. Submitted October 4, 2012.
    USDA: Charter of the General Conference Committee of the 
National Poultry in compliance with P.L. 92-463, of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act. Submitted October 4, 2012.
    USDC: Quarterly Report to the Congress on Activities 
Undertaken by the Department of Commerce Pursuant to Section 
906(b) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act 
of 2000. Submitted October 11, 2012.
    USDA: Forest Service purchase of the Blanton Integra 
located in Orange County, IN on the Hoosier National Forest. 
Weeks Law cases with values of $150,000 or more are submitted 
to Chairman in accordance with the requirements in Section 
17(b) of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-
588 (90 Stat. 2949), as amended. Submitted October 12, 2012.
    CMOC: Letter from Commodity Markets Oversight Coalition and 
undersigned organization to voice support for the efforts of 
the CFTC to implement Speculative Position Limits in accordance 
with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act of 2012 (P.L. 111-203). Submitted October 18, 2012.
    EPA: Secretary Jackson support for the charter renewal of 
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
Scientific Advisory Panel in accordance with the provisions of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Submitted 
October 19, 2012.
    HHS: Letter from Chairman Lucas to HHS Secretary Sebelius 
regarding ``Indicators of Welfare Dependence'' as required by 
current law. Asks when the next report will be issued and why 
HHS has failed to report this under Sec Sebelius. Submitted 
October 21, 2012.
    EPA: Secretary Jackson support for the charter renewal of 
the Clean Air Advisory Committee in accordance with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 
2. Submitted October 26, 2012.
    USDC: Biennial Report to the Congress on Activities 
Undertaken by the Department of Commerce Pursuant to Section 
906(c) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act 
of 2000. Submitted October 31, 2012.
    USDA: In compliance with P.L. 92-462, the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, enclosed is a copy of a recently approved 
committee charter: Advisory Committee on Universal Cotton 
Standards. Submitted October 18, 2012.
    EPA: Renewal of the National Environmental Education 
Advisory Council (NEEAC) and the Advisory Council on Clean Air 
Compliance Analysis (ACCACA). Submitted November 9, 2012.
    USDA: In compliance with Title IX, Section 9007 of the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Conference Report 
100-67, attached is ``Rural Energy for America Program: A 
Report to Congress on the Implementation and Outcomes.'' 
Submitted November 13, 2012.
    FCA: Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 
2012, as provided by the Farm Credit Administration. Submitted 
November 14, 2012.
    USDA: ``Direct Certification in the National School Lunch 
Program State Implementation Progress, SY 2011-2012 Report to 
Congress.'' Report responds to the requirements of section 4201 
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-
246). Submitted November 28, 2012.
    USAID: Pursuant to Sec 537 of P.L. 100-202, the agency 
report to Congress, ``Multilateral Development Banks' 
Assistance Proposals Likely to Have Adverse Impacts on the 
Environment, Natural Resources, Public Health, and Indigenous 
Peoples.'' Submitted November 29, 2012.
    DOT: In compliance with, CEA sec. 1a(47)(E)(ii), Department 
of Treasury is submitting the Final Determination in which the 
Secretary has determined that an exemption from the definition 
of ``swap''. Submitted November 16, 2012.
    EPA: Renewal Charter of the National Drinking Water 
Advisory Council in accordance with the provisions of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Submitted 
December 14, 2012.