Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

113th Congress                                             Rept. 113-92
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    Part II

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



 
                  FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK 
                         MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013
                                _______
                                

                 June 10, 2013.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1947]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1947) to provide for the reform and continuation of 
agricultural and other programs of the Department of 
Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports thereon with amendments and 
without recommendation.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

The Amendments...................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     4
Hearings.........................................................     9
Committee Consideration..........................................     9
Committee Votes..................................................     9
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     9
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     9
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     9
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    18
Disclosure of Directed Rulemakings...............................    18
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    18
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    18
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    18
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    19
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    19
Dissenting Views.................................................    20

                             The Amendments

    The amendments are as follows:
  In section 1461(a), relating to rulemaking procedure, strike 
``without regard to'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
insert ``without regard to'' after both ``(1)'' and ``(2)'', 
and, in paragraph (3), strike ``the notice and comment 
provisions of'' and insert ``subject to subsection (b), 
pursuant to''.

  In section 1461, strike subsection (b) relating to 
congressional review of agency rulemaking, and insert the 
following new subsection:

  (b) Special Rulemaking Requirements.--
          (1) Interim rules required for stabilization 
        program.--
                  (A) In general.--With respect to the 
                stabilization program, the Secretary shall 
                promulgate interim rules no later than nine 
                months after the date of the enactment of this 
                Act under the authority provided in 
                subparagraph (B) of section 553(b) of title 5, 
                United States Code.
                  (B) Interim determination.--The interim rules 
                required for the stabilization program shall 
                include an interim determination by the 
                Secretary regarding the impacts of the 
                stabilization program on--
                          (i) the dairy product value chain, 
                        including impacts on producers, 
                        processors, domestic customers, export 
                        customers, actual market growth and 
                        potential market growth, farms of 
                        different sizes, and different regions 
                        and States;
                          (ii) the competitiveness of the 
                        United States dairy industry in 
                        international markets;
                          (iii) domestic or international 
                        Government-funded nutrition programs;
                          (iv) consumers; and
                          (v) competition in domestic dairy 
                        markets.
                  (C) Effective date.--The interim rules 
                required for the stabilization program shall be 
                effective on publication.
          (2) Interim rules authorized for margin protection 
        program.--With respect to the margin protection 
        program, the Secretary may promulgate interim rules 
        under the authority provided in subparagraph (B) of 
        section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, if the 
        Secretary determines such interim rules to be needed. 
        Any such interim rules for the margin protection 
        program shall be effective on publication.
          (3) Final rules.--
                  (A) In general.--With respect to the margin 
                protection program and stabilization program, 
                the Secretary shall promulgate final rules, 
                with an opportunity for public notice and 
                comment, no later than 21 months after the date 
                of the enactment of this Act.
                  (B) Final determination.--The final rules 
                required for the stabilization program shall 
                include a final determination by the Secretary 
                of the impacts of the stabilization program on 
                each of the items specified in paragraph 
                (1)(B).

  In section 1601(c)(2), relating to rulemaking procedure, 
strike ``without regard to'' in the matter preceding 
subparagraph (A), insert ``without regard to'' after both 
``(B)'' and ``(C)'' and strike subparagraph (A) and insert the 
following new subparagraph:

                  (A) pursuant to section 553 of title 5, 
                United States Code, including by interim rules 
                effective on publication under the authority 
                provided in subparagraph (B) of subsection (b) 
                of such section if the Secretary determines 
                such interim rules to be needed and final 
                rules, with an opportunity for notice and 
                comment, no later than 21 months after the date 
                of the enactment of this Act;

  In section 1601(c), strike paragraph (3) relating to 
congressional review of agency rulemaking.

  In the section 1246 of the Food Security Act of 1985, to be 
added by section 2608, strike paragraph (2) of subsection (b) 
and strike subsection (c) and insert the following new 
paragraph (2):

          ``(2) shall be made pursuant to section 553 of title 
        5, United States Code, including by interim rules 
        effective on publication under the authority provided 
        in subparagraph (B) of subsection (b) of such section 
        if the Secretary determines such interim rules to be 
        needed and final rules, with an opportunity for notice 
        and comment, no later than 21 months after the date of 
        the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Reform and 
        Risk Management Act of 2013.''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    As described by the House Committee on Agriculture (the 
``Agriculture Committee''), H.R. 1947, the ``Federal 
Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013'' or the 
``FARRM Bill'' is a:

        bipartisan bill that saves taxpayers' money, reduces 
        deficit spending, and repeals outdated government 
        programs while reforming, streamlining and 
        consolidating others. It is the product of a multi-year 
        process that included auditing for effectiveness and 
        efficiency every single policy under the jurisdiction 
        of the House Committee on Agriculture. Whether it is 
        through the elimination of direct payments, the 
        consolidation of conservation programs, or reforming 
        the SNAP program for the first time since the welfare 
        reforms of 1996, every part of this bill contributes 
        fairly to deficit reduction.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Staff of H. Comm. On Agriculture, 113th Cong., Summary of H.R. 
1947 1 (Comm. Print 2013), available at http://agriculture.house.gov/
sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/farm%20bill/
2013_FARRMSummary_0.pdf (last visited June 5, 2013).

    H.R. 1947 consists of twelve titles, certain provisions of 
which were referred sequentially for consideration to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary on May 29, 2013. These include, most 
significantly, provisions in titles I and II related to the 
rulemaking procedure.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

               I. OVERVIEW OF H.R. 1947'S RELEVANT TITLES

    Title I of H.R. 1947 contains a comprehensive rewriting of 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (the ``USDA'') commodities 
programs. Among other things, title I establishes new dairy 
margin protection and dairy stabilization programs for dairy 
producers, as well as authority for the USDA to use the 
Commodity Credit Corporation's ``funds, facilities, and 
authorities'' to carry out title I.\2\ Title II contains H.R. 
1947's conservation programs. Among other things, title II 
``authorizes cost-share and technical assistance for farmers, 
ranchers, foresters, and landowners through voluntary, 
incentive-based conservation programs.''\3\ These include 
programs for: conservation reserves, conservation stewardship, 
environmental quality incentives, agricultural conservation 
easements, regional conservation partnerships, conservation of 
private grazing lands, grassroots source water protection, 
voluntary public access and habitat incentives, agriculture 
conservation experienced services, small watershed 
rehabilitation, and agricultural management assistance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, H.R. 
1947, 113th Cong. Sec. 1601(a) (2013).
    \3\H. Rept. 113-92, Part 1, at 183 (2013).
    \4\Id. at 241-247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Dairy Margin Protection Program
    The Agriculture Committee's report on H.R. 1947 provides 
the following general description of title I's dairy margin 
protection program and the reasons for its development:

        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 three-quarters of a dairy farm's 
        operating costs or about one-half 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.

                              *    *    *

        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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Id. at 177-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Dairy Market Stabilization Program
    Under the provisions of title I of H.R. 1947, ``voluntary 
participation in the margin protection program requires 
producers to be subject to the dairy market stabilization 
program.''\6\ This stabilization program is a controversial 
supply management program, designed to use government authority 
to control milk supplies and affect the price of farm milk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Id. at 178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In brief, the stabilization program works as follows. When 
margins between farm milk prices and dairy farmers' feed costs 
drop below $6.00, dairy farmers are required to reduce their 
production or the stabilization program requires dairy 
processors to withhold between two and eight percent of dairy 
farmers' milk checks. The processors are then required to send 
the withheld amounts to USDA, to fund Federal purchases of 
dairy products. The program is thus designed to stabilize milk 
prices by influencing supply and demand for milk.
    In the process of seeking stability, this program may 
adversely impact both consumers of dairy products and dairy 
farmers who want to expand their operations, involve direct 
Federal intervention in markets, and increase milk prices, thus 
ultimately hurting producers as well as dairy food 
manufacturers by curtailing industry growth.
    For example, the Consumer Federation of America, National 
Consumers League, and Consumer Action oppose the Dairy Market 
Stabilization Program because of the concern that it could 
increase the prices that consumers pay for milk. They argue:

        [P]rograms which artificially increase milk prices will 
        hit lower income consumers the most as they spend a 
        higher proportion of their incomes on food than do 
        other consumers. In addition, the Stabilization program 
        would prevent prices from falling, depriving consumers 
        of periodic price relief, while providing no protection 
        for consumers from periodic milk price surges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Letter from Consumer Action et al. to Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) 
(Apr. 29, 2013), available at http://www.idfa.org/files/
consumer_group_dmsp_final.pdf.

    To implement the stabilization program, the USDA will need 
to implement regulations that will require manufacturers to 
track and report current and historical production shipments; 
track which suppliers are in and out of the program; and 
involve new accounting and recordkeeping, audits, tracking and 
potential enforcement penalties if an entity miscalculates 
penalty fees. In light of the complexity and paperwork involved 
in the program, and the default attachment of criminal 
penalties to the provision of false information to the Federal 
Government, violations of paperwork and informational 
requirements in the bill may expose regulated parties, not just 
to civil enforcement, but to criminal sanctions.\8\ Further, 
the stabilization program adds a new program to limit 
production periodically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See, e.g., H.R. 1947, 113th Cong. Sec. Sec. 1437-38 (2013) 
(civil enforcement); 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 (criminal enforcement) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many stakeholders believe that the stabilization program 
will raise domestic prices, hurt milk exports, encourage milk 
imports, increase consumer prices for dairy products, or limit 
the growth of the domestic dairy industry by discouraging new 
investments for processing capacity. These issues are 
important. For example, dairy exports are estimated to account 
for nearly 14 percent of milk produced in the United States, 
and it has been estimated that over two-thirds of recent growth 
in milk production is attributable to export demand. Dairy 
processors are reported to have invested billions of dollars 
for new U.S. production facilities in response to opportunities 
for increased export sales. At the same time, the stabilization 
program is likely bound to raise consumer prices, because it is 
designed to raise milk prices in the dairy value-added chain.
    Finally, the Congressional Budget Office has found that the 
stabilization program includes private-sector mandates (as such 
mandates are defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). 
Specifically, CBO found that ``[t]he aggregate cost of those 
mandates could exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA 
for private-sector mandates ($150 million in 2013, adjusted 
annually for inflation), depending on the extent of regulations 
that might be implemented by the Department of 
Agriculture.''\9\ Specifically:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\H. Rept. 113-92, Part 1, at 310 (2013).

        The bill would impose mandates on dairy handlers that 
        purchase milk from dairy producers participating in the 
        Dairy Market Stabilization Program (the ``DMSP''). 
        Under the DMSP, certain handlers would be required to 
        report information to the Department of Agriculture 
        under some circumstances. According to information from 
        industry sources, the cost for handlers to collect and 
        report information under the DMSP could amount to $100 
        million or more annually, depending on regulations to 
        be issued by the department.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 II. THE NECESSITY FOR REVISIONS TO RULEMAKING AUTHORITIES IN TITLES I 
                          AND II OF H.R. 1947

    Broadly speaking, sections 1461, 1601 and 2608 of H.R. 1947 
provide the USDA with authority to promulgate regulations for 
the dairy margin protection and supply stabilization programs, 
the participation of the Commodity Credit Corporation in title 
I programs, and title II's conservation programs. That being 
said, much of the language in these sections is intended to 
exempt rulemakings for these regulations from the otherwise 
applicable procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (the 
``APA'')\11\ and the Congressional Review Act (the 
``CRA''),\12\ which exemptions lie within the Committee's 
jurisdiction, as well as from certain other rulemaking 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Pub. L. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237 (1946) (codified at 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 551-706 (2012)).
    \12\Pub. L. 104-121, Sec. 251, 110 Stat. 847, 868 (1996) (codified 
at 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 801-808 (2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The APA is widely considered to be the ``constitution'' of 
Federal rulemaking. Its requirements, however, are not heavy-
handed. They include, for example, provisions that require 
agencies to provide public notice and seek public comment 
before they promulgate new regulations,\13\ as well as 
provisions that enable the courts to review agencies' final 
decisions.\14\ Nevertheless, the APA's requirements are 
critical--they provide significant legal protections to help 
assure that Federal rulemaking is informed by public views and 
the relevant facts, rest faithfully on the enabling statutes 
that authorize rulemaking, and are not arbitrary or capricious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553.
    \14\See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 701-706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CRA likewise imposes few, but important, restraints on 
Federal rulemaking. It requires new regulations to be submitted 
to Congress for review and potential disapproval, and requires 
important information about the details of new major 
regulations when those regulations are submitted to Congress. 
Congress, however, is provided only a short period of time in 
which to review new regulations. If that time elapses without a 
disapproval resolution having been passed, regulations become 
effective and enter into law.
    The APA and the CRA represent Congress' considered judgment 
that, when new regulations are promulgated, these statutes 
should constrain agency decision-making to assure the just rule 
of law and fidelity to congressional intent. When significant 
regulations occur, such as those that involve new government 
programs or major economic burdens, it is particularly 
important that APA and CRA procedures be applied. This is 
surely the case when longstanding Federal programs are reformed 
or substantial new programs are created, such as in H.R. 1947. 
It is similarly the case when regulations would implement a 
program, such as the stabilization program, that has widespread 
opposition from consumers, producers, retailers, and exporters 
based on the expected adverse economic impacts of the program, 
and when violations of program requirements could lead to civil 
and criminal enforcement.
    The Committee has found no compelling justification to 
exempt H.R. 1947's dairy margin protection and dairy 
stabilization programs, commodity programs or conservation 
programs from any of the protections of the APA or CRA. At 
most, any need to have regulations quickly in effect could 
afford a basis for USDA (and, as applicable, the Commodity 
Credit Corporation), using default APA authority found in 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B), to promulgate interim final regulations 
without notice and comment, to be followed by full notice and 
comment rulemaking to assure a full and fair procedure for the 
public and affected entities. But even were that the case, if 
the USDA were to use that authority, it would be all the more 
important to preserve the CRA's applicability, to provide at 
least a Congressional check-and-balance against unsound 
regulation.

              III. THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1947

    The amendment adopted by the Committee was offered by 
Committee Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA). It amends sections 1461, 
1601, and 2608 of H.R. 1947, and:

         Lgenerally eliminates these sections' 
        exceptions to the APA's rulemaking requirements and the 
        CRA's congressional review procedures;

         Lestablishes an interim rulemaking requirement 
        for section 1461's stabilization program, to be 
        completed by 9 months after the enactment date of H.R. 
        1947;

         Lassures that interim stabilization rules are 
        informed by an understanding of the economic impacts of 
        the stabilization program on the dairy value chain, the 
        U.S. dairy industry's international competitiveness, 
        government-funded domestic and international nutrition 
        programs, consumers, and competition in domestic dairy 
        markets, and establishes a requirement that the interim 
        stabilization rulemaking include an interim 
        determination of these impacts;

         Lsets a deadline of 21 months after enactment 
        (i.e., 1 year after the interim regulation deadline) 
        for final regulations to be promulgated under these 
        sections' authority, following an opportunity for 
        notice and comment;

         Lassures that final stabilization rules are 
        fully informed by an understanding of and public 
        comment on the economic impacts of the stabilization 
        program on the dairy value chain, the U.S. dairy 
        industry's international competitiveness, government-
        funded domestic and international nutrition programs, 
        consumers, and competition in domestic dairy markets 
        and establishes a requirement that the final 
        stabilization rulemaking include a final determination 
        of these impacts; and

         Lallows flexibility for the USDA to promulgate 
        regulations for the other programs addressed by 
        sections 1461, 1601 and 2608, and provides 
        discretionary authority for the USDA to issue interim 
        rules for these programs as well.

    The amendment assures that the public receives prompt 
initial and final assessments of the stabilization program's 
potential adverse economic issues, as well as prompt 
regulations for all of these programs, on either an interim or 
final basis. The USDA retains discretion to coordinate 
regulations to be issued simultaneously or on a staggered basis 
for all of the relevant programs, so long as at least 
stabilization regulations are established promptly on an 
interim basis. The amendment's requirements for initial and 
final determinations of the stabilization program's potential 
adverse economic impacts essentially mean that the USDA will be 
required to render public determinations on these issues 
earlier than required in the Senate version of the bill, and 
that it will issue them in the rulemaking context, affording 
the public ample opportunity to receive notice, fully vet 
USDA's analysis, and offer comment before final regulations are 
in place, rather than in a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Agriculture, as currently provided for in the 
Senate bill. Beyond that, the amendment simply assures that 
ordinarily applicable rulemaking requirements will apply to 
these important sets of regulations. The amendment does nothing 
to make rulemaking authority contingent on cost-benefit results 
or other substantively dispositive requirements.
    This requirement is not intended to delay or hinder the 
Secretary's rulemaking authority under the bill, nor is it 
intended to be used to create a substantive, economic-impact-
based claim to challenge the rules required to be promulgated 
under H.R. 1947.

                                Hearings

    The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 
1947.

                        Committee Consideration

    On June 5, 2013, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 1947 to be reported without a 
recommendation, with an amendment by voice vote, a quorum being 
present. The Committee on the Judiciary received a time-
limited, sequential referral on H.R. 1947 for consideration of 
such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee pursuant to clause 1(l) of rule 
X.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there 
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of 
H.R. 1947.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill H.R. 1947, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: CBO has prepared a cost estimate for 
H.R. 1947, the ``Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 
2013,'' as ordered reported by the House Committee on the 
Judiciary on June 5, 2013.

                      ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS

    CBO estimates that direct spending stemming from the 
program authorizations in H.R. 1947 would total $939 billion 
over the 2014-2023 period. That 10-year total reflects the 
bill's authorization of expiring programs through 2018 and an 
extension of those authorizations through 2023, consistent with 
the rules governing baseline projections that are specified in 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
    Relative to spending projected under CBO's May 2013 
baseline, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would reduce 
direct spending by $33.4 billion over the 2014-2023 period. The 
estimated budgetary effects of H.R. 1947 are summarized in 
Table 1.
    Assuming appropriation of the specified and necessary 
amounts, CBO also estimates that implementing the bill would 
result in discretionary spending of $27.3 billion over the 
2014-2018 period and $33.2 billion over the 2014-2023 period. 
Further details of that estimate for discretionary spending are 
displayed in Table 3.

                       INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATES

    H.R. 1947 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). In general, state, 
local, and tribal governments would benefit from the 
continuation of existing agricultural assistance and the 
creation of new grant programs.

                        PRIVATE-SECTOR MANDATES

    The bill would impose private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA. The aggregate cost of those mandates could exceed the 
annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector 
mandates ($150 million in 2013, adjusted annually for 
inflation), depending on the extent of regulations that might 
be implemented by the Department of Agriculture. Specifically:

         LThe bill would impose mandates on dairy 
        handlers that purchase milk from dairy producers 
        participating in the Dairy Market Stabilization Program 
        (DMSP). Under the DMSP, certain handlers would be 
        required to report information to the Department of 
        Agriculture under some circumstances. According to 
        information from industry sources, the cost for 
        handlers to collect and report information under the 
        DMSP could amount to $100 million or more annually, 
        depending on regulations to be issued by the 
        department.

         LThe bill would require imports of olive oil 
        to meet the same standards as olive oil produced in the 
        United States if a marketing order for olive oil is 
        established. Imports would have to be inspected to 
        ensure compliance with the standards of such a 
        marketing order. Because 15,000 to 20,000 lots of olive 
        oil are imported annually, the costs of those 
        inspections could amount to tens of millions of dollars 
        per year, if a marketing order is established.

                       PREVIOUS CBO COST ESTIMATE

    On May 23, 2013, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 
1947, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Agriculture 
on May 15, 2013.
    The version of H.R. 1947 ordered reported by the Judiciary 
Committee is different than the Agriculture Committee's 
version. CBO estimates that the Judiciary Committee's version 
of H.R. 1947 would:

         LNot affect federal revenues, whereas the 
        Agriculture Committee's version would increase revenues 
        by $64 million over the 2014-2023 period;

         LResult in $85 million less in direct spending 
        over the 2014-2023 period than the Agriculture 
        Committee's version of the bill; and

         LAuthorize $129 million less in spending 
        subject to appropriation over the 2014-2023 period than 
        the Agriculture Committee's version of the legislation.

                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

    The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-
reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting 
direct spending or revenues. Enacting H.R. 1947 would affect 
direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. The 
net change in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go 
procedures are shown in Table 4.
    If you need further details on this estimate, we would be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts for federal 
costs are Kathleen FitzGerald, Emily Stern, Dan Hoople, David 
Hull, and Jim Langley. The CBO staff contact for 
intergovernmental mandates is J'nell L. Blanco. The CBO staff 
contact for private-sector mandates is Amy Petz.
            Sincerely,
                                      Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                  Director.
                                     Per Robert A. Sunshine

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
        
        


                              ----------                              


                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 1947 within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal 
Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, 
a program that was included in any report from the Government 
Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of 
Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a program 
identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance. With respect to the bill H.R. 1947, the Committee 
on the Judiciary adopts the Committee on Agriculture's 
statement with regard to duplication of Federal programs 
appearing in H. Rept. 113-92, Part 1, at page 318: H.R. 1947, 
the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 
2013'' eliminates and streamlines several duplicative or 
antiquated programs including 1 that was included in reports 
from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant 
to section 21 of Public Law 111-139. There are 3 other programs 
identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance or on a report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative 
of another Federal program established or reauthorized in H.R. 
1947.

                   Disclosure of Directed Rulemakings

    The Committee estimates that the provisions within the 
Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction, as amended, direct 
the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to complete one 
interim rulemaking within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. 
With respect to the bill H.R 1947, the Committee on the 
Judiciary adopts as its own the Committee on Agriculture's 
disclosure of directed rulemakings appearing in H. Rept. 113-
92, Part 1, at page 319: The Committee estimates that enacting 
H.R. 1947 directs the completion of 2 specific rule makings 
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
1947 provides for the reform and continuation of agricultural 
and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through 
fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 1947 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The provisions within the Committee on the Judiciary's 
jurisdiction include no inter-governmental or private-sector 
mandates. With respect to the bill H.R. 1947, the Committee 
adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by 
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Public Law 
104-4).

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    A section-by-section analysis of the bill H.R. 1947 appears 
in H. Rept. 113-92, Part 1, at pages 232-293.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the provisions of the bill referred to the Committee, as 
reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in 
italics and existing law in which no change is proposed is 
shown in roman):

                       FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1985



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE XII--CONSERVATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle E--Funding and Administration

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1246. REGULATIONS.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Changes in existing law made by the bill H.R. 1947 as 
reported by the Committee on Agriculture are represented in a 
supplement to H. Rept. 113-92, Part 1.

                            Dissenting Views

    In addition to serving on the Judiciary Committee, I am 
honored to serve on the Agriculture Committee as well. 
Recently, the Agriculture Committee held a markup of the 
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act (FARRM), 
where there were extensive policy discussions on a number of 
issues, including the Dairy Security Act. While this is 
certainly not a perfect bill, the Dairy Security Act is one of 
the most crucial elements. As a result, I opposed Chairman 
Goodlatte's amendment which would subject a needed dairy policy 
in FARRM, which has been approved twice by the House 
Agriculture Committee, to additional regulations and studies. 
It is unfortunate that the Judiciary Committee is picking and 
choosing sections of FARRM to subject to the Administrative 
Procedures Act and the Congressional Review Act and requiring 
additional reviews for the Dairy Security Act.
    Additionally, I take exception to assertions made during 
the markup that the Dairy Security Act is bad for consumers. I 
submitted a report to the record by Dr. Scott Brown from the 
University of Missouri, a respected voice in agriculture. This 
report found that farm-level milk prices will rise only one 
half of one cent per gallon if provisions in the Dairy Security 
Act are implemented. In addition, the current volatility in the 
market is far more harmful to consumers than that very slight 
increase. Under current dairy programs, we have seen extreme 
price volatility. We have also seen that consumers tend to feel 
the full impact when dairy prices spike, but they rarely get 
the full benefit when prices come back down. The truth is, the 
Dairy Security Act would stabilize and moderate milk prices for 
both producers and consumers. Numerous studies have shown that 
the stabilization program will reduce milk price volatility. 
Further, the entire program is completely voluntary, and no one 
is compelled to participate. There has already been a lengthy 
debate about the need for a new dairy policy, and that debate 
took place in the Agriculture Committee where efforts to remove 
the stabilization program failed. This debate has taken place 
over four years and spanned multiple hearings, none of which 
took place in the Judiciary Committee.

                                   Suzan DelBene