S. Rept. 113-88 - 113th Congress (2013-2014)

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.


Senate Report 113-88 - AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD AND JOBS ACT OF 2013

[Senate Report 113-88]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


113th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     113-88
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


             AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD AND JOBS ACT OF 2013

                               __________


                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY

                                   on

                                 S. 954

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS




               September 4, 2013.--Ordered to be printed

  Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 1, 2013


        SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
                    ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
                             FIRST SESSION

                 DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi,
TOM HARKIN, Iowa                       Ranking Member
MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado             MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York         JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana                CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota         JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
WILLIAM COWAN, Massachusetts         JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota


113th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     113-88

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



 
             AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD AND JOBS ACT OF 2013

                                _______
                                

               September 4, 2013.--Ordered to be printed

  Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 1, 2013

                                _______
                                

    Ms. Stabenow, from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
                   Forestry, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 954]

    The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry (the 
Committee), reported an original bill (S. 954) to provide for 
the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 
2018, and for other purposes, and recommends that the bill do 
pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
     Purpose of the Bill..............................................1
     Backgrounds and Needs............................................2
     Summary of Provisions...........................................25
     Legislative History.............................................43
     Estimated Costs.................................................54
     Regulatory Impact Statement.....................................63
     Congressionally Directed Spending...............................63
     Section-by-Section Analysis.....................................64
     Rollcall Votes in Committee....................................152
     Additional Views...............................................154
     Changes in Existing Law........................................156

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of this legislation is to reform, extend, 
modify, streamline and strengthen the nation's policies and 
programs pertaining to food, fiber, agriculture, conservation, 
rural development, agricultural trade and food aid, rural 
energy initiatives, forestry on private lands and research, 
education, and extension encompassing these subjects. Congress 
most recently addressed these programs comprehensively in the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-627).
    The reported bill reduces the deficit by reductions in 
mandatory spending through policy-based revisions that improve 
the function and effectiveness of the programs created or 
extended by this legislation. These revisions include reforming 
assistance to farmers and ranchers through coverage for the 
risks that farmers and ranchers face; strengthening the efforts 
by farmers and landowners to conserve and enhance the quality 
of natural resources related to agriculture production, 
including privately owned forest land; promoting agricultural 
trade and market opportunities; and providing food aid and 
development assistance to developing countries.
    The bill also works to improve the integrity of food 
assistance to low-income families along with enhancing the 
diets and health of all Americans. It streamlines the 
authorities for the provision of credit to farmers and ranchers 
and improves efforts to help young and beginning farmers and 
ranchers. The bill also fosters economic growth and a high 
quality of life in rural communities while streamlining the 
authorizations related to rural development and improving 
program effectiveness.
    A significant purpose of the reported bill is improving 
support for the research, education and extension efforts 
involving food, agriculture and related fields. The reported 
bill also invests in the research, development and use of 
agriculturally-based renewable energy, chemicals and other 
biobased products, and it continues and enhances investments 
that assist and promote specialty crops and organics. Finally, 
the reported bill aims to enhance and improve federal crop 
insurance for all crops.
    The reported bill authorizes programs for the 2014 through 
2018 crop and fiscal years.

                          Background and Needs


                      Title I--Commodity Programs

    For 80 years, the United States has provided support to 
agricultural producers through a variety of programs and 
initiatives. Historically, the vast majority of that support 
has been for assistance with low prices, supply or production 
controls and general subsidy or income transfer payments. In 
recent years, Congress has shifted emphasis towards policies 
that address farm risks. In 2000, Congress passed the 
Agriculture Risk Protection Act that enhanced risk management 
for farmers through the public-private partnership with crop 
insurance providers. In 2008, the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act (the 2008 Farm Bill) included two revenue-based 
assistance programs: one as an alternative to counter-cyclical 
payments and another targeted at assistance for natural 
disasters. The bill reported by the Committee builds upon those 
earlier efforts and takes a significant step forward in 
reforming commodity policy by moving away from traditional 
income support and towards risk management with assistance only 
in the case of loss.
    Recently, the agricultural sector has experienced 
unprecedented strength and economic growth, while at the same 
time the national economy has struggled to recover from an 
economic downturn. The Economic Research Service at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has forecast record net farm 
income in 2011 and 2012, exceeding $90 billion each year. 
Additionally, USDA estimates that the five years of highest 
earnings for farmers over the last three decades have occurred 
since 2004. Record high commodity and livestock prices, caused 
by strong demand both domestically and overseas, have driven 
farm incomes. However, historic prices are also pushing up 
input costs and land values to record levels and increasing the 
level of risk a farmer must manage.
    The reported bill accomplishes significant and fundamental 
reform of the commodity programs, delivering substantial 
reductions in mandatory spending while still helping farmers 
and ranchers in times of need. Direct payments, counter-
cyclical payments and the Average Crop Revenue Election 
payments are eliminated beginning with the 2014 crop year. In 
their place, new risk-based programs are authorized for the 
2014 through 2018 crop years. The Agriculture Risk Coverage 
(ARC) program updates and modernizes commodity assistance 
designed to supplement crop insurance, while the Adverse 
Markets Payment (AMP) program provides market-oriented support 
for commodities when prices drop significantly or when markets 
are depressed for multiple years.
    The Committee acknowledges that the risks a farmer must 
manage to produce crops are immense and come from both the 
weather impacting crop yields and from the market delivering a 
price too low to cover the costs of producing a crop. The 
Committee acknowledges that crop insurance provides very 
effective coverage for yield risk for many crops and farmers. 
The improvements contained in Title XI are designed to make it 
more effective for more farmers and more crops. However, crop 
insurance, covers only a portion of a farmer's loss and 
includes a ``deductible'' range within which the farmer is 
self-insured. The deductible can be larger than a farmer's 
operating margin. As such, the ARC program is designed to 
supplement crop insurance and help farmers manage risk through 
limited assistance within the deductible range for revenue 
losses not otherwise covered by crop insurance. Like crop 
insurance, payments are made using a producer's planted acres 
and determined by actual county or individual farm yields and 
actual market prices. The guarantee upon which a payment is 
triggered utilizes a benchmark calculation of actual yields and 
market prices on a rolling five-year basis, dropping out the 
highest and lowest years of each (known as the ``Olympic 
average''). With this structure, ARC treats every covered 
commodity and every farmer growing a covered commodity in the 
same fashion.
    Because crop insurance does not cover multi-year price 
risk, the Committee acknowledges that significant risk exposure 
for farmers comes from a collapse in prices that is sustained 
or from multiple years in which prices decline. Low or 
declining prices are especially problematic because farm input 
costs--such as the cost of seed, fuel and fertilizer--tend to 
increase with commodity prices but not decrease as quickly as 
commodity prices. Farmers typically contract in advance for 
these inputs, further exposing them to downside price risk.
    The Committee created ARC to provide effective, market-
oriented assistance for price declines without insulating 
farmers from long-term trends in the market. By using a rolling 
five-year Olympic average of historical prices, the program 
provides assistance when the market decreases significantly 
year-over-year; allowing farmers and input prices the ability 
to respond. If the market decline is short-term, program 
assistance can help with the volatility. If the decline is 
longer-term, such as more than four or five years, ARC adjusts 
with the market and the guarantee decreases to avoid 
distortions. The Committee understands that price declines over 
a longer timeframe do not constitute shocks to the system that 
threaten farm operations; rather they are trends requiring 
appropriate responses by farmers. Accordingly, ARC provides 
limited assistance in the initial years of collapsed or 
declining prices allowing input prices to follow commodity 
prices lower and provide farmers time to adjust their 
operations. The five-year Olympic average price used in ARC is 
part of a market-oriented solution to the multi-year price 
risks a farmer must manage.
    The Committee acknowledges concerns with ARC and its 
ability to provide sufficient assistance for price risks, while 
also acknowledging the substantial concerns with programs that 
protect farmers from market trends. The reported bill, 
therefore, includes the Adverse Market Payments (AMP) program 
as a market-oriented catastrophic price risk management tool to 
complement the ARC program and crop insurance by covering 
severe, multi-year price declines. To avoid planting and market 
distortions, as well as to assuage concerns about implications 
for agricultural agreements in the World Trade Organization, 
the price assistance provided by AMP remains decoupled from 
actual planting decisions and production outcomes by continuing 
to use a farm's historic base acres for each covered commodity. 
The AMP program uses a rolling 5-year Olympic average of 
actual, historic market prices, identical to the calculation in 
the ARC program, to set AMP reference prices. This rolling 
average provides assistance against price-based risks from a 
multi-year price collapse but eventually adjusts to the market 
so as to not insulate farmers against market trends. A fixed 
reference price is used for rice and peanuts due to lower 
participation rates in revenue-based insurance products by 
producers of those commodities and due to concerns raised by 
the rice and peanut industries regarding different market 
realities for their crops. In an effort to address a potential 
overlap between the AMP and ARC programs, a cap on ARC payments 
is set using the AMP reference price level for each covered 
commodity. This limit on ARC payments prevents duplication of 
payments for the same price loss for a commodity when it is 
planted on the AMP base acres attributed to it on the farm.
    The reported bill also continues marketing assistance loans 
and loan deficiency payments through the 2018 crop year with 
only two changes. Due to the loss before the World Trade 
Organization in a dispute initiated by Brazil against U.S. 
cotton supports, the loan rate for cotton is revised so that it 
can float between $0.52 per pound and $0.45 per pound based on 
a rolling two year average of prices. In addition, the 
conservation compliance provisions currently applicable to 
Title I programs and continued in this legislation are also 
applied in their entirety to the marketing loan program.
    The current sugar program is also continued without change 
through the 2018 crop year.
    Subtitle D of Title I provides assistance to dairy 
producers by establishing new programs that utilize risk 
management concepts. The programs utilize market signals to 
help prevent over-supply and to help insure against profit 
margin reduction. The dairy industry experienced serious 
hardship in 2009 when prices received for milk marketings 
decreased significantly, resulting in an estimated 20 percent 
loss in dairy farm equity. The total loss of equity from 2007 
through 2009 is estimated at $20 billion. Existing dairy 
support programs, including the Milk Income Loss Contract 
(MILC) program and the Dairy Product Price Support Program 
(DPPSP), proved insufficient for ensuring the viability of many 
dairy operations, thereby exposing a significant risk to the 
domestic dairy industry. In response, dairy producers 
representing operations of all sizes undertook a nationwide 
effort to create a proposal that would help insure against 
reduced operating margins and stabilize dairy markets in times 
of overproduction. The reported legislation formalizes concepts 
of the producers' proposal.
    The reported legislation repeals MILC, DPPSP, and the Dairy 
Export Incentive Program (DEIP) and replaces them with a new, 
voluntary safety net, comprised of the Dairy Production Margin 
Protection Program (DPMPP) and the Dairy Market Stabilization 
Program (DMSP). The Committee's revisions to the original 
proposals contained in the reported bill are intended to ensure 
that the programs are growth and export oriented, as well as 
more equitable to farms across the country. The new safety net 
can be customized for each dairy farm, putting affordable risk 
management in the hands of dairy producers. To participate, 
producers will opt-in to the DPMPP, elect a level of protection 
that fits each operation's risk management needs, and share in 
program costs, allowing producers of all sizes to manage risk 
on more of their milk production at higher protection levels. 
Previous safety net programs did not require producer 
investment and had limited effectiveness for many dairy farms 
due to various limitations on the assistance provided.
    The first component of the new safety net, the DPMPP, 
provides support based on the fluctuating margin between prices 
received for milk marketings and feed input costs. The DPMPP 
guarantees basic, catastrophic margin protection on an 
established production base for all participating dairy 
operations when margin dips below $4.00 for defined consecutive 
two-month periods. Producers pay an administrative fee for the 
program. The fee structure is progressive, requiring higher 
fees from larger operations that may benefit more in times of 
low margins. The fee is intended only to supplement the costs 
of administering the programs and to support other measures 
that will improve dairy markets. In addition to the basic 
guarantee, the DPMPP also provides producers with an annual 
opportunity to manage market volatility by buying up 
additional, supplemental margin protection over the $4.00 basic 
guarantee, in $0.50 increments, up to $8.00 margin protection 
on no less than 25 percent and no more than 90 percent of milk 
marketed. The production base for supplemental margin 
protection may be updated annually to allow dairy operations 
and the domestic dairy industry the opportunity to grow over 
time.
    Small and medium size operations tend to have higher 
relative overhead costs than larger operations due to 
efficiencies of scale. The Committee recognized the 
differences, and provides additional premium subsidies for 
smaller farms. The reported bill provides a discounted premium 
on the first four million pounds of milk marketed by each 
participating producer. To make the program more equitable, all 
participating dairy operations will qualify for the discounted 
premium regardless of operation size.
    The second component of the new safety net, the DMSP, is 
designed to correct imbalances in dairy supply and demand when 
margins are low. The stabilization program provides a market 
signal based on margin that indicates when producers are 
oversupplying the market. Generally, when prices for milk 
marketings fall operations often produce more milk in order to 
increase revenue. This behavior can rapidly lead to an 
oversupply of milk, further depressing prices. The DMSP 
requires producers participating in the margin protection 
program to temporarily slow production when supply is outpacing 
demand. When the DMSP is in effect, participating operations 
will be paid on a percentage of a rolling base, requiring an 
operation to reduce milk marketings or face a reduced payment. 
By reducing a participating operation's milk payment by a 
percentage during times of oversupply, DMSP removes the 
incentive for farms to overproduce during times of low margins. 
Money withheld by the DMSP will be used for USDA dairy product 
purchases and other activities that rebuild demand. DMSP also 
includes a suspension trigger based on world prices to help 
ensure the stabilization program does not result in an increase 
of cheaper imports into the U.S. market, and to help maintain 
U.S. dairy product competitiveness in export markets.
    Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) reform was not included 
in the reported legislation. The Committee believes the 
Department's well-established process for considering FMMO 
reform is adequate for addressing potential reform. The 
Committee reauthorized the authority for the FMMO Review 
Commission.
    The reported legislation includes provisions that require 
dairy processors to report on more product characteristics to 
aid in price discovery, including price, quantity, and moisture 
content of dairy products sold. Additionally, the legislation 
requires cold storage reporting on quantity and characteristics 
of dairy products stored by processors or other cold storage 
facilities.
    The reported legislation also requires a study of the new 
programs' impacts on the dairy industry prior to consideration 
of the next Farm Bill. The Committee wants to ensure that the 
DMSP is not harming the U.S. dairy industry's ability to thrive 
in an expanding global marketplace.
    Subtitle E of Title I represents another significant change 
in farm support policy. In 2008, the Farm Bill established a 
suite of programs to assist farmers and ranchers with losses 
due to natural disasters. Those programs included Supplemental 
Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE), Livestock Indemnity 
Payments (LIP), the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), 
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised 
Fish (ELAP), and the Tree Assistance Program (TAP). All funding 
and program authorities expired at the end of fiscal year 2011 
and do not cover losses suffered by farmers and ranchers in 
fiscal year 2012. This legislation reauthorizes LIP, LFP, ELAP 
and TAP with some modifications for fiscal years 2012 through 
2018. The legislation moves the programs into Title I and funds 
them out of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation. The 
assistance provided by LIP, LFP, ELAP and TAP is now 
incorporated into Title I, thereby providing permanent funding 
baseline for these important disaster assistance programs and 
placing them on the same reauthorization schedule as the rest 
of this title. The SURE program is not re-authorized.
    Finally, the reported bill contains substantial reforms for 
commodity programs in terms of limiting payments to farmers, 
tightening the eligibility requirements based on the producer's 
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and prohibiting individuals who are 
not farming from being able to qualify themselves or an entity 
for payments under Title I. ARC and AMP payments are limited to 
$50,000 per individual, which can be doubled with a spouse as 
in current law. In addition, the current practice of providing 
a separate payment limit for peanuts is applied to payments 
under ARC and AMP. The legislation also revises the AGI 
limitation, removing the farm/nonfarm distinction in 
calculating income and setting the eligibility requirement at 
$750,000.
    Current law requires that to receive a payment a person or 
entity must be ``actively engaged in farming.'' However, this 
requirement allows multiple people to qualify as actively 
engaged in the farming operation on the basis of providing 
``active personal management.'' The reported bill removes the 
``active personal management'' component, requiring the 
provision of labor to qualify as actively engaged. A farm 
entity may include one person who can qualify as actively 
engaged as a manager of the farm, but limits it to a single 
individual and precludes that individual from qualifying 
multiple entities or qualifying the farm operation for more 
than the statutory payment limit.
    The current farm bill authorizations expire with the 
current crop and fiscal years. If they are allowed to expire, 
farm policy reverts to the 1949 Agricultural Adjustment Act and 
the outdated policies contained therein. The impact on farmers 
cannot be estimated, however, reversion is expected to be 
extremely expensive for the Federal taxpayer. Moreover, the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture would struggle to abruptly 
adjust administration of current programs and implement 
policies created over 60 years ago. While the reforms and 
policy changes in this legislation are necessary in their own 
right, they are also needed to avoid complications resulting 
from a return to long-outdated permanent law.

                         Title II--Conservation

    Agriculture is measured in generations. The most successful 
farms and ranches are those that can be passed along to 
children and grandchildren. Agriculture prospers with good, 
healthy soil and clean water in sufficient quantities. 
Accordingly, the reported bill continues current investments to 
help farmers and ranchers conserve vital natural resources.
    The Committee acknowledges estimates that by 2050 our world 
population will reach 9 billion people; requiring a 70 percent 
to 80 percent increase in agricultural production. As incomes 
rise around the world, diets improve and the demand for higher 
quality food increases. Much of this demand will be met by 
America's farmers and ranchers, who will also need to sustain 
vital natural resources such as soil and water. While advancing 
technology for seeds, inputs, and farming practices will enable 
farmers and ranchers worldwide to meet increasing demand, sound 
agricultural conservation practices are necessary to preserve 
agricultural productivity for future generations.
    The Committee recognized that savings could be responsibly 
achieved in this title through a review of current programs. 
Emphasis was placed on improvements that enhance program 
effectiveness and achieve reductions in future outlays. The 
reported bill continues important conservation investments, 
while streamlining and improving programs to make them more 
effective and reducing overall spending in this title. The most 
significant changes in the reported bill involve the 
Conservation Reserve Program, conservation easements and 
regional partnerships for conservation. The legislation also 
achieves savings in the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program in part through program consolidation. Savings also are 
achieved through improvements to the Conservation Stewardship 
Program, along with a slight reduction in the annual acreage 
enrollment limitation.
    For over 25 years, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 
has helped preserve soil, water and wildlife resources by 
placing highly erodible and environmentally sensitive farmland 
in conserving uses through voluntary contracts with farmers, 
ranchers and landowners. The 2008 Farm Bill limited CRP 
enrollment to 32 million acres. Recently, however, high 
commodity prices and strong demand for land on which to grow 
commodities have dampened enrollments, reducing the program to 
just under 30 million acres. Over the next two years alone, 
contracts on more than 10 million acres currently in the 
program will expire, many of which are likely to transition to 
production agricultural uses. With this background, the 
Committee concluded that lowering the enrollment cap better 
reflected current program demand, and that significant savings 
also could be achieved. Understanding the challenges involved 
in lowering the enrollment cap, the Committee established a 
multi-year ``step down'' of the acreage cap over the five-year 
life of this legislation. This achieves savings while providing 
for annual signups that allow the most sensitive and erodible 
lands to remain in the program, and those lands suitable for 
production to return to agricultural uses. The reported bill 
provides greater certainty for lands enrolled in CRP to be used 
for grazing and harvesting, consistent with the conservation 
purposes of the program. It includes new opportunities for 
owners and operators to prepare lands for agricultural uses in 
the last year of the contract.
    Conservation easements help to protect specific types of 
environmentally sensitive lands, such as wetlands and important 
grazing lands. Easements are also valuable tools for preserving 
farm and ranch land that is under development pressure. Such 
easements retain those lands in agricultural uses to produce 
the crops vital to our national security and economy, as well 
as the growing food needs of an expanding world population. 
Current law has three easement programs: the Grasslands Reserve 
Program (GRP); the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the 
Farmland Protection Program (FPP). The authority and funding 
for two of these programs expire with fiscal year 2013, which 
would put at risk the opportunity to protect and preserve these 
lands. By consolidating all three easement program authorities, 
the Committee establishes ten year baseline funding for all 
conservation easements through the Agricultural Conservation 
Easement Program (ACEP).
    ACEP contains two parts: Agricultural Land Easements and 
Wetland Reserve Easements. Agricultural Land Easements are used 
to protect lands from development and keep them devoted to 
agricultural uses, including protecting grazing lands or 
traditional grasslands and keeping them in grazing and related 
uses. Wetland Reserve Easements are used to restore, protect, 
and enhance wetlands, which are important for water quality, 
quantity and wildlife habitat objectives in many areas. The 
single program is better focused on long-term land protection 
with a sufficient investment to be effective in achieving the 
program's goals.
    Another significant change in the reported bill is the 
consolidation of four existing programs into a single, 
innovative approach to support locally led conservation 
projects that address soil, water, or wildlife habitat issues 
in a specific area or region. The Regional Conservation 
Partnership Program (RCPP) combines core functions of the 
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, the Chesapeake Bay 
Watershed Program, the Cooperative Conservation Partnership 
Initiative and the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion 
and Sediment Control. In both the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, 
efforts were made to allow eligible organizations to partner 
with the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) and 
agricultural producers to build solutions-oriented approaches 
to local natural resource conservation issues. These past 
efforts have formed a foundation for the Committee's work in 
the reported bill. The RCPP takes the next step by 
consolidating the best features of those efforts under one set 
of core authorities. This will streamline and simplify the 
partnership approach for producers, eligible partners and USDA. 
The Committee believes that partnerships are a cornerstone for 
conservation and will only continue to grow in importance in 
the future. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program is a 
competitive, merit-based program that encourages producers to 
come together in a collaborative way. Producers and the 
organizations that they know and trust will sit around the same 
table with USDA and come up with a joint strategy for how to 
tackle their most pressing conservation issues. Importantly, 
limited federal resources will be magnified and multiplied by 
private resources; all of which are focused on natural resource 
conserving efforts at the farm and ranch levels with a regional 
focus.
    The title also extends the authorities and appropriations 
for several important, but smaller conservation programs; makes 
amendments extending the farm bill funding authority for the 
Small Watershed Rehabilitation program; and grants limited 
authority for the Secretary to modify or terminate a floodplain 
easement enrolled in the Emergency Watershed Protection 
Program. Finally, because of the streamlining and consolidation 
efforts in the conservation title, language is included to 
ensure the Secretary's transition to the new Farm Bill is 
seamless with respect to rulemaking, existing contracts and 
transition of funding authorities.

                            Title III--Trade

    The Committee has jurisdiction over two types of program 
authorities in this title: (1) programs that promote exports of 
U.S. agricultural products; and (2) programs that provide food 
aid to other nations. Both types of programs are important to 
the agricultural economy and to our nation's geopolitical 
interests, including providing humanitarian relief to nations 
facing significant food emergencies such as famine.
    Agricultural exports remain a bright spot for U.S. trade as 
it is one of the only sectors where the U.S. runs a trade 
surplus, exporting more than we import. U.S. farm exports 
reached record levels in 2010 and 2011 at over $115 billion and 
over $136 billion respectively. In comparison, the U.S. 
exported $53.7 billion worth of agricultural products in 2001--
an increase of over 150 percent. Title III of this legislation 
reauthorizes important programs to continue expanding 
agricultural exports and trade through promotion activities 
that open new markets and develop new customers, as well as 
working to combat trade barriers for U.S. products.
    In general, the reported bill extends current 
authorizations and funding levels for the export promotion 
programs in this title. These programs include the Market 
Access Program, the Foreign Market Development Program, the 
Emerging Markets and Facility Guarantee Loan Program, Technical 
Assistance for Specialty Crops and the Global Crop Diversity 
Trust. Minor changes are made to the Export Credit Guarantee 
Program (GSM-102) to help meet our obligations pursuant to the 
dispute settlement brought by Brazil before the World Trade 
Organization.
    The Committee also recognizes the importance of America's 
leadership in times of food emergencies. Between 850 million 
and 1 billion people in 77 countries are currently estimated to 
be food insecure. In 2011, the Food for Peace program 
authorized in this title benefitted over 46 million people. 
Annually, Food for Peace donates over 2.5 million metric tons 
of commodities around the world. Additionally, the McGovern-
Dole program authorized by this title helps feed about 3 
million children each year, while the Food for Progress program 
benefits about 7 million people annually. The food aid programs 
in this title benefit over 60 countries. The Committee 
recognizes the importance of this assistance and has 
reauthorized the relevant programs while at the same time 
reforming key policies to reduce waste in the system and 
provide flexibility to respond to changing food aid needs.
    In general, the reported bill extends current 
authorizations for international food aid through fiscal year 
2018. The reported bill also increases funding available to 
support strategic prepositioning, which brings food aid 
commodities to at-risk regions before food emergencies strike. 
The bill also expands on the success of a pilot program from 
the 2008 Farm Bill for local and regional food aid procurement, 
which allows organizations to purchase food through local and 
regional markets. By linking local and regional purchasing with 
the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program in the application process, this bill also 
encourages project graduation for schools participating in 
McGovern-Dole. The bill puts into action the recommendations of 
a study authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill to research the 
quality of U.S. food aid. The Administrator is given increased 
flexibility to improve the nutritional profile of food aid for 
target populations, such as children under five and mothers.
    Finally, since passage of the last farm bill, the famine in 
the Horn of Africa has brought new organizations and 
governments to the region, all intent on helping reduce hunger 
and improve food security. This pilot helps coordinate the 
efforts on the ground by looking at interactions and providing 
for groups doing resiliency work--efforts that will help ensure 
that famine does not occur again.

                          Title IV--Nutrition

    The legislation reauthorizes the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as ``Food Stamps.'' 
In fiscal year 2012, SNAP provided food and nutrition 
assistance for an average of 46.6 million low-income Americans 
per month with average benefits of $4.46 per individual per 
day. The Committee acknowledges that SNAP has proven vital for 
families who have lost their jobs or experienced significant 
income loss during the Nation's recent economic downturn. 
According to the Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure, 
SNAP lifted about 4 million people out of poverty in 2010, 
including over 2 million children.
    SNAP assistance goes to truly poor families and the most 
vulnerable members of our society. Roughly 93 percent of SNAP 
benefits go to households with incomes below the poverty line 
and nearly 75 percent of SNAP participants are in families with 
children. About 16 percent of all households receiving SNAP 
include an elderly member of the family and nearly 20 percent 
include someone who is disabled. In 2012, SNAP was expected to 
serve 4 million seniors, 4 million adults with a serious 
disability, and 23 million children--including 10 million 
children who live in severe poverty because their families' 
cash income is below half of the poverty line.
    SNAP is a counter-cyclical program which expands when the 
economy is weak and contracts as the economy improves. The 
Congressional Budget Office projects that SNAP participation 
will decrease to nearly pre-recession levels as the economy 
recovers. For most families, SNAP is a temporary lifeline, with 
approximately half of new SNAP recipients receiving assistance 
for 10 months or less. As the economy recovers and the economic 
situation in a household improves, the need for assistance 
recedes and many families exit the program. Moreover, SNAP 
brings economic benefits during downturns, such as shown by 
estimates from Moody's Analytics that every $1 increase in SNAP 
benefits generates $1.72 in economic activity.
    The Committee acknowledges that any program of SNAP's size 
and scope will need periodic review for improvements to ensure 
program integrity. The Committee recognizes SNAP error rates 
were at an all-time low of 3.42 percent in fiscal year 2012, 
and that less than 1 cent of every dollar is lost through fraud 
and abuse. The Committee also recognizes that commercial 
retailer trafficking was approximately 1 percent, according to 
USDA. In its review of the programs and authorities in this 
title, the Committee thoroughly evaluated various elements of 
program operation, eligibility determination and benefit 
distribution. Recognizing the need to address federal 
expenditures in all areas, the Committee focused on changes 
that would improve program integrity and achieve budget savings 
in a reasonable manner with minimal impact on the assistance 
for those in need. The reported bill includes numerous 
provisions to enhance program integrity and eradicate fraud, 
including the prevention of SNAP participation for individuals 
with significant lottery or gambling winnings, limits on 
eligibility for traditional college students, added oversight 
of the restaurant meals program, elimination of the ability to 
waive error rate penalties, additional fraud prevention 
measures for electronic benefit transfers (EBT), and additional 
resources for the Department of Agriculture to employ data 
mining technologies and prevent fraud and the trafficking of 
SNAP benefits.
    The Committee strengthens program integrity and achieves 
budgetary savings by addressing concerns regarding the 
connections between the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program (LIHEAP) and the Standard Utility Allowance (SUA) used 
in the SNAP food benefit calculation. To streamline state 
administration of the SNAP program each state develops and uses 
a simplified SUA. This fixed dollar amount represents the 
average household energy costs in the state. States use the SUA 
to calculate the utilities expense deduction for households in 
their State. SNAP households that qualify for the SUA will 
typically receive a higher average amount of monthly SNAP food 
benefits based on average utilities being paid. Typically, to 
qualify for the SUA, a SNAP household must demonstrate it has 
utility expenses. Because LIHEAP rarely covers the full amount 
of utilities a household pays, receipt of LIHEAP is considered 
to be a reasonable proxy for actual utility expenses. For 
program efficiency, SNAP allows households that receive LIHEAP 
to claim the SUA. Some States have chosen to provide an annual 
nominal amount (e.g. $1) in LIHEAP benefits to all SNAP 
households for the sole purpose of increasing monthly SNAP food 
benefits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 17 
state agencies are issuing nominal LIHEAP benefits to qualify 
households for additional monthly SNAP benefits.
    In general, the Committee supports continuing the practice 
of utilizing income and deductions as a means to determine 
appropriate benefit levels based on the amount of income that 
is available for a household to make necessary food purchases. 
``Shelter costs'' are one of the key components in this 
determination. The intent of the excess shelter deduction is to 
appropriately increase benefits for those households with 
significant housing and utility expenses. LIHEAP is targeted to 
low-income households who cannot afford to pay their energy 
bills. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated 
that this connection also reduces SNAP administrative costs. 
The Committee is concerned with the use of nominal LIHEAP 
payments to increase SNAP benefits. While the Committee 
acknowledges many SNAP recipients have difficulty providing 
food for the entirety of the month based on current SNAP 
allocations, the Committee contends that state issuance of 
nominal LIHEAP payments to qualify all SNAP households to claim 
the SUA is not consistent with the intent of the SNAP utility 
expense deduction, nor with the intent of the program in 
general. The Committee recognizes that this practice has 
brought unwarranted criticism to the program. To address these 
concerns, the reported bill requires SNAP households to have 
received at least $10 in annual LIHEAP benefits within the 
previous 12 months to qualify for the Standard Utility 
Allowance. The Committee intends for this change to 
sufficiently deter the practice of using nominal LIHEAP 
benefits while not disrupting the relationship between SNAP and 
LIHEAP and minimizing the impact on SNAP recipients.
    In addition to provisions related to program integrity in 
SNAP, the reported bill builds upon programs to reduce hunger 
and improve access to healthy fruits and vegetables for 
seniors, schoolchildren, and both urban and rural residents in 
low-income communities. The Committee recognizes the current 
economic need for additional resources to help the most 
vulnerable, and, despite limited resources, the reported bill 
provides additional funding for the Emergency Food Assistance 
Program to provide assistance to our Nation's neediest 
individuals. The bill also modifies the Commodity Supplemental 
Food Program to remove duplicity and better focus limited 
resources on seniors who represent nearly 97 percent of program 
participants.
    In addition, the bill continues the distribution of fresh 
fruits and vegetables by the Department of Defense to schools 
and service institutions, as well as the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Snack Program.
    The Committee recognizes the need for programs to adapt to 
modern technology. The reported bill authorizes USDA to utilize 
mobile and online technology for SNAP food benefit redemption 
at farmers markets and grocery stores. In addition to 
adaptation of modern technology, it is vital that SNAP be 
administered in the most efficient and effective way possible.
    The Committee recognizes that some improvements to the 
program may be made under existing authorities, and therefore 
directs the Secretary to encourage states to stagger the 
monthly issuance of SNAP benefits across an entire month, in an 
effort to address challenges for retailers, especially 
retailers in areas with limited access to food, created by 
issuance of SNAP benefits to all participants on the same date 
within a month. These challenges include, but are not limited 
to, supply of fresh and nutritious product and appropriate 
staff and operation levels. The Committee encourages USDA to 
work with all stakeholders, particularly those within states 
that are in the process of staggering SNAP benefits, to ensure 
SNAP administration achieves greatest aid to the economy at the 
least cost.

                            Title V--Credit

    The Committee is dedicated to preserving the ability of 
rural America to access financial credit at reasonable rates in 
order to ensure continued economic health and growth. 
Agricultural lending is used to purchase and operate farms, to 
start and expand agricultural businesses, and to purchase 
agricultural equipment. Important sources of agricultural 
credit include commercial lending, USDA, the Farm Credit 
System, and Farmer Mac. The Committee will continue to work 
with these stakeholders to increase access to affordable credit 
in rural America.
    The USDA operates a suite of lending programs for farmers 
and ranchers through the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) Farm Loan 
Programs. The programs provide important assistance for 
beginning farmers and ranchers, as well as for farmers and 
ranchers with limited resources. Farming today requires 
substantial capital to begin and continue operating, which can 
be a significant challenge to young and beginning farmers who 
have a difficult time obtaining capital and face other barriers 
to entry.
    The Committee recognizes the success of FSA's lending 
portfolio. In fiscal year 2010, FSA made more than $5 billion 
in loans to over 36,000 farmers. In fiscal year 2011, FSA made 
31,751 loans valued at more than $4.7 billion. In fiscal year 
2012, FSA made 32,053 farm loans valued at close to $4.2 
billion. These years represent some of the highest lending 
levels for the Agency and demonstrate the continued strong 
demand for FSA loans. 16,043 of the loans issued in fiscal year 
2012 were made to young, new, and beginning farmers. In fiscal 
year 2012, the direct loan delinquency rate was 5.4 percent and 
the direct loan loss rate was 1.0 percent. For the guaranteed 
programs, the delinquency rate was 1.2 percent and the loss 
rate was .4 percent.
    The reported bill reauthorizes current programs through 
fiscal year 2018. Of note, the reported bill includes 
substantial legislative language for both Titles V and VI 
(Rural Development). The underlying statute for both titles is 
Public Law 87-128, the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act of 1961 (ConAct). Subsequent farm bills and other 
legislation added programs, requirements, and other provisions 
to the ConAct, and several ConAct provisions have become 
inoperable and contradictory. Over the course of 51 years of 
amendments, the ConAct has become confusing, convoluted and 
disorganized. The Committee undertook a significant effort with 
the Department to streamline and reorganize the ConAct to 
improve the clarity and administration of authorized programs, 
which is reflected in the legislative text of both Titles V and 
VI of the reported bill. Specifically for credit programs, 
general authorities for Title V continue in one consolidated 
subtitle with general definitions for Titles V and VI in 
another consolidated and streamlined title. In carrying out the 
programs and activities authorized in Title V, the Committee 
expects USDA to continue operating the programs and activities 
in accordance with the regulations and procedures in effect on 
the date of enactment of this Act to the extent that they are 
consistent with the requirements applicable to such programs 
and activities provided in this Act. The Committee stresses 
that it is important that the streamlining of the ConAct not 
disrupt lending to rural America.
    The Committee provides continued support to new and 
beginning farmers and ranchers by adjusting down payment loan 
limits, expanding eligibility for new legal entities created 
for succession planning, adjusting term limits for direct 
operating loans, and eliminating term limits for guaranteed 
operating loans. The Committee also provided additional support 
for military veterans interested in pursuing careers as farmers 
and ranchers. The Committee also included language that makes 
commercial fishermen eligible for emergency loans (although 
they will still not be eligible for operating or farm ownership 
loans). The reported bill also allows the USDA to conduct 
targeted pilot programs. The Committee intends that these pilot 
programs, in part, will help USDA find innovative ways to 
provide credit to new and beginning farmers and ranchers.
    The reported bill adjusts programs to provide lending 
assistance to farmers and ranchers that struggle with obtaining 
access to credit, including the historically disadvantaged. 
First, the reported bill allows the Secretary of Agriculture to 
establish intermediate relending for the highly fractionated 
land program for Indian tribes and tribal corporations. Second, 
the reported bill updates the term limits for the receipt of 
both direct and guaranteed loans. Also, the bill includes a 
pilot lending program for small dollar loans to gleaners and 
requires the USDA submit a report to Congress on the 
feasibility of such a program.
    In 1996, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform 
Act added provisions to the ConAct to impose term limits on 
direct and guaranteed operating loans administered by FSA. The 
term limits were suspended by Congress in 2002, 2006, and most 
recently by the 2008 Farm Bill which extended the suspension 
through December 31, 2010. The reported bill eliminates the 15-
year lifetime term limits for guaranteed operating loans, and 
modifies the 7-year lifetime term limits for direct operating 
loans. For guaranteed operating loans, the term limits were 
eliminated, as the program is self-sufficient without cost to 
the American taxpayer and assists commercial lenders in 
offering needed credit. For direct operating loans, borrower 
eligibility was extended from a 7-year limit to a 10-year 
limit, which brings the program in line with the definition of 
a beginning farmer. Also, for every year a borrower does not 
take out a direct loan from FSA, a borrower gains one 
additional year of eligibility in the direct program. This 
approach will simplify the program and will address potential 
future down cycles for farmers and ranchers. The bill continues 
policies that encourage graduation to commercial credit by all 
FSA borrowers.
    The reported bill also allows borrowers who may be 
delinquent on youth loans to still qualify for federal student 
loans. While it is important for young borrowers to repay these 
small-dollar loans, it is also important that the law does not 
deny students educational opportunities. The bill requires the 
USDA to make operating loans to farmers who produce local or 
regional food products. Additionally, it requires the Secretary 
to train loan officers to lend to these local and regional food 
producers, to develop ways to value local and regional food in 
a way that can be used to facilitate lending, to establish 
price histories for local and regional food production, and to 
conduct outreach to local and regional food producers.
    The bill also mandates that the Farm Credit Administration 
review its rules no later than 60 days after the bill's 
enactment to insure that the rules reflect Congressional intent 
that Farm Credit System institutions' oversight of executive 
compensation practices be transparent and reflect the important 
responsibility of each institution's elected board of directors 
to oversee such practices.

                      Title VI--Rural Development

    As in Title V, this title of the reported bill contains 
significant legislative language to streamline and reorganize 
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1961, Public 
Law 87-128, (ConAct) so as to improve the administration of 
authorized programs and to simplify the process for those 
seeking assistance. The legislative text in Title VI is also 
the result of that effort. The general authorities for rural 
development are continued but have been organized into specific 
subtitles. In carrying out the programs and activities 
authorized in the rural development title, the Committee again 
expects that the Secretary will continue to operate such 
programs and activities in accordance with the regulations and 
procedures in effect on the date of enactment of this Act to 
the extent that they are consistent with the requirements 
applicable to such programs and activities provided in this 
Act.
    The Committee has reauthorized the core rural development 
programs that rural constituents rely on to improve 
infrastructure and support community and economic development. 
The Committee believes these programs provide resources that 
are essential to the future of our rural communities. Rural 
areas struggle with higher costs for infrastructure needs 
because of low population density and the unfortunate out-
migration that has become all-too common in many rural 
communities. Traditional infrastructure investments in 
electricity, telecommunications, water and sewers are 
continued, and the more recent infrastructure investments in 
broadband service are augmented by the addition of authority 
for USDA to provide grant funding for the expansion of 
broadband service.
    The Committee has heard about the challenges rural 
communities have in accessing resources because they have 
difficulty completing application forms or determining their 
eligibility for such programs. It is the Committee's intent 
that these programs provide federal resources that improve the 
quality of life for those living in rural America in an 
efficient manner with simplified applications and a reduction 
in unnecessary or redundant paperwork and processes.
    Additionally, the Committee encourages rural entities to 
utilize rural development programs in a manner that supports 
projects and initiatives that develop long-term community and 
economic growth strategies. Traditionally, rural development 
programs have been used to meet an immediate need. The 
Committee understands that it is essential that versatile 
programs such as the Community Facilities Loan, Loan Guarantee 
and Grant Program are available to rural residents to address 
pressing needs and concerns, and the Committee wants to ensure 
that the programs authorized in this title continue to provide 
that type of assistance. However, to the extent possible, the 
Committee encourages rural communities to consider how they 
might use rural development resources to address multi-
jurisdictional needs, by leveraging federal, state, local or 
private funding, or otherwise capitalize upon the unique 
strengths of the rural area to support successful community and 
economic development. The Committee believes that projects that 
reflect even one of these characteristics can help to maximize 
the resources available at all levels of government and 
ultimately help rural communities reach their full potential. 
For these reasons, the Committee has provided the Secretary 
with the discretion to prioritize applications for funding that 
reflect an applicant's efforts to maximize resources and 
support strategic community and economic development.
    Another concern brought to this Committee by both USDA and 
rural constituents is the confusion resulting from the multiple 
definitions of ``rural'' used by USDA to determine program 
eligibility. The many versions are the result of changes 
brought about by successive Farm Bills. The Committee 
acknowledges that the previous definitions were developed for 
sound reasons and with good intent. However, the Committee is 
concerned that a significant number of cities and towns 
received waivers through legislation passed by Congress 
subsequent to passage of previous Farm Bills that granted them 
eligibility for Rural Development programs despite the fact 
that their populations had grown beyond the population limits 
established in Farm Bill legislation. USDA began using data 
from the 2010 Census in the Spring of 2013, and a number of 
previously eligible communities lost that eligibility.
    Therefore, to address these concerns, the Committee has 
provided a single definition of ``rural'' that is intended to 
clarify eligibility. The new definition grants eligibility to 
cities and towns of less than 50,000 in population and not 
contiguous or adjacent to urbanized areas. The Committee 
recognizes that some cities and towns of less than 50,000 in 
population that are located within an urbanized area may in 
fact be ``rural in character.'' To ensure that these cities and 
towns that were previously eligible for the Community 
Facilities, Water and Waste Disposal, and Broadband programs 
maintain that eligibility, the Committee has provided for a 
process by which USDA must determine these areas to not be 
``rural in character'' and thus ineligible for these programs. 
The Committee has directed USDA to consider the following 
factors when making such determinations: population density, 
economic conditions, and commuting patterns. The Committee's 
intent in authorizing a ``rural in character'' determination 
process is to provide USDA with the ability to make practical 
eligibility determinations; therefore, in making such 
determinations, the Under Secretary may also give consideration 
to the unique structure of local government and the history of 
the area in question. Finally, the Committee has prohibited the 
Under Secretary from making a determination that a city or town 
is not ``rural in character'' for three years to ensure that 
ongoing projects are completed and not impacted by the changes 
contained in this Act in order to protect previous federal 
investments.

                          Title VII--Research

    Agricultural research, extension, and education programs 
serve the food and agriculture sector, consumers of American 
agricultural products, and rural communities throughout the 
United States. Research programs and funding are primarily 
delivered by two agencies at USDA: the Agriculture Research 
Service (ARS), which focuses on ``intramural'' research and 
basic research; and the National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture (NIFA) which was created by the 2008 Farm Bill to 
restructure, combine and improve ``extramural'' research 
functions at USDA to make better use of limited funds.
    The reported bill builds upon the efforts from 2008, 
allowing unfunded and unused program authorities to expire with 
fiscal year 2013 and combining, consolidating and streamlining 
authorities to make a more concentrated and effective use of 
limited funding. The remaining authorities are extended through 
fiscal year 2018 with few changes.
    The Committee provides additional funding for both the 
Specialty Crop Research Initiative and the Organic Research and 
Education Initiative. One of the primary activities necessary 
to encourage continued market growth, improved food safety and 
risk management for both of these industries is adequate 
dedicated research support. The Committee recognizes that 
research is one of the primary means by which the Farm Bill 
provides assistance to these farmers, so the reported bill 
increases funding beyond the levels in the 2008 Farm Bill, 
consistent with increased market needs.
    The Committee also expects USDA to provide more detailed 
information regarding expected research expenditures when 
submitting its annual budget request to Congress. Such efforts 
are expected to improve transparency and safeguard against 
unnecessary duplication.
    The reported bill provides for the creation of the 
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR). Modeled 
after the National Institute for Health Foundation and other 
successful government-sponsored research foundations, FFAR is 
intended to leverage federal dollars and private research money 
to reverse the recent downward trend in agriculture and food 
research funding. The increased productivity and boost in crop 
yields experienced by American farmers can be attributed to 
research investments made 30 to 50 years ago. Federal 
investment in public agricultural research has been trending 
downward at a time when the demands of a growing and hungry 
world require that American agriculture research again take a 
leading role in pushing forward food production. USDA, the 
National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation 
and agricultural research stakeholders will play an integral 
role in establishing the Foundation. The Committee does not 
intend for the Foundation to be duplicative of current funding 
or research efforts, but rather foster public-private 
partnerships among the agricultural research community, 
including federal agencies, academia, non-profit organizations, 
corporations and individual donors to identify and prioritize 
the most pressing needs facing agriculture. It is the 
Committee's view that the Foundation will complement the work 
of USDA basic and applied research activities and further 
advance USDA's research mission. Furthermore, the Committee 
does not intend in any way for the Foundation's funding to 
offset or allow for a reduction in the appropriated dollars 
that go to agricultural research.

                          Title VIII--Forestry

    The Committee acknowledges the important role forests play 
in providing clean air and water, critical wildlife habitats, 
recreational opportunities, sustainable and renewable 
resources, and economic viability for rural communities across 
the country. The forestry provisions in this title provide 
additional tools to maintain forest health across various 
landscapes, including federal, state and privately owned forest 
land. There are an estimated 354,000,000 acres of non-
industrial forestland in the United States under private 
ownership. This title provides private forest landowners with 
important tools, technical assistance and program financial 
support to conserve and manage their forest acres.
    The Committee recognizes the impact of insect infestation 
and disease on our nation's forests. In some regions across the 
country, infestations are reaching epidemic proportions and 
becoming a central threat to forest health. With this in mind, 
the reported bill seeks to give forest managers greater 
opportunity to identify and manage risk in the forest.
    The Forest Service estimates that 90 million acres of 
National Forest system land are in need of restoration. The 
bill gives the Secretary authority to designate one or more 
subwatersheds on a National Forest as treatment areas. Sixth-
level hydrologic units were chosen as the unit of measure to 
ease implementation; however, designating the use of hydrologic 
units as a unit of measure is not intended to limit the scope 
of treatment areas in any manner as an area consisting of 
multiple hydrologic units may be designated as a treatment 
area.
    Insect infestations and disease threaten the health of 
trees regardless of forest type and there are insects, 
including many bark beetle species, which prefer to infest 
large diameter trees. With the goal of improving the longevity 
and viability of our nation's forests, the reported bill allows 
for the removal of old growth or large diameter trees where it 
is needed to promote the overall health and resilience of a 
given stand.
    Stewardship End Result Contracting is a tool that has been 
authorized in the past by the Appropriations Committees. By 
addressing this activity through the Farm Bill, the Committee 
intends to situate the authorization of this tool within its 
jurisdiction. Over the last decade, Stewardship Contracting has 
been a proven method for carrying out needed forest restoration 
activities, particularly in areas without a strong timber 
industry presence.

                            Title IX--Energy

    Since the 2002 Farm Bill, this Committee has invested in 
helping rural communities and American farmers advance 
renewable energy alternatives. The Committee recognizes the 
numerous benefits from the expansion of renewable energy, 
biofuel and biobased products manufacturing and the innovative 
and pioneering investments made by the programs in this title. 
The Committee reauthorizes almost all of the programs from the 
2008 Farm Bill and provides mandatory funding for the 
investments made by this title. Continuing a ten-year 
investment in this area, the energy title supports the creation 
of new market opportunities for farmers. It also helps 
producers and rural businesses save money on their energy bills 
and helps boost the production of farm-grown renewable 
alternatives to fossil fuels.
    In the current economic climate, the new bio-economy is one 
opportunity for rural communities to strategically develop new 
markets and create jobs. Biobased manufacturing is an example 
of how a developing industry can benefit and reinvigorate a 
rural economy. Most biobased manufacturers will locate near the 
feedstock, in small towns surrounded by farmland. The economic 
benefit is two-fold. First, the farmers growing the feedstock 
will have new markets for their crops. And, second, this 
approach not only drives the farm economy but it also boosts 
the local and regional economy by creating new jobs and wealth 
that stays in those communities. According to a study conducted 
by USDA, the bio-based plastic and chemical products industry 
could create over 100,000 American jobs. By nature, most of 
these jobs will be located in rural America.
    The investments made through this title support innovation 
by assisting entrepreneurs and businesses with investments in 
projects ranging from commercial-scale digester projects that 
turn food and agriculture waste into energy, to on-farm energy 
audits, to educational efforts and similar undertakings for 
reducing energy consumption and boosting alternative energy 
production. The Rural Energy for America Program, known as 
REAP, helps producers reduce their energy costs through 
renewable or efficiency measures. REAP has helped farmers, 
livestock producers and small businesses reduce their energy 
costs through various activities. These small investments not 
only improve the farmer's profit margins but also help create 
and retain jobs in local communities. According to testimony 
from USDA, the REAP program has created or saved over 14,000 
jobs in rural America.
    Innovations that produce advanced biofuels, bioenergy and 
other biobased materials are important to our economy and 
national security but they are often dependent on feedstocks 
not currently produced on our farms. While farmers can realize 
substantial economic opportunities in new feedstock markets, 
the risks of producing them create significant barriers and 
stifle the growth of these new markets. The Committee has 
focused on policies to help farmers overcome these barriers, 
while connecting them to bio-economy innovators so as to create 
new market opportunities, products and jobs.
    The investments that help propel biorefineries are also 
important job creation investments that help build wealth in 
rural communities. Biobased manufacturing and refining are 
rooted in our small towns, employing rural residents and 
developing new markets for biomass feedstocks from local farms 
and ranches. Often times, financing these facilities can be 
beyond the capacity of the local communities and banks. The 
policies in this title are designed to help bridge the capital 
gap and support innovation in communities and by entrepreneurs. 
For example, loan guarantees and grants can seed opportunities 
that will grow new businesses for the community, new markets 
for farmers, and new jobs for rural residents.
    Finally, this title makes investments that seek to save 
energy and boost the bottom line for America's farmers and 
ranchers. Like most small businesses, farmers and ranchers 
worry about the energy costs associated with running their 
operations. The relatively small federal investments in on-farm 
energy production and energy efficiency made by this title can 
provide real help to farmers that will save money and improve 
their bottom lines. Energy policy investments spur local job 
creation and retention, help farmers and rural businesses, and 
boost local and regional economies.

                         Title X--Horticulture

    The 2008 Farm Bill contained the first specific title for 
specialty and organic crops, recognizing the importance of 
fruits and vegetables, nuts, floriculture and nursery products 
for the first time in any Farm Bill. The Committee acknowledges 
that according to the most recent Agricultural Census these 
crops account for 12.7 percent of harvested acreage and 46.9 
percent of total crop value in the United States; demonstrating 
the significant and growing role of specialty crops in the U.S. 
farm economy. Specialty crop producers are both expanding 
American export markets and helping to develop strong, domestic 
and local food systems. Fruits and vegetables also represent a 
key component of a complete diet which many Americans continue 
to lack. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans suggests 
Americans should consume between 9 and 13 servings of fruits, 
vegetables and nuts each week. For a balanced diet, the 
Guidelines suggest that half the plate be filled with fruits 
and vegetables at each meal.
    The reported bill builds upon the provisions from the 2008 
Farm Bill for specialty crop producers, organic agriculture and 
local food systems. First, the bill expands the Specialty Crop 
block grants, which go to states to support research and 
promotion of fruits and vegetables, and adjusts the grant 
allocation formula to better account for both high value crops 
as well as the number of acres devoted to specialty crop 
production in a state. While the Committee continues to support 
the administration of block grants through a federal and state 
partnership, the Committee acknowledges that this structure 
poses a challenge in coordinating projects between multiple 
states. To facilitate projects of common interest, the 
Committee has authorized multistate projects related to pests 
and disease, food safety, and commodity-specific areas. Second, 
the Committee recognizes the pest and disease risks and common 
challenges for specialty crop producers, as well as the need to 
streamline authorities to improve the effectiveness for 
producers and ensure that the functions of both of these 
programs are maintained. As such, the reported bill 
consolidates the National Clean Plant Network and the Pest and 
Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program, while 
continuing the focus on early detection and surveillance of 
invasive pests, interventions to prevent crop damage, and the 
supply of clean, pathogen-free plant material for producers.
    Third, the reported bill builds on support for local and 
regional food systems. The Economic Research Service found that 
over 40 percent of vegetable, fruit and nut farms in the United 
States sell their products in local and regional markets, 
employing on average 13 fulltime workers per $1 million in 
revenue earned. The Committee bill supports continued growth in 
local and regional food systems, increasing funding for 
Farmer's Markets and expanding authorities so resources can 
help develop local food access and distribution. The program 
provides competitive grants to improve and expand farmers' 
markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture 
programs, and other direct producer-to-consumer market 
opportunities as well as assisting producers in ``scaling up'' 
through aggregation and other marketing techniques that 
facilitate farm-to-institution and other market opportunities.
    Finally, the Committee recognizes that organic production 
and the demand for organic products continues to grow. A 2010 
survey of organic growers shows that organic sales reached 
$28.6 billion in 2010, an increase of 7.7 percent above 2009 
sales. The reported bill expands support for the National 
Organic Programs and key organic programs such as the Organic 
Research and Education Certification Cost-Share Program that 
helps farmers achieve certification for organic farming. The 
bill also gives organic producers the opportunity to petition 
the Department of Agriculture to create a marketing and 
promotion program and continues to support organic data 
collection, a component to improving risk management for 
organic producers. It also provides additional authority for 
enforcement of organic standards, addressing shortcomings in 
the National Organic Program identified in a 2010 report by 
USDA's Office of the Inspector General.

                        Title XI--Crop Insurance

    The Committee recognizes the Federal Crop Insurance program 
as the cornerstone of the farm safety net. This is a message 
that was heard consistently by the Committee throughout the 
farm bill hearing process, and this title embodies the 
expressed priority of producers to protect, preserve and 
improve the Federal Crop Insurance program. Producers face a 
multitude of risks over which they have no control, including 
weather and market fluctuations within the crop year. One storm 
can wipe out an entire crop in a matter of minutes and put the 
future of a farming operation in jeopardy. Crop insurance helps 
producers manage exactly this type of risk, which allows 
producers to obtain credit and provides a way for them to 
recover quickly from disaster to put seed in the ground another 
year. The provisions in this title also follow the general 
principle that the purpose of farm programs should be to help 
producers manage the risk they face every day, and the 
provisions focus on expanding the program's reach to assist 
farmers and crops that currently are not covered by the program 
or are inadequately covered.
    The Federal Crop Insurance program is the most crucial 
component of the farm safety net for U.S. farmers. In 2007, 
farmers insured more than 271 million acres through either 
catastrophic coverage or buy-up coverage. That year the 
estimated liability was $67 billion and represented a 97 
percent increase in liability covered since 2000. For the 2011 
crop year, the crop insurance program covered over 265 million 
acres and over $114 billion in liability. The significant 
disasters in 2011 also resulted in $10.8 billion in indemnity 
payments. For the 2012 crop year, the crop insurance program 
proved its effectiveness and value to American agriculture. 
Farmers throughout the largest crop producing regions of this 
country encountered a devastating drought during the growing 
season that was of historic proportions. Over 280 million acres 
were insured with liability topping $117 billion. Due to the 
widespread drought, indemnities exceeded $17 billion for losses 
sustained by farmers, however, taxpayers were not required to 
provide ad hoc disaster assistance and the vast majority of 
farmers were able to continue their operations despite the 
staggering losses they suffered. These facts clearly 
demonstrate the fundamental importance of and need for crop 
insurance. The substantial increases in the liability covered 
are attributable both to enhanced participation in the program 
and to a significant increase in the prices of most commodities 
insured under the program.
    The reported bill includes a new crop insurance program for 
producers of upland cotton. In 2002, Brazil initiated a dispute 
settlement case before the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
against U.S. support for cotton production. In 2004, a WTO 
panel found that payments to cotton producers pursuant to the 
marketing loan and counter-cyclical program were in violation 
of the U.S. WTO commitments. The panel reached the same 
conclusion with regard to the export credit guarantees under 
the GSM-102 program. The United States responded by making some 
changes to domestic cotton support and GSM-102, but Brazil 
argued the response was inadequate and a WTO compliance panel 
ruled for Brazil in 2007. That ruling was upheld on appeal in 
2008. The dispute went before a WTO arbitration panel to 
determine the level of retaliation in August of 2009, and 
Brazil announced that it would impose retaliation of $829.3 
million in U.S. goods, including $268.3 million in cross-
retaliation, in April 2010 based on the arbitration panel's 
findings.
    In April 2010, the U.S and Brazil reached a temporary 
settlement agreement to avoid retaliation, and in June they 
signed the ``Framework for a Mutually Agreed Solution to the 
Cotton Dispute in the WTO (WT/DS267)'' (the Framework 
Agreement). Under the Framework Agreement, Brazil suspended 
retaliation against the U.S. pending U.S. compliance and in 
return for $147.3 million in annual payments from the U.S. (out 
of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation) to a newly 
created Brazilian Cotton Institute for the provision of 
technical assistance and capacity-building for the Brazil 
cotton industry. The U.S. and Brazil also agreed to quarterly 
discussions on changes to U.S. cotton supports leading up to 
``successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill'' with a view to 
reaching a mutually agreed solution to the dispute.
    The Committee recognizes that it is necessary for the U.S. 
and Brazil to resolve the dispute, and the Committee intends 
for the changes in the reported bill for upland cotton to 
support a final resolution of this matter. The Committee also 
recognizes the significant risks that cotton producers face and 
the continuing need for risk management tools for those 
producers. As such, the reported bill removes upland cotton 
from the list of ``covered commodities'' in Title I thus making 
upland cotton ineligible for the Agriculture Risk Coverage and 
Adverse Market Payments programs. The reported bill creates the 
Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) for producers of upland 
cotton to permit upland cotton farmers to purchase an area-wide 
revenue plan of crop insurance coverage above or in lieu of 
their individual coverage. STAX is modeled off of existing 
Group Risk Income Protection plans of insurance, using county 
data and triggering at a loss of 10 percent or greater, down to 
30 percent where it is presumed the producer will buy up 
individual coverage.
    The Committee contends that STAX should serve as the basis 
to resolve the WTO dispute with Brazil because it represents a 
significant shift in domestic assistance to cotton farmers. 
STAX is an insurance plan, not a direct subsidy program. As 
such, it has four important mitigating factors as compared to 
traditional subsidy programs that justify resolution. First, 
farmers have to pay some of the cost for the coverage out of 
their own pockets and the cost of the program will be rated on 
an actuarially sound basis, meaning farmers will pay based on 
the actual value of the coverage. Second, assistance to cotton 
farmers under STAX will only occur when there has been a loss 
at the county level and is not tied directly to losses on the 
individual farm. Third, STAX contains a 10 percent deductible 
leaving the farmer responsible for the first 10 percent of any 
loss. Finally, STAX does not contain a reference or floor 
price. Rather the revenue coverage provided by STAX to the 
farmer will reset every spring when RMA calculates the spring 
price--a price will be determined by the markets, rather than a 
set price established by Congress. This makes STAX market-
oriented and avoids any potential insulation from market 
signals so as to avoid distorting domestic or international 
markets.
    The Committee asserts that the significant reform in 
domestic cotton support made as a result of STAX, in 
combination with the adjustments in the cotton loan rate and 
the adjustments to the GSM-102 program, should serve as a 
sufficient basis for the U.S. and Brazil to reach a mutually-
agreeable solution to the WTO dispute without need for further 
payments to Brazil and without any need for retaliatory 
measures by Brazil. The Committee encourages USDA and the U.S. 
Trade Representative to work with Brazil on this resolution.
    As discussed previously, the reported bill is a significant 
change in federal agriculture policy with a focus on risk 
management and assistance only when farmers have suffered a 
loss. Recognizing the need for more tools for farmers as they 
seek to best manage their risk, the Committee has also created 
a new insurance option for producers called the Supplemental 
Coverage Option (SCO). The reported bill amends section 508(c) 
of the Federal Crop Insurance Act to permit farmers to 
supplement their individual coverage with coverage based on an 
area yield and loss basis. The SCO coverage extends above the 
individual coverage in the deductible range but requires a 10 
percent deductible. Indemnity payments are triggered only if 
losses in the area exceed 10 percent of expected levels. In the 
case of those producers participating in ARC, the deductible is 
22 percent of the expected value of the crop under the 
underlying insurance policy. SCO provides for a premium subsidy 
of 65 percent of the premium associated with the coverage. In 
SCO, the reported bill provides farmers a valuable new tool to 
help them manage their risks in conjunction with underlying 
individual coverage and the ARC and AMP programs. Producers who 
cannot afford high levels of individual buy-up coverage now 
have an affordable area-wide option to supplement completely or 
in conjunction with ARC.
    The remainder of Title XI in the reported bill contains 
important improvements to existing crop insurance coverage to 
make insurance more effective for farmers, as well as some 
technical changes to the administration of crop insurance to 
improve the program's operation. Specifically, the reported 
bill makes the enterprise unit pilot a permanent part of the 
program due to its popularity with farmers. The bill allows the 
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) to split enterprise 
units between irrigated and non-irrigated acres so that the 
insurance coverage better matches the significant differences 
between those two practices. The reported bill also improves 
the transitional yield and provides new authority for the FCIC 
Board to conduct and prioritize research and development of new 
plans of insurance.
    The Committee recognizes the vital importance of helping 
young and beginning farmers get started and succeed in farming. 
To address this critical need, the Committee has made revisions 
to the Federal Crop Insurance Act to help young and beginning 
farmers better manage their risk through additional premium 
assistance, better transitional yields and improved accounting 
for prior experience through the use of previous production 
history.
    The final set of changes in this title involve the 
Committee's efforts to help expand crop insurance to crops that 
are not currently covered or that are underserved, especially 
for livestock, peanuts, catfish and specialty crops. These 
changes are intended to improve the process for developing new 
crop insurance products for underserved crops and regions by 
allowing the FCIC to increase the advance payment for research 
and development of new policies by 50 percent. The bill also 
allows the Risk Management Agency to conduct research and 
development activities to maintain or improve existing policies 
or to develop new policies. The bill also supports the 
development of whole-farm insurance and index-based weather 
insurance.

                        Title XII--Miscellaneous

    The Miscellaneous Title addresses challenges faced by, and 
improves communication and outreach with, small and 
disadvantaged producers, and veterans. It provides for improved 
safety and training of the agricultural workforce, removes 
overlap between certain programs, and allows for more efficient 
sharing of information. In addition, the Miscellaneous Title 
recognizes the importance of domestic livestock production and 
contains provisions relating to animal health, marketing and 
sustainability.
    Finally, the Miscellaneous Title makes improvements to the 
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) that align 
with the overall goals of the reported legislation to improve 
tools for farmers to manage their risks and to eliminate 
duplication and overlap among programs. For producers of crops 
that are not covered by crop insurance, the Committee 
recognized the need for effective risk management tools and 
concerns that current support under NAP was inadequate and 
limited producer participation. As such, the reported 
legislation includes a revision to NAP that provides an option 
to producers to purchase a higher level of NAP coverage for 
their crops, known as a ``buy-up'' option. The reported 
legislation also eliminates overlap between NAP and the 
disaster provisions in Title I.

                         Summary of Provisions


                      Title I--Commodity Programs


Repeals

    The reported bill eliminates direct payments, counter-
cyclical payments and the Average Crop Revenue Election 
payments.

Adverse Market Payments

    The bill establishes the Adverse Market Payments (AMP) 
program as a market-oriented catastrophic price risk management 
tool. AMP payments are made on 85 percent of current base acres 
for the commodity on the farm. Payments are made when the 
national average market price received by producers during the 
12-month marketing year for a given commodity is less than the 
reference price. The reference price is set at 55 percent of a 
rolling 5-year average of national average market prices, minus 
the years with the highest and lowest price. The reference and 
actual prices used for wheat are to be differentiated by class 
including durum, hard red spring, hard red winter, white, and 
soft red winter. Sunflower seeds and barley are also to be 
differentiated by type or class, including malting barley. The 
reference price for rice is fixed for 2014 through 2018 at 
$13.30 per hundredweight. The reference price for peanuts is 
fixed for 2014 through 2018 at $523.77 per ton.
    Producers holding rice base acres will be given a 1-time 
opportunity to update the payment yields for rice base acres 
using the average yield per planted acre for the 2009 through 
2012 crop years. If a producer planted rice on less than 50 
percent of the rice base, on average, during the 2009 through 
2012 crop years, the adjustment shall be the equal to a 
producers current payment yield plus the difference between the 
existing payment yield and the average yield multiplied by the 
percent of rice planted on rice base. If a producer planted 
more than 50 percent of the rice base acres on the farm to 
rice, on average, during the 2009 through 2012 crop years, the 
adjustment shall be the average yield multiplied by 90 percent.
    Producers holding peanut base will be given a 1-time 
opportunity to update payment yields for peanut base to equal 
the average yield per planted acre for the 2009 through 2012 
crop years. Peanut producers will also be given a 1-time 
opportunity to adjust peanut base acres on a farm using the 
average acreage planted to peanuts for harvest for the 2009 
through 2012 crop years. If a producer elects to adjust peanut 
base acres, the adjustment cannot result in a net increase in 
total base acres on a farm, otherwise the Secretary shall 
reduce the base acres of all other covered commodities 
proportionately.

Agriculture Risk Coverage

    The bill establishes the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) 
program as a new risk management tool for producers of covered 
commodities that provides market-oriented, multi-year price 
assistance, as well as yield assistance in the crop insurance 
deductible range.
    ARC payments are made on eligible acres, not base acres. 
Eligible acres are defined as the farmer's actual planted acres 
not to exceed the acreage planted to covered commodities and 
upland cotton during the 2009 to 2012 crop years (with 
adjustments for acres coming out of the Conservation Reserve 
Program and for resource-conserving crop rotations such as 
summer fallow). ARC provides a producer with a one-time, 
irrevocable election whether to receive individual farm or 
county level coverage. The ARC guarantee is set at 88 percent 
of the benchmark revenue, which is calculated as the product of 
the 5-year Olympic average prices and the 5-year Olympic 
average yields (county or individual farm) for each commodity. 
Payments are made on the shortfall between the guarantee and 
the actual revenue, but cannot exceed 10 percent of the 
benchmark revenue. ARC payments are capped at the reference 
price for a covered commodity and thus cannot pay for the same 
price loss as the AMP program. For farmers electing coverage at 
the county level, payments are made on 80 percent of their 
eligible acres (45 percent of those acres prevented from being 
planted) and for those farmers electing coverage at the 
individual level, payments are made on 65 percent of the 
eligible acres (45 percent of those acres prevented from being 
planted).

Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments

    Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments are 
continued in the reported bill through the 2018 crop year with 
only two changes from the program as designed by the 2008 Farm 
Bill. First, due to the above-mentioned WTO dispute with 
Brazil, the upland cotton loan rate has been revised to adjust 
based upon the preceding two year average price for upland 
cotton, but not to exceed $0.52 per pound nor drop below $0.45 
per pound. The current marketing loan rate for upland cotton in 
the 2008 Farm Bill is $0.52 per pound. Second, the reported 
legislation revises the conservation compliance provisions from 
the 2008 Farm Bill to align with the conservation compliance 
provisions for ARC and AMP. Specifically, farmers utilizing 
marketing assistance loans must certify that they are in 
compliance with the same provisions as they are required to for 
ARC and AMP payments.

Sugar

    The sugar program as designed in the 2008 Farm Bill is 
continued through crop year 2018 without change.

Dairy

    The legislation seeks to reform and improve dairy policy by 
replacing existing programs (Milk Income Loss Contract, the 
Dairy Product Price Support Program, and the Dairy Export 
Incentive Program) with the Dairy Production Margin Protection 
and Dairy Market Stabilization Programs. The first is a 
voluntary program that helps provide assistance when dairy 
operation margins are below $4.00 as calculated using the all-
milk price and a national average feed cost. Operations can 
also purchase additional margin protection above $4.00 but not 
to exceed $8.00 in $0.50 increments. The second program is 
required for an operation participating in the margin 
protection program and it is designed to promote growth while 
also encouraging producers to temporarily scale back marketings 
in times when the market is oversupplied and margins are low.

Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance

    The 2008 Farm Bill established a suite of programs to 
assist farmers and ranchers with losses due to natural 
disasters which included Supplemental Revenue Assistance 
Payments (SURE), Livestock Indemnity Payments (LIP), the 
Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), Emergency Assistance 
for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish (ELAP), and the 
Tree Assistance Program (TAP). All programs expired at the end 
of fiscal year 2011 and thus do not currently cover losses 
suffered in fiscal year 2012 or 2013. This legislation 
reauthorizes LIP, LFP, ELAP and TAP with some modifications for 
fiscal years 2012 through 2018, moves the programs into Title I 
and funds them out of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation. With these changes, the assistance provided by 
LIP, LFP, ELAP and TAP are now incorporated into the Title I 
baseline and will require reauthorization on the same schedule 
as the rest of Title I. SURE is not re-authorized.

Payment Limitation Reforms

    The legislation undertakes three significant reforms. 
First, any payments made pursuant to the AMP and ARC programs 
are limited to $50,000 per individual (but can be doubled with 
a spouse similar to current law) for both programs in total. 
This compares to a current combined limit of $105,000 for 
direct payments and the counter-cyclical program. A second 
payment limitation for peanuts is maintained. Second, the 
adjusted gross income eligibility requirement is revised by 
eliminating the differentiation between farm and nonfarm AGI 
and using a single three-year rolling average of a producer's 
AGI for eligibility. The AGI requirement is set at $750,000. 
Finally, the requirement that an individual be ``actively 
engaged in farming'' to be eligible to receive payments has 
been reformed by eliminating the ``active personal management'' 
provisions that allowed multiple individuals to claim 
eligibility by only providing management to the operation. The 
legislation strikes the phrase ``active personal management'' 
and creates a specific class of actively engaged that permits a 
single individual to be actively engaged as the manager for a 
farm. Only one person in a farm operation can be eligible for 
providing management and not labor to the farm and that person 
cannot qualify other farm operations as actively engaged or 
permit the farm operation to exceed the $50,000 payment 
limitation.

                         Title II--Conservation


Conservation Reserve Program

    The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) helps preserve soil, 
water and wildlife resources by placing highly erodible and 
environmentally sensitive land in conserving uses through 
voluntary contracts with farmers, ranchers and landowners. The 
2008 Farm Bill limited enrollment in CRP to 32 million acres. 
Current enrollment in the program is just under 30 million 
acres with contracts on more than 10 million acres set to 
expire in the next two fiscal years. The reported bill provides 
for a ``step down'' of the acreage cap over the five-year life 
of this legislation as follows:
          Fiscal year 2014, no more than 30 million acres
          Fiscal year 2015, no more than 27.5 million acres
          Fiscal year 2016, no more than 26.5 million acres
          Fiscal year 2017, no more than 25.5 million acres
          Fiscal year 2018, no more than 25 million acres.
    The reported bill also allows for the enrollment of up to 
1.5 million acres of grasslands by merging the rental agreement 
provisions of the previous Grasslands Reserve Program into CRP. 
Additionally, this legislation provides greater flexibility for 
certain lands enrolled in CRP to be used for grazing and 
harvesting.

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program

    The reported legislation combines three conservation 
easement authorities into a single program, the Agricultural 
Conservation Easement Program. The overall program contains two 
parts: Agricultural Land Easements and Wetland Reserve 
Easements. Agricultural Land Easements are used to protect 
agricultural land from development and keep them devoted to 
agricultural uses, including keeping grazing lands and 
important grasslands in grazing and related uses. Wetland 
Reserve Easements are used to restore, protect, and enhance 
wetlands, which are important for water quality, quantity and 
wildlife habitat in many areas. Sufficient funding and 
authority is provided to create a 10-year baseline for all 
types of easements.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

    The legislation continues the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program (EQIP), providing farmers and ranchers with 
important cost-share assistance on working lands for 
conservation activities that help farmers meet or avoid the 
need for natural resource regulation. Additionally, the 
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) is maintained but has 
been merged into EQIP with the primary purpose of providing 
assistance to farmers and ranchers to develop or improve 
wildlife habitats on their working lands.

Conservation Stewardship Program

    The legislation continues the Conservation Stewardship 
Program (CSP) as revised in the 2008 Farm Bill. This program 
encourages higher levels of conservation and the adoption of 
new and emerging conservation technologies on farms, ranches, 
and forests. The Committee made changes to the program to ease 
use and implementation, including a slight reduction in the 
annual enrollment cap. The cap on nonindustrial private 
forestland that can be enrolled in the program is removed and 
greater focus is given to identifying resource concerns at the 
local level. The program also adds flexibility to accept land 
coming out of the Conservation Reserve Program when priority 
resource concerns will be addressed.

Regional Conservation Partnership Program

    Current law authorizes four programs that are designed to 
work with farmers, ranchers and partner organizations to 
achieve conservation objectives: Agricultural Water Enhancement 
Program; Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program; Cooperative 
Conservation Partnership Initiative; and Great Lakes Basin 
Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. The reported 
bill consolidates these four programs into one that will 
support projects that improve soil quality, water quality and 
quantity, or wildlife habitat in a specific area or region. 
Projects are selected through a competitive, merit-based 
process, and leverage partner resources to achieve project 
goals. Within the program is a Critical Conservation Area 
component through which the Secretary shall designate areas 
with particularly significant water quality and quantity issues 
and natural resource regulatory pressures.

Conservation Innovation Grants

    Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) are continued in the 
reported bill, providing grants on a competitive basis to 
encourage the development of new or improved conservation 
practices. CIG is geared towards projects that offer new 
approaches to providing producers environmental and production 
benefits. The set-aside for air quality is removed. The 
legislation includes a new reporting requirement to increase 
program transparency.

Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program

    Private landowners are able to realize a value-added 
benefit by creating wildlife habitat and opening their land up 
to hunting, fishing, and other kinds of public outdoor 
recreation. The legislation continues this program and requires 
the Secretary to report to Congress on the program's 
effectiveness within two years of enactment.

Conservation of Private Grazing Land

    The program is reauthorized to improve private grazing land 
by offering technical assistance and educational activities to 
landowners looking to better manage their land.

Grassroots Source Water Protection Program

    State rural water associations are encouraged to use 
technical assistance in order to promote conservation 
activities that protect the quality of our nation's drinking 
water through this program.

Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program

    Many of the flood control structures (mainly dams) in our 
country are reaching their maximum life expectancy. This 
program provides funds for projects to rehabilitate and improve 
the longevity of existing structures.

Emergency Watershed Protection Program

    This program assists state and local governments in 
responding to natural resource problems created during 
catastrophic weather and wildfire related disasters. One aspect 
of the program is placing easements on frequently flooded 
agricultural lands and restoring the lands to natural habitats. 
The reported bill grants the Secretary narrow authority to 
modify or terminate a floodplain easement similar to authority 
found in other conservation programs. Further, the Secretary is 
allowed to enter into compensatory agreements with third 
parties to allow for flexibility to modify or terminate the 
floodplain easement.

Terminal Lakes Assistance

    The reported bill provides assistance for addressing unique 
concerns regarding terminal lakes, defined as the lake and its 
riparian and watershed resources that are considered flooded 
with no natural outlet or at risk because of insufficient 
water. For the flooded terminal lakes, the reported bill 
creates a land purchase grant program in conjunction with the 
state for the purchase of land flooded by the terminal lake. 
For terminal lakes with insufficient water, the reported bill 
transfers funds to the Department of the Interior to assist in 
providing water through leases, land and related water rights 
purchases and research, support and conservation activities.

                            Title III--Trade


Export Credit Guarantee Program

    The Export Credit Guarantee Program, also known as GSM-102, 
provides export credit guarantees that help ensure the 
availability of credit to finance the exports of U.S. 
agricultural products to countries where financing might not be 
available. The reported legislation continues the authorization 
for the program through 2018 and reduces the current levels of 
export credit guarantees from $5.5 billion to $4.5 billion.

Market Access Program

    The reported bill extends the authority and provides $200 
million per year through fiscal year 2018.

Foreign Market Development Program

    The reported bill extends the authority with $34.5 million 
each fiscal year for fiscal years 2013 through 2018.

Emerging Markets and Facility Guarantee Loan Program

    The legislation extends the program through fiscal year 
2018 at existing funding and loan guarantee levels.

Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops

    This program provides financial assistance to producers and 
exporters of specialty crops in addressing barriers to trade 
for their products in overseas markets. The reported bill makes 
slight revisions to the purpose of the program to ensure that 
technical barriers to trade (e.g., burdensome regulatory 
requirements) can be addressed. The reported bill reauthorizes 
the program through fiscal year 2018 with $9 million each 
fiscal year.

Global Crop Diversity Trust

    The reported bill authorizes annual appropriations of $60 
million for each fiscal year through 2018 to fund the Global 
Crop Diversity Trust. The bill also requires that U.S. 
contributions may not exceed one fourth of the total of funds 
contributed to the Trust from all sources.

Food for Peace

    The reported legislation continues the authorities under 
the Food for Peace Act through fiscal year 2018. In particular, 
Title II of the Act contains the title's primary food aid 
budget authority and is reauthorized to continue the nation's 
ability to provide for emergency aid and non-emergency 
development projects. This program enables the U.S. to donate 
food overseas to promote food security. Additionally, the 
reported bill increases the amount of funds available to 
support strategic prepositioning, which brings food aid 
commodities to at-risk regions before food emergencies strike.
    The reported legislation also continues the Farmer-to-
Farmer program and slightly raises the percentage of funds that 
may be used for this program from 0.5 percent to 0.6 percent.

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
        Program

    The reported bill reauthorizes the McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program 
through fiscal year 2018. The legislation also expands on the 
success of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement pilot 
program created by the 2008 Farm Bill. The authority allows 
organizations to purchase food through local and regional 
markets and promotes stability by supporting local producers 
and economies.

Food Aid Quality

    The 2008 Farm Bill authorized a study to research the 
quality of U.S. food aid. The reported bill puts into action 
the recommendations of the study giving the Administrator 
increased flexibility to improve the nutritional profile of 
food aid for target populations, such as children under five 
and mothers.

Resiliency Pilot in the Horn of Africa

    Famine in the Horn of Africa has brought new organizations 
and governments to the region, all intent on helping reduce 
hunger and improve food security. The reported bill creates a 
pilot program to help coordinate the efforts on the ground by 
looking at interactions and providing for groups doing 
resiliency work. The bill authorizes the appropriation of $10 
million in funding to this pilot through 2018.

Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust

    The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust holds extra resources 
so that the U.S. can respond quickly to food crises when 
domestic supplies are short. The Committee reauthorizes the Act 
creating the trust through fiscal year 2018.

                          Title IV--Nutrition


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

    The reported bill reauthorizes the SNAP program through 
fiscal year 2018 with a series of changes to improve the 
program's effectiveness in providing food assistance to low-
income families and individuals, while helping to eliminate 
fraud, abuse and misuse of the program and its benefits. 
Specifically, the Committee seeks to address the use of nominal 
LIHEAP benefits to trigger additional benefits, increases 
oversight of the restaurant meals program, eliminates the 
ability of the Secretary to waive error rate penalties, 
includes additional EBT fraud prevention measures, and provides 
additional funding to USDA for the use of data mining and data 
warehousing technologies to prevent trafficking of food 
assistance benefits and to strengthen retailer program 
integrity. The legislation addresses concerns about SNAP 
households with lottery or gambling winnings by requiring 
households with substantial lottery or gambling winnings to 
lose benefits immediately after receiving winnings. Winners 
will be prevented from receiving new benefits if they do not 
meet the financial requirements of SNAP. Eligibility for 
college students is tied to Perkins program criteria to focus 
eligibility on students participating in technical and 
vocational education programs, primarily two-year colleges, 
trade studies, remedial course work, basic adult literacy, or 
English as a second language. To further reduce federal 
spending and to improve program implementation, the legislation 
ends the outdated federal cost-sharing for EBT systems for 
retail food stores and requires state operation bonus payments 
to be reinvested into SNAP administration.
    Further, the Committee reviewed benefit amounts which are 
determined by evaluating both income and living expenses. The 
Standard Utility Allowance is used by many states to estimate 
average utility costs to make benefit determinations. The 
reported bill includes a provision that seeks to address 
instances in which states issue nominal Low-Income Heating and 
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) benefits to qualify 
households to receive Standard Utility Allowances for the sole 
purpose of increasing households' SNAP benefits. The provision 
will not affect households that receive more than $10.00 in 
annual LIHEAP assistance, or any household that can demonstrate 
utility costs. Finally, the bill directs the Food and Nutrition 
Service to conduct demonstration projects to test the use of 
modern technology to improve access and efficiency in SNAP.

SNAP Nutrition Education and Employment and Training Programs

    The bill continues the Employment and Training and 
Nutrition Education components of SNAP, and adds physical 
activity to the Nutrition Education program. Current funding 
levels are maintained for Nutrition Education through fiscal 
year 2018. Employment and Training funds are restored to fiscal 
year 2012 levels through fiscal year 2017.

Commodity Supplemental Food Program

    The reported bill maintains funding authorizations at 
current levels for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program 
(CSFP) through fiscal year 2018. Additionally, the legislation 
removes duplicity in the program by transitioning CSFP to a 
program for senior citizen populations while allowing the small 
percentage of women and children currently participating in 
CSFP to continue receiving benefits until they exceed the age 
of eligibility.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program

    The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) helps 
supplement the diets of low-income individuals by providing 
emergency food and nutrition assistance, largely through food 
banks. The reported bill provides additional resources to fund 
TEFAP through fiscal year 2018 and allows the funds to be 
available for two years.

Department of Defense Fresh Program

    The reported bill reauthorizes and maintains current 
funding for the Department of Defense Fresh Program, which 
distributes fresh fruits and vegetables to schools and service 
institutions.

Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program

    The reported bill reauthorizes and maintains current 
funding levels for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, 
which provides low-income seniors with coupons to be exchanged 
for eligible foods (fruits, vegetables, honey, and fresh-cut 
herbs) at farmers' markets, roadside stands, and community 
supported agriculture programs.

Healthy Food Financing Initiative

    The reported bill authorizes the Healthy Food Financing 
Initiative to administer loans and grants to improve access to 
healthy foods in food deserts with goals of improving the 
health of families and creating and preserving jobs.

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

    The reported bill reauthorizes and maintains current 
funding levels for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which 
provides fresh fruits and vegetables to elementary 
schoolchildren throughout the school day in school districts 
with a high proportion of low-income students.

Community Food Projects

    The reported bill continues assistance for Community Food 
Projects, consolidating aspects of Hunger Free Community 
Collaboration Grants. Grants under this program are subject to 
a 50 percent matching requirement and periodic effectiveness 
reports. Community Food Project funding provides grants to 
eligible nonprofit organizations to improve community access to 
food through the development of innovative projects including 
school-to-garden programs and urban greenhouse initiatives. The 
bill also incorporates Hunger-Free Communities goals into the 
program requirements.

Hunger Free Communities Incentive Program

    The reported bill authorizes grants to incentivize the 
purchase of fruits and vegetables by SNAP participants in 
underserved communities, with the federal share limited to 50 
percent.

Miscellaneous

    The reported bill eliminates the Nutrition Information and 
Awareness Pilot Program, consolidates Community Food Projects 
and Hunger-Free Communities Collaborative and Infrastructure 
Programs to streamline functions, and modifies infrastructure 
provisions to ensure funds are not used to construct buildings 
or facilities. The legislation also includes a pulse product 
pilot program and directs USDA to increase coordination and 
efficiency in the deliverance of commodity food programs.

                            Title V--Credit


Conservation Loan and Loan Guarantee Program

    The Conservation Loan and Loan Guarantee Programs provide 
authority for loans to borrowers to build conservation 
structures or establish conservation practices. The reported 
bill reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2018 at 
current funding levels.

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Accounts Pilot 
        Program

    The reported legislation reauthorizes the Beginning Farmer 
and Rancher Individual Development Accounts Pilot Program which 
provide matching-funds for savings accounts specifically to be 
used for farming-related expenses for beginning farmers and 
ranchers.

Ownership and Operating Direct and Guaranteed Loans

    The reported bill reauthorizes the direct and guaranteed 
ownership and operating loans administered through the Farm 
Service Agency at existing levels through fiscal year 2018. The 
bill maintains higher loan funds reserved for direct farm 
ownership loans and improves the downpayment loan program. The 
bill continues the reserved portion of guaranteed farm 
ownership loan and direct operating loan funding for beginning 
farmers and ranchers. Also, the bill eliminates term limits for 
guaranteed operating loans, and revises term limits for direct 
operating loans to ten years of loan eligibility instead of 
seven years and permits a borrower to receive eligibility of 
one additional year for each year the borrower does not obtain 
a direct loan. The bill states that lending to local and 
regional food producers is a purpose of USDA's operating loan 
program. It also establishes a pilot lending program for 
gleaners and allows the Department to conduct targeted pilot 
programs. It allows borrowers who had been delinquent on youth 
loans to still qualify for federal student loans. The bill 
allows the Secretary more flexibility in determining which farm 
structures are eligible for lending. It also explicitly permits 
local and regional food producers to qualify for USDA loans.

State-Mediation Program

    State mediation programs assist in resolving agriculture 
and USDA-related lending-related disputes. The reported bill 
incorporates the program into the title by extending the 
authorization to 2018.

                      Title VI--Rural Development


Water, Waste Disposal and Wastewater Facility Grants and Loans

    This program provides grants, loans and loan guarantees to 
public agencies for projects that support the development, 
storage, treatment, purification, or distribution of water or 
the collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas. 
The reported bill reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 
2018 and provides that rural communities with populations of 
less than 5,500 are prioritized for funding.

Community Facilities Loans, Loan Guarantees and Grants

    The bill reauthorizes the Community Facilities Program 
which supports projects related to economic development, public 
safety, and health care delivery, and prioritizes communities 
with less than 20,000 residents. It also provides that the 
Secretary make up to 3 percent of funds provided through the 
Community Facilities Loan and Grant Program available to 
applicants for technical assistance to help smaller communities 
in the development of their applications to the Community 
Facilities program.

Rural Water and Wastewater Circuit Rider Program

    The legislation continues the Rural Water and Wastewater 
Circuit Rider Program which provides competitive grants to non-
profit organizations that give technical assistance to rural 
public water systems. This technical assistance helps the water 
systems to comply with state and federal environmental 
regulations. The program is reauthorized to receive $25 million 
annually.

Rural Business Development Programs

    In general, the reported bill reauthorizes the suite of 
rural business development programs through fiscal year 2018. 
Notably, it combines two existing programs, the Rural Business 
Opportunity Grants program and the Rural Business Enterprise 
Grants program, into a single program, the Rural Business 
Development Grants program, which awards competitive grants to 
public agencies and non-profit community development 
organizations for business development, planning, technical 
assistance, or job training in rural areas. Also extended are 
the Rural Cooperative Development Grants program, the Rural 
Microenterprise Assistance Program created by the 2008 Farm 
Bill, the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas 
Program, the Value-Added Producers Grant Program with a 
priority for projects in which at least 25 percent of 
recipients are beginning farmers and ranchers or socially-
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The Business and Industry 
Direct and Guaranteed Loan Program is extended. The bill also 
reserves funds made available through the program for projects 
that include the processing, distribution, storage, and 
marketing of locally produced agricultural food products.

General Rural Development Programs

    The reported bill reauthorizes general loan and grant 
authorities for rural development. Additionally, it authorizes 
the Secretary to give priority to applications submitted for 
funds through Rural Development programs that support strategic 
approaches to community and economic development. These 
applications should reflect the participation of multiple 
stakeholders in the service area of the proposal. The 
applications should also have clear objectives and an 
explanation of performance measures that will be used to 
determine progress in meeting those objectives.

Access to Broadband Services in Rural Areas

    Through the Broadband Program, USDA provides funds for the 
construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and 
equipment needed to provide broadband service in rural 
communities. The reported bill authorizes USDA to begin 
providing combinations of grants and loans for the expansion of 
broadband service. The program will target funds to rural 
communities currently without service and those isolated from 
significant population centers. The reported bill also makes 
the application process more transparent and strengthens the 
reporting requirements for successful applicants to ensure the 
public can access information as to how program funding is 
utilized.

Distance Learning and Telemedicine

    This program provides competitive grant and loan funding 
that supports equipment and infrastructure improvements that 
enhance telecommunications capabilities at educational and 
medical facilities and is reauthorized through 2018.

Rural Energy Savings Program

    The reported bill authorizes a new loan program, 
administered by USDA, which will issue zero-interest loans to 
any electric cooperative or coordinated group of electric 
cooperatives for the purpose of lending the funds to their 
customers to make energy saving retrofit and structural 
improvements.

                          Title VII--Research

    The reported bill reauthorizes many critical agricultural 
research programs. In so doing, the Committee recognized the 
need to streamline the authorities in this title and permitted 
some authorities that had not received funding in recent years 
to expire.

Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research

    The Committee recognizes the significant need for 
agricultural research and the challenge to find funding in the 
current fiscal environment. As such the reported bill creates a 
new non-profit foundation, the Foundation for Food and 
Agriculture Research, to leverage private funding, matched with 
federal dollars, to support public agricultural research. This 
innovative approach will foster continued innovation in 
agricultural research.

Specialty Crop Research Initiative

    The reported bill reauthorizes this program and provides 
mandatory funding over ten years for the Specialty Crop 
Research Initiative, ensuring funding will be available for key 
research projects for fruits, vegetables and other specialty 
crops.

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative

    The reported bill reauthorizes the Agriculture and Food 
Research Initiative (AFRI) program through fiscal year 2018, 
clarifying program eligibility and continuing to provide 
competitive grants for basic and applied research.

University Research and Extension Service

    The bill reauthorizes agricultural research activities at 
1862, 1890 and 1994 land-grant institutions and funding for 
extension service activities through fiscal year 2018 without 
policy changes.

National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics 
        (NAREEE) Advisory Board

    The bill reauthorizes the NAREEE advisory board through 
fiscal year 2018, which provides consultation to USDA, industry 
and Congress on agricultural research priorities. The 
legislation directs the NAREEE advisory board to consult with 
industry groups on agricultural research, extension, education, 
and economics, and to make recommendations to the Secretary 
based on that consultation.

Policy Research Centers

    This program provides competitive grants for cooperative 
agreements with policy research centers to conduct research and 
education programs concerning the effect of policies on the 
farm and agricultural sectors, the environment, drought 
mitigation, rural families and economies, and consumers, food 
and nutrition through fiscal year 2018.

Capacity Building Grants for Non-Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture 
        (NLGCA) Institutions

    This program provides competitive grants to assist NLGCA 
institutions in maintaining and expanding the capacity to 
conduct education, research, and outreach activities related to 
agriculture, renewable resources, and other similar 
disciplines. It is continued through fiscal year 2018 without 
change.

Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative

    Mandatory funding for the Organic Agriculture Research and 
Extension Initiative is provided over five years.

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program

    The bill reauthorizes and provides mandatory funding to the 
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, which 
develops and offers education, training, outreach and mentoring 
programs to ensure the success of the next generation of 
farmers. The bill expands eligibility to include military 
veterans who wish to begin a career in agriculture.

Addresses Critical Shortages of Veterinarians

    The reported bill seeks to help address the shortage of 
veterinarians in rural agricultural areas by supporting 
veterinary education and rural recruitment.

Increased Transparency for Budget Submissions

    In order to increase transparency and reduce duplication 
across agencies, the reported bill requires USDA to provide 
more detailed information regarding expected research 
expenditures when submitting its annual budget request to 
Congress.

                          Title VIII--Forestry


Healthy Forest Reserve Program

    The bill reauthorizes the Healthy Forest Reserve Program 
(HFRP), a voluntary program that enhances forest ecosystems to 
promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species, 
improve biodiversity, and enhance carbon sequestration.

Reimbursement of Fire Funds

    The reported bill provides greater flexibility to the U.S. 
Forest Service and state forestry agencies to coordinate 
resources on a national scale in response to wildfire events.

Insect and Disease Infestations

    The reported bill provides authority to the U.S. Forest 
Service to respond to devastating insect infestation outbreaks 
on the National Forest System and designate one or more 
subwatersheds on a National Forest as a treatment area.

Stewardship End Result Contracting

    The reported bill provides permanent authority for the U.S. 
Forest Service to conduct Stewardship Contracting projects.

                            Title IX--Energy


Rural Energy for America Program

    The reported bill reauthorizes the program through fiscal 
year 2018 with $68.2 million in mandatory funding for each 
fiscal year and provides for a streamlined application process 
for farmers and rural businesses applying for small and medium 
sized projects.

Biomass Crop Assistance Program

    The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) program created 
by the 2008 Farm Bill provides support for farmers and ranchers 
who wish to plant energy crops to produce and use biomass crops 
for conversion to advanced biofuels or bioenergy. Agricultural 
producers in BCAP project areas may contract with the 
Department of Agriculture to receive biomass crop establishment 
payments up to 50 percent of costs, plus annual payments in 
amounts determined by the Secretary in subsequent years to help 
to compensate for lost opportunity costs until crops are 
established. The program is reauthorized through fiscal year 
2018 with $38.6 million in mandatory funding each fiscal year. 
The reported bill revises the Collection, Harvest, Storage and 
Transportation assistance provisions to limit payments for 
wood-based biomass, while limiting the overall amount of 
funding that can be used for this assistance.

BioPreferred Program and Federal Government Procurement Preference 
        Program

    The bill reauthorizes USDA's BioPreferred Program and the 
Federal Government Procurement Preference Program with 
modifications to include reporting of biobased purchases by the 
federal agencies, as well as providing for auditing and 
enforcement of biobased purchasing activities. The bill also 
clarifies that all forest products are eligible for inclusion 
in the BioPreferred Program and the Federal Government 
Procurement Program if they meet biobased content requirements 
and the innovation standards for the program as outlined in 
Section 9002(a)(1)(B)(i)(III)(vi). The reported bill provides 
$3 million in mandatory funding each fiscal year.

Biorefinery Assistance Program

    This program provides loan guarantees for renewable energy 
projects and is extended through fiscal year 2018 with $100 
million in mandatory funds for fiscal year 2014 and $58 million 
for each of fiscal years 2015 and 2016. Eligibility for the 
program has been expanded to include biobased manufacturing, 
which is defined as a facility that uses agricultural products 
to make end user products on a commercial scale, including 
renewable chemicals.

Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels

    This program provides production payments for advanced 
bioenergy sources such as methane digesters, advanced biofuels 
and biopower and is reauthorized through fiscal year 2018.

Biodiesel Fuel Education Program

    The Biodiesel Fuel Education Program provides competitive 
grants to non-profit entities to provide information about the 
benefits of biodiesel fuel use to government and private 
organizations. The bill reauthorizes the program through fiscal 
year 2018 with $1 million per fiscal year in mandatory funding.

Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI)

    The bill reauthorizes research on biomass feedstock 
development for bioenergy and biobased products through fiscal 
year 2018 with $26 million in mandatory funding for each fiscal 
year.

Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy Producers

    The Feedstock Flexibility Program assures that sugar 
imports do not result in increased forfeitures of U.S. sugar 
and it is reauthorized through 2018.

Community Wood Energy Program

    This program provides competitive, cost-share grants for 
communities to supply public buildings with energy from 
sustainably-harvested wood from the local area and is 
reauthorized through fiscal year 2018.

                Title X--Specialty Crops & Horticulture


Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program

    The Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program 
authorized in the reported bill continues the efforts from the 
Farmers Market Promotion Program by providing competitive 
grants to improve and expand farmers markets, roadside stands, 
community-supported agriculture programs, and other direct 
producer-to-consumer market opportunities. The program 
authority is expanded to also provide assistance in developing 
local food system infrastructure and central regional food 
development centers like food hubs and terminal markets that 
help producers with training, aggregating, distributing and 
other market activities.

Local Food Data and Evaluation

    The bill expands collection of data related to local and 
regional food systems and directs USDA to evaluate the success 
of and recommend improvements to current programs designed to 
strengthen access to local foods.

Specialty Crop Block Grants

    The reported bill adjusts the grant allocation formula from 
solely the value of specialty crop production in a state to the 
average of both the value of specialty crop production and 
acres of specialty crops planted in a state. The bill also 
allows funding for multistate projects related to pest and 
disease, food safety, and commodity-specific projects.

Organics

    The National Organic Program is reauthorized and one-time 
mandatory funding is provided for technology upgrades to 
improve program performance. The bill continues to provide 
assistance to organic producers seeking certification under the 
National Organic Program. This program will provide up to 75 
percent of the cost of certification, but no more than $750. To 
further the integrity of organic certification, the legislation 
provides USDA with additional authorities regarding products 
that are fraudulently marketed as organic.
    In addition, the bill allows for the creation of an organic 
research and promotion order. The bill also improves 
coordination between the Agriculture Marketing Service and the 
Risk Management Agency to ensure risk management tools for 
organic producers are sufficient.

Pest and Disease Management

    The bill consolidates the National Clean Plant Network and 
the Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention 
Program.

Miscellaneous

    The reported legislation repeals the Grant Program to 
Improve Movement of Specialty Crops, requires the Secretary to 
conduct a study regarding a standard of identity for honey, and 
eliminates duplicative inspection requirements for apples in 
bulk bins exported to Canada.

                        Title XI--Crop Insurance


Supplemental Coverage Option

    The reported bill creates a Supplemental Coverage Option 
insurance policy that allows producers to purchase additional 
coverage on an area yield and loss basis. The coverage option 
establishes a coverage deductible of 22 percent for producers 
enrolled in Agriculture Risk Coverage program and 10 percent 
for all other producers.

Crop Insurance for Fruit and Vegetable Producers

    Crop insurance coverage is expanded for underserved crops 
and regions, including fruit and vegetable producers. The bill 
provides additional assistance for underserved producers to 
partner with private developers of crop insurance to create 
improved insurance products. The bill also allows the Risk 
Management Agency (RMA) to conduct research and development on 
new or improved crop insurance products.

Stacked Income Protection Plan for Producers of Upland Cotton

    The reported bill creates a new stand-alone revenue 
insurance program for cotton growers. The program covers 
between 10 percent and 30 percent of expected county revenue, 
using the expected price established under existing Group Risk 
Income Protection and higher of the expected county yield or 
average county yield for the most recent five crop years, 
dropping the highest and lowest years. The program utilizes a 
multiplier factor to establish the maximum protection at not 
more than 120 percent, provides distinct coverage for irrigated 
and non-irrigated practices, and provides 80 percent premium 
subsidy.

Peanut Revenue Crop Insurance

    The reported bill creates a separate peanut revenue 
insurance product with an effective price for peanut growers 
using the Rotterdam price index with an adjustment to reflect 
the farmer stock price.

Improves Crop Insurance for Beginning Farmers and Ranchers

    The reported bill contains provisions to help young and 
beginning farmers fully utilize the Federal Crop Insurance 
program. Beginning farmers and ranchers are given a 10 
percentage point discount for all crop insurance premiums. The 
bill also provides beginning farmers and ranchers with an 
improved production history when they have previous farming 
experience or when they face natural disasters.

Enterprise Units

    The reported bill makes the pilot enterprise unit premium 
assistance permanent and allows producers the choice to 
separate their irrigated and non-irrigated enterprise unit 
coverage on the farm.

Standard Reinsurance Agreement

    The reported bill requires the FCIC Board to ensure budget 
neutrality to the maximum extent practicable during 
renegotiation of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA), and 
return any savings realized in these renegotiations to RMA 
programs

                        Title XII--Miscellaneous


Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers

    The reported bill continues grants to organizations that 
work with minority farmers to help them acquire, own, operate, 
and retain farms and ranches and equally participate in all 
USDA programs.

Continues Advocacy and Outreach Efforts

    The reported bill reauthorizes the Office of Advocacy and 
Outreach, which was created in the 2008 Farm Bill to increase 
the viability and profitability of small farms and ranches, 
beginning farmers or ranchers, and socially disadvantaged 
farmers or ranchers.

Wildlife Reservoir Zoonotic Disease Initiative

    To ensure continued research to combat devastating 
livestock diseases, the reported bill includes a Wildlife 
Reservoir Zoonotic Disease Initiative to improve diagnostic 
testing and vaccines for bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, and 
other zoonotic diseases.

Ensures Health of American Livestock

    The reported bill reauthorizes the Trichinae Certification 
Program and the National Aquatic Health Plan. Additionally, the 
reported bill authorizes the National Animal Health Laboratory 
Network.

Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program

    The reported bill includes a competitive grant program to 
enhance production and marketing of the sheep industry.

Pilot Program to Eradicate Feral Swine

    The reported bill includes a pilot project that directs the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service to work together on eradication 
methods that can be used throughout the country.

Grants to Improve Agricultural Labor Supply, Stability, Safety, and 
        Training

    The reported bill reauthorizes the Agricultural Career and 
Employment Grants Program. Funds may be used to assist 
agricultural employers and farmworkers to develop skills, the 
provision of agricultural labor market information, 
transportation and short-term housing.

                          Legislative History

    The reported bill is the product of nearly three years of 
legislative work spanning the 112th and 113th Congresses. The 
legislative history contained herein includes the hearings that 
began in February of 2011, consideration of the legislation 
before the Committee and on the Senate floor known as S. 3240 
in the 112th Congress, the reintroduction of that legislation, 
including many of the amendments agreed to on the floor 
(notable exceptions being amendments regarding income 
eligibility requirements to crop insurance and catfish 
inspection), and its subsequent consideration and reporting out 
by the Committee in May of 2013. Because the reported bill is 
substantially a product of extensive legislative work in the 
112th Congress, that legislative history is included in this 
report to provide the full and complete history of the reported 
bill.

                                Hearings


Agriculture: Growing America's Economy

    On February 17, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to 
discuss growing America's economy through agricultural policy. 
Witnesses giving testimony included: Honorable Thomas Vilsack, 
Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, 
DC; Keith Creagh, Director, Michigan Department of Agriculture 
and Rural Development, Lansing, MI; Thomas M. Hoenig, 
President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, 
MO; Fred Yoder, Former President, National Corn Growers 
Association, Plain City, OH; Dr. Joe Outlaw, Economist, Texas 
A&M University, College Station, TX.

Fundamentals and Farming: Evaluating High Gas Prices and How New Rules 
        and Innovative Farming Can Help

    On March 30, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to evaluate 
high gas prices and examine how new rules and innovative 
farming can help with this issue. Witnesses giving testimony 
included: Dr. Richard G. Newell, Administrator, Energy 
Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, 
Washington, DC; Dan M. Berkovitz, General Counsel, Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, Washington, DC; Stanley R. 
Townsend, on behalf of the Kansas Farm Bureau, Weskan, KS; Jeff 
Broin, President and CEO of POET, LLC, Co-Chairman of Growth 
Energy, Sioux Falls, SD; Dr. Bruce E. Dale, Professor of 
Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Michigan State 
University, Lansing, MI.

Food for Thought: The Role, Risks and Challenges for American 
        Agriculture and the Next Farm Bill in Meeting the Demands of a 
        Growing World

    On May 26, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to discuss 
the role, risks and challenges for American agriculture and the 
next farm bill in meeting the demands of a growing world.
    Witnesses giving testimony included: Honorable Tom Vilsack, 
Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, 
DC; Honorable Dan Glickman, Co-Chair of the Chicago Council's 
Global Agricultural Development Initiative, Chicago, IL; former 
Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, 
DC; Barry Mumby, Senior Member, Wakeshma Farms LLC, Colon, MI; 
Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Senior Vice President for Science and 
Knowledge, Conservation International, Arlington, VA; Douglas 
DeVries, Senior Vice President, Global Marketing Services, 
Agriculture and Turf Division, Deere and Company, Moline, IL; 
Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, H.E. Babcock Professor of Food, 
Nutrition, and Public Policy, J. Thomas Clark Professor of 
Entrepreneurship, and Professor of Applied Economics, Cornell 
University, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Copenhagen 
University, Ithaca, NY.

Opportunities for Growth: Michigan and the 2012 Farm Bill: East 
        Lansing, MI

    On May 31, 2011, the Committee held a field hearing to 
consider opportunities for growth for Michigan in the 2012 Farm 
Bill in East Lansing, MI. Witnesses giving testimony included: 
Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon, President, Michigan State University, 
East Lansing, MI; Dr. J. Ian Gray, Vice President for Research 
and Graduate Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 
MI; Dr. Thomas G. Coon, Director, Michigan State University 
Extension, East Lansing, MI; Clark Gerstacker, Corn and Soybean 
Production, Member, Michigan Corn Growers Association, Midland, 
MI; Ben LaCross, Cherry Production, Chair, American Farm 
Bureau, Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee, Cedar, MI; Ray 
Van Driessche, Sugar Beet Production and Conservation, Director 
of Community and Government Relations, Michigan Sugar Company, 
Bay City, MI; Julia Baehre Rothwell, Apple Production, Chair, 
Michigan Apple Association, Belding, MI; Ken Nobis, Dairy 
Production, President, Michigan Milk Producers Association, 
Novi, MI; Peter B. Blauwiekel, Pork Production, Member, 
Michigan Pork Producers Council, Fowler, MI; Karen Serfass, 
Forestry Production, Past President, Michigan Forest 
Association, Dafter, MI; Kristen Holt, President, Quality 
Assurance International, Senior Vice President, Food Safety and 
Quality, NSF International, Ann Arbor, MI; Eric Davis, 
Director, Food Initiative, United Way for Southeastern 
Michigan, Detroit, MI; Dennis West, President, Northern 
Initiatives, Marquette, MI; James Reid, Reid Dairy Farm, Grant 
Township, MI; David Armstrong, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, Greenstone Farm Credit Services, East Lansing, MI.

Farm Bill Accountability: The Importance of Measuring Performance, 
        While Eliminating Duplication and Waste

    On June 23, 2011, the Committee held a hearing on Farm Bill 
accountability and the importance of measuring performance 
while eliminating the duplication of waste. Witnesses giving 
testimony included: Honorable Dallas Tonsager, Under Secretary, 
Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 
Washington, DC; Honorable Michael Scuse, Acting Under 
Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, United 
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Honorable 
Harris Sherman, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 
Environment, United States Department of Agriculture, 
Washington, DC; Honorable Kevin Concannon, Under Secretary, 
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, United States 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Honorable Joe 
Leonard, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, United States 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Phyllis Fong, 
Inspector General, United States Department of Agriculture, 
Washington, DC; Brett Blankenship, Blankenship Brothers, 
Washtucna, WA; Masouda Omar, Manager of Business Finance Loan 
Production, Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, Denver, CO.

The State of Livestock in America

    On June 28, 2011, the Committee held a hearing on the state 
of livestock in America. Witnesses giving testimony included: 
Dr. Joe Glauber, Chief Economist, United States Department of 
Agriculture, Washington, DC; Dr. Greg Parham, Administrator, 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Alfred V. Almanza, 
Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, United 
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Dave White, 
Chief, National Resources Conservation Service, United States 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; Rick Sietsema, 
Farmer, Sietsema Farms, Allendale, MI; Dennis O. Jones, Pork 
Producer, South Dakota Farmers Union, Bath, SD; Steven D. Hunt, 
Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, Kansas City, 
MO; Frank Harper, President-elect, Kansas Livestock 
Association, Sedgwick, KS; Michael Welch, President and CEO, 
Harrison Poultry, Inc., Bethlehem, GA; Hans McPherson, Rancher 
and Member, Montana Farm Bureau, Stevensville, MT.

Growing Jobs in Rural America

    On July 14, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to discuss 
ways to grow jobs in rural America. The witnesses on the first 
panel were: Bruce Graham, CEO, Indiana Statewide Association of 
Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc., Indianapolis, IN; Zac 
Stewart, Ambient, LLC, Ignacio, CO; Paul Bony, Director, 
Residential Market Development, Climate Master, Oklahoma City, 
OK; Dr. Helen Sanders, Vice President, Technical Business 
Development, SAGE Electrochromics, Inc, Faribault, MN. The 
witnesses on the second panel were: Dr. Marc Verbruggen, 
President and CEO, NatureWorks LLC, Wayzata, MN; Dr. Oliver 
Peoples, Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Metabolix, Inc., 
Cambridge, MA; John McIntosh, Vice President of Sales and 
Marketing, Signature Crypton Carpet, Dalton, GA; Dennis Hall, 
Assistant Director, Ohio BioProducts Innovation Center, 
Columbus, OH.

Opportunities for Specialty Crops and Organics in the Farm Bill

    On July 28, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to discuss 
opportunities for specialty crops and organics in the Farm 
Bill. The witnesses on the first panel were: Dr. Catherine 
Woteki, Under Secretary, USDA, Research, Education and 
Economics, Washington, DC; Ann Wright, Deputy Under Secretary, 
USDA, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Washington, DC. The 
witnesses on the second panel were: Glenn Abbett, Manager, 
Abbett Farms, LLC, LaCrosse, IN; Paul Bencal, Owner, Paul 
Bencal Farm, Ransomville, NY; Dennis Engelhard, Owner, 
Engelhard Family Farms, Unionville, MI; Kim Tait, Owner, Tait 
Farm Foods, Inc., Centre Hall, PA; Charles Wingard, Director of 
Field Operations, W.P. Rawls and Sons, Pelion, SC; Robert 
Woolley, Dave Wilson Nursery, Hickman, CA.

Looking Ahead: Kansas and the 2012 Farm Bill

    On August 25, 2011, the Committee held a field hearing in 
Kansas to discuss ways to grow agriculture and strengthen rural 
communities. The witnesses on the first panel were: Honorable 
Sam Brownback, Governor, state of Kansas, Topeka, KS; Dr. Kirk 
Schulz, President, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. The 
witnesses on the second panel were: Steve Baccus, President, 
Kansas Farm Bureau, Minneapolis, KS; Karl Esping, Kansas 
Sunflower Commission, Lindsborg, KS; Kent Goyen, Kansas Cotton 
Association, Cunningham, KS; Ken Grecian, Kansas Livestock 
Association, Palco, KS; Bob Henry, Kansas Soybean Association, 
Robinson, KS; Kenneth McCauley, Kansas Corn Growers, White 
Cloud, KS; David Schemm, Kansas Association of Wheat Growers, 
Sharon Springs, KS; Gregory Shelor, Kansas Grain Sorghum 
Producers, Minneola, KS. The witnesses on the third panel were: 
Ron Bach, High Plains Farm Credit, Jetmore, KS; Kathleen 
Brinker, Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative Association, 
Inc., Axtell, KS; Ron Brown, Kansas Association of Conservation 
Districts, Fort Scott, KS; Barth Crouch, Playa Lakes Joint 
Venture, Salina, KS; Robert Tempel, Windriver Grain LLC, Garden 
City, KS; Jeff Whitham, Western State Bank, Garden City, KS; 
Karen Wilder, The Schwan Food Company, Salina, KS.

Energy and Economic Growth for Rural America

    On February 15, 2012, the Committee held a hearing to 
examine USDA rural development and energy programs, and to 
review policies to promote rural economic development and job 
growth in connection with development of the 2012 farm 
legislation. The witness on the first panel was: The Honorable 
Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, USDA, Washington, DC. The witnesses 
on the second panel were: Mathias McCauley, Regional Planning 
and Community Development, Northwest Michigan Council of 
Governments, National Association of Counties and National 
Association of Development Organizations, Traverse City, MI; 
Florine Raitano, Rural Community Assistance Corp, Dillom, CO; 
Mark Rembert, Energize Clinton County, Wilmington, OH; Charles 
Fluharty, Rural Policy Research Institute, Columbia, MO. The 
witnesses on the third panel were: Steve Flick, Show Me Energy 
Cooperative, National Farmers Union, Centerview, MO; Lee 
Edwards, Virent, Inc., Madison, WI; Bennie Hutchins, Energy 
Program, Ag Energy Resources, LLC, Brookhaven, MS; William 
Greving, Greving Farms Inc., Prairie View, KS.

Strengthening Conservation through the 2012 Farm Bill

    On February 28, 2012, the Committee held a hearing to 
review performance of USDA agriculture conservation programs. 
The witnesses on the first panel were: Bruce Nelson, Farm 
Service Agency, USDA, Washington, DC; David White, Chief, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, DC.. 
The witnesses on the second panel were: Jeff Trandahl, National 
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC; Becky Humphries, 
Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Office, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Ann 
Arbor, MI; Dean Stoskopf, Stoskopf Farms, Hoisington, KS; Carl 
Mattson, George Mattson Farms, Chester, MT; Darrel Mosel, Land 
Stewardship Project, Gaylord, MN; Earl Garber, National 
Association of Conservation Districts, Washington, DC.

Healthy Food Initiatives, Local Production, and Nutrition

    On March 7, 2012, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
policies to promote regional and local agricultural markets and 
improve access to healthy foods, and to review federal food 
assistance programs. The witness on the first panel was: 
Honorable Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, USDA, Washington, DC. The 
witnesses on the second panel were: Dan Carmody, Eastern Market 
Corporation, Detroit, MI; Ronald McCormick, Sustainable 
Agriculture, Produce, Floral and Local Sourcing, Wal-Mart 
Stores, Bentonville, AR; Jody Hardin, Grady, AR; Anne Goodman, 
Cleveland Food Bank, Cleveland, OH; John Weidman, One Penn 
Center, Philadelphia, PA.

Risk Management and Commodities in the 2012 Farm Bill

    On March 15, 2012, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
risk management and commodity programs. The witness on the 
first panel was: Michael Scuse, Acting Under Secretary, Farm 
and Foreign Agricultural Services, USDA, Washington, DC. The 
witnesses on the second panel were: Hope Hills, Spicebush Creek 
Farms, Bangor, MI; Jarvis Garetson, Copeland, KS; Bob Carden, 
Carden & Associates, Inc, Winter Haven, FL; Steve Rutledge, 
Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company, West Des Moines, IA. The 
witnesses on the third panel were: Steve Wellman, American 
Soybean Association, Syracuse, NE; Pam Johnson, National Corn 
Growers Association, Floyd, IA; Erik Younggren, National 
Association of Wheat Growers, Hallock, MN; Jimbo Grissom, 
Western Peanut Growers Association, Seminole, TX; Travis 
Satterfield, Satterfield Farms, Benoit, MS, Chuck Coley, 
National Cotton Council, Vienna, GA. The witnesses on the third 
panel were: Roger Johnson, National Farmers Union, Washington, 
DC; Bob Stallman, American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, 
DC; Ryan Best, Future Farmers of America, Portales, NM.

Committee Consideration

2012 Markup

    On April 26, 2012, the Committee met in open session to 
mark up the legislation. Those members in attendance included: 
Senators Stabenow, Roberts, Leahy, Harkin, Conrad, Baucus, 
Nelson, Brown, Casey, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Lugar, 
Cochran, Chambliss, Johanns, Boozman, Grassley, Thune and 
Hoeven. Committee Members made opening statements starting at 
10:44 a.m. A substitute amendment containing a Manager's 
Amendment to the Committee Print was accepted by voice vote, 
with Senators Chambliss, Boozman, and Cochran recorded as 
voting no. The substitute was considered the original text for 
the purpose of further amendment. The Committee proceeded by 
considering amendments to each title of the legislation.

                        Title XII--Miscellaneous

    An amendment was offered by Senator Chambliss to amend the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the temporary 
employment of foreign agricultural workers. The amendment was 
withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Nelson with Senator 
Johanns to clarify areas classified as rural for the Rural 
Housing Act. The amendment was withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Boozman to enable the 
Secretary of Agriculture to determine whether major rules 
promulgated by any Federal agency could have a negative effect 
on access to affordable food. The amendment was withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Boozman to transfer 
regulatory authority over child labor regulations for 
agriculture from the Secretary of Labor to the Secretary of 
Agriculture. The amendment was withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Baucus with Senators 
Nelson, Klobuchar, and Boozman to clarify payment terms for 
sales of agricultural commodities or products to Cuba under the 
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. The 
amendment was withdrawn.

                         Title II--Conservation

    An amendment was offered by Senator Bennet to allow the 
Secretary of Agriculture to waive eligible entity contribution 
requirements for agricultural land easements of special 
significance. The amendment was withdrawn.

                            Title III--Trade

    An amendment was offered by Senator Johanns to require a 
USDA study on the creation of an Under Secretary for Trade and 
Foreign Agricultural Affairs. The amendment was adopted by 
voice vote.

                         Title X--Horticulture

    No amendments pertaining to the horticulture title were 
offered.

                          Title VII--Research

    No amendments pertaining to the research title were 
offered.

                            Title V--Credit

    No amendments pertaining to the credit title were offered 
initially. After it was closed, Senator Brown asked for 
unanimous consent to revisit the title. An amendment was 
offered by Senator Brown to provide USDA with the authority to 
conduct pilot projects on a limited scale to test different 
approaches that could improve program delivery and consumer 
service. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

                      Title VI--Rural Development

    An amendment was offered by Senator Casey to assist in 
production of locally and regionally produced food through the 
RMAP program. The amendment was withdrawn.
    Prior to a vote on final passage of the bill, Senator Brown 
asked unanimous consent to revisit title VI to offer an 
amendment. He offered an amendment to create a temporary task 
force directed to help make USDA rural development programs 
more accessible and user-friendly. The amendment was withdrawn.

                          Title VIII--Forestry

    No amendments pertaining to the forestry title were 
offered.

                            Title IX--Energy

    An amendment was offered by Senator Conrad with Senator 
Lugar to provide mandatory funding for agricultural energy 
programs. A second degree amendment was offered by Senator 
Chambliss to strike the language that calls for an offset and 
instead uses the savings of the legislation to fund Senator 
Conrad's amendment. Senator Chambliss' second degree amendment 
was adopted by unanimous consent and Senator Conrad's amendment 
was adopted by voice vote, with Senator Roberts recorded as 
voting no.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Hoeven to confirm that 
USDA can provide REAP funds for blender pumps. The amendment 
was withdrawn.

                          Title IV--Nutrition

    An amendment was offered by Senator Brown on behalf of 
Senator Casey with Senators Gillibrand and Leahy to clarify the 
authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase emergency 
food. After a discussion, an agreement was made to delay the 
consideration of the amendment before final passage of the bill 
to give USDA and the Secretary an opportunity to make an 
assessment of the amendment.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Boozman to close the 
LIHEAP loophole entirely and use part of the savings to 
increase reimbursements for school breakfast and lunches to 
offset increased costs from new nutrition standards. The 
amendment was withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Gillibrand to protect 
children from harm due to SNAP cuts. The amendment was 
withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Chairwoman Stabenow on behalf 
of Senator Leahy to allow greater flexibility in the use of 
benefits for the purchase of community-supported agriculture 
(CSA) share. A second degree amendment was offered by 
Chairwoman Stabenow on behalf of Ranking Member Roberts. The 
second degree amendment was adopted by unanimous consent and 
the first degree amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    The Committee revisited the amendment offered by Senator 
Brown on behalf of Senator Casey with Senators Gillibrand and 
Leahy to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture 
to purchase emergency food. The amendment, as modified, was 
adopted by voice vote. Committee members were in agreement that 
the amendment should not adversely impact the $4 billion in 
deficit reductions from nutrition spending agreed to by members 
of the Committee.

                        Title XI--Crop Insurance

    No amendments pertaining to the crop insurance title were 
offered.

                          Title I--Commodities

    An amendment was offered by Senator Baucus with Senators 
Conrad, Harkin, and Hoeven to make changes to the individual 
program under ARC. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

                             Final Passage

    The legislation, as amended and subject to technical 
changes, was reported out by roll call vote of 16 yeas and 5 
nays with the requisite quorum present, at which point the 
Committee adjourned.
    On May 24, 2012, the Committee held a business meeting to 
vote on changes to the legislation. Those members in attendance 
included: Senators Stabenow, Roberts, Leahy, Conrad, Nelson, 
Casey, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Lugar, Johanns, and 
Grassley. The bill as modified was ordered reported by voice 
vote.

2012 Floor Consideration

    Chairwoman Stabenow introduced the Agriculture Reform, 
Food, and Jobs Act of 2012, as reported by the Committee, on 
May 24th, 2012. It was placed on the Senate calendar as S. 
3240. A total of 76 amendments were considered during extensive 
debate by the Senate, 45 of which were agreed to. The 
legislation, as amended, was agreed to in the Senate on the 
21st of June 2012 by a vote of 64 yeas and 35 nays.

    S. 3240 AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012--AMENDMENTS PROPOSED AND AGREED TO ON SENATE FLOOR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Senate Amendment #                  Sponsor                 Description                   Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. AMDT. 2167......................  Grassley..............  To provide payment           75-24
                                                              limitations for marketing
                                                              loan gains and loan
                                                              deficiency payments.
S. AMDT. 2187......................  Kerry.................  To extend eligibility for    Voice Vote
                                                              certain emergency loans to
                                                              commercial fishermen.
S. AMDT. 2190......................  Snowe.................  To require Federal milk      66-33
                                                              marketing order reform.
S. AMDT. 2195......................  Ayotte................  To require a GAO report on   UC
                                                              crop insurance fraud.
S. AMDT. 2199......................  McCain................  To repeal a duplicative      Voice Vote
                                                              program relating to
                                                              inspection and grading of
                                                              catfish.
S. AMDT. 2202......................  Bennet................  To improve agricultural      UC
                                                              land easements.
S. AMDT. 2204......................  Leahy.................  To support the State Rural   Voice Vote
                                                              Development Partnership.
S. AMDT. 2214......................  Coburn................  To amend the Internal        95-4
                                                              Revenue Code of 1986 to
                                                              prohibit the use of public
                                                              funds for political party
                                                              conventions, and to
                                                              provide for the return of
                                                              previously distributed
                                                              funds for deficit
                                                              reduction.
S. AMDT. 2238......................  Casey.................  To require more frequent     73-26
                                                              dairy reporting.
S. AMDT. 2242......................  Nelson................  To amend section 520 of the  Voice Vote
                                                              Housing Act of 1949 to
                                                              revise the census data and
                                                              population requirements
                                                              for areas to be considered
                                                              as rural areas for
                                                              purposes of such Act.
S. AMDT. 2243......................  Nelson................  To ensure that performance   Voice Vote
                                                              bonus payments are used by
                                                              State agencies only to
                                                              carry out the supplemental
                                                              nutrition assistance
                                                              programs.
S. AMDT. 2246......................  Blunt.................  To assist military veterans  UC
                                                              in agricultural
                                                              occupations.
S. AMDT. 2254......................  Sanders...............  To improve the community     Voice Vote
                                                              wood energy programs.
S. AMDT. 2262......................  DeMint................  To express the sense of the  Voice Vote
                                                              Senate that nothing in
                                                              this Act or an amendment
                                                              made by this Act should
                                                              manipulate prices or
                                                              interfere with the free
                                                              market.
S. AMDT. 2287......................  Carper................  To modify a provision        Voice Vote
                                                              relating to a high-
                                                              priority research and
                                                              extension initiatives.
S. AMDT. 2293......................  Coburn................  To limit subsidies for       62-37
                                                              millionaires.
S. AMDT. 2295......................  Udall.................   To increase the amounts     77-22
                                                              authorized to be
                                                              appropriated for the
                                                              designation of treatment
                                                              areas.
S. AMDT. 2299......................  Klobuchar.............  To require the Secretary of  Voice Vote
                                                              Agriculture and Secretary
                                                              of Transportation to
                                                              conduct a study on rural
                                                              transportation issues.
S. AMDT. 2309......................  Feinstein.............  To require a study into the  76-23
                                                              feasibility of an
                                                              insurance product that
                                                              covers food safety recalls.
S. AMDT. 2321......................  Landrieu..............  To move a section from the   Voice Vote
                                                              rural development title to
                                                              the credit title.
S. AMDT. 2340......................  Chambliss.............  To move the sugar import     Voice Vote
                                                              quota adjustment date
                                                              forward in the crop year.
S. AMDT. 2345......................  Manchin...............  To require national dietary  Voice Vote
                                                              guidelines for pregnant
                                                              women and children from
                                                              birth until the age of 2.
S. AMDT. 2355......................  Boozman...............  To support the               Voice Vote
                                                              dissemination of objective
                                                              and scholarly agricultural
                                                              and food law research and
                                                              information.
S. AMDT. 2363......................  Vitter................  To ensure that extras in     88-11
                                                              film and television who
                                                              bring personal, common
                                                              domesticated household
                                                              pets do not face
                                                              unnecessary regulations
                                                              and to prohibit attendance
                                                              at an animal fighting
                                                              venture.
S. AMDT. 2366......................  Hagan.................  To require the Risk          Voice Vote
                                                              Management Agency and the
                                                              Federal Crop Insurance
                                                              Corporation to use plain
                                                              language and a website to
                                                              make crop insurance more
                                                              accessible.
S. AMDT. 2370......................  Cantwell..............  To encourage the purchase    58-41
                                                              of pulse crop products for
                                                              school meals programs.
S. AMDT. 2382......................  Merkeley..............  To require the Federal Crop  63-36
                                                              Insurance Corporation to
                                                              provide crop insurance for
                                                              organic crops under
                                                              similar terms and
                                                              conditions to crop
                                                              insurance provided for
                                                              other crops.
S. AMDT. 2388......................  Wyden.................  To modify a provision        Voice Vote
                                                              relating to purchases of
                                                              locally produced foods.
S. AMDT. 2389......................  Stabenow..............  Of a perfecting nature.....  UC
S. AMDT. 2396......................  Akaka.................  To establish the Office of   Voice Vote
                                                              Tribal Relations in the
                                                              Office of the Secretary of
                                                              Agriculture.
S. AMDT. 2403......................  Moran.................  To increase the minimum      UC
                                                              level of nonemergency food
                                                              assistance.
S. AMDT. 2422......................  Feinstein.............  To modify a provision        Voice Vote
                                                              relating to conservation
                                                              innovation grants and
                                                              payments.
S. AMDT. 2426......................  Coons.................  To provide for studies on    Voice Vote
                                                              the feasibility of
                                                              establishing a business
                                                              disruption insurance
                                                              policy for poultry
                                                              producers and a
                                                              catastrophic event
                                                              insurance policy for
                                                              poultry producers.
S. AMDT. 2427......................  Schumer...............  To support State and tribal  Voice Vote
                                                              government efforts to
                                                              promote research and
                                                              education related to maple
                                                              syrup production, natural
                                                              resource sustainability in
                                                              the maple syrup industry,
                                                              market promotion of maple
                                                              products, and greater
                                                              access to lands containing
                                                              maple trees for maple-
                                                              sugaring activities, and
                                                              for other purposes.
S. AMDT. 2429......................  Baucus................  To improve the livestock     Voice Vote
                                                              forage disaster program.
S. AMDT. 2438......................  Chambliss.............  To establish highly          52-47
                                                              erodible land and wetland
                                                              conservation compliance
                                                              requirements for the
                                                              Federal crop insurance
                                                              program.
S. AMDT. 2439......................  Durbin................  To limit the amount of       66-33
                                                              premium subsidy provided
                                                              by the Federal Crop
                                                              Insurance Corporation on
                                                              behalf of any person or
                                                              legal entity with an
                                                              average adjusted gross
                                                              income in excess of
                                                              $750,000 with a delayed
                                                              application of the
                                                              limitation until
                                                              completion of a study on
                                                              the effects of the
                                                              limitation.
S. AMDT. 2440......................  Akaka.................   To improve a provision      Voice Vote
                                                              relating to loans to
                                                              purchasers of highly
                                                              fractionated land.
S. AMDT. 2442......................  Wyden.................  To establish a pilot loan    Division Vote
                                                              program to support healthy
                                                              foods for the hungry.
S. AMDT. 2443......................  Moran.................   To improve farm safety at   UC
                                                              the local level.
S. AMDT. 2445......................  Brown.................  To strengthen rural          55-44
                                                              communities and foster the
                                                              next generation of farmers
                                                              and ranchers.
S. AMDT. 2453......................  Stabenow..............  To provide assistance for    Voice Vote
                                                              certain losses.
S. AMDT. 2454......................  Kerry.................  To prohibit assistance to    59-40
                                                              North Korea under title II
                                                              of the Food for Peace Act
                                                              unless the President
                                                              issues a national interest
                                                              waiver.
S. ADMT. 2455......................  Murray................  To require the Office of     Voice Vote
                                                              Management and Budget, the
                                                              President, and the
                                                              Department of Defense to
                                                              submit detailed reports to
                                                              Congress on effects of
                                                              defense and nondefense
                                                              budget sequestration for
                                                              fiscal year 2013.
S. AMDT. 2457......................  Warner................  To improve access to         Voice Vote
                                                              broadband
                                                              telecommunication services
                                                              in rural areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2013 Markup

    On May 14, 2013, the Committee met in open session to mark 
up the legislation. Those members in attendance included: 
Senators Stabenow, Cochran, Harkin, Baucus, Brown, Klobuchar, 
Bennet, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Cowan, Roberts, 
Chambliss, Boozman, Hoeven, Johanns, Grassley, Thune. Committee 
Members made opening statements starting at 10:10 a.m. A 
Manager's en bloc amendment package was adopted by voice vote. 
The Committee proceeded by considering amendments to each title 
of the legislation.

                        Title XII--Miscellaneous

    An amendment was offered by Senator Cowan directing the 
Secretary of Agriculture to hold, instead of transfer, 
Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, generated from seafood import 
tariffs, until the Commerce Department has certified to 
Congress that it will use the funds for the purposes Congress 
originally intended. The amendment was withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Johanns to eliminate 
country-of-origin labeling for livestock and poultry. The 
amendment was withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Baucus to clarify 
payment terms for the sales of agricultural commodities or 
products to Cuba under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
Enhancement Act of 2000. The amendment was withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Roberts to improve the 
use of certain registered pesticides. The amendment was 
withdrawn.

                         Title II--Conservation

    An amendment was offered by Senator Bennet to waive the 
match requirements for easements of special significance, 
removing a requirement that 40% of ACEP funding must be used 
for ALE, and amending the regional equity calculation. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Hoeven with Senator 
Heitkamp to prohibit crop insurance from being tied to 
conservation compliance measures. The amendment was defeated by 
voice vote.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Hoeven to preclude FSA 
from penalizing producers for wetlands compliance violations 
for more than three years of commodity payments. The amendment 
was defeated by voice vote.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Hoeven to reduce the 
penalties for wetland conservation non-compliance. The 
amendment was defeated by voice vote.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Heitkamp to encourage 
pollinator habitats in voluntary conservation programs at NRCS. 
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Cowan on behalf of 
Senator Leahy to ensure the same EQIP payment limit applies to 
all farms, regardless of the type of farm. The amendment was 
withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Hoeven to allow NRCS 
certification maps of farms from 1990 to 1996 to serve as 
official determinations for purposes of wetland compliance. The 
amendment was defeated by roll call vote.

                            Title III--Trade

    No amendments pertaining to the trade title were offered.

                         Title X--Horticulture

    An amendment was offered by Senator Gillibrand to eliminate 
red tape for bulk bin apple exports to Canada. The amendment 
was adopted by voice vote.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Bennet to allow for 
producers and handlers of organic agricultural products to 
establish a research and promotion order. The amendment was 
adopted by voice vote.

                          Title VII--Research

    No amendments pertaining to the research title were 
offered.

                            Title V--Credit

    An amendment was offered by Senator Cowan to authorize 
direct loans from FSA credit programs to farmers and ranchers 
producing for local and regional food markets. The amendment 
was adopted by voice vote, with Senator Cochran recorded as 
voting no.

                      Title VI--Rural Development

    An amendment was offered by Senator Brown to provide USDA 
with the flexibility to support and finance locally-identified 
economic development priorities. The amendment was adopted by 
voice vote.

                          Title VIII--Forestry

    No amendments pertaining to the forestry title were 
offered.

                            Title IX--Energy

    No amendments pertaining to the energy title were 
originally offered. Senator Klobuchar asked that the title be 
reopened to offer a modified amendment to support funding in 
conservation, rural development, research, and energy. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.

                          Title IV--Nutrition

    An amendment was offered by Senator Brown to restore TEFAP, 
Employment and Training, and Community Food Project program 
funding to levels in S.10 and the Senate-passed farm bill of 
2012. The amendment was withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Gillibrand to restore 
SNAP cuts and limit crop insurance administrative and operating 
reimbursements. The amendment was withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Johanns to limit 
categorical eligibility to cash assistance under TANF or SSI. 
The amendment was defeated by voice vote.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Thune to reform the 
SNAP Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention grant program. 
The amendment was defeated by roll call vote.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Roberts to reform and 
eliminate certain nutrition programs. The amendment was 
withdrawn.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Thune to modify the 
qualifying circumstances for a SNAP work requirement waiver. 
The amendment was defeated by voice vote.

                          Title I--Commodities

    An amendment was offered by Senator Thune with Senators 
Grassley, Roberts, and Johanns to strike all commodities except 
peanuts and rice from section 1107. The amendment was defeated 
by voice vote.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Johanns with Senators 
Grassley, Roberts, and Thune to restore reference prices for 
rice and peanuts to levels in the 2008 farm bill. The amendment 
was defeated by voice vote.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Thune with Senators 
Grassley, Roberts, and Johanns to require an update of rice 
base acres beginning with 2009-2012 crop years and update each 
succeeding year. The amendment was withdrawn.

                        Title XI--Crop Insurance

    No amendments pertaining to the crop insurance title were 
offered.

                             Final Passage

    The legislation, as amended and subject to technical 
changes, was reported out by roll call vote of 15 yeas and 5 
nays with the requisite quorum present, at which point the 
Committee adjourned.

                            Estimated Costs

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:
    Congressional Budget Office letter is attached as pages 61A 
through 61I.

                                                      May 17, 2013.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
United States Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Chairwoman: CBO has prepared a cost estimate for 
S. 954, the Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, 
as reported by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry on May 14, 2013.

Estimated Budgetary Effects

    CBO estimates that direct spending stemming from the 
program authorization in S. 954 would total $955 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 $17.8 billion over the 2014-2023 period. The 
estimated budgetary effects of S. 954 are summarized in Table 
1. CBO estimates that section 10012 of the bill would increase 
revenues by $54 million over the 2014-2023 period. Further 
details of the changes in direct spending and revenues are 
displayed in Table 2.
    Assuming appropriation of the specified and necessary 
amounts, CBO also estimates that implementing the bill would 
cost $30 billion over the 2014-2018 period and $39.9 billion 
over the 2014-2023 period. Further details of that estimate are 
displayed in Table 3.

Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Mandates

    S. 954 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.
    S. 054 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined in 
UMRA, by expanding reporting requirements on manufacturers of 
dairy products and establishing regulations for dairy handlers 
that purchase milk from dairy producers participating in the 
Dairy Market Stabilization Program. Additionally, the bill 
would prohibit individuals from attending animal fighting 
ventures in states and U.S. territories that permit such 
ventures. Because the compliance cost for dairy handlers would 
depend on future regulations, CBO has no basis to determine 
whether the aggregate cost of the mandates in the bill would 
exceed the animal threshold established in UMRA for private-
sector mandates ($150 million in 2013, adjusted annually for 
inflation).

Previous CBO Cost Estimate

    On May 13, 2013, CBO transmitted a cost estimate of draft 
legislation entitled the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act 
of 2013, as posted on the website of the Senate Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on May 9, 2013. CBO's 
estimate of the direct spending provisions of S. 954 are 
similar to those in the earlier draft legislation. Enacting S. 
954 would lead to a relatively small increase in revenues; the 
earlier legislation would have had no impact on revenues.

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 S. 054 would affect 
direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures apply. The net change in outlays and revenues 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 are Kathleen 
FitzGerald, Emily Stern, Dan Hoople, David Hull, and Jim 
Langley.
            Sincerely,
                                    Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director.
    Enclosures.
    
    
                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    In compliance with subsection (b)(2) of paragraph 11 of 
rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee 
states that, in its opinion, it is necessary to dispense with 
the requirements of paragraph (1) of that subsection in order 
to expedite the business of the Senate. The Committee further 
notes that the programs in the reported bill are, by and large, 
voluntary and are assistance-based not regulatory in nature 
and, thus, the Committee does not foresee significant 
regulatory impacts on groups or classes of individuals and 
businesses as a result of this legislation. The regulations 
issued pursuant to the implementation of the bill will 
prescribe and define the programs authorized. Significant new 
regulatory burdens are not expected to result from the 
regulations issued pursuant to the reported bill.

                       Number of Persons Covered

    The Committee notes that nearly every American will be 
affected in some way by the reported legislation as it pertains 
to the production of food, feed, fiber and fuel for the nation, 
as well as providing assistance for conserving natural 
resources, promoting international trade, providing assistance 
to low-income Americans to feed themselves and their families, 
provides economic development assistance for rural communities 
and renewable energy, as well as for food and agricultural-
based research.

                            Economic Impact

    The Committee concludes that the reported legislation will 
not have an adverse economic impact on the nation. The reported 
bill provides assistance to farmers, ranchers, rural 
communities, rural businesses, low-income families and 
universities. The reported legislation helps to support 16 
million jobs in the U.S. and will have a positive impact on the 
national economy.

                                Privacy

    The Committee concludes that the reported legislation will 
not have a negative impact on the personal privacy of 
individuals.

                               Paperwork

    The Committee does not anticipate a major increase in 
paperwork burdens resulting from the reported legislation. In 
fact, the reported legislation contains numerous efforts to 
eliminate, consolidate and otherwise streamline programs and 
improve the efficiency of administration, which the Committee 
intends to help reduce overall paperwork for participants in 
the programs contained within the reported legislation.

                   Congressionally Directed Spending

    In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that, in its 
opinion, the reported bill does not contain any congressionally 
directed spending items requiring report.

                      Section-By-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title; Table of contents

    This section supplies the short title for the legislation, 
``Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013'' and the table 
of contents for the entire legislation.

                    SUBTITLE A--REPEALS AND REFORMS

    Sections 1101, 1102 and 1103 repeal direct payments, 
counter-cyclical payments and Average Crop Revenue Election 
program, respectively, effective with the 2014 crop year.

Section 1104. Definitions

    Section 1104 provides definitions for various terms used in 
this subtitle.
    ``Actual Crop Revenue'' with respect to a covered commodity 
for a crop year means the amount determined by the Secretary 
under section 1108(c)(3) that establishes whether agriculture 
risk coverage payments are required to be made for that crop 
year.
    ``Adverse Market Payment'' is defined as the payment made 
to producers under the program contained in section 1107 of the 
bill.
    ``Agriculture Risk Coverage Guarantee'' with respect to a 
covered commodity for a crop year means the amount determined 
by the Secretary under section 1108(c)(4) to determine whether 
payments are required to be made for that crop year.
    ``Agriculture Risk Coverage Payment' means a payment for a 
covered commodity made under section 1108(c).
    ``Average individual yield'' is defined as the yield 
reported by a producer for purposes of subtitle A of the 
Federal Crop Insurance Act.
    ``Base acres'' is defined as the number of acres for a 
covered commodity on a farm as established under section 1101 
or 1302 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(7 U.S.C. 7911, 7952) and as those acres are in effect on the 
date of enactment of this Act, subject to any adjustments by 
section 1105 of the reported bill.
    ``County Coverage'' is for the purposes of agriculture risk 
coverage under section 1108 and means the level of coverage 
determined using the total quantity of all acreage in a county 
of the covered commodity that is planted or prevented from 
being planted by a producer with the yield determined by the 
average county yield.
    ``Covered Commodity'' means wheat, corn, grain, sorghum, 
barley, oats, long grain rice, medium grain rice, pulse crops, 
soybeans, other oilseeds, and peanuts. Additionally, the 
Secretary is instructed to study the feasibility of including 
popcorn as a covered commodity by 2014 and if the Secretary 
determines it to be feasible, shall designate popcorn as a 
covered commodity.
    ``Eligible acres'' means all acres planted or prevented 
from being planted to covered commodities on a farm in any crop 
year. Eligible acres shall not exceed the average total acres 
planted or prevented from being planted to covered commodities 
and upland cotton on the farm for the 2009 through 2012 crop 
years. The Secretary shall provide for an adjustment to 
eligible acres to account for cropland coming out of 
Conservation Reserve Program contracts and to account for 
resource conserving rotations such as summer fallow. 
Agricultural land that has been used for the purpose of 
enriching land or conserving moisture in conjunction with a 
crop rotation practice between crop years 2009-2012 is an 
essential part of the definition of eligible land in the 
Agricultural Risk Coverage program proposed in this bill. It is 
the intent of the Committee that a land enriching crop such as 
alfalfa be included in a rotation practice included in the 
definition of eligible land. The Secretary is directed to 
specifically include alfalfa as an eligible crop as part of a 
rotation practice in this context when promulgating regulations 
to implement the Agricultural Risk Coverage program.
    ``Extra Long Staple Cotton'' means cotton that is produced 
from pure strain varieties of the Barbadense species or any 
hybrid of the species, or other similar types of extra-long 
staple cotton, designated by the Secretary, having 
characteristics needed for various end uses for which United 
States upland cotton is not suitable and grown in irrigated 
cotton-growing regions of the Unites States designated by the 
Secretary or other areas designated by the Secretary as 
suitable for the production of the varieties to types.
    ``Individual Coverage'' for purposes of the Agriculture 
Risk Coverage program means the level of coverage determined 
based on the sum of all of a producer's acreage in a county 
planted or prevented from being planted to a covered commodity 
and the yields associated with those acres.
    ``Medium Grain Rice'' includes short gain rice.
    ``Other Oilseed'' means a crop of sunflower seed, rapeseed, 
canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, 
or any oilseed designated by the Secretary.
    ``Payment acres'' means for the adverse market payments 85 
percent of the base acres for a covered commodity on a farm on 
which adverse market payments are made.
    ``Payment yield'' means the yield established for adverse 
market payments under section 1102 or 1302 of the Farm Security 
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7912, 7952) as in 
effect on the date of enactment of the reported bill or as 
revised according to section 1106 of this bill.
    ``Producer'' means an owner, operator, landlord, tenant, or 
sharecropper that shares in the risk of producing a crop and is 
entitled to share, in the crop available for marketing from the 
farm, or would have shared the crop being produced.
    ``Pulse Crop'' means dry peas, lentils, small chickpeas, 
and large chickpeas.
    ``Reference price'' means the price per bushel, pound, or 
hundredweight (or other appropriate unit) of a covered 
commodity used to determine whether adverse market payments are 
made and the payment rate for adverse market payments.
    ``State'' means a State of the United States and includes 
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 
any other territory or possession of the United States.
    ``Transitional Yield'' has the meaning given the term in 
section 502(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act.

Section 1105. Base acres

    Section 1105 provides for the base acres used in the 
adverse market payments program, specifically the continuation 
of current base acres and the language for adjustments to base 
acres. The Secretary is required to adjust base acres under 
certain circumstances, such as acreage that is coming out of 
the Conservation Reserve Program and for eligible pulse crop 
acres. Additionally, the reported bill provides producers with 
peanut base acres an option to update their base acres to 
reflect the average acres planted to peanuts in the 2009 
through 2012 crop years. The Committee recommends that the 
Secretary allow producers on farms that do not have peanut base 
acres but have an established planting history of peanuts 
during the 2009 through 2012 crop years to have a one-time 
opportunity to adjust the peanut base acres on the farm. 
However, this update to peanut base acres shall not result in 
an overall increase in the total number of base acres on any 
farm so the Secretary is directed to reduce the base acres for 
all other covered commodities on a farm that updates peanut 
base in a manner that reduces the other base acres 
proportionately and results in no net increase in the farm's 
base acres. As in the 2008 Farm Bill, the Secretary is also 
instructed to prevent excess base acres on a farm and to reduce 
base acres proportionately for land that has been subdivided 
and developed for residential, commercial or other non-
agricultural uses. The Committee intends for the Secretary to 
continue the efforts begun with the 2008 Farm Bill to ensure 
that acres that have been removed from farming and that are not 
likely to return to agricultural uses are not able to continue 
to receive payments. The reported bill also instructs the 
Secretary to preclude making payments to producers on a farm 
that have fewer than 10 total base acres on the farm, with 
certain exceptions for socially disadvantaged farmers and 
limited resource farmers. Finally, the reported bill instructs 
the Secretary to maintain a record of farms with upland cotton 
base acres as those acres were in effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act. Upland cotton is no longer a covered 
commodity under this subtitle and upland cotton base acres are 
not able to receive adverse market payments. However, the 
Committee intends for a record of those base acres to be kept 
in case they are necessary for any future legislation or 
programmatic needs.

Section 1106. Payment yields

    Section 1106 continues the payment yields provisions from 
the 2008 Farm Bill for the adverse market payments program in 
the reported bill. The section instructs the Secretary on 
adjustments for designated oilseeds or eligible pulse crops and 
how to calculate the adjustments and payment yields for these 
crops. This section also provides for an optional payment yield 
update for rice producers. If a farmer with rice base elects to 
update the rice payment yields, the new payment yield is to be 
calculated depending on the amount of rice base the farmer 
actually planted to rice during the 2009 through 2012 crop 
years. Where the farmer planted less than 50 percent of the 
farm's rice base acreage to rice on average during those years, 
an election to update payment yields would result in a new 
payment yield that is the current payment yield increased by 
the amount equal to the product of the difference between the 
average rice yield in those years and the existing payment 
yield, and the percent of rice that was actually planted on the 
base acres in the 2009 through 2012 crop years. For example, a 
farmer averaging 40 percent of the farm's rice base actually 
planted to rice in the 2009 through 2012 crop years and the 
current payment yield for those base acres is 50 hundredweight 
per acre on a farm that averaged 60 hundredweight from 2009 to 
2012. If that farmer elected to update the farm's payment 
yield, the new payment yield would equal 50 hundredweight plus 
40 percent times 10 hundredweight (the difference between the 
average yield and the payment yield, multiplied by the average 
acreage planted to rice), or 54 hundredweight per base acre. If 
the farmer planted more than 50 percent of the farm's rice base 
to rice in those crop years, the farmer can update the payment 
yields for rice so as to equal 90 percent of the average yield 
during the 2009 through 2012 crop years. Additionally, those 
farms with peanut base acres who elected to update the peanut 
base under section 1105 shall also receive an updated payment 
yield calculated to equal the average yield per planted acre 
for the 2009 through 2012 crop years.

Section 1107. Adverse Market Payments

    Section 1107 authorizes the Adverse Market Payments (AMP) 
for the 2014 through 2018 crop years. The Secretary is required 
to make payments under this program to producers with base 
acres and payment yields for covered commodities whenever the 
Secretary determines that the actual price for the covered 
commodity is less than the reference price for the covered 
commodity. A covered commodity's actual price is calculated as 
the higher of either the national average market price received 
by producers during the 12-month marketing year for the covered 
commodity or the national average loan rate for a marketing 
assistance loan for the covered commodity. For rice, the actual 
price shall be calculated for each type or class of rice 
separately. The reference price for covered commodities is 
calculated to equal 55 percent of average national marketing 
year average price for the most recent 5 crop years of the 
covered commodity, excluding each of the crop years with the 
highest and lowest price. This calculation is commonly referred 
to as the Olympic average price and is the same calculation 
used in the Agriculture Risk Coverage program in section 1108. 
However, rice and peanuts have a separate calculation under 
AMP. For those two commodities only, the reference price is 
fixed in the reported bill and does not utilize the Olympic 
average price calculation. For rice, the reference price is 
$13.30 per hundredweight and for peanuts the reference price is 
$523.77 per ton. The payment rate for AMP is calculated to 
equal the amount by which the reference price exceeds the 
actual price for a covered commodity. The amount of a payment 
is calculated as the payment rate multiplied by the payment 
acres and the payment yield for the covered commodity. Finally, 
the Secretary is required to calculate the actual and reference 
prices for sunflower seeds, barley and wheat so as to 
differentiate the price calculations by type or class. For 
barley, this includes the use of malting barley values.

Section 1108. Agriculture Risk Coverage

    Section 1108 authorizes Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) 
payments for the 2014 through 2018 crop years. Producers are 
provided an opportunity to make a one-time election to receive 
coverage at either the individual level or county level for all 
covered commodities and all acres under the control of the 
producer. The coverage election is binding on the producer 
through the 2018 crop year, so that new acreage coming under 
the producer's control would be subject to the coverage level 
elected by that producer and not a previous producer. Acreage 
leaving the producer's control would no longer be subject to 
that producer's election but would be subject to the subsequent 
producer's election. Furthermore, the Secretary is required to 
ensure that producers are not able to reconstitute or transfer 
control of acreage in an attempt to alter or reverse the 
coverage election.
    ARC payments are required to be made when a producer's 
actual crop revenue for a covered commodity is less than the 
ARC coverage guarantee. The price used for the actual revenue 
cannot be below the reference price for the commodity used in 
the AMP program calculation. The guarantee is set as 88 percent 
of the benchmark revenue, which is defined as the product 
obtained by multiplying the 5-year Olympic yield (individual or 
county) by the 5-year Olympic national average price. The 
payment rate is the difference between the agriculture risk 
coverage guarantee for the covered commodity and the actual 
crop revenue for the covered commodity, but not to exceed 10 
percent of the benchmark revenue for the crop year for the 
covered commodity. This subsection establishes the ARC coverage 
band as between 88 percent and 78 percent of the benchmark or 
rolling historic revenue. Payments for individual coverage are 
made on 65 percent of the eligible acres that were planted to 
the covered commodity or 45 percent for those acres that were 
prevented from being planted. Payments for county coverage are 
made on 80 percent of the eligible acres that were planted to 
the covered commodity or 45 percent for those acres that were 
prevented from being planted. Finally, the Secretary is 
required to use all information to check for anomalies in 
making payments, calculate a separate guarantee for irrigated 
and non-irrigated commodities, differentiate by type or class 
the national average price of sunflower, barley (using malting 
barley values) and wheat, and assign a yield for producers who 
do not have a yield history or whose yield is an 
unrepresentative average yield.
    The Committee intends for the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to 
administer ARC through its existing system, but expects very 
close cooperation and coordination between FSA and the Risk 
Management Agency (RMA), especially with regard to sharing 
information and reporting by farmers. For the yields in the ARC 
calculation, the Committee intends that USDA utilize 
information from RMA and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 
(FCIC) as much as possible and where available. Individual 
yields should be based on the yields the producer reports to 
RMA for crop insurance and that are used to calculate the 
producers' Actual Production History. The Committee does not 
intend for USDA to duplicate yield information collection 
efforts between RMA and FSA.
    As discussed above, the eligible acres concept is a 
significant departure from current policy regarding base acres. 
The Committee does not intend for FSA to utilize any aspect of 
historical base acres in the administration and operation of 
ARC. Eligible acres are those planted or prevented from being 
planted to covered commodities on the FSA farm. Eligible acres 
are not to exceed the average annual total acres planted to 
covered commodities and upland cotton during the 2009 through 
2012 crop years. Specifically, this is a cap on the total 
number of planted acres that can be eligible for payments under 
ARC, rather than a revised or new base acre calculation. 
Payments will not be made on eligible acres unless they are 
planted to a covered commodity and the ARC program is triggered 
for that covered commodity.
    ARC payments are calculated using all of a producer's 
planted or prevented plant acres in a county, (i.e. on an 
enterprise unit basis), however the total acres eligible for 
ARC payments planted cannot exceed the eligible acre cap on an 
FSA farm.
    While the decision to opt for individual or county coverage 
applies to all farms under control of a producer and while 
benefits of ARC are calculated on an enterprise unit basis, the 
acreage cap is to be applied on a farm by farm basis. The 
following is an example of how this acreage cap would be 
applied to two separate farms under the control of a single 
producer:
    Farm #1 has a 2009-2012 planting history of 200 acres of 
covered commodities and upland cotton. These are the eligible 
acres for Farm #1. In 2014, Farm #1 plants 100 acres of 
soybeans and 100 acres of wheat for a total of 200 planted 
acres. If this farm is eligible for an ARC payment for wheat or 
soybeans, there would be no prorate factor because this 
producer is planting the same number of acres as the eligible 
acreage cap for that farm.
    Farm #2, which is operated by the same producer as Farm #1, 
has a 2009-2012 planting history of 700 acres of covered 
commodities and upland cotton. These are the eligible acres for 
Farm #2. In 2014, Farm #2 plants 400 acres of soybean and 400 
acres of wheat for a total of 800 planted acres. This exceeds 
the eligible acreage cap by 100 acres, so if the farm is 
eligible for an ARC payment for wheat or soybeans, there would 
be a prorate factor of 87.5% (700 acre cap/800 acres planted).
    If the soybean actual revenue is less than the soybean 
guarantee, but the wheat actual revenue is more than the wheat 
guarantee, the producer will receive payment on 450 soybean 
acres, 100 of the 450 soybean acres receiving payment will be 
on Farm #1 and the remaining 350 acres receiving payment will 
be on Farm #2 (350 acres is the prorate factor of 87.5% times 
400 acres of planted soybeans on Farm #2). If the soybean 
payment is $25 per acre and the producer elected county 
coverage then the producer will be paid $9,000 ($25 multiplied 
by 80% multiplied by 450 acres). If the producer receives less 
than 100 percent of the crop production for either of the farms 
due to, but not limited to partnership or share-crop 
agreements, then the producer's share of the eligible acres for 
each farm will be proportional to the producer's share of the 
crop production.

Section 1109. Producer agreement required as condition of provision of 
        payments

    Section 1109 continues current law regarding conservation 
compliance, acreage reporting and transfers of interest for 
eligibility for AMP and ARC payments. Producers are required to 
comply with applicable conservation and wetland protections and 
effectively control noxious weeds and otherwise maintain the 
land in accordance with sound agricultural practices as 
determined by the Secretary. As in current law, there is no 
penalty with respect to benefits assessed against producers on 
the farm for an inaccurate acreage or production report. Data 
that is reported by the producer must meet the requirements 
under the Federal Crop Insurance Act without additional 
submission to the Department. Additionally, adequate safeguards 
to protect the interests of tenants and sharecroppers are 
required.

Section 1110. Period of effectiveness

    Section 1110 establishes that the programs and provisions 
of this subtitle are applicable through the 2018 crop year.

  SUBTITLE B--MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS AND LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS

Section 1201. Availability of nonrecourse marketing assistance loans 
        for loan commodities

    In general, section 1201 continues current law through 2018 
authorizing the Secretary to make nonrecourse marketing 
assistance loans for loan commodities. The section defines 
``Loan Commodity'' same as current law, except replaces 
``wool'' with ``graded wool'' and ``non-graded wool.'' The only 
revision to current law in this section involves applying the 
same conservation compliance provisions applicable to AMP and 
ARC to this program such that to be eligible to receive 
marketing assistance loans producers must comply with 
applicable conservation and wetland protections and effectively 
control noxious weeds and otherwise maintain the land in 
accordance with sound agricultural practices as determined by 
the Secretary. Similarly, it sets requirements governing 
transfers of interest, requires acreage and production reports, 
provides for adequate safeguards to protect the interests of 
tenants and sharecroppers and incorporates special loan, 
storage, handling, and marketing rules for peanuts.

Section 1202. Loan rates for nonrecourse marketing assistance loans

    Section 1202 continues current law establishing loan rates 
for the loan commodities. The loan rates are the same as 
provided for in the 2008 Farm Bill except the upland cotton 
loan rate which has been adjusted due to the WTO dispute with 
Brazil. The section also continues current law establishing 
single loan rates in each county for each of the ``other 
oilseeds.'' The following are the loan rates for the 2014-2018 
crop years:
         Wheat, $2.94 per bushel (Same as current law)
         Corn, $1.95 per bushel (Same as current law)
         Grain Sorghum, $1.95 per bushel (Same as current law)
         Barley, $1.95 per bushel (Same as current law)
         Oats, $1.39 per bushel (Same as current law)
         Upland Cotton (changed from 2008 Farm Bill from $0.52 
        per pound): for the 2013 and each subsequent crop year, 
        the simple average of the adjusted prevailing world 
        price for the 2 immediately preceding marketing years, 
        but in no case less than $0.45 per pound or more than 
        $0.52 per pound.
         Extra-long staple cotton, $.7977 per pound (Same as 
        current law)
         Long grain rice, $6.50 (Same as current law)
         Medium grain rice, $6.50 (Same as current law)
         Soybeans, $5.00 per bushel (Same as current law)
         Other oilseeds, $10.09 per hundredweight (Same as 
        current law)
         Dry Peas, $5.40 per hundredweight (Same as current 
        law)
         Lentils, $11.28 per hundredweight (Same as current 
        law)
         Small chickpeas, $7.43 per hundredweight (Same as 
        current law)
         Large chickpeas, $11.28 per hundredweight (Same as 
        current law)
         Graded wool, $1.15 per pound (Same as current law)
         Non-graded wool, $0.40 per pound (Same as current law)
         Mohair, $4.20 per pound (Same as current law)
         Honey, $0.69 per pound ( $0.03 cents lower than 
        current law)
         Peanuts, $355 per ton (Same as current law)

Section 1203. Terms of loans

    Section 1203 continues current law setting marketing 
assistance loan terms at nine months and prohibiting 
extensions.

Section 1204. Repayment of loans

    Section 1204 continues current law regarding repayment of 
loans. Producers are required to repay a marketing assistance 
loan for a loan commodity (other than upland cotton, long grain 
rice, medium grain rice, extra-long staple cotton, peanuts, and 
confectionery and each other kind of sunflower seed (other than 
oil sunflower seed)) at a rate established for the commodity 
plus interest, calculated based on the average market prices 
for the loan commodity during the preceding 30 day period.
    The loan repayment rate for extra-long staple cotton is the 
loan rate established under section 1202, plus interest. In 
addition, it requires the Secretary to issue by regulation a 
formula to determine the prevailing world market price for 
upland cotton, long grain rice, and medium grain rice, and a 
mechanism by which the Secretary shall announce periodically 
those prevailing world market prices.
    Current statutory requirements regarding adjustment to the 
prevailing world market prices for long grain rice, medium 
grain rice and upland cotton are continued. The Secretary is 
required to establish a mechanism for determining and 
announcing these adjustments in order to avoid undue disruption 
in the United States market. Current law regarding the 
repayment rates for confectionery and other kinds of sunflower 
seeds (other than oil sunflower seed) at a rate that is lesser 
of the loan rate established under section 1202, plus interest, 
or the repayment rate established for oil sunflower seed is 
continued.
    The Secretary will temporarily adjust repayment rates in 
the event of a severe disruption to marketing, transportation, 
or related infrastructure.

Section 1205. Loan deficiency payments

    Section 1205 continues current law through 2018 authorizing 
the Secretary to make loan deficiency payments available to 
producers who agree to forgo marketing loans for the same 
commodities. It authorizes loan deficiency payments for 
producers of unshorn pelts and hay and silage, although such 
producers are not eligible for marketing loans. The section 
also establishes the computation for loan deficiency payments 
as the product of the payment rate for commodity multiplied by 
the quantity of the commodity produced by using the rate in 
effect as of the date the producer requests payment.

Section 1206. Payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments for grazed 
        acreage

    Section 1206 continues current law through 2018 authorizing 
the Secretary to make payments to producers of wheat, barley, 
oats, or triticale if the producer agrees to use the acreage 
for grazing livestock and to forgo any other harvesting. 
Payments must be made at the same time as loan deficiency 
payments, in an amount that is the product of the loan 
deficiency payment rate and the payment quantity, as determined 
by multiplying the quantity of grazed acreage by the payment 
yield. Separate rules apply for determining the triticale 
payment amount. Such acreage is not eligible for a crop 
insurance indemnity or noninsured crop assistance.

Section 1207. Economic adjustment assistance to users of upland cotton

    Section 1207 continues those parts of current law through 
2018 that require that the Secretary provide economic 
adjustment assistance to domestic users of upland cotton in the 
form of payments for all documented use of that upland cotton 
during the previous monthly period, regardless of the origin of 
the upland cotton. Assistance provided should be 3 cents per 
pound and made available only to domestic users of upland 
cotton that certify that the assistance is used to acquire, 
construct, install, modernize, develop, convert, or expand 
land, plant, buildings, equipment, facilities, or machinery.

Section 1208. Special competitive provisions for extra long staple 
        cotton

    Section 1208 continues current law through 2018 requiring a 
program to expand the domestic use of extra-long staple cotton 
produced in the U.S., increase exports, and ensure that the 
U.S. remains competitive in world markets. The Secretary makes 
payments when, for a four week period, the world market price 
for the lowest priced extra-long staple cotton is below the 
prevailing price for a competing growth of extra-long staple 
cotton and is less than 134 percent of the loan rate for extra-
long staple cotton.

Section 1209. Availability of recourse loans for high moisture feed 
        grains and seed cotton

    Section 1209 continues current law through 2018 authorizing 
the Secretary to make recourse loans available to producers of 
corn and grain sorghum who normally harvest all or a portion of 
their crop in a high moisture state. Producers must present 
certified scale tickets or field or other physical measurements 
of the standing or stored crop. In regions without certified 
commercial scales, producers must certify that they were the 
owners of the feed grain and comply with established deadlines. 
The section defines ``high moisture state'' as corn or grain 
sorghum having moisture content in excess of Commodity Credit 
Corporation standards for marketing assistance loans. The 
Secretary is also authorized to make available recourse seed 
cotton loans on any production.

Section 1210. Adjustments of loans

    Section 1210 provides that the programs and provisions of 
this subtitle are applicable through 2018, and authorizes the 
Secretary to make adjustments in the loan rates for any 
commodity based on differences in grade, type, quality, 
location, and other factors.

                           SUBTITLE C--SUGAR

Section 1301. Sugar program

    Section 1301 continues current law through 2018 requiring 
the Secretary to make loans available to sugarcane processors 
at 18.75 cents per pound for raw cane sugar, and to sugar beet 
processors at a rate that is 128.5 percent of the loan rate for 
raw cane sugar. The Secretary is authorized to reduce the loan 
rates if negotiated reductions in domestic and export subsidies 
of other major sugar producing countries in the aggregate 
exceed the commitments made as part of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. It also authorizes the Secretary to provide that 
refined sugars, whether from beets or cane, are substitutable 
for purposes of the refined sugar and sugar containing products 
re-export programs. In addition, the Secretary will annually 
estimate: the quantity of sugar subject to human consumption in 
the United States; the quantity of sugar that would provide 
reasonable carryover stocks; the quantity available from carry-
in stocks for human consumption; the quantity of sugar 
available from domestic processing of sugarcane, sugar beets, 
and in-process beet sugar; and the quantity of sugars, syrups, 
and molasses that will be imported for human consumption.

                           SUBTITLE D--DAIRY

  PART I--DAIRY PRODUCTION MARGIN PROTECTION PROGRAM AND DAIRY MARKET 
                         STABILIZATION PROGRAMS

    The United States dairy industry should be allowed to grow 
and compete globally to help ensure a strong American 
agricultural economy. The Committee recognizes the importance 
of both the producer and processor sectors of the dairy 
industry. The Secretary should use his authority granted in 
this subtitle and his discretion to ensure the entire dairy 
industry is strengthened by the new programs and policies.

Section 1401. Definitions

    Section 1401 defines the terms used in the Dairy Production 
Margin Protection Program (DPMPP) and Dairy Market 
Stabilization Program (DMSP):
    ``Actual Dairy Production Margin'' is the difference 
between the ``all-milk price'' and the ``average feed cost.''
    ``Annual Production History'' is the production history 
determined for a participating dairy operation when the 
operation purchases supplemental margin protection.
    ``Average feed cost'' is calculated based on specific 
national corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa prices.
    ``Basic Production History'' is the production history 
determined for a participation operation for basic margin 
protection.
    ``Consecutive 2-month period'' refers to the 2-month period 
consisting of January and February, March and April, May and 
June, July and August, September and October, November and 
December.
    ``Dairy operation'' means 1 or more producers that produce 
and market milk as a single operation, and each dairy producer 
shares in the pooling of resources and a common ownership 
structure, is at risk in the production of milk, and 
contributes land, labor, management, equipment, or capital to 
the dairy operation. The Secretary is allowed to determine 
additional ownership structures.
    ``Handler'' means an initial handler that is the initial 
individual or entity making payments directly to a dairy 
operation.
    ``Milk price'' is the ``all-milk price,'' or average price 
received by dairy operations across the United States.

Section 1402. Calculation of average feed cost and actual dairy 
        producer margins

    Section 1402 establishes that the national average feed 
cost shall be calculated by the Secretary, based on U.S. prices 
for corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa each month. In the margin 
protection program, actual dairy operation margin is calculated 
by the Secretary by subtracting a defined, national average 
feed cost from the all-milk price for defined consecutive 2-
month periods. In the stabilization program, actual dairy 
operation margin is calculated by the Secretary by subtracting 
the average feed cost from the all-milk price for the preceding 
month. The Committee expects the Secretary to collect the data 
necessary for the administration, functionality, and success of 
the new programs as soon as practicable.

         SUBPART A--DAIRY PRODUCTION MARGIN PROTECTION PROGRAM

Section 1411. Establishment of dairy production margin protection 
        program

    Section 1411 establishes the DPMP program, to provide 
assistance to dairy operations based on a calculated margin of 
milk price over feed costs. Basic margin protection is 
available to all operations with coverage for a $4.00 margin on 
80 percent of production based on an established basic 
production history. Supplemental margin protection is available 
for purchase on an annual production history with subsidized 
premiums. An operation will have the opportunity to purchase 
supplemental coverage from a $4.50 margin up to an $8.00 margin 
in $0.50 increments on up to 90 percent (no less than 25 
percent) of the annual production history.

Section 1412. Participation of dairy operations in production margin 
        protection program

    Section 1412 establishes that all operations are eligible 
for payments pursuant to the margin protection program, 
provided they sign up for basic or supplemental protection. 
Operations may opt for coverage through the Milk Income Loss 
Contract (MILC) established by the 2008 Farm Bill, until June 
2014 at modified support levels. Operations may participate in 
either MILC or DPMP program, but not both, through June 2014. 
Additionally, dairy operations may participate in either 
Livestock Gross Margin-Dairy (LGM-Dairy) or DPMP, but not both. 
There are no guarantees that LGM-Dairy funding will be 
available or that all producers will be able to get LGM-Dairy 
coverage when funding is available. The Committee extended the 
MILC program at modified levels until June 2014 to provide a 
transition period for producers while the Secretary finalizes 
rules for the new programs. The Department should notify MILC 
participants of the MILC program end date. The Committee 
intends for the Secretary to educate the dairy industry, 
including potential program participants, about the new options 
and obligations included in both the margin protection and 
market stabilization programs. The Committee encourages the 
Secretary to partner with market participants and State and 
local organizations to carry out the educational activities.
    The section also establishes an administration fee for the 
margin protection program. Fees will be used to cover costs to 
administer DPMP and DMSP and for USDA-administered dairy market 
transparency measures. The administration fee is waived in the 
case of limited resource farmers. The Committee intends for the 
provided program administrative fees to be used to supplement 
the Secretary's current budget for dairy programs, and not 
serve as the primary source of funding for program 
implementation. The Committee expects the fees to be used for 
providing additional staff and services only if necessary to 
expedite program implementation and to ensure sufficient staff 
for program administration. The Committee also intends for the 
Secretary to use the fees for providing consistent funding for 
transparency measures.

Section 1413. Production history of participating dairy operations

    Section 1413 establishes the methods for calculating 
production histories for the basic and supplemental margin 
protection programs. It allows herd growth by annually updating 
production history for supplemental margin protection. The 
section also authorizes the Secretary to specify conditions for 
transferring production history of a dairy operation by sale or 
lease. It prohibits a purchaser or lessee from obtaining a 
different level of basic or supplemental protection coverage 
during the calendar year in which the transfer is made. These 
provisions are intended to ensure program integrity and not 
allow dairy operations to game the program.

Section 1414. Basic production margin protection

    Section 1414 provides that basic protection is available to 
all participating operations to receive a basic margin 
protection payment whenever actual dairy margin for a 
consecutive 2-month period is less than $4.00 per hundredweight 
(cwt) of milk. Operations will receive payments equal to the 
difference between $4.00 and the actual margin (when actual 
margin is less than $4.00) on 80 percent of base production.

Section 1415. Supplemental production margin protection

    Section 1415 allows a dairy operation participating in the 
basic margin protection program to annually purchase 
supplemental protection to cover higher margins in increments 
of $0.50 for margins between $4.50 and $8.00 on 25 percent to 
90 percent of milk production. Operations must pay an annual 
premium for supplemental protection based on actual production. 
A discounted premium is offered on the first 4 million pounds 
of milk, which covers production from approximately 200 to 250 
cows annually. The premiums are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Premium/cwt  (< 4  Premium/cwt  (> 4
          Coverage level               million lbs)       million lbs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$4.50.............................              $0.01              $0.02
5.00..............................               0.02               0.04
5.50..............................              0.035               0.10
6.00..............................              0.045               0.15
6.50..............................               0.09               0.29
7.00..............................               0.40               0.62
7.50..............................               0.60               0.83
8.00..............................               0.95               1.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Participating operations will receive payment whenever the 
average actual margin for a defined consecutive two-month 
period is less than the selected coverage threshold. Payment is 
based on the difference between actual margin and guaranteed 
margin, multiplied by the selected coverage percentage and the 
lesser of the annual production history divided by 6, or the 
actual amount of milk marketed during the previous 2-month 
period.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to provide flexibility 
for producers when establishing payment plans for the new 
programs. Limited discretion is provided to design the new 
programs with flexibilities for producers, including the 
monthly payment of administrative fees and premium payments, or 
payment using other appropriate time periods to maximize 
program integrity and producer convenience. Where applicable 
and practicable, premium payments should be withheld from a 
producer's milk check.

Section 1416. Effect of failure to pay administrative fees or premiums

    Section 1416 establishes that a participating operation 
that fails to pay the required administrative fees or premiums 
remains legally obligated to pay them and may not receive basic 
or supplemental margin protections payments until fees are 
fully paid.

             SUBPART B--DAIRY MARKET STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Section 1431. Establishment of Dairy Market Stabilization Program

    Section 1431 creates the Dairy Market Stabilization Program 
to assist in balancing the supply of milk with demand when 
producers are experiencing low or negative operating margins. 
Subject to exceptions in Section 1436, when dairy margins fall 
below a certain level, the Secretary is required to have 
initial dairy handlers reduce the payments to dairy operations 
in order to encourage them to either scale back milk production 
temporarily or to avoid increasing production while margins are 
considered low or negative. The payment reductions are based on 
actual margin, according to the following schedule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Actual margin            Milk payment, greater of the following
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>$5.00-< $6.00/2-month.......  98% of base or 94% of month's milk
                                marketed
$4.00/2-month........  97% of base or 93% of month's milk
                                marketed
$4.00/1-month................  96% of base or 92% of month's milk
                                marketed
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This program is voluntary, but any operation enrolled in 
the Dairy Production Margin Protection Program is required to 
enroll in Dairy Market Stabilization. Handlers that are tasked 
with reducing the payments and remitting them to the Secretary 
are initial handlers defined as the initial individual or 
entity making payments directly to a dairy operation. The Dairy 
Market Stabilization program is voluntary, but any operation 
enrolled in the Dairy Production Margin Protection Program is 
required to enroll in the Dairy Market Stabilization Program. 
To permit overall growth in dairy production in general, 
operations may update their production history base calculation 
method annually.

Section 1432. Threshold for implementation and reduction in dairy 
        operation payments

    Section 1432 requires the Secretary to announce that the 
stabilization program takes effect when actual margin has been 
$6.00 or less for two months, or actual margin has been $4.00 
or less for one month. The stabilization program will go into 
effect on the first day of the month following an announcement 
by the Secretary that margin triggers have been met. The 
stabilization program will be suspended, or not triggered, as 
soon as certain conditions are met.

Section 1433. Milk marketings information

    Section 1433 directs the Secretary to establish a process 
for collecting milk marketing information from dairy operations 
and handlers and to minimize regulatory burden on dairy 
operations and handlers. It also requires the Secretary to 
minimize the regulatory burden on operations and handlers.

Section 1434. Calculation and collection of reduced dairy operation 
        payments

    Section 1434 defines payment reduction requirements for the 
stabilization program based on actual dairy margin. Payments 
will not be reduced if an operation's monthly milk marketings 
are equal to or less than the percentage of a defined rolling 
base.

Section 1435. Remitting funds to the Secretary and use of funds

    Section 1435 requires initial handlers to remit to the 
Secretary an amount equal to that which they withheld from 
dairy operations. The Secretary must use the remitted monies 
for the purpose of expanding consumption and building demand 
for dairy products by purchasing dairy products for donation to 
food banks and other appropriate programs.

Section 1436. Suspension of reduced payment requirement

    Section 1436 provides the criteria by which the 
stabilization program will be suspended. The section creates a 
suspension trigger that is based on world prices, as determined 
by the Secretary, for dairy products such that U.S. cheddar 
cheese and nonfat dry milk prices are compared to world cheddar 
cheese and skim milk powder prices. If certain conditions are 
met, the Secretary shall suspend the program or simply not make 
the announcement to trigger the program. Once suspended, 
stabilization cannot resume until 2 months have passed and the 
stabilization criteria have been met to warrant stabilization 
implementation. The suspension triggers are as follows:
    Actual margin is greater than $6.00 for two months, or
    Actual margin is greater than $5.00 and less than or equal 
to $6.00 for 2 months and: the U.S. price for cheddar cheese is 
equal to or greater than the world price for cheddar cheese, or 
the U.S. price for nonfat dry milk is equal to or greater than 
the world price for skim milk powder, or
    Actual margin is greater than $4.00 and less than or equal 
to $5.00 for 2 months and: the U.S. price for cheddar cheese is 
more than 5 percent above the world price for cheddar cheese, 
or the U.S. price for nonfat dry milk is more than 5 percent 
above the world price for skim milk powder, or
    Actual margin is less than or equal to $4.00 for 2 months 
and: the U.S. price for cheddar cheese is more than 7 percent 
above the world price for cheddar cheese, or nonfat dry milk is 
more than 7 percent above the world price for skim milk powder.
    The suspension trigger ensures that the stabilization 
program will be sensitive to world market conditions. The 
Committee intends for the market stabilization program to 
suspend when supply outpaces demand as authorized by the world 
price provisions. This Committee has included a voluntary 
stabilization program to send signals to all dairy producers 
that they should y the Secretary, for dairy products such that 
U.S. cheddar cheese and nonfat dry milk prices are compared to 
world cheddar cheese and skim milk powder prices. If certain 
conditions are met, the Secretary shall suspend the program or 
simply not make the announcement to trigger the program. Once 
suspended, stabilization cannot resume until 2 months have 
passed and the stabilization criteria have been met to warrant 
stabilization implementation. The suspension triggers are as 
follows:
    Actual margin is greater than $6.00 for two months, or
    Actual margin is greater than $5.00 and less than or equal 
to $6.00 for 2 months and: the U.S. price for cheddar cheese is 
equal to or greater than the world price for cheddar cheese, or 
the U.S. price for nonfat dry milk is equal to or greater than 
the world price for skim milk powder, or
    Actual margin is greater than $4.00 and less than or equal 
to $5.00 for 2 months and: the U.S. price for cheddar cheese is 
more than 5 percent above the world price for cheddar cheese, 
or the U.S. price for nonfat dry milk is more than 5 percent 
above the world price for skim milk powder, or
    Actual margin is less than or equal to $4.00 for 2 months 
and: the U.S. price for cheddar cheese is more than 7 percent 
above the world price for cheddar cheese, or nonfat dry milk is 
more than 7 percent above the world price for skim milk powder.
    The suspension trigger ensures that the stabilization 
program will be sensitive to world market conditions. The 
Committee intends for the market stabilization program to 
suspend when supply outpaces demand as authorized by the world 
price provisions. This Committee has included a voluntary 
stabilization program to send signals to all dairy producers 
that they should slow down milk marketings in order to better 
balance milk supply and demand, decrease price volatility, and 
increase margins received by producers. The programs allow 
dairy producers to take risk management into their own hands.

Section 1437. Enforcement

    Section 1437 requires timely and accurate reporting of 
stabilization funds to the Secretary and allows the Secretary 
to take necessary actions to ensure compliance.

Section 1438. Audit requirements

    Section 1438 authorizes the Secretary to conduct periodic 
audits of participating dairy operations and handlers to ensure 
compliance. The audits must be random and statistically valid 
and the Secretary shall submit audit results to Congress, 
including recommendations the Secretary considers appropriate 
regarding the stabilization program.

Section 1439. Study; report

    Section 1439 requires the Secretary to direct the Office of 
the Chief Economist to conduct a study of the impacts of the 
stabilization program and report to Congress by December 1, 
2016.

                       SUBPART C--ADMINISTRATION

Section 1451. Duration

    Section 1451 authorizes the DPMP and DMSP through December 
31, 2018.

Section 1452. Administration and enforcement

    Section 1452 authorizes the Secretary to promulgate 
regulations to address administrative and enforcement issues 
involved with carrying out the basic margin protection, 
supplemental margin protection and the market stabilization 
programs.

                   PART II--DAIRY MARKET TRANSPARENCY

Section 1461. Dairy product mandatory reporting

    Section 1461 amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 
to allow the Secretary to report on any products that may 
significantly aid price discovery in the dairy markets; 
requiring each manufacturer to report to the Secretary, at 
least monthly, information concerning price, quantity, moisture 
content, or any characteristics that may aid in price discovery 
of dairy products sold. The section further allows the 
Secretary to modify the format used to provide information to 
ensure the information is readily understood by market 
participants. Each manufacturer and person storing dairy 
products is required to report to the Secretary, at least 
monthly, information on the quantity of dairy products stored, 
and ensuring dairy products in cold storage are included in 
reportable products. The Committee provided the Secretary with 
additional authority for collecting information on dairy 
products and dairy product prices to enhance price discovery. 
The Secretary should use the authority whenever appropriate. 
While this Committee supports increased transparency, it 
expects the Secretary will use this additional authority 
judiciously and consider public and Congressional input when 
considering potential changes to reporting requirements.

Section 1462. Federal Milk Marketing Order program pre-hearing 
        procedure for class III pricing

    Section 1462 directs the Secretary to establish an 
information clearinghouse for the purposes of educating the 
public about the FMMO system and any order referenda, including 
proposal information and timelines. FMMO information must be 
made available through website and appropriate publications. 
The Committee extended the Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO) 
Review Commission and provided funding to consider FMMO 
changes.

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

    Sections 1471 and 1472 repeal the following programs: Dairy 
Product Price Support Price Support from the 2008 Farm Bill and 
the Dairy Export Incentive Program from the Food Security Act 
of 1985. However, the Milk Income Loss Contract Program is 
extended through June 2014 to permit time to implement the 
programs contained in the reported bill at the current 45 
percent level and provides conforming amendments to the Trade 
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.
    Sections 1473, 1474, 1475, and 1476 extend the Dairy 
Forward Pricing Program, Dairy Indemnity Program, Dairy 
Promotion and Research Program, and the Federal Milk Marketing 
Order Review Commission through 2018.

              PART IV--FEDERAL MILK MARKETING ORDER REFORM

    Section 1481 directs the Secretary to provide an analysis 
on the use of end-product price formula replacements and submit 
a report to Congress.

                         PART V--EFFECTIVE DATE

Section 1491. Effective date

    Section 1491 requires the amendments made by the reported 
bill to take effect on October 1, 2013.

   SUBTITLE E--SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Section 1501. Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs

    Section 1501 provides for certain supplemental agricultural 
disaster assistance programs created in the 2008 Farm Bill to 
be available to producers through fiscal year 2018 and that 
funding for the programs shall be out of the funds of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation.
    Livestock Indemnity Payments (LIP) are to be made for 
livestock lost in excess of normal mortality rates due to 
adverse weather including hurricanes, blizzards, extreme heat, 
floods, disease, wildfires, extreme cold and attacks by animals 
reintroduced into the wild by the Federal Government. Payments 
are 65 percent of the market value of the animal. LIP is to 
provide benefits to all livestock producers, including but not 
limited to those involved in range operations who follow 
appropriate management practices.
    Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) provides payments 
that are to be made for forage losses to eligible livestock 
producers due to drought or fire. Eligible land to be covered 
includes native or improved pastureland with permanent 
vegetative cover or land that has crops planted specifically 
for the purpose of providing grazing for livestock. Payments 
are to be calculated using 50 percent of the monthly feed cost 
for all covered livestock and the normal carrying capacity of 
eligible grazing lands. With regard to section 1501(c)(1)(E), 
the Committee notes that the program covers grazing losses due 
to drought during the grazing season, which is defined to not 
exceed 240 days in a year. The Committee emphasizes that LFP is 
designed to cover grazing losses during the normal grazing 
period, not the normal growing period.
    Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees and Farm 
Raised Fish (ELAP) is to be made to eligible producers of 
livestock, honey bees and farm raised fish to aid with losses 
due to disease, adverse weather, or other conditions that are 
not otherwise covered by LIP or LFP. The funding for ELAP is 
$15 million per fiscal year.
    The Secretary shall provide assistance to eligible 
orchardists and nursery tree growers for losses due to natural 
disaster under the Tree Assistance Program (TAP).

                       SUBTITLE F--ADMINISTRATION

Section 1601. Administration generally

    Section 1601 continues current law regarding administration 
of programs in the title through 2018 and reauthorizes the use 
of the funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity 
Credit Corporation to carry out the programs, including the 
current law for promulgation of regulations. The Secretary is 
required to make adjustments in the amount of expenditures 
under subtitles A through E that are subject to the total 
allowable domestic support levels under the Uruguay Round 
Agreements, if the Secretary determines that those expenditures 
will exceed such allowable levels for any applicable reporting 
periods.

Section 1602. Suspension of permanent price support authority

    Section 1602 continues current law through 2018 pursuant to 
which the permanent price support authority of the Agricultural 
Adjustment Act of 1938 and Agricultural Act of 1949 is 
suspended for the 2014 through 2018 fiscal years for covered 
commodities (as defined in section 1104), cotton, and sugar. 
Those provisions shall not be applicable to milk during the 
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through 
December 31, 2018.

Section 1603. Payment limitations

    Section 1603 limits the total amount of payments received, 
directly, or indirectly, by a person or legal entity (except a 
joint venture or general partnership) for any crop year under 
subtitle A of the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act to 
$50,000 for all covered commodities and a separate limit for 
peanuts of $50,000.

Section 1604. Payments limited to active farmers

    Section 1604 amends Section 1001A of the Food Security Act 
of 1985 to ensure that payments do not go to individuals who 
are not farming by striking--or active personal management--
each place it appears in subparagraphs (A)(i)(II) and(B)(ii). 
In its place, the section permits a single person to qualify as 
actively engaged solely based upon providing management to the 
farming operation, but that individual cannot qualify multiple 
entities. However, the Committee does not intend for the 
addition of a manager to qualify the farm operation for 
payments above the payment limit established in section 1603.
    The Committee also recognizes the importance of spouses to 
family farming operations and the long-standing policy that 
permits the individual who qualifies as actively engaged in 
farming to also qualify his or her spouse as actively engaged, 
including qualifying for an additional payment and payment 
limit. Nothing in this section alters current law with regard 
to the spouse in a farming operation, and so long as one spouse 
qualifies as actively engaged the other spouse qualifies as 
well. If, however, the qualifying spouse was considered 
actively engaged solely based on providing active personal 
management to the farm operation neither spouse will now 
qualify as actively engaged, unless one qualifies under 
subparagraph 7 pertaining to the single manager for the farm 
operation.

Section 1605. Adjusted gross income limitation

    Section 1605 amends current law regarding the adjusted 
gross income (AGI) eligibility requirements. The reported bill 
eliminates the distinction between farm AGI and nonfarm AGI. 
Pursuant to the reported bill, a person or legal entity is 
prohibited from receiving benefits under subtitle A in any year 
where the average gross income of the person or legal entity 
exceeds $750,000. AGI is calculated by using a three-year, 
moving average.

Section 1606. Geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers

    Section 1606 continues current law through 2018 authorizing 
the Secretary to provide geographically disadvantaged farmers 
and ranchers direct reimbursement payments as described.

Section 1607. Personal liability for producers for deficiencies

    Section 1607 continues current law exempting producers from 
liability for certain deficiencies in collateral.

Section 1608. Prevention of deceased individuals receiving payments 
        under farm commodity programs

    Section 1608 continues current law through 2018 requiring 
the Secretary to reconcile social security numbers of all 
individuals who receive payments, whether directly or 
indirectly, with the Commissioner of Social Security to 
determine if the individuals are alive. The Secretary will 
preclude the issuance of payments to, and on behalf of, 
deceased individuals that were not eligible for payments.
    The Committee recognizes the improvements made by the 
Secretary in recent years to prevent payments to deceased 
individuals. The Committee also recognizes that individuals can 
be entitled to a payment but become deceased before that 
payment is issued, and that such a payment is proper.

Section 1609. Appeals

    Appeals Section 1609 amends current law to improve the 
appeals process at USDA and to ensure proper oversight, 
transparency and accountability for the Director of the 
National Appeals Division without inhibiting the proper 
functioning of the appeals process.

Section 1610. Technical corrections

    This section continues current law permitting necessary 
technical changes be made in program operation and 
administration.

Section 1611. Assignments of payments

    This section continues current law regarding the assignment 
of payments including that they be assigned in accordance with 
USDA regulations.

Section 1612. Tracking of benefits

    Section 1612 continues current law through 2018 requiring 
the Secretary to establish procedures to track program benefits 
under Title I and II of that Act directly or indirectly to 
individuals and entities.

Section 1613. Signature authority

    Section 1613 continues current law through 2018 authorizing 
the Secretary to approve documents containing signatures of 
program applicants. The Secretary shall not subsequently 
determine a document is inadequate or invalid because of the 
lack of authority of any applicant signing the document on 
behalf of the applicant unless the applicant knowingly and 
willfully falsified the evidence of signature authority or a 
signature.

Section 1614. Implementation

    Section 1614 authorizes the Secretary to make $97,000,000 
in funds available to the Farm Service Agency to carry out this 
title and instructs the Secretary to seek to reduce paperwork 
and other administrative burdens, take advantage of new 
technologies to improve efficiency, as well as improve 
coordination with the Risk Management Agency and the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service.

                         Title II--Conservation


                SUBTITLE A--CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM

Section 2001. Extension and enrollment requirements of Conservation 
        Reserve Program

    Section 2001 extends the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 
authorization through 2018, and adds the definition for 
grasslands that will be eligible to be enrolled in the program. 
The reported bill also reduces the limit on the acres that can 
be enrolled in CRP contracts, such that the maximum enrolled 
acres shall be: 30 million acres for FY2014; 27.5 million acres 
for FY2015; 26.5 million acres for FY2016; 25.5 million acres 
for FY2017; and 25 million acres for FY2018.
    Within the overall acreage cap, the bill provides for the 
enrollment in CRP of up to 1.5 million acres of grasslands and 
authorizes the Secretary to grant priority to lands expiring 
from current conservation reserve program contracts that will 
retain grass cover. This modification accommodates acreage that 
previously would have been eligible for short-term rental 
contracts under the Grasslands Reserve Program.
    The specific priority designations for the Chesapeake Bay 
Region, the Great Lakes Region, and the Long Island Sound 
Region are removed. The authority for the Secretary to 
designate conservation priority areas is retained, recognizing 
the importance of the program for addressing State-identified 
areas of special environmental sensitivity.

Section 2002. Farmable wetland program

    Section 2002 extends the Pilot Program for Enrollment and 
Buffer Acreage in Conservation Reserve authorization through 
2018, and renames it the Farmable Wetland Program. The pilot 
has been in place since 2002, and the Committee action changes 
the program from a pilot program to a standing program.

Section 2003. Duties of owners and operators

    Section 2003 removes the provisions for harvesting, 
grazing, wind turbines, and rental rate reductions for 
authorized activities from the duties of owners and operators. 
These provisions are revised and moved to the duties of the 
Secretary.

Section 2004. Duties of the secretary

    Section 2004 amends current law to address reductions in 
rental rates for harvesting, grazing, or other commercial use 
of CRP lands. For harvesting, grazing or other commercial use 
of the forage on CRP lands in response to flooding, drought, or 
other emergency, the reported bill removes the requirement to 
reduce the rental rate. The bill provides for a reduction in 
the rental rate of not less than 25 percent for authorized 
harvesting or grazing activity, or in the case of grazing by 
livestock of beginning farmers or ranchers, no reduction in 
rental rate.
    The Committee did not specify the range of situations under 
which CRP could be used to mitigate the impacts on agricultural 
producers resulting from adverse and extreme weather events or 
conditions. While these acres can provide additional forage 
when they are located within the disaster footprint, these 
forages also could assist in meeting livestock forage needs 
when near to the affected area, or when other CRP contract 
holders are willing to make their forage available to those 
affected by the emergency, or when flooding displaces grazing 
livestock. In the waiver of rental rate reduction, it is 
expected USDA will take appropriate action to ensure the 
program participant does not receive additional compensation of 
cash or in-kind services for the hay, or grazing from this 
permitted use of the forage. This section establishes the 
frequency of harvesting and routine grazing on acres enrolled 
in CRP contracts, consistent with a conservation plan, and 
provides for the incidental use of buffers adjacent to 
agricultural lands.
    Authorized activities for newly eligible grasslands include 
grazing, haying, mowing, or harvesting for seed production. The 
Secretary shall permit activities such as fire pre-suppression, 
rehabilitation and construction of fire breaks, fencing, 
livestock watering, and necessary cultural practices. These 
uses of the land are consistent with those allowed for rental 
contracts under the Grassland Reserve Program, and are carried 
over here to align with the authorized eligibility for those 
grasslands in the conservation reserve.
    Provisions are added to allow conservation and land 
improvement practices in the final year of a contract, with a 
commensurate reduction in rental value. Re-enrollment of lands 
modified through this provision is prohibited for at least five 
years.
    The Committee intends that the intensity of all specified 
activities permitted by the revisions to section 1233(b) of 
current law shall be conducted within the parameters outlined 
in the statute, and consistent with the conservation of soil, 
water quality, and wildlife habitat and the other purposes of 
the program, and to control invasive species. Additionally, the 
Secretary with advice from State Technical Committees shall 
ensure that the frequency and duration of all specified 
activities permitted are reflected in associated conservation 
plans appropriate for the local climatic conditions, 
precipitation, soils, and other necessary factors in order to 
meet the purposes of the program.
    For the purposes of this program, the term--critical 
birds--shall include candidate, threatened or endangered 
species; species of economic significance; and priority fish 
and wildlife species identified in state, regional, or national 
wildlife plans and initiatives.
    The revisions made to section 1233(b)(2) of the current 
statute clarify the intent of the Committee to allow some uses 
of the conservation reserve when the activities are beneficial 
to the health and viability of the established cover. In doing 
so, the Committee focused on grasslands-related activities 
since grasslands are the predominant cover for the program. The 
Secretary should consider this sufficient authority to allow 
such activities to occur on other cover types when they could 
serve a similar benefit to the health and vigor of the cover. 
For example, the pre-commercial thinning of pine plantings, or 
the harvesting of pine straw may be allowed with commensurate 
reduction of rental rates if these activities would be a 
technically accepted activity for improving the health and 
viability of the stand, as reflected in the conservation plan. 
The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize options other 
than burning for the disposal of residue removed from CRP 
lands, as well as lands enrolled in a conservation easement, 
for contract management and maintenance. The Committee suggests 
the Secretary coordinate with state government officials to 
donate this residue to donate residue to Indian tribes, small 
and disadvantaged farmers or other similar persons or entities.

Section 2005. Payments

    Section 2005 clarifies the cost-share payments for proper 
thinning and practices to improve the condition of lands 
planted to trees, windbreaks, shelterbelts, and wildlife 
corridors. The section provides that annual payments for 
grasslands enrolled shall not be in an amount that is more than 
75 percent of the grazing value of the land under contract and 
provides flexibility for the Secretary to consider the survey 
data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service in 
establishing payment rates. It also strikes the provisions 
for--payments in kind--through Commodity Credit Corporation 
stocks.

Section 2006. Contract requirements

    Section 2006 continues the language for transitioning lands 
for a retiring farmer and rancher to a veteran farmer, or 
rancher, beginning farmer or rancher, or socially disadvantaged 
farmer or rancher with conforming changes to other sections. 
The reported bill also clarifies the relationship between an 
expiring CRP contract when transitioning lands to the 
Conservation Stewardship Program or an Agricultural 
Conservation Easement Program. Under this provision the land 
must be transferred to the ACEP, before waiving the 
requirements of early contract termination. The CRP annual 
rental payment may be prorated for the period of the year the 
land is under the CRP contract.

Section 2007. Conversion of land subject to contract to other 
        conserving uses

    Section 2007 repeals this provision which is no longer 
applicable for contracts in place prior to November 28, 1990.

Section 2008. Effective date

    Section 2008 sets the effective date of the amendments made 
by the reported bill as October 1, 2013, and establishes that 
the changes made in this legislation will have no effect on 
existing contracts.

              SUBTITLE B--CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Section 2101. Conservation Stewardship Program

    Section 2101 of the reported bill contains a complete 
revision to the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) 
contained in current law and while constituting a substitute 
for it, the reported bill's provisions are primarily derived 
from current law. The legislation amends section 1238D by 
adding definitions of ``agricultural operation'' and ``eligible 
land,'' clarifies ``priority resource concern'' and 
``stewardship threshold,'' and strikes ``conservation 
measurement tool'' and ``resource concern'' definitions and 
eliminates the ten percent limitation on annual acres for non-
industrial private forestland.
    The revised section 1238D in the reported bill streamlines 
and consolidates key definitions for the program. The meaning 
of agricultural operation tracks existing law. Conservation 
activities involve conservation systems, practices, and 
management measures. The term has an inclusive plain language 
meaning, encompassing, for example, conservation planning. The 
specific mention in the statute of inclusions does not exclude 
conservation activities that are otherwise within the 
definition. The definition of conservation stewardship plan 
makes it clear the plan is to inventory and identify priority 
resource concerns and to contain the additional specified 
elements encompassing new as well as existing conservation 
activities. Eligible land is defined to mean private and tribal 
land on which agricultural commodities, livestock, or forest-
related products are produced plus associated land on which 
priority resource concerns could be addressed through a 
contract under the program.
    A priority resource concern is defined to mean a natural 
resource concern or problem that is identified at the national, 
state, or local level as a priority for a particular area, and 
that represents a significant concern in a state or region that 
is likely to be addressed successfully through implementing 
conservation activities. The Committee understands that the 
process of identifying priority resource concerns should 
involve consultation, such as with State Technical Committees, 
at the state and local levels to the maximum extent 
practicable. The stewardship threshold is the level of 
management required to conserve and improve the quality and 
condition of a natural resource. The stewardship threshold for 
a natural resource is a science-based standard at an advanced 
level of conservation providing for the long-term continued 
productivity, use, and quality of the resource.
    The reported bill extends the conservation stewardship 
program for the fiscal years 2014 through 2018 in order to 
encourage producers to address priority resource concerns and 
to improve and conserve the quality and condition of natural 
resources in a comprehensive manner. The program assists 
producers who accomplish this purpose by undertaking additional 
conservation activities and by improving, maintaining, and 
managing conservation activities existing at the beginning of 
the contract.
    Subsection (b) excludes from the program land that is 
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, in a Wetland 
Reserve Easement, or in the Conservation Security Program. The 
provision prevents concurrent enrollment in and receipt of 
payments through the Conservation Stewardship Program and any 
of the listed programs. It does not prohibit enrollment in the 
program if other land in the operation is enrolled in the 
Conservation Reserve Program or a Wetland Reserve Easement, nor 
does it prohibit the uninterrupted entry of land into the 
Conservation Stewardship Program upon expiration of a contract 
under one of the other programs described in this subsection.
    The Secretary shall prioritize for enrollment in the 
program lands that are expiring from the Conservation Reserve 
Program in an effort to protect the taxpayer's conservation 
investment by continuing conservation benefits on those lands 
and enabling the transition from CRP to a sustainable grass-
based or other type of agricultural operation where many of the 
conservation benefits will continue. The Committee encourages 
the Secretary to conduct outreach to producers and to 
facilitate enrollment of such land into the conservation 
stewardship program in order to maintain and improve 
conservation values, such as through grass-based production 
systems. The subsection also updates the provision excluding 
land recently converted to cropland.
    The amended section 1238F pertains to Stewardship 
contracts. An eligible contract offer must also demonstrate 
that by the end of the stewardship contract the producer will 
at a minimum be meeting or exceeding the stewardship threshold 
for at least one priority resource concern in addition to 
continuing to meet or exceed the stewardship threshold for the 
two priority resource concerns that were the basis for the 
producer's eligibility to submit a contract offer and enroll in 
the program.
    Subsection (b) lists six criteria for ranking contract 
offers, prohibits giving a higher ranking to a contract offer 
based on the applicant's willingness to accept a reduced 
payment, and allows the development and use of additional 
criteria to ensure national, state, and local priority resource 
concerns are addressed effectively. Such additional criteria, 
should they be developed and used, are not to supersede or be 
more heavily weighted than the six statutory ranking criteria.
    Subsection (c) provides for entering into Conservation 
Stewardship Program contracts.
    Subsection (d) specifies that conservation stewardship 
contracts shall be for a period of five years, shall require 
the producer to implement a conservation stewardship plan that 
describes the program purposes to be achieved through one or 
more conservation activities, shall permit all economic uses of 
the eligible land that maintain its agricultural nature and are 
consistent with the conservation purposes of the contract, 
shall include a provision to ensure the producer is not 
considered in violation of the contract for failure to comply 
with the contract due to circumstances beyond the control of 
the producer, shall include provisions specifying the remedies 
available to the Secretary upon violation of a term or 
condition of the contract, shall include provisions governing a 
change of interest in land subject to the contract and 
modification or termination of the contract, and shall include 
additional provisions the Secretary determines necessary to 
carry out the program. The Committee expects that the Secretary 
will allow for appropriate modification of contracts and 
commensurate adjustment in annual payments to take into account 
the addition of acreage to an operation by purchase or lease or 
a reduction in acreage through sale, termination of a lease, or 
enrollment of land in a land retirement or easement program
    Subsection (e) provides that the Secretary may allow a 
producer to renew the contract for one additional five-year 
period if the producer demonstrates compliance with the terms 
of the existing initial contract, agrees to adopt and continue 
to integrate conservation activities across the producer's 
entire agricultural operation, and agrees at a minimum to meet 
or exceed the stewardship threshold as to at least two priority 
resource concerns in addition to the priority resource concerns 
that were the basis of meeting the eligibility requirements of 
the initial contract offer specified in subsection (a).
    The revised section 1238G contains the duties of the 
Secretary in the administration of CSP and increases the number 
of locally identified priority resource concerns to at least 
five. It also eliminates the requirement for use of the 
conservation measurement tool but calls for establishing a 
science-based stewardship threshold for each priority resource 
concern. It is the sense of the Committee that these contracts 
demonstrate quantifiable natural resource outcomes derived and 
maintained over the term of the agreement. The agency should 
develop a process to report the positive resource outcomes 
resulting from these agreements.
    Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary shall make the 
Conservation Stewardship Program available for continuous 
enrollment with one or more ranking periods, one occurring in 
the first quarter of each fiscal year, shall identify not less 
than five priority resource concerns in a particular watershed 
or appropriate region or area within a state, and shall 
establish a science-based stewardship threshold for each 
priority resource concern that is identified.
    Subsection (b) provides criteria for the Secretary to 
allocate acreage to the states for enrollment in the program.
    Subsection (c) provides that during the period October 1, 
2013 through September 30, 2022 the Secretary shall, to the 
maximum extent practicable, enroll an additional 10,348,000 
acres for each fiscal year and manage the program to achieve a 
national average annual rate of $18 an acre, including the 
costs of all financial assistance, technical assistance, and 
any other expenses associated with enrollment or participation 
in the program.
    Subsection (d) provides that the Secretary shall make 
annual payments under the program to compensate producers for 
installing and adopting additional conservation activities and 
for improving, maintaining, and managing conservation 
activities in place in the operation of the producer at the 
time the conservation stewardship contract offer is accepted. 
The subsection specifies factors the Secretary shall use to 
determine the amount of the conservation stewardship annual 
payment, practices and activities that are excluded from 
payments, and proration and timing of payments.
    Subsection (e) provides for the continuation of the 
availability, requirements, and eligibility with respect to 
supplemental payments for resource-conserving crop rotations.
    Subsection (f) provides that a person or legal entity may 
not directly or indirectly receive payments under the 
Conservation Stewardship Program that in the aggregate exceed 
$200,000 under all contracts entered into during fiscal years 
2014 through 2018, excluding arrangements with Indian tribes.
    Subsection (g) continues the requirement for conducting 
outreach activities and appropriate technical assistance to 
specialty crop and organic producers and for ensuring they are 
able to participate effectively in the program.
    Subsection (h) continues the requirement for establishing a 
transparent means for producers to initiate certification under 
the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 while participating in 
the conservation stewardship program.
    Subsection (i) provides for the issuance of regulations by 
the Secretary to carry out the conservation stewardship program 
and to ensure a fair and reasonable application and enforcement 
of the payment limitations in subsection (f).
    Finally, subsection (c) of section 2101 provides that the 
amendment made by this section to subchapter B of chapter 2 of 
subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
U.S.C. 3838d et seq.) shall not affect the validity or terms of 
any contract, or any payments required to be made in connection 
with the contract, entered by the Secretary under such 
subchapter before October 1, 2013 and provides for the use of 
funds made available under section 1241(a)(4) of the Food 
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(4) (as amended by 
section 2601(a)) to administer and make payments to 
participants enrolled in conservation stewardship contracts 
during any of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.

          SUBTITLE C--ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

Section 2201. Purposes

    Section 2201 adds ``develop and improve wildlife habitat'' 
as a purpose for assisting producers to install and maintain 
conservation practices.

Section 2202. Definitions

    Section 2202 removes the definition for the National 
Organic Program and incorporates the reference to the program 
in the organic system plan definition.

Section 2203. Establishment and administration

    Section 2203 extends the program authorization through 
2018. It allows limited resource, socially disadvantaged, 
beginning, and veteran farmers or ranchers to obtain advance 
payments and up to 90 days to implement practices from the date 
of the advance. It continues the allocation of funding 
practices related to livestock production as at least 60 
percent of the funds.
    It also establishes that at least five percent of the funds 
will be targeted to practices benefitting wildlife habitat, and 
establishes wildlife habitat incentive practices as 
conservation practices that support restoration, development, 
and improvement of wildlife habitat for upland wildlife, 
wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered species, fish 
habitat, pivot corners and irregular fields, and other types.
    The Committee strikes the current alternative funding 
arrangement provisions contained in Section 1240B(g) and uses 
Section 2606 to move the alternative funding arrangement 
provisions for EQIP and adds CSP to Section 1244(l) of the Food 
Security Act of 1985, as amended. Section 1240B(g) is replaced 
with a new provision intended to maintain the authority and 
functions of the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), 
which was merged within EQIP in an effort to consolidate and 
streamline conservation programs. The Committee intends that 
the revisions to Section 1240B(g)(2) of the statute made by 
this section regarding funding of wildlife habitat practices 
should prioritize fish and wildlife species identified in 
state, regional, or national wildlife plans and initiatives. 
The Committee intends for these practices to be established 
through annual consultation with the State Technical Committee. 
Waiver authority is provided to allow payments to state and 
local governments for some riparian wildlife habitat projects 
on their lands. It is intended this waiver be applied in 
agriculture, grassland, and forested watersheds complementing 
the implementation of private lands conservation programs in 
this title.
    Management practices for which the Secretary may accord 
special significance in determining payment amounts are revised 
to better reflect the natural resource objectives of program 
participants, including soil health, water quality and quantity 
improvement, nutrient management, pest management, wildlife 
habitat development, and invasive species management. The 
Committee intends to continue the ability of the Secretary to 
enter into contracts for long-term grassland rotation, 
conversion to less water-intensive crops or dryland farming, or 
irrigation reduction, as well as other water conservation 
measures. The Committee expects that the EQIP program will 
continue to emphasize and allocate funding to the critical 
issue of surface and groundwater conservation, including 
groundwater conservation in multistate areas overlying an 
aquifer with significant agricultural use.
    The Committee intends for the provision in current law 
regarding financial assistance from other sources to be 
interpreted as written. The Secretary should not create 
additional burdens on the participant, state or private 
organization in an effort to account for non-Federal resources 
provided in support of conservation practices installed under 
the program. The Committee intends that conservation programs 
should recognize the use of innovative technology, such as 
enhanced efficiency fertilizers (e.g., slow and controlled-
release fertilizers, stabilized nitrogen fertilizers). This 
innovative technology can help producers to protect water 
quality and reduce greenhouse emissions, and are recognized by 
State regulators of fertilizers. In the case of EQIP 
applications involving manure-to-energy projects, the Committee 
encourages the Secretary to consider whether the projects 
include an integrative approach to addressing nutrient 
management and water quality issues.
    The Committee is concerned that not all producers may be 
fully aware of all of the services, practices, components, and 
other information needed to participate fully in farm bill 
conservation programs. The Committee expects that State NRCS 
offices shall post, in a readily accessible and understandable 
form, the practices available that may be applicable to various 
livestock species and crops. These postings shall also include 
the cost-share levels available and the duration of the 
contract for a particular practice. We also encourage the 
agency to continue to make their staff available to attend 
meetings of agricultural producers at the local, State and 
national level to educate and inform producers of the programs 
available to meet natural resource and energy efficiency needs 
on their operations.

Section 2204. Evaluation of applications

    Section 2204 makes minor wording changes to the underlying 
law to emphasize the conservation purpose of the program.

Section 2205. Duties of producers

    Section 2205 makes minor wording changes to the underlying 
statute to clarify duties of producers relate only to enrolled 
lands.

Section 2206. Limitation on payments

    Section 2206 amends current law to replace the 6-year 
rolling payment limit with a firm time period of 2014 through 
2018 that will streamline and simplify program administration. 
This revision aligns the payment limitation with the time 
period to be covered by this bill.

Section 2207 Conservation innovation grants and payments

    Section 2207 includes a reporting requirement for the 
Secretary to increase transparency of how funds are used and 
the derived benefits.

Section 2208. Effective date

    Section 2208 establishes October 1, 2013, as the effective 
date for this section and clarifies that the changes contained 
in the reported bill will not affect contracts entered into 
before October 1, 2013.

         SUBTITLE D--AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAM

Section 2301. Agricultural conservation easement program

    Section 2301 establishes a new Subtitle H within the Food 
Security Act of 1985, as amended, that combines the easement 
authorities of the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Grasslands 
Reserve Program (GRP), and Farmland Protection Program (FPP) 
into an agricultural conservation easement program.
    Section 1265A defines common terms for the program, 
including the two easement types (agricultural land easements 
(ALE) and wetland reserve easements (WRE)), eligible entities, 
and eligible lands. The Committee includes non-industrial 
private forest land in the eligible land definition for ALE. It 
is the Committee's intent that non-industrial private forest 
land used for farming or agriculture as defined by state law 
shall be treated as cropland for the purposes of the program. 
For example, where the cultivation of maple trees, collection 
of maple sap, and the production of maple syrup are defined as 
farming or agriculture in state law, the Secretary shall treat 
such land as cropland for the program.
    Section 1265B describes the assistance available for 
agricultural land easements (ALE), which are acquired and held 
by eligible entities with cost-share assistance from the 
Secretary. Three valuation options are established for 
determining the fair market value of an easement, consistent 
with the methods used under the consolidated programs. The 
terms of easements are permanent, or the maximum allowed by 
state law.
    The reported bill clarifies that the Secretary may provide 
up to 50 percent of the appraised fair market value of an 
agricultural land easement and that eligible entities may 
include a landowner donation as part of their match. The 
Committee recognizes the cost incurred by eligible entities in 
completing transactions and the reported bill continues to 
allow for landowner donations as part of the non-federal match 
requirement. It also provides a waiver authority for the 
Secretary to provide up to 75 percent of the appraised fair 
market value of an easement placed on grasslands of special 
environmental significance. The consolidation of easement 
programs eliminated the Grasslands Reserve Program provisions 
that permitted the Secretary to acquire and hold grassland 
easements or acquire and transfer easements to eligible 
entities at no cost to the entity. The Committee recognizes the 
need to protect important grasslands and permits the Secretary 
in special circumstances to provide up to 75 percent of the 
fair market value of the easement. The increased cost share 
available for specific grasslands easements is intended to help 
in the transition to the new program format, and reflects the 
Committee's commitment to the nation's grasslands. The 
Committee includes the authority to waive the entity cash match 
for projects having agricultural and economic significance. The 
Committee expects NRCS to apply broad criteria to include 
projects of special importance to implementing diverse 
strategic agricultural and conservation outcomes across the 
country. Such projects may, for example, be critical to the 
maintenance and recovery of a targeted species of flora or 
fauna, to the completion of a block of protected farmland in an 
area with higher than average rates of farmland conversion to 
development, to securing agricultural land for food production 
in an underserved community or food desert, to protecting land 
important to a unique agricultural crop or system, or to 
initiating a working lands agricultural lands protection 
program in a community or region that is experiencing 
accelerated loss of agricultural lands through development or 
fragmentation.
    The reported bill retains the entity certification process 
from FPP and the opportunity for non-certified entities to 
participate in the program. The Committee expects the term 
`agricultural viability' in the ALE purpose to clarify that 
eligible entities may include in their terms and conditions for 
conservation easements a right to purchase at the property's 
agricultural use value, if the seller agrees to accept such 
terms and conditions.
    Pursuant to section 1265B, the Secretary shall emphasize 
the protection of agriculture producing areas when developing 
criteria for the evaluation of applications for ALE. The 
Committee intends that eligible entities should seek to 
maximize the protection of eligible land in viable agricultural 
areas where applicable. The Committee intends that the program, 
consistent with its purpose to limit nonagricultural use of the 
land, emphasize protection of farmland that is in, and will 
remain in, active agricultural use. The Committee does not 
intend that easement parcels must abut each other, but that to 
the extent possible they should be contiguous with other lands 
in agricultural uses, irrespective of whether or not those 
lands are under an easement. The Secretary should consider 
regional variation in agricultural land use patterns when 
establishing evaluation criteria. The Committee expects the 
Secretary to work with eligible entities to achieve a balanced 
approach and to include an even split between national and 
state ranking criteria for the evaluation of parcels to be 
enrolled in the program. Additionally, the Secretary shall 
emphasize acquisition of easements to protect the agricultural 
use and conservation values of the agricultural lands, 
including retention of native grasslands and rangelands that 
are at high risk for conversion to uses other than grazing or 
related activities.
    The Committee expects that eligible entities will be 
responsible for enforcement of the easement terms and 
conditions. The right of enforcement for the Secretary that is 
required under section 1265B is included in the event that the 
eligible entity is dissolved or otherwise fails to carry out 
its responsibility in which case USDA will enforce the easement 
terms and conditions. The Committee does not intend for the 
Secretary to be directly in the chain of title.
    The entity certification process remains similar to 
existing statutory authority under the Farmland Protection 
Program. This certification process is intended to streamline 
program administration by eliminating duplicative and 
unnecessary NRCS administrative reviews and procedures for 
those eligible entities that have the experience, authority, 
resources, policies and procedures in place to acquire, manage 
and enforce agricultural land easements that are consistent 
with the stated purposes of the program. The certification 
process is also intended to provide deference to established 
state and local Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement 
(PACE) programs, recognizing that different jurisdictions and 
types of agricultural activities require diversity in program 
administration and practice and allowing these state and local 
programs to use their own easement terms and conditions that 
are consistent with state law and with the agricultural 
conditions in their areas. The Committee does not believe the 
certification process implemented by NRCS in 2013 has met the 
intent of the Committee in this regard, and strongly encourages 
NRCS to manage the certification process in a manner that 
respects state authority, terms and conditions, and minimizes 
federal interference in matters not explicitly found in the 
authorizing statute. The Committee further urges NRCS to modify 
the current policy manual for the program to recognize the 
diverse needs of local jurisdictions and their capacity as 
stewards to best manage easement programs to enhance 
agriculture in their jurisdictions. Agreements with certified 
entities can be tailored specifically to the state or local 
government or entity that meets the established criteria.
    Section 1265C describes wetland reserve easements. The 
reported bill provides 30 year, permanent, and maximum duration 
by state law easement enrollment options, and 30 year contract 
enrollment option for Indian Tribes. It also establishes a land 
ownership requirement of 12 months prior to enrollment, which 
is reduced from the 7-year requirement in current law. It 
retains WRP ranking criteria and priority for migratory and 
other wildlife habitat and WRP easement terms and conditions 
(permitted and prohibited activities) and compatible uses. It 
revises the WRP grazing rights pilot such that it is a 
permanent provision, and includes a wetlands enhancement option 
for states, which is the same as the wetlands reserve 
enhancement in WRP.
    In carrying out the provisions in section 1265C, the 
Secretary shall encourage the use of wildlife plans and wetland 
protection plans to assist in making priority determinations 
for easement acquisitions to protect and enhance habitat for 
migratory birds and other wildlife. The Committee intends that 
priority determinations will guide easement acquisition to 
achieve the greatest benefits for the federal funds invested. 
This includes considering a priority for easements that are 
permanent in duration.
    To ensure wetland functions and values are developed, the 
Committee expects that the Secretary may permit the use of 
berms, water control structures, pumps and other acceptable 
wetland management and enhancement techniques, as appropriate. 
The Committee expects the Secretary to encourage the wetland 
plan developed under this section, with input from the 
landowner, to achieve: (1) restoration of wetlands that were 
formerly on site or in the immediate region, to the extent 
practicable; (2) wetland restoration needs and priorities 
identified in a state or regional restoration plan; or (3) 
restoration of other appropriate wetland types and 
configurations, as determined by the Secretary. The easement 
restoration plan should include the priorities identified in 
the section for protecting and enhancing habitat for migratory 
birds and other wildlife.
    Section 1265D contains administration provisions common to 
both easement types. It describes certain ineligible land and 
provides clarification and criteria for easement subordination, 
exchange, modification, and termination determinations (new for 
agricultural land easements and subordination added for 
wetlands reserve easements). In evaluating applications, the 
Secretary may allow an enrollment priority for acres expiring 
from CRP, where continuing environmental benefits would be 
achieved through enrollment in the program. For purposes of 
program administration, lands enrolled in wetland reserve 
easements with land capability classes IV through VII are not 
counted towards statutory acreage limitations. It establishes 
October 1, 2013, as the effective date for this section.
    The Committee expects that the funding allocations made 
available under section 1265D(e) shall be managed at the 
national level, affording flexibility at the State level for 
prioritizing easement needs--agricultural land easements or 
wetland easements, as appropriate. The committee expects that 
NRCS administer the program and allocate funding to address the 
multiple purposes of the program established in Sec 1265 with 
no single purpose dominating the allocation of program funds to 
states.

         SUBTITLE E--REGIONAL CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Section 2401. Regional conservation partnership program

    Section 2401 combines the authorities of the agricultural 
water enhancement program (AWEP), Chesapeake Bay watershed 
program, cooperative conservation partnership initiative 
(CCPI), and Great Lakes basin program for soil erosion and 
sediment control into a regional conservation partnership 
program (RCPP).
    Section 1271 specifies that the program will work through 
partnership agreements and contracts directly with 
participating producers. Program purposes include furthering 
conservation efforts at regional or watershed scales, and 
encouraging partners to work with producers to meet or 
eliminate the need for regulatory requirements related to 
agriculture and implement projects that benefit multiple 
producers on a local, regional, state or multistate basis.
    Section 1271A identifies EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and the Healthy 
Forest Reserve Program from the forestry title as the covered 
programs through which RCPP is delivered. It defines eligible 
activities that address water resource concerns (flooding, 
drought, retention, quality, conversion to dryland farming, 
sedimentation reduction), erosion, recovery of threatened and 
endangered species, and wildlife, with a flexibility for the 
Secretary to identify other activities. It defines eligible 
partners to include producer associations or cooperatives, 
states or units of local government (including municipal water 
and wastewater entities), Indian tribes, institutions of higher 
education, organizations or other non-governmental entities 
(including private entities), and organizations with a history 
of working with producers on agricultural land (all partners 
previously eligible for AWEP and CCPI). The Committee expects 
that the Secretary will work cooperatively with eligible 
partners that have a history of working with farmers and 
ranchers. For example, the Committee sees opportunities within 
the RCPP for public and private partnerships to work 
cooperatively in addressing water quality concerns within a 
watershed through projects promoting on-farm resource 
stewardship as an alternative to building ``gray'' 
infrastructure that treats water impairments for public water 
supplies. The Secretary should also give strong consideration 
to partnerships that seek to restore and enhance water quantity 
in the nation's large river systems and aquifers such as 
addressing areas where there is low annual precipitation or 
high variability in annual precipitation and multiple demands 
on limited water resources.
    Section 1271B establishes partnership agreement authority 
for the Secretary. It clarifies that the duties of the partners 
include defining the scope of the project, identifying the 
program resources needed, conducting producer outreach and 
education, leveraging resources, and reporting to the Secretary 
on the results of the project. It also clarifies that proposal 
selection is competitive and merit-based. The Committee also 
expects the Secretary to include the type of projects that are 
innovative in nature and utilize public-private market 
instruments that assist the producers in meeting or avoiding 
the need for a natural resource regulatory requirement, such as 
water quality trading markets.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of water resource 
management at the watershed scale, especially interconnected 
bodies of water, and the need for fully integrating the effort 
across regions and programs. Accordingly, the Committee has 
included outreach and education in the duties of partners 
(section 1271B(c)(1)(B)) and strongly recommends USDA look 
across titles to combine resources, program authorities and 
priorities strategically in addressing these large-scale, 
conservation challenges. The Committee recommends that USDA 
coordinate available authorities to provide grants and funding 
to universities working in collaboration with producers and 
conservation partners, especially for the critical conservation 
areas designated pursuant to section 1271F. The effort should 
include research into conservation solutions, combined with 
education and outreach programs to producers, communities, 
partners and other stakeholders. The Committee encourages 
approaches that include analysis of the programs, tools and 
solutions put into practice so they can be evaluated for 
overall effectiveness and help inform future policy decisions. 
Further, to fully integrate the efforts to improve water 
quality and quantity across regions and programs, the Committee 
strongly encourages the Secretary to utilize existing programs 
to partner with state and local governments, Indian tribes, 
farmer cooperatives, and other conservation organizations to 
implement voluntary stewardship programs designed to meet 
federal, state and local conservation priorities while 
proactively assisting agricultural producers in meeting 
regulatory requirements.
    Section 1271C permits the Secretary to enter into contracts 
directly with producers in project areas or enter into 
partnership agreements with partners. The Committee intends for 
USDA to have the authority to enter into contracts with 
producers in a designated critical conservation area or in a 
project area when the producer's needs fit within the scope of 
the project, but all agreements must be consistent with the 
rules of the covered programs. This section does allow the 
Secretary to make adjustments to the broader agency operational 
policy and program regulations established for the covered 
programs where such adjustments would better reflect unique and 
local circumstances for the project. It is the intent of the 
Committee that the Secretary work within these partnership 
agreements to provide the greatest opportunity to benefit the 
natural resource goals and objectives of the covered programs.
    Section 1271C also provides authority for the Secretary to 
enter into alternative funding arrangements with no less than 
ten and not more than 20 multi-state water resource agencies or 
authorities if they can ensure programmatic integrity and 
comply with rigorous reporting and audit requirements to the 
Secretary. The Committee intends that alternative funding 
arrangements are subject to section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill 
(as amended). It clarifies that payments are made consistent 
with the statutory requirements of the covered programs. It 
allows for payments for a period of five years for conversion 
to less water-intensive crops, or from irrigated to dryland 
farming or long-term grassland rotation. The Committee 
encourages the Secretary to continue to provide funding for 
individual agricultural producers to promote groundwater 
conservation, as appropriate for their operations, including 
adoption of water conserving crops and production practices, 
conversion to dryland farming, or diversification of operations 
to include long-term grassland rotation. The Committee also 
encourages the Secretary to consult with state agencies and 
coordinate federal assistance with state programs.
    With regard to including technical assistance funds in 
agreements with partners, the Committee continues to endorse 
the technical assistance policy set in section 1242 of the Food 
Security Act of 1985, as amended. It is noted in Section 1242 
(c) and (d) that technical assistance with respect to farm bill 
conservation programs may be delivered directly by the 
Secretary, through third-party providers, or through 
cooperative agreements or contracts with other agencies or with 
non-Federal entities. The Committee expects that the Department 
will use all of the authorized avenues for ensuring the 
availability of technical assistance for individuals 
participating in RCPP projects, including entering into 
technical assistance agreements with partners implementing an 
RCPP project, as appropriate and practicable. To the extent 
that an RCPP partner is providing technical assistance pursuant 
to such an agreement, none of those funds are available for 
administrative costs in accordance with Section 1271D(e). The 
Committee further advises that the Department should require 
partners to provide reports on their use of funds received and 
the results generated with technical assistance funding. 
Notwithstanding any provision in an agreement with a partner or 
a partner's contract with another entity, no funds may be used 
for administrative costs associated with delivering the 
agreement.
    Section 1271D authorizes the program from 2014 through 2018 
and makes available $110,000,000 per year in mandatory funding. 
It provides additional funding by reserving eight percent of 
the funding made available for each of the covered programs 
(EQIP, CSP, HFRP, and ACEP). Total funding allocations for 
proposals are distributed with 40 percent reserved for national 
projects, 25 percent for state projects, and 35 percent for 
those in critical conservation areas. The committee intends for 
all proposals to be evaluated and competitively ranked for 
consideration. In allocating the funds in this way, the 
Committee intends for the program to address partnership 
projects and resource concerns at local, state, multistate and 
regional levels.
    Section 1271E requires the Secretary to report biennially 
to Congress on the status of projects under the program. The 
reporting requirement includes specific oversight reporting on 
any selected alternative funding arrangements to ensure 
adequate scrutiny on the use of funds through these 
arrangements. The Committee believes the Secretary should be 
fully transparent with regard to awards, goals and performance, 
and the resulting accomplishments of the agreements. While 
complying with Section 1244(c) of the Food Security Act of 
1985, as amended, the results of partners monitoring efforts 
and findings under approved agreements will be aggregated, 
summarized, and made available to the public in the most 
readily accessible format.
    Section 1271F authorizes the Secretary to designate up to 
six critical conservation areas with priority for multistate 
areas with significant agricultural production, areas covered 
by an existing plan with established goals and objectives (the 
managers encourage USDA to look to include areas where they 
have an existing initiative in place), areas with large bodies 
of water with water quality concerns, areas with water quantity 
concerns (flood prevention, water retention, water supply 
(including multistate areas with substantial groundwater 
withdrawals for agricultural use and high historic levels of 
groundwater depletion.)), or areas that may be subject to 
regulatory requirements that could reduce the economic scope of 
agriculture in the area. These designations do not require the 
presence of a partner or partnership agreement, although it is 
the Committees expectation that these areas will garner 
significant interest by local, state, and regional entities. 
Once designated, producers within critical conservation areas 
may begin to apply for program assistance independent of a 
partner or in connection with a partnership agreement if one 
exists.
    Subsection (b) of section 2401 establishes the effective 
date for this section.

                SUBTITLE F--OTHER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Section 2501. Conservation of private grazing land

    Section 2510 reauthorizes funding at a reduced level of 
$30,000,000 in appropriations for each fiscal year from 2014 
through 2018.

Section 2502. Grassroots Source Water Protection Program

    Section 2502 reauthorizes funding at a reduced level of 
$15,000,000 in appropriations for each fiscal year from 2014 
through 2018.

Section 2503. Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program

    Section 2503 authorizes mandatory funding at $40,000,000 
for fiscal year 2014 through 2018, and requires the Secretary 
to report on the effectiveness of the program.

Section 2504. Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services Program

    Section 2504 adds ACEP to the programs that can be used 
under the agriculture conservation experienced services 
program.

Section 2505. Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program

    Section 2505 reauthorizes program and authorizes 
appropriations at $85,000,000 each year through fiscal year 
2018.

Section 2506. Emergency Watershed Protection Program

    Section 2506 amends the program to provide limited 
authority to the Secretary to modify or terminate a floodplain 
easement. The Committee includes flexibility for the Secretary 
to enter into compensatory agreements in order to allow third 
parties to contribute to cover the cost of modifying or 
terminating the floodplain easement so that there is no cost to 
the federal government.

Section 2507. Terminal Lakes Assistance Program

    Section 2507 reauthorizes and amends the Desert Terminal 
Lakes program to include an appropriations authorization for 
land purchase grant opportunities. It authorizes mandatory 
funding at $150,000,000 following enactment and it is the 
Committee's intent that the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
through the Commissioner of Reclamation, use as guidance for 
implementing subsection (d) Water Assistance, the authorities 
in the following provisions of Public Law: section 207 of 
Public Law 108-7, section 208 of Public Law 109-103, sections 
206 and 208 of Public Law 111-85, and subsection 208(b) of 
Public Law 112-74. The reported bill also authorizes 
appropriations of $25,000,000 to be available until extended 
and for use in land purchase grants.

Section 2508. Potential improvement to the wetlands mitigation process

    Section 2508 provides for the initiation of a study within 
180 days of enactment to evaluate mitigation procedures, 
determine impacts, and provide legislative recommendations. The 
final report to Congress is due no later than 2 years following 
enactment and will be made available to the public. Congress 
intends for USDA to look broadly at options for improving the 
results of mitigation, including taking into account the flood 
control, wildlife, and water quality functions of those 
wetlands to be mitigated. Any study of mitigation should 
examine and evaluate current NRCS standards and practices and 
review the effectiveness of mitigation efforts currently in 
place that are supported by USDA actions.

                 SUBTITLE G--FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION

Section 2601. Funding

    Section 2601 authorizes Commodity Credit Corporation 
funding for programs under this title through fiscal year 2018. 
It authorizes Conservation Reserve Program transition incentive 
payments at $50 million and tree thinning activities at $10 
million. It authorizes the Agriculture Conservation Easement 
Program at: $450 million for fiscal year 2014, $475 million for 
fiscal year 2015, $500 million for fiscal year 2016, $525 
million for fiscal year 2017, and $250 million for fiscal year 
2018. It authorizes the Conservation Security Program and the 
Conservation Stewardship Program, and then funds the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program at: $1.5 billion for 
fiscal year 2014, $1.6 billion for fiscal year 2015, and $1.65 
billion for fiscal years 2016 through 2018.

Section 2602. Technical assistance

    Section 2602 adds clarifying language for the division of 
farm bill conservation program funds for the purpose of 
technical assistance to producers, and includes a requirement 
for the Secretary to report annually to the Committees on the 
amount of funds requested and apportioned for technical 
assistance. The Committee intends for the Secretary to 
encourage any qualified third-party provider who meets the 
certification requirements of section 1242(e) and who has 
experience working with individuals who do not accept 
government assistance due to religious tenets, to enroll as a 
technical service provider.
    The Committee added a priority for technical assistance to 
producers who are required to comply with the compliance 
provisions in relation to crop insurance premium assistance for 
the first time as a result of this Act. This is to ensure that 
specialty crops, orchards, and other agricultural interests 
that have not traditionally participated in the covered 
commodity programs have the same access to services afforded 
all agricultural producers after the enactment of the Food 
Security Act of 1985. The Secretary will complete a survey and 
provide a report within 9 months of enactment detailing the 
extent and impact of the compliance provisions of this Act on 
specialty crops.
    The Committee heard strong concerns from our Northern 
Plains members about the Department's backlog of wetland 
determinations requests, inconsistencies in determinations, and 
excessive penalties for non-compliance. The Secretary will be 
required to report annually to Congress the status of 
determinations until the Committee is satisfied the Department 
is appropriately prioritizing and addressing these requests.

Section 2603. Regional equity

    Section 2603 strikes the $15,000,000 target for regional 
equity allocations and replaces it with 0.6 percent in order to 
allow allocations to synchronize with annual program 
appropriations. Of the funding provided the agency, the 
calculation will include only the funds provided for enrollment 
of new conservation agreements.

Section 2604. Reservation of funds to provide assistance to certain 
        farmers or ranchers for conservation access

    Section 2604 extends the EQIP and CSP 5 percent set aside 
for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers 
to 2018 and adds priority for eligible producers who are also 
veterans.

Section 2605. Annual report on program enrollments and assistance

    Section 2605 aligns the Secretary's reporting requirements 
on program enrollments and assistance to reflect the 
consolidation and related program adjustments made by this 
amendment.

Section 2606. Administrative requirements applicable to all 
        conservation programs

    Section 2606 adds priority for farmers or ranchers who are 
veterans to receive incentives to participate in conservation 
programs and instructs the Secretary to avoid creating 
duplicate conservation plans across all programs including ACEP 
and RCPP. The Committee expects the Secretary to promptly 
establish and maintain a user-friendly, publicly available 
website to provide information on Federal, State, local and 
private resources available to those interested in implementing 
conservation practices which provides: (1) user-friendly access 
for agricultural producers, owners of nonindustrial private 
forest land, Federal, State, and local governments, academic 
and nongovernmental organizations, industry associations, and 
other interested parties to industry-specific regulatory 
compliance and conservation program information that the 
Secretary considers potentially useful to agricultural 
producers and owners of nonindustrial private forest land 
located in critical conservation areas; and (2) detailed 
examples of successful conservation projects. The Committee 
further expects the Secretary to enhance and update the website 
as necessary.
    The Committee recognizes that it is in the economic 
interest of agricultural producers and American consumers to 
ensure a healthy, sustainable population of native and managed 
pollinators, including managed honey bees. Pollinators are 
essential to the production of an estimated one third of the 
human diet and to the reproduction of at least 80 percent of 
flowering plants. Agricultural commodities pollinated by 
insects generate significant income for agricultural producers 
and account for about $20 billion in U.S. agricultural output 
yearly.
    This Committee remains committed to pollinator protection 
activities, including the granting of priority treatment to 
conservation program applicants who commit to providing 
pollinator habitat. The Committee expects the Secretary to 
continue to utilize conservation programs to create, restore 
and enhance native and managed pollinator habitat quantity and 
quality, and it specifically encourages the Secretary to ensure 
that conservation programs are resulting in sufficient high-
quality pollinator habitat for managed honey bees--habitat that 
includes common alfalfa and sweet clover varieties utilized 
effectively in prior conservation programs, as an example.
    This section also includes an option for the Secretary to 
work more directly with Tribes in carrying out the CSP and EQIP 
on tribal lands. The alternative funding arrangements included 
under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) are 
deleted and inserted in this new provision. The Secretary is 
given the authority to enter into alternative funding 
arrangements in the Conservation Stewardship Program on tribal 
lands as well as EQIP.

Section 2607. Rulemaking authority

    Section 2607 directs the Secretary to move expeditiously 
with rulemaking and provides for operation of programs under 
interim rules.

Section 2608. Standards for state technical committees

    Section 2608 modifies language to require the Secretary to 
review and update state technical committee operating standards 
only as necessary.

Section 2609. Highly erodible land and wetland conservation for crop 
        insurance

    The conservation compliance provision adopted by the 
Committee reflects the growing importance of crop insurance to 
America's farmers and the importance to our natural resources 
of relinking the conservation compliance provisions that apply 
to producers participating in the commodity support programs in 
Title I to the assistance provided by the Federal taxpayer for 
the purchase of crop insurance. Over 30 general farm, 
commodity, conservation, wildlife, sportsmen, and environmental 
groups found agreement around a common sense approach to 
linking basic conservation objectives to the premium assistance 
afforded to America's farmers. Basic principles for doing so 
are reflected in the provisions of this section. The Committee 
understands that due to the unique contractual nature and 
delivery mechanism of crop insurance, the linkage to 
conservation compliance must be forward looking. As such, this 
section amends current law with respect only to the 
participants in crop insurance and relating only to the premium 
assistance provided for their program participation. Nothing in 
this section alters the way in which current law compliance 
provisions apply to all other covered programs and commodities 
in Titles I and II. The Committee intends for implementation of 
these provisions to be incorporated into the current compliance 
structure within USDA agencies, policies and programs. Crop 
insurance companies and their agents will have no role in, or 
liability for, implementation and enforcement. The Secretary is 
expressly prohibited from utilizing the crop insurance 
industry, its agents, employees and contractors, in the 
delivery or enforcement of the compliance eligibility 
provisions. Finally, the Secretary must ensure that eligibility 
based on compliance is properly aligned with, and functional 
within, the crop insurance contracting and reinsurance 
timeframe. For example, the time period between contract 
closing dates and acreage reporting is critical to the 
operation of crop insurance and an insured's eligibility cannot 
change during that time period. As such, it is the Committee's 
intent that if a producer is eligible at the contract closing 
date that eligibility must not change for that year, and any 
change in eligibility should be applicable the following 
reinsurance year prior to the subsequent closing date. The 
Committee does not intend for any compliance issues that arise 
between closing and acreage reporting within the same 
reinsurance year to impact a producer's eligibility.
    The success of conservation compliance linkages to various 
farm programs has never been about punishment through fines or 
denial of benefits. Rather the performance goals and the 
driving principles for linking crop insurance premium 
assistance to conservation compliance are the protection of 
precious soil resources from water and wind erosion, as well as 
stopping or preventing the loss of valuable wetlands functions 
and values. The measure of success for the USDA agencies tasked 
with implementing the provision will be the same as current 
compliance: wetlands protected, restored or mitigated; and soil 
erosion avoided.
    The Committee does not intend to substantially increase the 
workload for USDA agencies. As such, USDA is directed to 
minimize new documentation and streamline the implementation 
procedures for all producers, especially those currently 
participating in covered programs who have remained in 
compliance. USDA must provide sufficient financial and human 
resources to prevent backlogs from developing for 
determinations and to avoid the problems that have plagued NRCS 
in some states in recent years. Language is included in these 
provisions to provide protections to ensure farmers that 
properly file and maintain their records with USDA are to be 
held harmless during the USDA process so that they can continue 
their business and avoid any penalties for decisions made while 
awaiting a wetlands or highly erodible lands determination. 
This timely action provision falls to USDA actions, or lack 
thereof, and should rarely be utilized as the work load is 
predictable and manageable. The Committee suggests that timely 
action on these determinations be a key performance indicator 
for the respective senior management employees of each USDA 
state-based agency involved in the implementation and 
enforcement of these provisions.
    The Committee also expects USDA to properly manage workload 
so as to provide timely action on potential violations and the 
implementation of appeals. For the purposes of the provisions 
made by this Act, a final determination exists when all 
technical and administrative appeals within USDA are complete. 
While the language clearly states that crop insurance 
assistance should not be denied until all agency appeals have 
been exhausted, this does not include intentional or dilatory 
delays designed to simply thwart the intent of this provision. 
The agency and producer must exercise due diligence in 
addressing and completing the entire process in an expeditious 
and timely manner and as established in regulation. Further, 
the agency has been directed to provide outreach and planning 
to sectors of agriculture and producers who have not previously 
been impacted by conservation compliance requirements.
    Section 2609(a) establishes the link between eligibility 
for premium assistance for crop insurance and highly erodible 
land conservation compliance. It explicitly delineates that 
ineligibility applies only to the reinsurance years following 
the final determination of non-compliance and excludes the year 
of the final determination from ineligibility.
    The Committee understands that entire segments of 
agriculture have no previous connection to current law 
compliance; neither the land under production nor the person 
engaged in farming. Accordingly, those producers will have 5 
reinsurance years following the date of enactment to develop 
and comply with a conservation plan for their highly erodible 
fields. Producers previously subject to compliance that have 
not participated in covered programs between the date of 
enactment of the 2008 Farm Bill (May 22, 2008), and the date of 
enactment of this farm bill, will have 2 reinsurance years to 
develop and implement a conservation plan for their highly 
erodible fields.
    Section 2609(b) establishes the link between eligibility 
for premium assistance for crop insurance and wetlands 
conservation compliance. It explicitly delineates that 
ineligibility apply only to the reinsurance years following the 
final determination of non-compliance and excludes the year of 
the final determination from ineligibility. For conversions 
that have taken place prior to May 1, 2013, the reported bill 
provides one reinsurance year following final determination to 
initiate the required action as described in current law to 
remedy the violation before ineligibility applies. Under 
existing good faith provisions, producers would have 1 
reinsurance year to begin the mitigation, restoration, or take 
other steps as necessary to restore the wetland functions and 
values. The conservation plan detailing the necessary actions 
will include all necessary actions and specific implementation 
schedule for restoration activities. The Secretary will only 
allow deviations from the plan course when justified by 
elements beyond the producer's control. Willful violations that 
occur after May 1, 2013, will require restoration action prior 
to the next reinsurance year. In the case of any conversion 
that took place prior to the 2008 Farm Bill the farmer shall 
not be rendered ineligible for premium assistance for the 
purchase of crop insurance. It is the Committee's intent that 
those conversions shall not be the basis for ineligibility but 
the Secretary is expected to encourage farmers with such 
conversions to mitigate the impacts of the conversion through 
restoration or remediation in some form.
    Similar to the highly erodible lands provision, there are 
segments of agriculture with no previous connection to wetlands 
conservation compliance as it currently operates. For those 
producers and for any wetland converted before May 1, 2013, the 
producer will have 2 reinsurance years following final 
determination to begin the mitigation process. This exemption 
shall not extend to other covered program benefits. Producers 
previously subject to compliance that have not participated in 
covered programs between date of enactment of the previous farm 
bill (May 22, 2008) and date of enactment of this farm bill, 
will have 2 reinsurance years to develop their plan and begin 
mitigation, restoration, or take other steps as necessary to 
restore the wetland functions and values.
    In the handling of non-compliance, this Bill includes two 
options that are different from current law and applicable only 
to crop insurance premium assistance. This includes a special 
allowance for a ``payment in lieu'' of mitigation for only 
those rare instances where the affected wetlands constitute no 
more than five total acres for the entire farm operation as 
defined by the Secretary. The Committee intends that any 
subdivision or reconstitution of the farm will transfer this 
limitation, without regard to the physical location of the 
converted wetlands, such that it continues to apply to any 
subsequent farms. The reported bill also provides for the 
equitable contribution of funds derived from violations to be 
deposited to USDA to further the purposes of wetland 
restoration to offset the loss of wetlands function and values. 
The equitable contribution is not a substitute for the 
producer's responsibility to restore, mitigate, or otherwise 
comply for receipt of future benefits. For the payment in lieu 
of mitigation and violations requiring a contribution to USDA, 
it is the intent of the Committee that the money be reinvested 
to the extent practicable in the same state, and general area 
as the wetland that is lost.
    The Committee has left the determination of the cost for 
wetlands mitigation to the Secretary. The Committee 
acknowledges the full cost of mitigating wetlands includes the 
value of the property, costs associated with acquiring an 
easement on the property, the costs of restoration practices, 
management and monitoring during the establishment of the 
wetland, and the related technical assistance and 
administrative costs to accomplish these actions. The Secretary 
may utilize the information available through the 
implementation of the Wetlands Reserve Program to establish and 
update the mitigation costs, annually. The Secretary should 
establish these costs at the state or regional level to capture 
the unique differences and complexities associated with 
wetlands functions and values requiring mitigation.
    The Committee includes a provision that will provide some 
limitation of ineligibility for tenants when an owner acts to 
convert a wetland. In such a situation, the tenant must make 
every effort to work with the Secretary and the landowner to 
comply with the statute. If the Secretary determines the tenant 
was not complicit in the conversion, then the tenant's exposure 
to crop insurance premium assistance ineligibility will be 
limited to only the farm in which the affected land is 
recorded. Ineligibility for premium assistance on those acres 
is attributed to the participating tenant and the tenant shall 
demonstrate to the Secretary that the tenant was not complicit 
in the conversion and that the tenant took all reasonable steps 
to get the landowner to comply with the statute. However, 
future ineligibility for premium assistance will remain with 
the acreage and will be attributed to the landowner, regardless 
of any change in tenants, and all other interests of the owner 
will be impacted by this ineligibility. The Committee 
understands the Secretary has published regulations regarding 
third party exemptions and landlord and tenant eligibility. The 
language in the reported bill is intended to complement those 
provisions as they are applied to crop insurance premium 
subsidies.
    The Committee addressed compliance for those producers who 
do not currently have an insurance instrument available for 
their crop or locale upon date of enactment. In such 
circumstances, the compliance provisions are applicable only 
when the policy or plan of insurance first becomes available 
and a producer's ineligibility will only apply to conversions 
after the date when the policy or plan of insurance first 
became available. The person must take the necessary steps, as 
determined by the Secretary, to mitigate any wetland converted 
prior to the date of availability within two calendar years.
    Finally, the Committee has sought to reduce the paperwork 
burden for the producer as well as the workload of the Agencies 
tasked with implementation, administration and enforcement. The 
Committee acknowledges that there are significant differences 
in the operation of highly erodible lands compliance and 
wetlands compliance in current law and as they apply to the 
assistance programs in Titles I and II of the reported bill. To 
the extent practicable, and in accordance with the unique 
aspects of crop insurance discussed herein as well as the 
explicit statutory requirements, the Committee intends for the 
Secretary to coordinate the paperwork, certification and 
determination processes. The Committee expects the Secretary to 
utilize existing documentation, processes and procedures, as 
well as making sure that upon implementation that all producers 
update the records they have on file and notify the Secretary 
of any changes on their farms. Since all produces seeking 
eligibility for premium assistance must provide certification 
to the Secretary as to wetland conversions on the farm, the 
Committee expects the Secretary to coordinate the paperwork and 
processes for highly erodible lands compliance with wetlands 
compliance, including treatment and handling of those producers 
who choose not to provide certification. In situations where a 
producer purposefully does not provide certification and is 
later to be found out of compliance the Secretary is encouraged 
to utilize the equitable contribution provisions in addition to 
working with the producer to get a conservation plan in place 
for the farm in order to address or remediate the erosion 
challenges for production on that farm.

Section 2610. Adjusted gross income limitation for conservation 
        programs

    Section 2610 removes the Secretary's authority to waive the 
adjusted gross income limitation for conservation program 
payments.

 SUBTITLE H--REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED PROGRAM AUTHORITIES AND TRANSITIONAL 
                               PROVISIONS

Section 2701. Comprehensive conservation enhancement program

    Section 2701 repeals the comprehensive conservation 
enhancement program.

Section 2702. Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program

    Section 2702 removes this provision for enrolling lands in 
response to the hurricanes of calendar year 2005 because it is 
no longer applicable and provides for enrolled contracts to 
continue until their expiration date because it is no longer 
applicable.

Section 2703. Wetlands Reserve Program

    Section 2703 repeals the Wetlands Reserve Program.

Section 2704. Farmland Protection Program and Farm Viability Program

    Section 2704 repeals the Farmland Protection Program.

Section 2705. Grassland Reserve Program

    Section 2705 repeals the Grassland Reserve Program.

Section 2706. Agricultural Water Enhancement Program

    Section 2706 repeals the Agricultural Water Enhancement 
Program.

Section 2707. Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program

    Section 2707 repeals the Wildlife Habitat Incentive 
Program.

Section 2708. Great Lakes Basin Program

    Section 2708 repeals the Great Lakes Basin Program for soil 
erosion and sediment control. The Committee recognizes that the 
Great Lakes Basin Program has been an important and successful 
program for 22 years that has implemented over 400 projects 
that have reduced soil erosion and improved water quality in 
Great Lakes watersheds. Since 2008, the program has supported 
implementation of both the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 
(GLRC) and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) by 
directing resources to priority watersheds. The Committee 
intends the program to continue serving this purpose for the 
duration of the GLRI.

Section 2709. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program

    Section 2709 repeals the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program. 
The Committee recognizes that the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
Program established in 2008 complemented other conservation 
programs by enhancing their reach and effectiveness within the 
tributary watersheds. Since 2008, the program has supported 
farm level implementation of conservation practices benefiting 
water quality by improving nutrient management, reducing 
sedimentation, and restoring riparian areas. With the 
consolidation of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program into the 
Regional Conservation Partnership Program, the Committee 
intends the RCPP to continue assistance to agricultural 
producers consistent with the purposes of the Chesapeake Bay 
Watershed Program.

Section 2710. Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative

    Section 2710 repeals the Cooperative Conservation 
Partnership Initiative.

Section 2711. Environmental Easement Program

    Section 2711 repeals the Environmental Easement Program.

Section 2712. Technical amendments

    Section 2712 makes technical amendments to the underlying 
statute.

                            Title III--Trade


                     SUBTITLE A--FOOD FOR PEACE ACT

Section 3001. Set-aside for support for organizations through which 
        nonemergency assistance is provided

    Section 3001 raises the amount of funds available to 
organizations to facilitate the delivery of food aid to 15 
percent of the total appropriation.

Section 3002. Food aid quality

    Section 3002 expands the Administrator's ability to develop 
nutritious food aid products.

Section 3003. Minimum levels of assistance

    Section 3003 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

Section 3004. Reauthorization of food aid consultative group

    Section 3004 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

Section 3005. Oversight, monitoring and evaluation of food for peace 
        act programs

    Section 3005 removes authority to spend money on upgrading 
IT systems, deletes section on a completed GAO report, and 
reauthorizes program authority through fiscal year 2018.

Section 3006. Assistance for stockpiling and rapid transportation, 
        delivery, and distribution of shelf-stable prepackaged foods

    Section 3006 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

Section 3007. Limitation on total volume of commodities monetized

    Section 3007 sets a 70 percent cost recovery rate when 
monetizing commodities. If the rate of return is below that 
threshold, the Administrator must report the reasons to 
Congress.

Section 3008. Flexibility

    Section 3008 adds flexibility for the Administrator to 
facilitate food aid distribution.

Section 3009. Procurement, transportation, testing, and storage of 
        agricultural commodities for prepositioning in the united 
        states and foreign countries

    Section 3009 increases funds available for getting food aid 
to strategic positions in case of emergency.

Section 3010. Deadline for agreements to finance sales or to provide 
        other assistance

    Section 3010 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

Section 3011. Minimum level of nonemergency food assistance

    Section 3011 provides for the Administrator to spend 
between 20 percent and 30 percent of the total appropriation on 
non-emergency projects.

Section 3012. Coordination of foreign assistance programs report

    Section 3012 strikes language for a completed report.

Section 3013. Micronutrient fortification programs

    Section 3013 deletes reference to an obsolete study.

Section 3014. John Ogonowski and Doug Bereuter Farmer-to-Farmer Program

    Section 3014 changes the alternative minimum on the program 
to 0.6 percent of the total appropriation.

Section 3015. Prohibition on assistance for North Korea

    Section 3015 prohibits any assistance under Title II of the 
Food For Peace Act to North Korea.

               SUBTITLE B--AGRICULTURAL TRADE ACT OF 1978

Section 3101. Export Credit Guarantee Program

    Section 3101 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018 and allows for up to $4.5 billion in credit 
guarantees.

Section 3102. Market Access Program

    Section 3102 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

Section 3103. Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program

    Section 3103 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

               SUBTITLE C--OTHER AGRICULTURAL TRADE LAWS

Section 3201. Food for Progress Act of 1985

    Section 3201 deletes reference to a completed project in 
Malawi and adds flexibility for the Administrator to facilitate 
food aid distribution. It sets a 70 percent cost recovery rate 
when monetizing commodities, and provides that when the rate of 
return is below that threshold, the Administrator must report 
to Congress.

Section 3202. Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust

    Section 3202 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

Section 3203. Promotion of agricultural exports to emerging markets

    Section 3203 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

Section 3204. McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
        Nutrition Program

    Section 3204 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

Section 3205. Technical assistance for specialty crops

    Section 3205 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

Section 3206. Global crop diversity trust

    Section 3206 reauthorizes program authority through fiscal 
year 2018.

Section 3207. Local and regional food aid procurement projects

    Section 3207 continues the authority for USDA to conduct 
local and regional procurement projects. It gives preference to 
organizations with projects under the McGovern-Dole program to 
promote graduation from that program and requires the Secretary 
to submit a report to Congress on the impact of these projects.

Section 3208. Donald Payne Horn of Africa food resilience program

    Section 3208 provides grants for projects that are working 
on the ground in the Horn of Africa to build resilience to food 
crises and prevent future outbreaks. It requires a study of the 
projects implemented through government agencies and how they 
can better work together to improve outcomes.

Section 3209. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign 
        Agricultural Affairs

    Section 3209 requests that the Secretary propose a 
reorganization of international trade functions (imports and 
exports) at USDA and a plan for the establishment of an Under 
Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs.

                          Title IV--Nutrition


               SUBTITLE A--SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM

Section 4001. Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

    Section 4001 applies to the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations and authorizes a study to determine the 
feasibility of a demonstration project in which tribes would 
administer certain food assistance programs in lieu of current 
administrative agencies or entities. This section also provides 
tribes the option to use 5% of program funding to purchase 
traditional and locally-grown food.

Section 4002. Standard utility allowances based on the receipt of 
        energy assistance payments

    Section 4002 amends current law in order to preclude states 
from annually issuing nominal LIHEAP benefits to qualify 
otherwise ineligible households for Standard Utility 
Allowances, which results in increased monthly SNAP benefits. 
Only annual LIHEAP benefits of $10 or more will qualify a 
household without out-of-pocket utility expenses to receive a 
Standard Utility Allowance deduction for calculating monthly 
SNAP food benefits. The Committee intends that the Secretary 
utilize this authority only to further the intent of the 
connection between SNAP and LIHEAP as outlined in this report.

Section 4003. Eligibility disqualifications

    Section 4003 limits SNAP eligibility for college students 
to students participating in technical and vocational education 
programs, such as two-year colleges, remedial course work, 
basic adult literacy, and English as a Second Language 
instruction.

Section 4004. Ending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits 
        for lottery or gambling winners

    Section 4004 makes households ineligible to receive SNAP 
food benefits if one of the household members receives 
substantial lottery or gambling winnings. The household remains 
ineligible for SNAP until income eligibility requirements are 
met. It requires states to coordinate with state lottery and 
gambling authorities to identify individuals participating in 
SNAP who receive substantial winnings.
    In May 2011, news reports indicated that a man who had 
recently received lottery winnings totaling $1 million was 
continuing to receive SNAP benefits. The Committee acknowledges 
that this is a rare, but also egregious, violation of the 
intent for the program. The Committee is giving the Secretary 
clear direction to assist states in improving oversight of 
major gambling activities that result in large winnings, 
including coordination between entities responsible for 
gambling and SNAP administrative offices. The Committee does 
not intend to increase the administrative burden on states by 
instituting extensive oversight of private or charitable gaming 
activities, such as those that occur at senior centers, 
churches, private homes or other non-commercial gaming. 
Further, it is not the intent of the Committee that the 
Secretary impose requirements that may otherwise be waived 
under state option in this Act. The Committee encourages the 
Secretary to evaluate the criteria for substantial winnings in 
a manner that does not produce an outcome that increases 
poverty.
    Furthermore, in implementing this section, the Committee 
intends for state agencies to have access to necessary 
information and to be permitted to use the modern business 
processes necessary to accomplish the objective with the 
greatest feasible accuracy and efficiency. State agencies 
should have the ability to use all relevant databases; to 
employ suitable modern business practices in conducting and 
analyzing matches; and to use information obtained and residing 
in other programs used to determine eligibility for public 
benefits, including those programs implemented under the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148). The 
Committee encourages USDA to work with states, other federal 
agencies, and other stakeholders as necessary to ensure that 
state agencies have access to information and the ability to 
choose suitable business practices as described above. The 
Committee further encourages USDA to review and to make 
suitable adjustments, within two years after the publication of 
final regulations or guidance implementing this provision. USDA 
shall review the extent to which state agencies are able to 
secure access to necessary data and to employ suitable modern 
business practices as described above, and adjustments shall be 
made, as necessary, in assessing quality control and improper 
payment error rates.

Section 4005. Retail food stores

    Section 4005 requires participating retailers to stock 
perishable items in at least three of the four staple food 
categories: dairy products; meat, poultry, or fish; fruits or 
vegetables; and bread or cereals. Currently, a qualified SNAP 
retailer must carry two of the four perishable staple food 
categories. This section also adds the depth of stock, variety 
of staple foods and sale of excepted items to the list of 
factors that the Secretary may consider in determining the 
nature of the business applicants. The purpose of the provision 
is to provide USDA with additional criteria to identify 
applicants whose compliance with the program's eligibility 
requirements is so minimal as to render it highly unlikely to 
meet the program's objective of serving as a source of 
nutrition for program beneficiaries. The Committee agrees with 
concerns that the current requirements for retailers to 
participate in SNAP are permitting retailers to participate in 
SNAP that do not fulfill the mission and of whose primary 
purpose is the sale of liquor and tobacco. The Committee 
remains concerned with retailers that meet the minimum of the 
existing regulations as a way to gain entry into SNAP for the 
sole purpose of expanding sales of excepted items. The 
Committee contends that stores seeking to participate in SNAP 
should strive to provide more than the minimum required amount 
of healthy food. Seeking SNAP participation to further sales of 
excepted items is decidedly contrary to the intent of the 
program. Providing a robust supply of staple food items, 
including perishable groceries, is critical to ensuring that 
retailer participation is keeping with purpose of the program: 
to ``promote the general welfare and safeguard the health and 
well-being of the Nation's population by raising levels of 
nutrition among low-income households.''
    In implementing this provision, it is the intention of the 
Committee that the Secretary use this authority to assist in 
determining the nature of the business of the applicant. The 
provision does not include specific sales percentages or depth 
of stock requirements. Rather, it is the intent of the 
Committee for the Secretary to use these factors together with 
other criteria to determine whether an applicant furthers the 
purpose of the program. For example, the Committee contends 
that a store stocking as few as twelve food items, many of 
which have limited nutritional value, may not be providing 
sufficient food access for SNAP recipients to meet this 
purpose. A store with extremely high sales of excepted items 
and minimal sales of staple items such as milk, packaged bread, 
edible grocery and perishable grocery also may not meet the 
purpose of the program. Because diverse types of retailers meet 
a critical need in communities by accepting SNAP, it is not the 
intent of the Committee to provide the Secretary with the 
authority to bar entirely any category of food retailer. The 
Committee intends for the Secretary to consider all factors 
listed in statute, including food access, in determining 
whether a business should be approved as a SNAP retail food 
store. The Committee supports preserving food access in food 
shortage areas and encourages the Secretary to give broad 
consideration to the impacts additional requirements will have 
on food access in food deserts or other areas with limited food 
access.
    The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to 
identify innovative ways in which to assist stores that do 
provide critical food access to SNAP recipients in improving 
inventory standards and stocking a robust supply of staple food 
items.
    The Committee also recognizes that, in remote communities 
in non-contiguous states, it is not unusual for there to be 
only one retail food store in operation. These retail stores 
are typically located in communities that are connected neither 
to the rest of the state's road network nor to a major 
electrical grid. Food is typically transported to the community 
via small aircraft, and diesel generators generally provide 
electrical power to such communities, posing challenges for 
such stores to operate adequate refrigeration and freezing 
equipment to store perishable foods. The Committee intends for 
the Secretary to consider all of the aforementioned unique 
criteria when evaluating applications by retail food stores 
located in remote communities in non-contiguous states that are 
either applying to participate in the SNAP program or currently 
participate in the program.
    Section 4005 requires SNAP retailers to pay 100 percent of 
the cost of electronic benefit transfer machines, with an 
exemption for farmers' markets and other direct-to-consumer 
markets, military commissaries, nonprofit food buying 
cooperatives or other entities determined by the Secretary. It 
restricts States from issuing manual vouchers for SNAP unless 
the Secretary deems it necessary for emergency purposes. It 
requires all parties providing EBT machines to provide unique 
identification numbers to enable the Secretary to access 
precise data for addressing retailer trafficking. The Committee 
notes that the changes in this section should not be 
interpreted as support for any action that would result in 
interchange fees being imposed on SNAP transactions. The 
Committee acknowledges that many small businesses and direct-
to-consumer retailers continue to face challenges related to 
the cost of utilizing EBT and advanced technologies. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to take steps to minimize 
the impact of these provisions on those retailers.

Section 4006. Improving security of food assistance

    Section 4006 requires households with excessive replacement 
card requests to provide State agencies with an explanation for 
the lost cards. The language allows state agencies to decline 
issuance of replacement cards until the household provides an 
explanation. It requires States to protect the interests of 
those who are homeless or disabled, victims of crimes, and 
other vulnerable citizens. The Committee intends for this 
provision to require that a state agency be allowed to withhold 
an EBT card only until such time as an explanation is provided 
by the SNAP recipient. Any additional actions, including denial 
of benefits, should follow due process as described in the 
underlying statute.

Section 4007. Technology modernization for retail food stores

    Section 4007 authorizes demonstration projects for 
authorized retailers to accept SNAP benefits through mobile 
electronic devices other than stationary EBT machines, and to 
accept SNAP benefits through on-line transactions. It requires 
retailers and states to protect consumer information privacy, 
ensure the price of food is not higher when using mobile 
technologies, and pay costs associated with implementing mobile 
technologies. It requires states to test mobile technologies 
before approving use in all SNAP retailers, and requires the 
Secretary to issue a report to Congress. It prohibits SNAP 
benefits for the payment of any food delivery fees and any 
purchase online other than eligible food.

Section 4008. Use of benefits for purchase of Community-Supported 
        Agriculture share

    Section 4008 allows SNAP benefits for the purchase of 
Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares. The initial cost 
of the share may be paid at an appropriate amount of time in 
advance of food delivery. The Committee does not intend to 
require the Secretary to make any adjustments to benefits 
allocations in order to accommodate the purchase of CSA shares 
under this section.

Section 4009. Restaurant meals program

    Section 4009 ensures the integrity of the SNAP restaurant 
meals program by providing the Secretary with additional 
authority over state restaurant meal program options and 
retailer eligibility requirements.

Section 4010. Quality control standards

    Section 4010 eliminates the existing authority for the 
Secretary to waive state penalties for repeatedly high error 
rates.

Section 4011. Performance bonus payments

    Section 4011 requires all bonus payments to states to be 
reinvested in improving technology, administration and 
distribution or preventing waste, fraud and abuse in SNAP.

Section 4012. Funding of Employment and Training programs

    Section 4012 partially restores funding to the Employment 
and Training program in order to return funding to the level 
provided by the 2008 Farm Bill.

Section 4013. Authorization of appropriations

    Section 4013 reauthorizes appropriations for the 
administration of SNAP through fiscal year 2018.

Section 4014. Assistance for Community Food Projects

    Section 4014 continues support for Community Food Projects 
while consolidating other grant programs. The changes 
incorporate an increased food insecurity focus, along with 
hunger-free communities goals into community food projects. It 
provides grants to eligible nonprofit organizations to improve 
community access to food.

Section 4015. Emergency food assistance

    Section 4015 requires funding for the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program to be available for two years. It increases 
existing funding indexed to inflation by $54 million over 10 
years. It front-loads the funding increases by $22 million in 
fiscal year 2014, $18 million in fiscal year 2015, $10 million 
in fiscal year 2016, and $4 million in fiscal year 2017. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize existing 
authority to make additional purchases for use at food banks in 
times of high need when funds are available within the existing 
budget to accommodate additional commodity purchasing.

Section 4016. Nutrition education

    Section 4016 allows ``physical activity'' as an eligible 
use of SNAP Nutrition Education funding.

Section 4017. Retail food store and recipient trafficking

    Section 4017 provides the Secretary $5 million in 
additional funding to investigate program abuses and prevent 
SNAP food benefit trafficking. The additional funding in this 
section is intended for data mining and other data warehousing 
technologies, similar to those employed by USDA in the 
administration of the crop insurance program.

Section 4018. Technical and conforming amendments

              SUBTITLE B--COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS

Section 4101. Commodity Distribution Program

    Section 4101 reauthorizes the Commodity Distribution 
Program.

Section 4102. Commodity Supplemental Food Program

    Section 4102 revises the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program (CSFP) to serve senior citizens, phasing-out 
eligibility for women, infants, and children. The Committee 
intends for the women, infants and children participating in 
CSFP to instead participate in the Special Supplemental 
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), as 
WIC is specifically suited to the needs of that subpopulation.

Section 4103. Distribution of surplus commodities to special nutrition 
        projects

    Section 4103 reauthorizes the Secretary's authority to 
participate in reprocessing agreements with private companies 
to stretch the value and amount of surplus commodity foods 
available for nutrition programs.

Section 4104. Processing of commodities

    Section 4104 continues a pilot project that created 
efficiencies in commodity processing for nutrition programs 
like school meals by allowing USDA to retain title to 
commodities delivered to a processor until the final product is 
delivered

                       SUBTITLE C--MISCELLANEOUS

Section 4201. Purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables for distribution 
        to schools and service institutions

    Section 4201 reauthorizes the Department of Defense Fresh 
Program.

Section 4202. Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program

    Section 4202 reauthorizes the Senior Farmers' Market 
Nutrition Program.

Section 4203. Nutrition information and awareness pilot program

    Section 4203 repeals the nutrition information and 
awareness pilot program.

Section 4204. Hunger-free communities

    Section 4204 establishes hunger-free communities incentive 
grants to incentivize purchases of fruits and vegetables by 
SNAP participants in underserved communities. It limits the 
federal cost share of grants to 50 percent, and provides $100 
million over five years in mandatory funding: $15 million for 
fiscal year 2014; $20 million for fiscal year 2015through 2017; 
and $25 million for fiscal year 2018. Additionally, $5 million 
per year is authorized for appropriations. The Committee 
encourages the Secretary to award grants to projects that 
maximize the impact of incentives on both SNAP recipients and 
local agricultural producers.

Section 4205. Healthy food financing initiative

    Section 4205 provides an authorization of funding for 
community development financial institutions to create 
revolving loan programs for fresh, healthy food retailers to 
overcome high costs of entry into underserved areas. It 
authorizes $125 million to remain available until expended.

Section 4206. Pulse crop products

    Section 4206 directs the Secretary to purchase pulse crops 
for use in school meals programs.

Section 4207. Dietary guidelines for Americans

    Section 4207 directs the Secretary to develop dietary 
guidelines for pregnant women and children 0-2 years of age no 
later than 2020.

Section 4208 Purchase of locally produced foods

    Section 4208 requires the Secretary to conduct at least 5 
demonstration projects of local procurement for school meals 
with at least one project in each region of the United States. 
It is the intention of the Committee that if demonstration 
projects of this type currently exist in the specified regions, 
they each may be counted as one of the five required.

Section 4209 Multiagency task force

    Section 4209 creates a task force to monitor and make 
recommendations regarding the specifications used for 
procurement, effectiveness of the distribution system, and the 
degree to which procured foods align with the needs of 
recipient agencies.

Section 4210: Food and agriculture service learning program

    Section 4210 establishes a food and agriculture service 
learning program in which service members conduct nutrition and 
agricultural education, expand school gardens, assist in 
healthy food procurement, and connect regional producers with 
elementary and secondary schools.

                            Title V--Credit


Section 5001. Farm loans, servicing and other assistance under the 
        Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

    Titles V and VI of this bill restructure the Consolidated 
Farm and Rural Development Act. While most of current law is 
maintained, the reorganization required considerable movement 
and restatement of the program provisions. Provisions of the 
renumbered sections that relate to farm credit are described in 
detail below.

        SUBTITLE A--FARM LOANS, SERVICING, AND OTHER ASSISTANCE

Section 3101. Farm ownership loans

    Section 3101 permits farm ownership loans for ``joint 
operation, or other such legal entities as the Secretary 
determines to be appropriate'' to expand access to farm loans 
in response to modern legal entities created for estate 
succession planning. It allows the Secretary to define 
additional qualifying agriculture experience to make it easier 
for applicants to meet the 3-year farming or ranching 
experience requirement.

Section 3102. Purposes of loans

    Section 3102 continues current law.

Section 3103. Conservation loan and loan guarantee program

    Section 3103 reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 
2018.

Section 3104. Loan maximums

    Section 3104 continues current law.

Section 3105. Repayment requirements for farm ownership loans

    Section 3105 continues current law.

Section 3106. Limited-resource loans

    Section 3106 continues current law.

Section 3107. Down payment loan program

    Section 3107 reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 
2018, and increases the maximum loan value in the program to 45 
percent of $667,000.

Section 3201. Operating loans

    Section 3201 permits operating loans for ``other such legal 
entity as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to expand 
access to farm loans in response to modern legal entities 
created for estate succession planning.'' It allows a borrower 
to receive a direct operating loan for a total of 10 years, 
plus one year for every year the farmer or rancher did not 
receive a direct operating loan after the year the borrower 
initially received a direct operating loan. It eliminates the 
15-year term limits for guaranteed operating loans. It ensures 
that a borrower who is delinquent on a USDA youth loan will 
continue to be eligible for federal student loans. Section 3201 
also requires the Secretary to establish a pilot program to 
make loans not greater than $5,000 available to gleaners and 
requires the USDA to submit a report to Congress on the 
feasibility of the program.

Section 3202. Purposes of loans

    Section 3202 continues current law but also allows for USDA 
to make operating loans to farmers who produce local or 
regional food products. It requires the Secretary to train loan 
officers to lend to local and regional food producers, to 
develop ways to value local and regional food that can be used 
to facilitate lending for these producers, to establish price 
histories for local and regional food production, and to 
conduct outreach to local and regional food producers.

Section 3203. Restrictions on loans

    Section 3203 continues current law.

Section 3204. Terms of loans

    Section 3204 continues current law.

Section 3301. Emergency loans

    Section 3301 continues current law and allows commercial 
fishermen to be eligible for emergency loans.

Section 3302. Purposes of loans

    Section 3302 continues current law.

Section 3303. Terms of loans

    Section 3303 continues current law.

Section 3304. Production losses

    Section 3304 continues current law.

Section 3401. Agricultural credit Insurance

    Section 3401 continues current law.

Section 3402. Guaranteed farmer loans

    Section 3402 continues current law.

Section 3403. Provision of information to borrowers

    Section 3403 continues current law.

Section 3404. Notice of loan service programs

    Section 3404 continues current law.

Section 3405. Planting and production history guidelines

    Section 3405 continues current law.

Section 3406. Special conditions and limitations on loans

    Section 3406 continues current law.

Section 3407. Graduation of borrowers

    Section 3407 continues current law.

Section 3408. Debt adjustment and credit counseling

    Section 3408 continues current law.

Section 3409. Security servicing

    Section 3409 continues current law.

Section 3410. Contracts on loan security properties

    Section 3410 continues current law.

Section 3411. Debt restructuring and loan servicing

    Section 3411 continues current law.

Section 3412. Relief for mobilized military reservists from certain 
        agricultural loan obligations

    Section 3412 continues current law.

Section 3413. Interest rate reduction program

    Section 3413 continues current law.

Section 3414. Homestead property

    Section 3414 continues current law.

Section 3415. Transfer on inventory land

    Section 3415 continues current law.

Section 3416. Target participation rates

    Section 3416 continues current law.

Section 3417. Compromise or adjustment of debts of claims by guaranteed 
        lender

    Section 3417 continues current law.

Section 3418. Waiver of mediation rights by borrowers

    Section 3418 continues current law.

Section 3419. Borrower training

    Section 3419 continues current law.

Section 3420. Loan assessments

    Section 3420 continues current law.

Section 3421. Supervised credit

    Section 3421 continues current law.

Section 3422. Market placement

    Section 3422 continues current law.

Section 3423. Recordkeeping of loans by gender of borrower

    Section 3423 continues current law.

Section 3424. Crop insurance requirement

    Section 3424 continues current law.

Section 3425. Loan and loan servicing limitations

    Section 3425 continues current law.

Section 3426. Short form certification of farm program borrower 
        compliance

    Section 3426 continues current law.

Section 3427. Underwriting forms and standards

    Section 3427 continues current law.

Section 3428. Beginning farmer individual development accounts pilot 
        program

    Section 3428 reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 
2018.

Section 3429. Farmer loan pilot projects

    Section 3429 allows the Secretary to conduct targeted pilot 
projects within the Farm Loan programs after soliciting input 
from the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry of the Senate.

Section 3430. Authorization of appropriations and allocation of funds

    Section 3430 reauthorizes direct ownership and operating 
loan levels through fiscal year 2018.

Section 5101. State agricultural mediation programs

    Section 5101 reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 
2018.

Section 5102. Loans to purchasers of highly fractionated lands

    Section 5102 allows the Secretary to establish intermediary 
relending for the highly fractionated land program for Indian 
tribes and tribal corporations.

Section 5103. Removal of duplicative appraisals

    Section 5103 simplifies the appraisal process for loans to 
Indian tribes or tribal corporations for the purchase of highly 
fractionated land by allowing an appraisal from either the 
Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior.

Section 5104. Compensation disclosure by farm credit system 
        institutions

    Section 5104 directs the Farm Credit Administration to 
review its rules regarding oversight of compensation practices 
within 60 days of enactment of this Act.

                      Title VI--Rural Development


     SUBTITLE A--REORGANIZATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL 
                            DEVELOPMENT ACT

Section 6001. Reorganization of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
        Development Act

    Titles V and VI of this bill restructure the Consolidated 
Farm and Rural Development Act. While most of current law is 
maintained, the reorganization required considerable movement 
and restatement of the program provisions. Provisions of the 
renumbered sections that relate to rural development are 
described in detail below.

Section 3002. Definitions

    Section 3002 defines ``rural'' and ``rural area.'' It 
raises population eligibility requirement to 50,000 for Rural 
Community and Rural Business Programs. It excludes urbanized 
areas contiguous or adjacent to city or towns larger than 
50,000 from being defined as ``rural. It also allows cities or 
towns located within an urbanized area to petition the Under 
Secretary for Rural Development to be considered a rural area 
and includes criteria for the Under Secretary to take in 
consideration when making such determinations, including 
population density, economic conditions, commuting patterns, 
and whether a community was eligible for Rural Water, Community 
Facilities or Rural Broadband programs under a previous 
definition of rural.
    This section extends the current exclusion for ``urbanized 
areas'' where a single road may cause a rural town or area to 
be included within an urbanized area. The exclusion language 
directs the Secretary to disregard the urbanized area 
classification for areas that are rural in all aspects but for 
a road connecting the area to a bigger city.
    The Committee recognizes the concerns by both USDA and 
rural constituents about the confusion resulting from the 
multiple definitions of ``rural'' used by USDA to determine 
program eligibility that were instituted by previous Farm 
Bills. The Committee acknowledges that the previous definitions 
were developed for sound reasons and with good intent. However, 
the Committee is concerned that a significant number of cities 
and towns had received waivers through legislation passed by 
the Congress subsequent to passage of previous Farm Bills that 
granted them eligibility for rural development programs despite 
the fact that their populations had grown beyond the population 
limits established in Farm Bill legislation. USDA began using 
data from the 2010 Census data in the Spring of 2013, and a 
number of previously eligible communities lost that 
eligibility. Therefore, to address these concerns, the 
Committee has provided a single definition of ``rural'' that is 
intended to clarify eligibility. The new definition grants 
eligibility to cities and towns of less than 50,000 in 
population and not contiguous or adjacent to urbanized areas. 
The Committee recognizes that some cities and towns of less 
than 50,000 in population that are located within an urbanized 
area may in fact be ``rural in character.'' To provide these 
cities and towns with an opportunity to maintain their 
eligibility for rural development programs, the Committee has 
provided for a process by which USDA may determine these areas 
``rural in character.'' The Committee has directed USDA to 
consider the following factors when making such determinations: 
population density, economic conditions, commuting patterns, 
and whether a community was eligible for Rural Water, Community 
Facilities or Rural Broadband programs under the definition of 
``rural'' established in the 2008 Farm Bill.
    This section also expands eligibility for farm ownership 
loans for new and beginning farmers by changing the 
definitional requirement that beginning farmer loan applicants 
cannot own real estate that is over 30 percent of the median 
farm size in their county to that they cannot own over 30 
percent of the average farm size in their county.
    This section also restricts the definition of 
``aquaculture'' within the definition of ``farm'' and 
``farmer'' for purposes of restricting aquaculture to 
controlled environments, except for emergency loans, for which 
aquaculture has a broader definition.

Section 3501. Water and waste disposal loans, loan guarantees, and 
        grants

    Section 3501 reauthorizes the Rural Water Grant and Loan 
Program, the Revolving Funds for Financing Water and Wastewater 
Projects, the Emergency and Imminent Community Water Assistance 
Program, the Water and Waste Facility Loans and Grants to 
Alleviate Health Risks, Solid Waste Management Grants, Rural 
Water and Wastewater Technical Assistance and Training 
Programs, including the Rural Water and Wastewater Circuit 
Rider Program, and the Special Evaluation Assistance for Rural 
Communities and Households (SEARCH) Program. It specifies 
eligibility for native villages for Alaska and Hawaii for Water 
and Waste Facility Loans and Grants to Alleviate Health Risks. 
It establishes priorities for Rural Water programs, which is 
similar to current law, and includes prioritization of 
communities of less than 5,500 in population. It maintains 
current law preventing larger municipal systems from 
encroaching upon the service area of rural water program 
borrowers.

Section 3502. Community facilities loans, loan guarantees, and grants

    Section 3502 reauthorizes the Community Facilities 
Programs. It establishes priorities for programs, including 
prioritization of communities with less than 20,000 in 
population. It reauthorizes Tribal Colleges and Universities 
Program and authorizes Technical Assistance for Community 
Facilities Projects as a part of current Community Facilities 
program.

Section 3503. Health care services

    Section 3503 reauthorizes the Delta Heath Care Services 
Program.

Section 3601. Business programs

    Section 3601 creates the Rural Business Development Grant 
Program by combining the Rural Business Opportunity Grants and 
Rural Business Enterprise Grants authorities into one program. 
It reauthorizes Value Added Agricultural Producer Grants and 
establishes priority for projects in which at least 25 percent 
of the project recipients are beginning farmers or ranchers or 
socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers. It reauthorizes 
Rural Cooperative Development Grants and includes a directive 
for the Secretary to coordinate an interagency working group 
among Federal agencies to support cooperative development. It 
reauthorizes the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural 
Areas Program. It reauthorizes Business and Industry Direct and 
Guaranteed Loans and raises the initial fee to three percent 
from current authorization of two percent. The Committee also 
encourages the Secretary to consider the benefits to rural 
communities that result from loans guaranteed by the Business 
and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program. It reauthorizes Relending 
Programs, the Intermediate Relending Program, and the Rural 
Microentrepreneur Assistance Program. It adds a definition of 
``training'' and ``technical assistance.'' It also clarifies 
the match requirement of 15 percent. The Committee encourages 
the Secretary to continue working with dairy product processors 
to enhance their ability to produce dairy products and access 
export markets. Exports have become an integral focus of the 
U.S. dairy industry and the industry needs to accommodate an 
increasingly global market.

Section 3602. Rural Business Investment Program

    Section 3602 reauthorizes the Rural Business Investment 
Program, while providing authority to the Secretary to 
establish capital requirements, establish fees for applicants 
applying for a license to operate as a rural business 
investment company, and ensures the majority of capital of each 
rural business company is invested in rural concerns.

Section 3701. General provisions for loans and grants

    Section 3701 reauthorizes general provisions for Loans and 
Grants authority.

Section 3702. Strategic economic and community development

    Section 3702 authorizes the Secretary to prioritize 
otherwise eligible applications that support strategic economic 
and community development, and establishes criteria by which 
the Secretary should evaluate strategic applications. The bill 
also gives the Secretary discretion to prioritize applications 
for funding that reflect an applicant's efforts to think 
strategically about long-term community and economic 
development. The Committee has provided criteria for the 
Secretary to consider when determining that an application 
should be considered ``strategic'' and thus prioritized. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to use the discretion to 
prioritize these applications in a manner that rewards rural 
communities and entities for proposing an effective use of 
resources. The Committee authorizes the Secretary to reserve up 
to 20 percent of the funds made available in multiple Rural 
Water programs, the Community Facilities programs, and multiple 
Rural Business programs for these types of applications. No 
more than 15 percent of the total funding available for these 
select programs may be used for these purposes.

Section 3703. Guaranteed rural development loans

    Section 3703 reauthorizes guaranteed rural development loan 
authority.

Section 3704. Rural Development Insurance Fund

    Section 3704 reauthorizes the Rural Development Insurance 
Fund.

Section 3705. Rural Economic Area Partnership zones

    Section 3705 establishes a competitive process for the 
Secretary to designate new Rural Economic Area Partnership 
zones, and directs the Secretary to carry out those rural 
economic area partnership zones in effect on date of enactment 
of the bill.

Section 3706. Streamlining applications and improving accessibility of 
        rural development programs

    Section 3706 directs the Secretary to expedite the process 
of creating user-friendly and accessible application forms and 
procedures prioritizing programs and applications at the 
individual level with an emphasis on utilizing current 
technologies such as online applications.

Section 3707. State Rural Development Partnership

    Section 3707 reauthorizes the State Rural Development 
Partnership.

Section 3801 through Section 3814. Delta Regional Authority

    Sections 3801 through 3814 reauthorize the Delta Regional 
Authority.

Section 3821 through Section 3835. Northern Great Plains Regional 
        Authority

    Sections 3821 through 3835 reauthorize the Northern Great 
Plains Regional Authority.

Section 3901. Full faith and credit

    Section 3901 establishes that a contract of insurance or 
guarantee executed by the Secretary under this title shall be 
an obligation supported by the full faith and credit of the 
United States.

Section 3902. Purchase and sale of guaranteed portions of loans

    Section 3902 establishes that terms under which the 
Secretary may purchase and sell the guaranteed portion of a 
loan guaranteed under this title if the Secretary determines 
that an adequate secondary market is not available in the 
private sector.

Section 3903. Administration

    Section 3903 re-establishes that terms under which the 
Secretary may administer programs under this title.

Section 3904. Loan moratorium and policy on foreclosures

    Section 3904 re-establishes the Secretary's authority to 
permit, at the request of the borrower, the deferral of 
principal and interest on any outstanding loan made or 
guaranteed by the Secretary under this title and to forgo 
foreclosure on the loan for a time period that the Secretary 
considers necessary upon demonstration that the borrower is 
temporarily unable to continue making payments.

Section 3905. Oil and gas royalty payments on loans

    Section 3905 re-establishes the Secretary's authority to 
permit a borrower to make a prospective payment on a loan with 
proceeds from the leasing of oil, gas, or other mineral rights 
to real property used to secure the loan or the sale of oil, 
gas, or other minerals removed from the property used to secure 
the loan if the value of the rights to the oil, gas, or other 
minerals has not been used to secure the loan.

Section 3906. Taxation

    Section 3906 re-establishes that all property subject to a 
lien held by the United States or the title to which is 
acquired or held by the Secretary under this title (other than 
property used for administrative purposes) will be subject to 
taxation by state, territory, district, and local political 
subdivisions in the same manner and to the same extent as other 
property is taxed.

Section 3907. Conflicts of interest

    Section 3907 re-establishes that no officer, attorney, or 
other employee of USDA may, directly or indirectly, be the 
beneficiary of or receive any fee, commission, gift, or other 
consideration for or in connection with any transaction or 
business under this title other than such salary, fee, or other 
compensation as they might receive in those positions, and 
states penalties for violation of the section. It re-
establishes that an officer or employee of USDA that has 
reviewed an application for a loan to purchase land under this 
title may not acquire an interest in that land for a period of 
three years, and states penalties for violation of the section.

Section 3908. Loan summary statements

    Section 3908 re-establishes that upon the request of a 
borrower of a loan made (but not guaranteed) under this title, 
the Secretary shall issue to the borrower a loan summary 
statement that reflects the account activity during the summary 
period for each loan made under this title to the borrower.

Section 3909. Certified lenders program

    Section 3909 directs the Secretary to establish a program 
under which the Secretary will guarantee loans under this title 
that are made by lending institutions certified by the 
Secretary.

Section 3910. Loans to resident aliens

    Section 3910 re-establishes the Secretary's authority to 
make a loan under this title to an alien lawfully admitted to 
the United States for permanent residence under the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).

Section 3911. Expedited clearing of title to inventory property

    Section 3911 re-establishes the Secretary's authority to 
employ local attorneys, on a case-by-case basis, to process 
legal procedures necessary to clear the title to foreclosed 
properties in USDA's inventory.

Section 3912. Transfer of land to secretary

    Section 3912 authorizes the President to transfer to the 
Secretary any right, interest, or title held by the United 
States in any land acquired for national defense purposes but 
that is no longer needed for those purposes. The Secretary 
shall dispose of the transferred land in the manner and subject 
to the terms and conditions of this title.

Section 3913. Competitive sourcing limitations

    Section 3913 prohibits the Secretary from completing a 
study of, or entering into a contract with a private party to 
carry out, without authorization by a subsequent Act of 
Congress, a competitive sourcing activity of the Secretary 
related to rural development or farmer program loans.

Section 3914. Regulations

    Section 3914 establishes the Secretary's authority to issue 
regulations and rules necessary to implement the title.

Section 6002. Conforming amendments

    Section 6002 corrects references to the Consolidated Farm 
and Rural Development Act to comport with the Act as 
restructured.

                   SUBTITLE B--RURAL ELECTRIFICATION

Section 6101. Definition of rural area

    Section 6101 changes the definition of rural area for 
programs under the Rural Electrification Act to be the same as 
in Section 3002 (28)(A)(i).

Section 6102. Guarantees for Bonds and Notes Issued for Electrification 
        or Telephone Purposes

    Section 6102 reauthorizes Guarantees for Bonds and Notes 
Issued for Electrification or Telephone Purposes.

Section 6103. Expansion of 911 Access

    Section 6103 reauthorizes Expansion of 911 Access 
authority.

Section 6104. Access to broadband telecommunications services in rural 
        areas

    Section 6104 establishes a grant component to the current 
Broadband Loan Program. It creates priority for communities 
without an incumbent service provider, for communities with a 
population of less than 20,000 permanent residents, rural 
communities experiencing outmigration, a community with a high 
percentage of low-income residents, or a rural community 
isolated from other significant population centers. It 
establishes the maximum grant limit as 50 percent of project 
development costs. It provides the Secretary with the authority 
to increase the grant up to 75 percent for communities that do 
not have an existing service provider, are remote and have low-
income populations. It requires a minimum of 25 percent of 
households in a potential service area to be without existing 
broadband service. It also establishes a minimum level of 
broadband service. It establishes transparency and reporting 
requirements for projects that receive funding.

                       SUBTITLE C--MISCELLANEOUS

Section 6201. Distance learning and telemedicine

    Section 6201 reauthorizes the Distance Learning and 
Telemedicine grant and loan program.

Section 6202. Definition of rural area for purposes of the Housing Act 
        of 1949

    Section 6202 amends Section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 
so that any area with a population of less than 35,000 that has 
been deemed to be a ``rural area'' for purposes of this title 
under any other provision of law at any time during the period 
between January 1, 2000 and ending on December 31, 2010 shall 
continue to be so until the 2020 Census data is received by 
USDA.

Section 6203. Rural Energy Savings Program

    Section 6203 authorizes a Rural Energy Savings Program 
through which the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides loans to eligible 
borrowers, such as rural electric cooperatives, for the purpose 
of relending to their customers for durable, cost-effective 
energy efficiency improvements. Consumers repay the loans to 
the borrowers on their monthly utility bill. The borrowing 
entity, not the consumer, holds responsibility for repayment of 
the loan to RUS.

Section 6204. Funding of pending Rural Development Loan and Grant 
        applications

    Section 6204 provides $150,000,000 in mandatory funding for 
pending Rural Water Loan and Grant applications.

Section 6205. Study of rural transportation issues

    Section 6205 directs the Secretary and the Secretary of 
Transportation to jointly conduct a study of transportation 
issues regarding the movement of agricultural products, 
domestically produced renewable fuels, and domestically 
produced resources for the production of electricity for rural 
areas and economic development in those areas. The study is to 
be periodically updated.

Section 6206. Agricultural transportation policy

    Section 6206 directs the Secretary to participate on behalf 
of agricultural and rural interests in policy development 
proceedings of the Surface Transportation Board that may 
establish freight rail transportation policy affecting rural 
America.

Section 6207. Value-added agricultural market development program 
        grants

    Section 6207 establishes priority for projects in which at 
least 25 percent of the project recipients are veteran farmers 
or ranchers.

                          Title VII--Research


  SUBTITLE A--NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND TEACHING 
                           POLICY ACT OF 1977

Section 7101. National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and 
        Economics Advisory Board

    Section 7101 reauthorizes the National Agricultural 
Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board 
(NAREEE). The NAREEE Board will consult with affected industry 
groups before recommendations are given to the Secretary.

Section 7102. Specialty Crop Committee

    Section 7102 enhances the Specialty Crop Committee, 
strengthens its role with the Specialty Crop Research 
Initiative, and clarifies that Committee membership shall 
reflect the diversity in the specialty crop industry.

Section 7103. Veterinary Services Grant Program

    Section 7103 authorizes the Veterinary Services Grant 
Program and an additional matching competitive grant program 
with qualified entities to develop, implement, and sustain 
veterinary services. A qualifying entity must carry out 
programs that: (1) relieve veterinarian shortage situations, 
(2) support private veterinary practices engaged in public 
health activities, or (3) support practices of veterinarians 
who are participating in or have successfully completed a 
specified service requirement. This program is authorized at 
$10 million per year.

Section 7104. Grants and Fellowships for Food and Agriculture Sciences 
        Education

    Section 7104 reauthorizes Grants and Fellowships for Food 
and Agriculture Sciences Education at $40 million per year.

Section 7105. Agricultural and Food Policy Research Centers

    Section 7105 authorizes Policy Research Centers. The 
Secretary will award grants through the Office of the Chief 
Economist, only competitive grants may be awarded under this 
section and preference is given to centers that have databases, 
models and experience providing Congress with agricultural 
market projections, rural development analysis, agriculture 
policy analysis and baseline projections, and drought 
mitigation research and analysis. This program is authorized at 
$10 million per year.

Section 7106. Education Grants to Alaska Native Serving Institutions 
        and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions

    Section 7106 reauthorizes the Education Grants to Alaska 
Native Serving Institutions and Native Hawaiian Serving 
Institutions and clarifies only competitive grants may be 
awarded under this section.

Section 7107. Nutrition Education Program

    Section 7107 reauthorizes the Nutrition Education Program.

Section 7108. Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research Programs

    Section 7108 reauthorizes the Continuing Animal Health and 
Disease Research Programs at $25 million per year.

Section 7109. Grants to Upgrade Agricultural and Food Sciences 
        Facilities at 1890 Land-Grant Colleges, including Tuskegee 
        University

    Section 7109 reauthorizes Grants to Upgrade Agricultural 
and Food Sciences Facilities at 1890 Land-Grant Colleges, 
including Tuskegee University.

Section 7110. Grants to Upgrade Agricultural and Food Sciences 
        Facilities and Equipment at Insular Area Land-Grant 
        Institutions

    Section 7110 reauthorizes Grants to Upgrade Agricultural 
and Food Sciences Facilities and Equipment at Insular Area 
Land-Grant Institutions.

Section 7111. Hispanic-Serving Institutions

    Section 7111 reauthorizes the Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions.

Section 7112. Competitive Grants for International Agricultural Science 
        and Education Programs

    Section 7112 reauthorizes the Competitive Grants for 
International Agricultural Science and Education Programs at $5 
million per year.

Section 7113. University Research

    Section 7113 reauthorizes University Research.

Section 7114. Extension Service

    Section 7114 reauthorizes Extension Service. The 
Cooperative Extension System is a nationwide, non-credit 
educational network. Each state and territory has an office at 
its land-grant university and a network of local or regional 
offices which are staffed by one or more experts who provide 
practical, research-based information to agricultural 
producers, small business owners, youth, consumers, and others 
in rural communities. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
ensure that the Cooperative Extension Service is effectively 
and efficiently utilized to deliver the educational component 
of USDA programs. The Secretary is also encouraged to engage in 
discussions with other federal departments and agencies to 
consider ways to use the Cooperative Extension Service to 
deliver education extension for other federal programs as 
practicable.

Section 7115. Supplemental and Alternative Crops

    Section 7115 reauthorizes Supplemental and Alternative 
Crops research at $1 million per year and clarifies that only 
competitive grants can be awarded under this section.

Section 7116. Capacity Building Grants for NLGCA Institutions

    Section 7116 reauthorizes Capacity Building Grants for 
NLGCA Institutions.

Section 7117. Aquaculture Assistance Programs

    Section 7117 reauthorizes the Aquaculture Assistance 
Programs at $5 million per year and clarifies that only 
competitive grants can be awarded under this section.

Section 7118. Rangeland Research Programs

    Section 7118 reauthorizes the Rangeland Research Programs 
at $2 million per year. The Committee recognizes that this 
program contributes to the improvement of rangeland resources 
and provides agricultural producers and land managers with 
science-based strategies to assist with the management and 
restoration of rangeland ecosystems. It is the Committee's view 
that rangeland research shall encompass all types of prairie 
grass research.

Section 7119. Special Authorization for Biosecurity Planning and 
        Response

    Section 7119 reauthorizes the Special Authorization for 
Biosecurity Planning and Response at $20 million per year.

Section 7120. Distance Education and Resident Instruction Grants 
        Program for Insular Area Institutions of Higher Education

    Section 7120 reauthorizes the Distance Education and 
Resident Instruction Grants Program for Insular Area 
Institutions of Higher Education at $2 million per year and 
clarifies that only competitive grants will be awarded under 
the section of Distance Education Grants for Insular Areas.

   SUBTITLE B--FOOD, AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND TRADE ACT OF 1990

Section 7201. Best Utilization of Biological Applications

    Section 7201 reauthorizes the Best Utilization of 
Biological Applications at $40 million per year.

Section 7202. Integrated Management Systems

    Section 7202 reauthorizes the Integrated Management Systems 
at $20 million per year.

Section 7203. Sustainable Agriculture Technology Development and 
        Transfer Program

    Section 7203 reauthorizes the Sustainable Agriculture 
Technology Development and Transfer Program.

Section 7204. National Training Program

    Section 7204 reauthorizes the National Training Program at 
$20 million per year.

Section 7205. National Genetics Resources Program

    Section 7205 reauthorizes the National Genetics Resources 
Program at $1 million per year.

Section 7206. National Agricultural Weather Information System

    Section 7206 reauthorizes National Agricultural Weather 
Information System at $1 million per year.

Section 7207. Agricultural Genome Initiative

    Section 7207 amends the Agricultural Genome Initiative and 
directs the Secretary to encourage awards to consortia of 
eligible entities to carry out collaborative plant and animal 
genome computing and database work.

Section 7208. High-priority research and extension initiatives

    Section 7207 reauthorizes authority for grants to address 
Pollinator Protection, Alfalfa Forage Research Program, Bighorn 
and Domestic Sheep Disease Mechanisms, Potato Research and 
Extension, Dairy Financial Risk Management Research and 
Extension, and Wood Use Research and Extension. It modifies the 
existing Deer Initiative to also encompass other Cervidae 
research. It moves authority for the Secretary to designate 
Regional Centers of Excellence to a separate section of the Act 
(see section 7211). This section also authorizes the Pulse 
Health Initiative; the Corn, Soybean Meal, Cereal Grains, and 
Grain Byproducts Research and Extension Initiative; the 
Forestry Products Advanced Utilization Research Initiative; the 
Training Coordination for Food and Agriculture Protection 
initiative; and the Farm Animal Agriculture Integrated Research 
Initiative. It allows the Secretary to appoint a task force to 
make recommendations on high priority research and extension.

Section 7209. Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative

    Section 7209 reauthorizes the Organic Agriculture Research 
and Extension Initiative and provides $80 million in mandatory 
funding at $16 million per year for fiscal years 2014 through 
2018. It adds education as a function of the program and makes 
minor modifications to priority areas.

Section 7210. Farm Business Management

    Section 7210 reauthorizes the Farm Business Management 
program at $5 million per year.

Section 7211. Regional Centers of Excellence

    Section 7211 reauthorizes Regional Centers of Excellence at 
$10 million per year and moves the provisions from a separate 
section of the Act (see section 7208).

Section 7212. Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with 
        Disabilities

    Section 7212 reauthorizes the Assistive Technology Program 
for Farmers with Disabilities at $5 million per year.

Section 7213. National Rural Information Center Clearinghouse

    Section 7213 reauthorizes the National Rural Information 
Center Clearinghouse.

 SUBTITLE C--AGRICULTURE RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION REFORM ACT 
                                OF 1998

Section 7301. Relevance and merit of agricultural research, extension, 
        and education funded by the department

    Section 7301 amends the law to emphasize that the 
``relevance'' of the underlying research and extension programs 
to the affected industry shall be considered in evaluating 
grant applications. The Secretary will also consult regularly 
with the Advisory Board.

Section 7302. Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive 
        Grants Program

    Section 7302 reauthorizes the Integrated Research, 
Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program.

Section 7303. Support for Research Regarding Diseases of Wheat, 
        Triticale, and Barley Caused by Fusarium Graminearum or by 
        Tilletia Indica

    Section 7303 reauthorizes Research Regarding Diseases of 
Wheat, Triticale, and Barley Caused by Fusarium Graminearum or 
by Tilletia Indica at $10 million per year.

Section 7304. Grants for Youth Organizations

    Section 7304 reauthorizes the Grants for Youth 
Organizations at $3 million per year.

Section 7305. Specialty Crop Research Initiative

    Section 7305 reauthorizes the Specialty Crop Research 
Initiative which now includes language for handling and 
processing in the priority areas. It modifies the matching fund 
provision to allow for the use of other federal and non-federal 
funds in meeting the match requirements. It removes the 10 
percent minimum funding carve out for program priorities 1 
through 5. It provides mandatory funding for the program as 
follows for each fiscal year: $25 million for 2014; $30 million 
for 2015 through 2016; $65 million for 2017; $50 million for 
2018 and each fiscal year thereafter. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to incorporate appropriate industry consultation as 
an integral part of the proposal review process. Such industry 
review shall be coordinated with the specialty crops 
subcommittee, as directed under Section 7102 of this Act. The 
Secretary shall ensure the specialty crop subcommittee has 
appropriate representation to provide comment on the relevance 
and impact of any proposal for the affected industry segment 
and provide a means for additional industry consultation should 
an appropriate representative not be available on the 
subcommittee. The Committee expects that industry comments on 
specific proposals will be provided and taken into 
consideration by the scientific review panel prior to the 
scientific peer review.

Section 7306. Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database Program

    Section 7306 reauthorizes the Food Animal Residue Avoidance 
Database Program at $2.5 million per year.

Section 7307. Office of Pest Management Policy

    Section 7307 reauthorizes the Office of Pest Management 
Policy at $3 million per year.

Section 7308. Authorization of Regional Integrated Pest Management 
        Centers

    Section 7308 authorizes the Regional Integrated Pest 
Management Centers.

                         SUBTITLE D--OTHER LAWS

Section 7401. Critical Agricultural Materials Act

    Section 7401 reauthorizes the Critical Agricultural 
Materials Act at $2 million per year.

Section 7402. Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994

    Section 7402 reauthorizes the Equity in Educational Land-
Grant Status Act of 1994, and updates the names of 
institutions, as well as providing for additional entities and 
one deletion. It changes research grant requirements by 
allowing grant applications to be submitted in cooperative 
agreement with ARS or at least 1 other land grant institution, 
a non-land-grant college of agriculture or a cooperating 
forestry school.

Section 7403. Research Facilities Act

    Section 7403 reauthorizes the Research Facilities Act.

Section 7404. Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act

    Section 7404 reauthorizes USDA's Agriculture and Food 
Research Initiative (AFRI) at $700 million per year. It 
clarifies program eligibility to include state agricultural 
experiment stations, national laboratories, and other entities. 
It directs USDA to report on barriers that exist in the 
competitive grant process that may prevent eligible 
institutions with limited resources to apply and provide 
specific recommendations the Department may take to remove 
these barriers. The Committee recognizes concerns with the 
impact that inefficiencies in the current regulatory process 
for agricultural biotechnology and related court decisions have 
begun to take on growers who have adopted plant biotechnology 
products and the effect on research and development of 
additional products with new food and industrial uses that can 
benefit the priority areas identified in subsection (b) of the 
Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 
U.S.C. 450i(b)). The Secretary is encouraged to provide 
information to the Committee on the measures taken and to be 
taken under statutory authorities to provide for balanced and 
non-duplicative regulatory oversight between Federal Agencies 
and Departments of products of agricultural biotechnology, the 
impact of court decisions on the affected agencies' budgets, 
and estimated financial impact on growers.

Section 7405. Enhanced Use Lease Authority Pilot Program Under 
        Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994

    Section 7405 reauthorizes Enhanced Use Lease Authority 
Pilot Program Under Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
Act of 1994.

Section 7406. Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978

    Section 7406 reauthorizes the Renewable Resources Extension 
Act of 1978.

Section 7407. National Aquaculture Act of 1980

    Section 7407 reauthorizes the National Aquaculture Act of 
1980.

Section 7408. Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program Under 
        Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002

    Section 7408 reauthorizes Beginning Farmer and Rancher 
Development Program. It adds dedicated funds to military 
veterans as defined and provides for a one-time allocation of 
$85 million in mandatory funding to remain available until 
expended.

         SUBTITLE E--FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008
                     PART I: AGRICULTURAL SECURITY

Section 7501. Agricultural Biosecurity Communication Center

    Section 7501 reauthorizes the Agricultural Biosecurity 
Communication Center at $2 million per year.

Section 7502. Assistance to Build Local Capacity in Agricultural 
        Biosecurity Planning, Preparation, and Response

    Section 7502 reauthorizes the Assistance to Build Local 
Capacity in Agricultural Biosecurity Planning, Preparation, and 
Response at $15 million per year.

Section 7503. Research and Development of Agricultural Countermeasures

    Section 7503 reauthorizes the Research and Development of 
Agricultural Countermeasures at $15 million per year.

Section 7504. Agricultural Biosecurity Grant Program

    Section 7504 reauthorizes the Agricultural Biosecurity 
Grant Program at $5 million per year.

                         Part II--Miscellaneous


Section 7511. Grazing-lands Research Laboratory

    Section 7511 reauthorizes the Grazing-lands Research 
Laboratory.

Section 7512. Budget submission and funding

    Section 7512 promotes transparency and accountability with 
regard to intramural and extramural research programs 
administered by the Department. The annual Presidential Budget 
Submission must include sufficient information for the Congress 
to thoroughly evaluate and approve future spending plans with 
regard to extramural competitive grants programs and intramural 
research spending.
    The Committee recognizes that the U.S. ethanol industry has 
increased the efficiency of their production process in recent 
years such that the amount of ethanol produced from a bushel of 
corn has increased. Current yield calculations used by USDA 
agencies may no longer reflect the current production. The 
Committee recognizes the concerns that the calculations impact 
corn supply forecasts by overestimating the amount of corn 
needed to meet U.S. ethanol production. The Committee 
encourages the National Agricultural Statistics Service to 
provide an accurate, up-to-date value for the ethanol yield 
from a bushel of corn.

Section 7513. Natural Products Research Program

    Section 7513 reauthorizes the Natural Products Research 
Program at $7 million per year.

Section 7514. Sun Grant Program

    Section 7514 reauthorizes, consolidates, and amends the Sun 
Grant Program to expand input from other appropriate federal 
agencies, authorize bioproducts, eliminate authorization for 
gasification research and make the program competitive. The 
Committee recognizes the leadership and work of the Sun Grant 
Centers in each region and intends that the revisions to the 
program to make it competitive do not reduce the effectiveness 
of the overall program. The Committee recognizes the importance 
of demonstrated experience in working with multiple federal 
agencies and in awarding and managing funding provided through 
competitive grants to land grant institutions and institutions 
partnering with land grant institutions. Finally, the Committee 
recognizes the value and importance of committed use of peer 
review principles and other research best practices in the 
selection, management, and dissemination of research projects.

                       SUBTITLE F--MISCELLANEOUS

Section 7601. Foundation for food and agriculture research

    Section 7601 establishes a non-profit organization 
administered by an appointed Board of Directors representing 
the diverse sectors of the agriculture and agricultural 
research community with the primary purpose of supplementing 
the efforts of USDA basic and applied research activities. 
Federal investment is leveraged in agricultural research 
through soliciting and accepting private donations to award 
grants for collaborative public/private partnerships with 
scientists and entities including USDA, academia, non-profits, 
and the private sector. This section also incorporates 
accountability and transparency measures for good governance. 
The Committee provides $200,000,000 in mandatory funding for 
the foundation.

Section 7602. Agricultural and food law research, legal tools, and 
        information

    Section 7602 authorizes $5 million annually for the 
National Agricultural Library to support the dissemination of 
objective, scholarly, and authoritative agricultural and food 
law research, legal tools, and information by entering into 
cooperative agreements with institutions of higher education.

                          Title VIII--Forestry


            SUBTITLE A--REPEAL OF CERTAIN FORESTRY PROGRAMS

Section 8001. Forest Land Enhancement Program

    Section 8001 repeals the Forest Land Enhancement Program.

Section 8002. Hispanic-Serving Institution Agricultural Land National 
        Resources Leadership Program

    Section 8002 repeals the Hispanic-Serving Institution 
Agricultural Land National Resources Leadership Program.

Section 8003. Tribal Watershed Forestry Assistance Program

    Section 8003 repeals the Tribal Watershed Forestry 
Assistance Program.

 SUBTITLE B--REAUTHORIZATION OF COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 
                             1978 PROGRAMS

Section 8101. State-Wide Assessment and Strategies for Forest Resources

    Section 8101 reauthorizes the State-Wide Assessment and 
Strategies for Forest Resources at $10 million per year. It 
focuses state efforts on achieving national priorities by 
assisting landowners with planning and implementing forest and 
land management practices.

       SUBTITLE C--REAUTHORIZATION OF OTHER FORESTRY-RELATED LAWS

Section 8201. Rural revitalization technologies

    Section 8201 reauthorizes rural revitalization technologies 
through fiscal year 2018.

Section 8202. Office of International Forestry

    Section 8202 reauthorizes the Office of International 
Forestry through fiscal year 2018.

Section 8203. Insect and disease infestation

    Section 8203 reauthorizes the Secretary to designate areas 
impacted by insect infestation and disease for treatment. The 
Secretary will also designate treatment areas on National 
Forest land due to insect or disease infestation. This section 
authorizes appropriations at $200 million per year through 
fiscal year 2018.

Section 8204. Stewardship end result contracting projects

    Section 8204 reauthorizes and provides permanent authority 
for stewardship end result contracting projects. It is the 
Committee's view that stewardship contracting projects are a 
tool for the U.S. Forest Service to achieve land management 
goals while also meeting local and rural community needs. It is 
not the Committee's intention for stewardship contracting to 
replace, diminish, or adversely impact the U.S. Forest 
Service's timber sales program.

Section 8205. Healthy Forests Reserve Program

    Section 8205 expands the Healthy Forest Reserve Program 
eligibility for lands owned by Indian tribes and reauthorizes 
the program for appropriations at $9.75 million per year 
through fiscal year 2018.

                  SUBTITLE D--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 8301. McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act

    Section 8301 provides the Secretary the ability to waive 
the matching requirement for 1890 institutions and to expand 
program participation eligibility for institutions in the 
Federated States of Micronesia, American Samoa, Northern 
Mariana Islands and Guam.

Section 8302. Revision of strategic plan for forest inventory and 
        analysis

    Section 8302 requires the Secretary to revise the strategic 
plan for forest inventory and analysis to include further 
investigation into a series of areas to improve forest 
management.

Section 8303. Reimbursement of fire funds

    Section 8303 provides greater flexibility to the U.S. 
Forest Service and state forestry agencies to coordinate 
resources on a national scale in response to wildfire events. 
This provision facilitates a rapid federal, state and local 
government response to catastrophic wildfires.

                            Title IX--Energy


Section 9001. Definitions

    Section 9001 adds a definition for ``forest product'' and 
``renewable chemical''.

Section 9002. Biobased Markets Program

    Section 9002 reauthorizes the Biobased Markets Program at 
$2 million per year and allows the Secretary to establish a 
targeted number of biobased procurement requirements for the 
Biobased Procurement Preference Program. It requires reporting 
of biobased purchases from federal government procurement 
agencies. The Secretary will designate assembled and finished 
products for the procurement and labeling program. This section 
also adds auditing and compliance provisions for the 
biopreferred labeling program. It allows outreach and education 
activities for the biobased markets program. It directs USDA to 
conduct an economic impact study on biobased products and sets 
a new focus on products that demonstrate innovation regardless 
of date of entry into the marketplace. Mandatory funding is $3 
million for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018. The 
Committee recognizes the growth and development of biobased 
markets and the potential these markets offer for significant 
job growth and economic development. As biobased companies 
reach their full potential, new manufacturing jobs will be 
created in the United States while also providing environmental 
and energy security benefits.
    The Committee recognizes concerns with the USDA Biobased 
Markets Program and the exclusion of most forest products. 
This exclusion, created in USDA rulemaking, has effectively 
made many forest products ineligible for the program. 
Therefore, the 
language included in Sections 9001(2)(9)(A) and (B) and 
9002(a)(1)(B)(i)(III)(vi) are intended to clarify that all 
forest products, regardless of the market share the product 
holds, the age of the product, or whether the product's market 
is new or emerging, are eligible for the procurement and 
labeling program as long as the product meets biobased content 
requirements and the innovation standards for the program as 
outlined in Section 9002(a)(1)(B)(i)(III)(vi). It is the 
Committee's intention that all products in the program use 
innovative approaches in the growing, harvesting, sourcing, 
procuring, processing, manufacturing, or application of the 
biobased product. The Committee believes that most forest 
products, including products with recovered fiber content, 
apply innovative approaches in the growing, harvesting, 
sourcing, procuring, and manufacturing of the product. 
Innovative approaches for forest products include, but are not 
limited to, sourcing fiber from non-controversial, responsible 
or certified sources identified in the ASTM 7612-10 standard; 
using an environmental product declaration that meets the ISO 
14025:2006 standard; improving wood, recovered fiber and virgin 
fiber processing technologies; or modifying manufacturing 
facilities to make them more energy efficient and enhance their 
ability to use renewable energy sources. The Committee also 
believes innovative approaches should capture any innovation in 
the application of the forest product. Such innovative 
approaches should include the use of raw forestry materials, 
processed forestry materials, as well as recovered fiber. The 
Committee directs USDA to work through the USDA Forest Products 
Laboratory to provide technical assistance as necessary to 
forest product applicants to ensure that forest products are 
included in the program.

Section 9003. Biorefinery, renewable chemical and biobased product 
        manufacturing assistance

    Section 9003 reauthorizes the Biorefinery Assistance 
Program at $150 million per year. Program eligibility is 
expanded to include renewable chemicals and biobased products. 
It defines Biobased Product Manufacturing as the development, 
construction, and retrofitting of technologically new 
commercial-scale processing and manufacturing equipment and 
required facilities that will be used to convert renewable 
chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries into end-
user products on a commercial scale. Mandatory funding is 
provided for the program at $100 million for fiscal year 2014 
and $58 million for each of fiscal years 2015 and 2016. Of the 
total amount of funds made available for the period of fiscal 
years 2014 through 2016 not more than $25,000,000 can be 
directed towards biobased product manufacturing.

Section 9004. Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels

    Section 9004 reauthorizes the Bioenergy Program at $20 
million per year.

Section 9005. Biodiesel Fuel Education Program

    Section 9005 reauthorizes the Biofuels Education Program at 
$1 million per year in mandatory funding.

Section 9006. Rural Energy for America Program (REAP)

    Section 9006 reauthorizes the Rural Energy for America 
Program (REAP) at $20 million per year and amends the 2-meter 
rule by including ``agricultural and associated residential 
purposes'' as eligible. It allows RC&D councils to be eligible 
for energy audit and technical assistance portion of the 
program and removes feasibility studies. The grant application 
process is revised into three tiers of grants: less than 
$80,000; between $80,000 and $200,000; and greater than 
$200,000. This section also instructs the Secretary to 
streamline and simplify grant application process for grants 
under $80,000 and sets a cap of $500,000 for grants. Mandatory 
funding is provided at $68.2 million for each of fiscal years 
2014 through 2018.

Section 9007 Biomass Research and Development

    Section 9007 reauthorizes the Biomass R&D Program at $30 
million per year, with mandatory funding of $26 million for 
each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018. The Committee 
encourages the Department to support research, development and 
demonstration efforts focused on reducing the costs of 
producing sugars from cellulosic biomass. The purpose of the 
Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI) is to 
promote research and development regarding the production of 
biofuels and biobased products. The Committee encourages the 
Department to prioritize and focus investment in projects which 
use pre-commercialization processes and methods to advance 
product development. The Committee is aware of a number of 
advanced manufacturing facilities around the country that can 
play an active part in the development phase of biofuels and 
biobased products and urges the Secretary to encourage their 
involvement in BRDI projects.

Section 9008. Feedstock Flexibility Program for bioenergy producers

    Section 9008 reauthorizes the Feedstock Flexibility 
Program.

Section 9009. Biomass Crop Assistance Program

    Section 9009 reauthorizes the Biomass Crop Assistance 
Program (BCAP) at $20 million per fiscal year and specifies 
eligible verses non-eligible materials for the Collection, 
Harvest, Storage, and Transport (CHST) payments with 
modifications to ensure spending in line with Congressional 
intent. Mandatory funding is provided at $38.6 million for each 
of fiscal years 2014 through 2018. Of the mandatory money made 
available for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall use not 
less than 10 percent, nor more than 50 percent, of the amount 
to make collection, harvest, transportation, and storage 
payments.

Section 9010. Repeal of Forest Biomass for Energy

    Section 9010 repeals the Forest Biomass For Energy program.

Section 9011. Community Wood Energy Program

    Section 9011 reauthorizes the Community Wood Energy Program 
at $5 million per year. It also authorizes biomass consumer 
cooperatives as eligible participants in the program.

Section 9012. Repeal of Renewable Fertilizer Study

    Section 9012 repeals the Study on Renewable Fertilizer.

                        Title X--Specialty Crops


Section 10001. Specialty crops market news allocation

    Section 10001 reauthorizes specialty crop market news 
allocation and expands market news activities to provide timely 
price information on fruits and vegetables with funding 
authorized at $9 million per year.

Section 10002. Repeal of grant program to improve movement of specialty 
        crops

    Section 10002 repeals the grant program to improve the 
movement of specialty crops.

Section 10003. Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program

    Section 10003 reauthorizes and expands the existing Farmers 
Market Promotion Program. It provides competitive grants to 
improve and expand farmers markets, roadside stands, community-
supported agriculture programs, and other direct producer-to-
consumer market opportunities. Grants may also be used to help 
develop local food system infrastructure, targeted at serving 
low-income populations. The section requires cost share of 25 
percent of funding. Mandatory funding of $100 million is 
provided for five years and $20 million per year is authorized 
for appropriations. The reported bill restricts grant funding 
from being used for the purchase, construction or 
rehabilitation of a building or structure. This provision is 
specifically intended to prevent activities such as acquiring 
land, repairing roofing structures or building warehouses. The 
Committee does not intend for this language to restrict 
resources for other key uses such as cold storage or equipment 
including mobile processing units or shelf stable packing 
activities.

Section 10004. Study on local food production and program evaluation

    Section 10004 directs the Secretary to collect data on the 
production and marketing of locally or regionally produced 
agricultural food products, facilitate interagency 
collaboration and data sharing on programs related to local and 
regional food systems, and evaluate the success of current 
local promotion programs. No resources are provided for this 
study and evaluation.

Section 10005. Organic agriculture

    Section 10005 authorizes the Organic Production and Market 
Data Initiatives. The Organic Production and Market Data 
Initiatives program funds basic USDA data collection on the 
organic sector. One-time mandatory funding of $5 million is 
provided and $5 million per year is authorized for 
appropriations. This section also authorizes the National 
Organic Program (NOP) and ensures the integrity of the organic 
seal by enforcing standards and accrediting certifiers. The 
funding level authorized for the NOP is $15 million per year. 
This section modernizes the NOP database and technology 
systems. The legislation then provides $5 million in mandatory 
dollars for this purpose, to remain available until expended.

Section 10006. Food safety and education initiatives

    Section 10006 maintains the current authorization for food 
safety and education initiatives. This program educates persons 
involved in fresh produce industry, and public, about sanitary 
handling practices and ways to reduce pathogens in fresh 
produce. The funding level is authorized at $1 million per 
year.

Section 10007. Coordinated Plant Management Program

    Section 10007 consolidates the National Clean Plant 
Network, which produces clean pathogen free plant material for 
producers, into a larger program focused on plant pest and 
disease management, early detection and surveillance, and 
disaster prevention projects. The funding level for the 
consolidated program is increased. The reported bill provides 
mandatory funding of $60 million in fiscal years 2014 through 
2017 and $65 million for fiscal year 2018. The Committee has 
provided funding at a level that it believes is sufficient to 
continue the functions of both the Plant Pest and Disease 
Management and Disaster Prevention Program and the National 
Clean Plant Network. The Committee provides a modest increase 
in resources for the consolidated program in order to address 
unmet needs. Therefore, the Committee expects that annual 
funding for the National Clean Plant Network will be not less 
than that level provided in fiscal year 2012.

Section 10008. Specialty Crop Block Grants

    Section 10008 increases funding for Specialty Crop Block 
Grants which provide states with funding for projects that 
benefit both producers and consumers of fruits, vegetables, 
tree nuts, and nursery crops. Examples of project areas that 
would qualify for funds include, but are not limited to: food 
safety; food security; nutrition; trade enhancement; education; 
research; promotion; marketing, and plant health programs. The 
changes made to the grant allocation formula are from using 
solely the value of specialty crop production in a state, to 
use of the average of both value of specialty crop production 
and acres of specialty crops planted in a state. It includes a 
new set aside for multi-state projects which is re-allocated to 
States if funds are unused. Mandatory funding of $70 million 
per year is provided. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
incorporate financial benchmarking through state block grant 
proposals or as a part of multistate projects as a tool to 
enhance the competiveness of specialty crops. The Committee is 
also aware of regulatory limitations that have been placed on 
certain equipment and capital related projects to prevent 
activities like the construction of buildings or expansion of 
facilities. However, the Committee acknowledges that some 
specialty crops may have specialized needs related to projects 
that expand the competitiveness of the industry. The Committee 
expects the Department to work with states to allow funding for 
priority research objectives as identified and supported by the 
states.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to enforce the 
regulations contained in 7 CFR Part 46.44, Good Delivery 
Standards for Lettuce. The Committee is particularly concerned 
about contracts and invoices that use disclaimers to exempt 
product from the condition standards for damages due to 
bruising and discoloration following bruising. The Committee 
expects the Secretary to investigate any contracts or invoices 
that violate standards and leave perishable product receivers 
no recourse for damages beyond the Good Delivery Standards for 
Lettuce.

Section 10009. Recordkeeping, investigations, and enforcement

    Section 10009 requires all organic producers to maintain 
records of contracts, agreements, and receipts associated with 
the organic certification program. The Secretary is given 
authority to carry out investigations, administer oaths and 
affirmations, subpoena witnesses, and obtain documentation 
related to an investigation. The Secretary may suspend or 
revoke organic certification if producers or handlers do not 
provide the Secretary with requested information pertinent to 
organic certification. The Secretary is also given authority to 
stop sale if a producer or handler misrepresents their product 
as being organic. A civil penalty is issued of not more than 
$10,000 for violating an order of organic certification 
revocation.

Section 10010. Report on honey

    Subsection (a) requires the Secretary to consult with honey 
industry stakeholders, including the American Honey Producers 
Association, the American Beekeeping Federation, the National 
Honey Packers and Dealers Association, the Sioux Honey 
Association, and the Western States Honey Packers and Dealers 
Association, on a report describing the contents of a new 
federal standard of identity for honey. The honey industry is 
currently faced with a number of major challenges, including 
the dilution of honey with increased quantities of other 
substances as well as the addition or substitution of 
substances in order to mask dilution. This subsection requires 
that this report be submitted to the Commissioner of the Food 
and Drug Administration within 180 days of enactment.
    Subsection (b) refers to the citizens' petition filed with 
the Food and Drug Administration in March 2006, which 
represented the honey industry's previous effort to develop a 
federal honey standard of identity. Since 2006, a number of 
states have enacted differing honey standards raising concerns 
about inconsistencies, the flow of commerce within the honey 
industry, confusion in the market place and unanticipated legal 
challenges. The honey industry is now undertaking efforts to 
develop a consensus federal standard of identity for 
consideration in the Secretary's report to the Food and Drug 
Administration.

Section 10011 Removal of AMS inspection authority over apples in bulk 
        bins

    Section 10011 eliminates duplicative inspection 
requirements for apples in bulk bins exported to Canada.

Section 10012. Organic product promotion order

    Section 10012 allows for the creation of an organic 
research and promotion order. The Committee recognizes the 
importance of research and promotion orders. Many individual 
commodity producers lack the resources or market power to 
advertise on their own, and that checkoff programs can operate 
as `self-help' mechanisms for producers and processors to fund 
generic promotions. Because checkoff programs are created at 
the request of an industry in support of its shared promotion 
goals, the Committee supports the continuation of mandatory 
checkoff programs. Further, the Committee encourages the 
Secretary of Agriculture to lift the administrative stay that 
was imposed by the rule entitled ``Christmas Tree Promotion, 
Research, and Information Order; Stay of Regulations'' and 
published by the Department of Agriculture on November 17, 2011 
(76 Fed. 10 Reg. 71241), on the regulations issued under 
subpart A of part 214 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, 
establishing an industry-funded promotion, research, and 
information program for fresh cut Christmas trees.

Section 10013. Effective date

    Section 10013 establishes October 1, 2013 as the effective 
date for the provisions in the title.

                        Title XI--Crop Insurance


Section 11001. Supplemental Coverage Option

    Section 11001 amends section 508(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to create a new coverage option that allows 
coverage based on an area yield and loss basis that covers part 
of the deductible under the individual yield or loss policy. 
The Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) includes the following 
provisions: (1) triggers only if losses in the area exceed 10 
percent of normal levels; (2) includes a deductible of 22 
percent of the expected value of the crop under the underlying 
insurance policy for producers in ARC and 10 percent for those 
not participating in ARC; (3) provides for a premium subsidy of 
65 percent of the premium associated with the coverage; and (4) 
covers the operating and administrative expenses in accordance 
with the rules applicable to other area policies. For 
administrative purposes, SCO policies are to be treated as 
separate policies from individual policies. For purposes of 
implementation, cotton policies should be the priority until 
policies under section 11013 are fully available.

Section 11002. Crop margin coverage option

    Section 11002 allows for margin insurance policies to be 
utilized in conjunction with individual yield and loss 
policies.

Section 11003. Premium amounts for catastrophic risk protection

    Section 11003 amends Section 508(d) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to establish, in the case of catastrophic risk 
protection, that the amount of the premium established by the 
Corporation for each crop for which catastrophic risk 
protection is available, shall be reduced by the percentage 
equal to the difference between the average loss ratio for the 
crop and 100 percent, plus a reasonable reserve.

Section 11004. Permanent enterprise unit

    Section 11004 amends section 508(e)(5) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to allow the Corporation to pay a portion of 
premiums for whole farm or enterprise unit insurance policies. 
The Committee recognizes that enterprise units and the 
additional assistance provided for enterprise unit policies has 
made higher levels of buy-up crop insurance more attainable for 
many farmers. Accordingly, the reported bill makes the pilot 
enterprise unit premium assistance permanent.

Section 11005. Enterprise units for irrigated and nonirrigated crops

    Section 11005 amends section 508(e)(5) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to make available to a producer the option to 
choose to separate enterprise units for irrigated and 
nonirrigated acreages of crops in counties beginning in the 
2014 crop year.

Section 11006. Data collection

    Section 11006 amends section 508(g)(2) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to allow the use of data collected by the Risk 
Management Agency, the National Agricultural Statistics 
Service, or both, to determine yields. Where sufficient county 
data is not available, the Secretary is authorized to use data 
from other sources.

Section 11007. Adjustment in actual production history to establish 
        insurable yields

    Section 11007 amends section 508(g)(4)(B) of the Federal 
Crop Insurance Act to increase the percentage of the applicable 
transitional yield used to replace excluded recorded or 
appraised yields from 60 percent to 65 percent for the 2014 and 
subsequent crop years.

Section 11008. Submission and review of policies

    Section 11008 amends section 508(h)(1) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to require the Corporation to review policies 
developed under the research and development contracting 
authority in section 522(c), or pilot program developed under 
section 523, and to submit to the Board for review programs 
that will likely result in viable and marketable policies, 
provide crop insurance in a significantly improved form, and 
adequately protect the interests of producers.

Section 11009: Board review and approval

    Section 11009 amends section 508(h) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to provide additional guidance to the Board to 
approve plans that do not unfairly discriminate among producers 
or have adverse impacts on crop insurance delivery, and are 
likely to result in viable and marketable policies, offer an 
improved form of insurance, or provide previously unavailable 
coverage. It allows the Board to establish and publish annual 
priorities on its website and requires the Board to consider 
prioritizing products that address underserved commodities, 
inadequate coverage, and low participation. The Committee 
suggests that the Board should also make multi-year revenue 
insurance a priority for consideration. The Committee contends 
that multi-year price coverage adheres to the provisions of 
section 11009 in that such policies could expand risk 
management tools for all producers through coverage that 
addresses a recognized inadequacy in current policies, 
including underserved producers and regions as well as 
increasing participation rates for all commodities that face 
the prospect of significant multi-year revenue declines.

Section 110010. Consultation

    Section 110010 amends Section 508(h)(4) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to require the submitter to consult with groups 
representing producers of agricultural commodities in all major 
producing areas for the commodities to be served or impacted by 
the submission. This consultation is intended to ascertain the 
support or opposition of potentially impacted agricultural 
producers in all major producing areas before making a 
determination to proceed with the product development and is to 
be included as part of the submission under the 508(h) process. 
This consultation requirement also establishes that any product 
developer must provide a market impact assessment and analysis 
of the potential impacts on regional and national markets for 
the development of any new product.

Section 11011. Budget limitations on renegotiation of the Standard 
        Reinsurance Agreement

    Section 11011 amends section 508(k)(8) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to require the Board to ensure budget neutrality 
to the maximum extent practicable during renegotiation of the 
Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA), and return any savings 
realized in these renegotiations to RMA programs.

Section 11012. Test weight for corn

    Section 11012 adds a new section that instructs the 
Corporation to establish procedures to allow insured producers 
not more than 120 days to settle claims involving corn that is 
determined to have low test weight.

Section 11013. Stacked income protection plan for producers of upland 
        cotton

    Section 11013 adds a new section 508B to the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act that provides upland cotton producers an area-
wide revenue loss coverage option of not more than 30 percent 
of expected county revenue, specified in increments of five 
percent and with deductible no less than 10 percent. It 
establishes coverage based on: (1) an expected price that is 
the expected price established under existing Group Risk Income 
Protection or is the area wide policy offered by the 
Corporation; and (2) an expected county yield that is the 
higher of the expected county yield for area wide plans or the 
average of applicable yield data from the county for the most 
recent five years, excluding the highest and lowest years. It 
uses a multiplier factor to establish maximum protection per 
acre of not more than 120 percent. It also establishes distinct 
coverage for irrigated and non-irrigated practices, and 
provides for a premium subsidy of 80 percent of the premium by 
the Corporation. This coverage can stand alone or be combined 
with an underlying individual policy. For administrative 
purposes, STAX policies are to be treated as separate policies 
from individual policies. The Committee intends for 
administrative and operating expenses to be covered in 
accordance with the rules applicable to other area policies. 
Finally, the Committee intends for the Risk Management Agency 
to make STAX available for the 2014 crop year.

Section 11014. Peanut revenue crop insurance

    Section 11014 adds a new section 508C to the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to create a revenue crop insurance program for 
peanut producers, beginning in crop year 2014, using the 
effective price for peanuts equal to the Rotterdam price index, 
adjusted to reflect the farmer stock price of peanuts in the 
U.S.

Section 11015. Authority to correct errors

    Section 11015 amends section 515(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to allow an insurance provider or agent to 
correct information to make it consistent with information a 
producer reported to FSA, provided the corrections do not allow 
the producer to obtain a disproportionate benefit or avoid any 
ineligibility requirements or legal obligations.

Section 11016. Implementation

    Section 11016 amends section 515 of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to implement an acreage report streamlining 
initiative that will allow producers to report acreage and 
other information directly to the Department. It requires the 
Secretary to notify Congress of substantial completion of the 
initiative and provides funding of $25 million for fiscal year 
2014 and $10 million for fiscal years 2015 through 2018. If 
initiative deadlines are met, it provides for $15 million per 
year for fiscal years 2015 through 2018 instead of $10 million.

Section 11017. Approval of costs for research and development

    Section 11017 amends Section 522(b)(2) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to allow the Board, at its discretion, to 
increase the 50 percent limitation to 75 percent on advance 
payments for research and development if the proposal provides 
coverage for an underserved region or crop, including specialty 
crops, and the submitter of the proposal does not have 
sufficient resources to fund development.

Section 11018. Whole farm risk management insurance

    Section 11018 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to develop a whole farm risk management insurance 
plan with a liability limitation of $1,500,000 that allows a 
diversified crop and livestock producer to qualify for an 
indemnity if actual gross revenue is below 85 percent of 
average gross farm revenue or reasonable expected gross farm 
revenue. It includes provisions on eligible producers, 
diversification, and market readiness value, and requires a 
report to Congress not later than two years after enactment to 
determine the results and feasibility of the research and 
development, including an analysis of potential adverse market 
distortions.

Section 11019. Study of food safety insurance

    Section 11019 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act by requiring a contract with a qualified person 
to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of insuring 
specialty crop producers from food safety and contamination 
issues. It requires the Corporation to submit a report to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate 
on results of the study.

Section 11020. Crop insurance for livestock

    Section 11020 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act (as amended by section 11016) by requiring a 
contract with a qualified person to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of insuring swine producers for a 
catastrophic event. It requires the Corporation to submit a 
report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
of the Senate on results of the study.

Section 11021. Margin coverage for catfish

    Section 11021 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act by requiring the Corporation to offer a contract 
to a qualified entity to conduct research and development 
regarding a policy to insure producers against reduction in the 
margin between the market value of catfish and selected costs 
incurred in the production of catfish.

Section 11022. Poultry business disruption insurance policy

    Section 11022 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act by requiring the Corporation to offer a contract 
to a qualified entity to conduct research and development 
regarding a policy to insure commercial poultry producers 
against business disruption caused by itegrator bankruptcy or a 
catastrophic event. It requires the Corporation to submit a 
report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
of the Senate on results of the study.

Section 11023. Study of crop insurance for seafood harvesters

    Section 11023 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act by requiring the Corporation to offer a contract 
to a qualified entity to conduct research and development 
regarding a policy to insure seafood harvesters. It requires 
the Corporation to submit a report to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate on results 
of the study.

Section 11024. Biomass and sweet sorghum energy crop insurance policies

    Section 11024 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act by requiring the Corporation to offer a contract 
to a qualified entity to conduct research and development 
regarding a policy to insure biomass sorghum and sweet sorghum 
for the purposes of producing a feedstock for renewable 
biofuel, renewable electricity, or biobased product.

Section 11025. Crop insurance for organic crops

    Section 11025 amends section 508(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act by requiring the Corporation to offer producers 
of organic crops price elections that reflect the actual retail 
or wholesale prices, received by producers. It requires the 
Corporation to submit a report to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate on results of the 
progress of this requirement.

Section 11026. Research and development

    Section 11026 amends section 522(c) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act by allowing the Corporation to conduct activities 
or enter into contracts to carry out research and development 
to maintain or improve existing policies or develop new 
policies, in accordance with the consultation requirement in 
section 11009.

Section 11027. Pilot programs

    Section 11027 amends section 523(a) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to increase Corporation discretion to conduct 
pilot programs and eliminates the evaluation and reporting 
requirement.

Section 11028. Index-based weather insurance pilot program

    Section 11028 amends section 523(a)(2) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to allow the Corporation to conduct a pilot 
program to provide financial assistance for producers of 
underserved crops and livestock (including specialty crops) to 
purchase an index-based weather insurance product from a 
private insurance company. This type of coverage, also referred 
to as parametric weather insurance, automatically provides 
payments to producers when a weather-related event occurs that 
typically results in yield or revenue loss. It requires the 
Corporation to use $10 million to carry out the pilot programs 
for each of the fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

Section 11029. Enhancing producer self-help through farm financial 
        benchmarking

    Section 11029 amends section 502(b) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act by adding farm financial benchmarking, which is 
the process of comparing the performance of an agricultural 
enterprise against the performance of other similar 
enterprises. It also amends section 522(d)(3)(F) of the Federal 
Crop Insurance Act by adding ``farm financial benchmarking'' 
after ``management'' and section 524(a) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act by adding ``farm financial benchmarking'' after 
``risk reduction'' and adding ``including farm financial 
benchmarking'' after ``management strategies''. The Committee 
recognizes that the profitability and financial viability of 
agricultural producers depends on their ability to make sound 
economic and financial farming decisions while managing and 
mitigating significant risks in a frequently changing policy 
environment. Likewise, the Committee and other policy makers 
benefit from receiving analysis that is timely and sound; 
constituting feedback based on the events, decisions and 
outcomes in the day-to-day operation of farms as producers 
utilize various programs and policies. The significant reforms 
contained in the reported bill for farmers provides a unique 
and necessary focus on this as federal agriculture policy 
becomes more centered on risk management. Because farming does 
not fit neatly into one program or title, the Committee 
encourages USDA to look for opportunities that combine 
programs, resources and authorities across titles in an 
integrated approach with a goal towards developing 
comprehensive research and education focused on risk 
management, risk mitigation, improved farm practices, financial 
benchmarking and farm management. The research and education 
should be targeted to agricultural producers, educators and 
agribusinesses (including crop insurance), as well as providing 
evaluation and feedback to state and federal policymakers. As 
the Committee works to move towards risk-based agricultural 
policy, efforts to enable the deployment of strategies and 
practices that help farmers manage and mitigate their risks are 
paramount, especially in the face of changing technologies that 
require modification of products, practices and policies for 
timely adaptation to the challenges farmers face today and into 
the future.

Section 11030. Beginning farmer and rancher provisions

    Section 11030 amends section 502(b) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act by adding the definition of ``beginning farmer or 
rancher''. It also amends section 508 of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to allow: (1) beginning farmers or ranchers to 
receive premium assistance 10 percentage points greater than 
premium assistance that would be otherwise is available; (2) 
beginning farmers or ranchers previously involved in a farming 
operation to use the previous producer's production history or 
assigned yield in determining yield coverage; and (3) beginning 
farmers or ranchers to replace each excluded yield with a yield 
equal to 80 percent of the applicable transitional yield.

Section 11031. Agricultural management assistance, risk management 
        education, and organic certification cost share assistance

    Section 11031 amends section 524 of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to provide assistance for: (1) provisions of 
organic certification cost share assistance; (2) activities to 
support risk management education and community outreach 
partnerships; and (3) provisions of agricultural management 
assistance grants to producers in States in which there has 
been a low level of Federal crop insurance participation. The 
assistance is limited to $50,000 per person per year. It 
requires the Commodity Credit Corporation to make available $23 
million for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018 to carry out 
this assistance. Additionally, the program provides organic 
producers with up to 75 percent of or $750 toward the cost of 
organic certification with funding set at $11.5 million each of 
fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

Section 11032. Crop production on native sod

    Section 11032 amends Section 508(o) of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act to provide sod producers during the first 4 years 
of planting on native sod acreage the following: (1) 65 percent 
of the transitional yield; and (2) a crop insurance premium 
subsidy 50 percentage points less than the premium subsidy that 
would otherwise apply. It requires the Secretary to submit a 
report that describes the cropland acreage in each county and 
State, and the change in cropland acreage from the preceding 
year in each county and State to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.

Section 11033. Technical amendments

    Section 11033 amends section 508(b) Federal Crop Insurance 
Act to remove the requirement that producers purchase 
catastrophic insurance or waive eligibility for emergency crop 
loss assistance to be eligible for certain payments and loans.

Section 11034. Greater accessibility for crop insurance

    Section 11034 requires the Risk Management Agency and 
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to use plain language to the 
greatest extent practicable. It requires the Secretary to 
submit a report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry of the Senate on results of the progress of this 
requirement. It also requires the Secretary to improve the 
existing Internet website through which agricultural producers 
identify crop insurance options.

Section 11035. GAO crop insurance fraud report

    Section 11035 amends Section 515(d) of the Crop Insurance 
Act to require the Comptroller General of the United States to 
conduct and submit to Congress a report describing the results 
of a study regarding fraudulent claims filed, and benefits 
provided under this title.

                        Title XII--Miscellaneous


   SUBTITLE A--SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED PRODUCERS AND LIMITED RESOURCE 
                               PRODUCERS

Section 12001. Outreach and assistance for socially disadvantaged 
        farmers and ranchers

    Section 12001 extends the program with an authorization 
level of $20 million per fiscal year and provides $10 million 
in mandatory funds per fiscal year. Veteran farmers and 
ranchers have also been included in the Outreach and Assistance 
for Socially Disadvantaged Producers and Limited Resource 
Producers.

Section 12002. Socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers policy 
        research center

    Section 12002 provides authority for the establishment of a 
research center, awarded through a competitive process, with 
the purpose of developing policy recommendations for the 
protection and promotion of the interests of socially 
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

Section 12003. Office of Advocacy and Outreach

    Section 12003 extends the authorization of the Office of 
Advocacy and Outreach with an authorization level of $2 million 
per year.

                         SUBTITLE B--LIVESTOCK

    With regard to livestock issues, the Committee is aware 
that equine disease outbreaks have occurred with increased 
frequency over the last several years. These outbreaks threaten 
the health and welfare of U.S. horses and the economic 
viability of the $102 billion horse industry. The Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is directed to 
coordinate with equine stakeholders and others to develop a 
national equine health plan for the purpose of detecting, 
controlling, and/or eradicating contagious equine diseases and 
promoting equine-specific biosecurity practices. The Committee 
is also concerned that the equine veterinary position at APHIS 
has been vacant for an extended period of time. This equine 
veterinary position is vital for an efficient and coordinated 
response to equine disease outbreaks and to handle the many 
equine issues for which APHIS is responsible. The Committee 
expects APHIS to fill this position as soon as possible.

Section 12101. Wildlife reservoir zoonotic disease initiative

    Section 12101 authorizes a competitive grant program to 
improve diagnostic testing and vaccines for Bovine 
Tuberculosis, Brucellosis and other zoonotic diseases in 
livestock, authorized for $7 million in appropriations per 
fiscal year.

Section 12102. Trichinae Certification Program

    Section 12102 reauthorizes the Trichinae Certification 
Program.

Section 12103. National Aquatic Health Plan

    Section 12103 reauthorizes the National Aquatic Health 
Plan.

Section 12104. Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program

    Section 12104 authorizes a competitive grant program to 
improve the sheep industry and provides mandatory funding of 
$1.5 million and authorizes $3 million in appropriations per 
fiscal year.

Section 12105. Feral Swine Eradication Pilot Program

    Section 12105 authorizes a pilot between NRCS and APHIS to 
eradicate feral swine and authorizes $2 million per fiscal 
year.

Section 12106. National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN)

    Section 12106 codifies NAHLN.

Section 12107. National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP)

    Section 12107 Directs USDA to continue the NPIP and ensure 
that it meets world standards. Additionally, the committee 
urges USDA to involve stakeholders and the committee if they 
consider any changes in governance structure.

               SUBTITLE C--OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 12201. Military veterans agricultural liaison

    Section 12201 establishes a military veteran liaison to 
connect returning veterans with beginning farmer training and 
help veterans access USDA programs.

Section 12202. Information gathering

    Section 12202 revises section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill to 
permit information sharing with certain State agencies, 
political subdivisions, and local governmental agencies.

Section 12203. Grants to improve supply, stability, safety, and 
        training of agricultural labor force

    Section 12203 reauthorizes grants to improve Supply, 
Stability, Safety, and Training of Agricultural Labor Force at 
$10 million per fiscal year.

Section 12204. Noninsured Crop Assistance Program

    Section 12204 contains a revision to the Noninsured Crop 
Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) that provides a ``buy-up'' 
option to producers of crops that are not covered by crop 
insurance. The section allows producers to elect and pay for 
higher coverage levels between 55 percent and 65 percent. 
Producers who elect higher coverage levels would pay a premium 
based upon the value of their production and acres planted. The 
buy-up option in Section 12204 was included to assist producers 
of non-covered crops who have been left without adequate 
support when facing losses under NAP as it now exists. The 
Committee recognizes concerns that the inadequate level of 
support under NAP has been a disincentive for utilization of 
the program by producers. The Committee intends for the new 
buy-up option to provide more effective coverage for producers 
of non-covered crops against losses and improve their ability 
to manage the risks they face. Additionally, section 12204 
removes overlap between NAP and the disaster programs in Title 
I.

Section 12205. Bioenergy coverage in Noninsured Crop Assistance Program

    Section 12205 includes crops grown for purposes of 
producing a feedstock for renewable biofuel, renewable 
electricity, or biobased products in the NAP.

Section 12206. Regional and economic infrastructure development

    Section 12206 reauthorizes the program, with a slight 
adjustment to the cap on administration fees.

Section 12207. Office of Tribal Relations

    Section 12207 directs the Secretary to develop an Office of 
Tribal Relations.

Section 12208. Acer Access and Development Program

    Section 12208 gives the Secretary authority to make grants 
for maple syrup access and development.

Section 12209. Prohibition on attending an animal fight or causing a 
        minor to attend an animal fight; enforcement of animal fighting 
        provisions

    Section 12209 amends the Animal Welfare Act to include a 
prohibition on knowingly attending or causing a minor to attend 
an animal fighting venture.

Section 12210. Pima Cotton Trust Fund

    Section 12210 establishes a Pima Cotton Trust Fund.

Section 12211. Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund

    Section 12211 establishes an Agriculture Wool Apparel 
Manufacturers Trust Fund.

Section 12212. Citrus Disease Research and Development Trust Fund

    Section 12212 establishes a Citrus Disease Research and 
Development Trust Fund.

Section 2. Definition of Secretary

    Section 2 defines the term ``Secretary'' for the entire act 
as the Secretary of Agriculture.

                      Rollcall Votes in Committee


2012 Markup

    By a rollcall vote of 16 yeas and 5 nays as follows, the 
bill was ordered reported with amendments:
        YEAS--16                      NAYS--5
Mr. Roberts                         Mr. Cochran
Mr. Lugar\1\                        Mr. McConnell\1\
Mr. Johanns                         Mr. Chambliss
Mr. Grassley                        Mr. Boozman
Mr. Thune                           Mrs. Gillibrand
Mr. Hoeven
Mr. Leahy\1\
Mr. Harkin\1\
Mr. Conrad
Mr. Baucus
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Brown
Mr. Casey\1\
Ms. Klobuchar
Mr. Bennet
Ms. Stabenow

2013 Markup

    Senator Hoeven offered an amendment that would allow NRCS 
certification maps of farms from 1990 to 1996 to serve as 
official determinations for purposes of wetland compliance. By 
rollcall vote of 10 yeas and 10 nays as follows, the amendment 
was defeated:
        YEAS--10                      NAYS--10
Mr. Cochran                         Ms. Stabenow
Ms. Heitkamp\1\                     Mr. Leahy\1\
Mr. McConnell\1\                    Mr. Harkin\1\
Mr. Roberts\1\                      Mr. Baucus
Mr. Chambliss                       Mr. Brown
Mr. Boozman                         Ms. Klobuchar\1\
Mr. Hoeven                          Mr. Bennet
Mr. Johanns                         Ms. Gillibrand
Mr. Grassley\1\                     Mr. Donnelly
Mr. Thune\1\                        Mr. Cowan

    Senator Thune offered an amendment to reform the SNAP 
Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention grant program such 
that the funds are awarded on a $5 per enrolled individual 
basis. By rollcall vote of 8 yeas and 12 nays as follows, the 
amendment was defeated:
        YEAS--8                       NAYS--12
Mr. McConnell\1\                    Ms. Stabenow
Mr. Roberts                         Mr. Cochran
Mr. Chambliss                       Mr. Leahy\1\
Mr. Boozman                         Mr. Harkin\1\
Mr. Hoeven                          Mr. Baucus\1\
Mr. Johanns                         Mr. Brown
Mr. Grassley                        Ms. Klobuchar
Mr. Thune                           Mr. Bennet
                                    Ms. Gillibrand
                                    Mr. Donnelly
                                    Ms. Heitkamp\1\
                                    Mr. Cowan

    A rollcall vote was conducted to consider final passage of 
the farm bill. By rollcall vote of 15 yeas and 5 nays as 
follows, the bill was adopted:
        YEAS--15                      NAYS--5
Ms. Stabenow                        Ms. Gillibrand
Mr. Cochran                         Mr. McConnell\1\
Mr. Leahy\1\                        Mr. Roberts
Mr. Harkin\1\                       Mr. Johanns
Mr. Baucus                          Mr. Thune
Mr. Brown
Ms. Klobuchar
Mr. Bennet
Mr. Donnelly
Ms. Heitkamp
Mr. Cowan
Mr. Chambliss
Mr. Boozman
Mr. Hoeven
Mr. Grassley

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

  Additional Views of Senator Thune, Senator Grassley, Senator Brown, 
         Senator Johanns, Senator Roberts, and Senator Donnelly

                      TITLE I--COMMODITY PROGRAMS

    While we agree with much of the content of the committee 
report, we regretfully file these additional views to clarify 
strong concerns with Title I of the Senate Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry originally reported bill, 
S. 954.
    The Commodity Title in S. 954, the ``Agriculture Reform, 
Food, and Jobs Act of 2013'' includes a significant change that 
represents a step backward from the reforms offered under S. 
3240, the ``Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012''; 
specifically, the continuation of indefensible, market-
distorting price-based subsidies for farmers. These supports 
were eliminated in the bill agreed to by the Senate in 2012.
    We are concerned that the elimination of a program that 
guarantees payments (direct payments) has been replaced by a 
program called Adverse Market Payments (AMP) that uses fixed 
reference prices established by Congress to provide guaranteed 
payments to at least some commodities and does so in a way that 
has the potential to distort markets and production and invite 
disputes before the World Trade Organization (WTO). Only two 
commodities receive a Congressionally-fixed price in the 
reported bill and both of them receive a fixed price at 
significantly higher levels than provided in the previous Farm 
Bill. These two commodities are also given the opportunity to 
update base acres and payment yields in a manner that is 
contrary to historical precedent and is likely to increase the 
market-distortive nature of the programs, making them even more 
vulnerable to WTO challenge.
    There was strong opposition to the reported bill by several 
members of the Agriculture Committee based on the inclusion of 
the AMP program due, in part to the inequitable treatment it 
provides for certain crops. We note that concerns have been 
raised about treating all crops and all regions equitably and 
against locking in profits for some commodities. Those concerns 
apply directly to the AMP program as the fixed reference prices 
for two crops are likely to guarantee payments to the producers 
of those crops because they are set too high, and those 
payments are likely to serve as a guaranteed profit for those 
commodities since they provide a price above the cost of 
production and the market value of the commodity.
    We do not consider having Congress fix the prices for two 
commodities resulting in likely payments for the five-year 
duration of the bill reform, nor is it defensible to American 
taxpayers.
    Commodity prices are inherently subject to the laws of 
supply and demand and are best set in the market based on the 
laws of supply and demand. Congress does not know better than 
the market what the price of a commodity should be in a given 
year, and it is even less capable of properly fixing those 
prices over multiple years. Historically, when Congress has set 
fixed floor prices for commodities at artificially high levels 
to address low prices and depressed markets, these policies 
have created market-distorting cycles under which farmers have 
planted excessive acres of an over-supplied commodity in order 
to capture Government assistance, which significantly increased 
Federal outlays at taxpayer expense as prices continue to 
decline.
    For example, from 1999 through 2001 market prices fell 
below market loan rates. Acreages of soybeans, cotton, and rice 
increased at the expense of corn and wheat because market 
prices fell below imbalanced loan rates. From 1999 through 
2001, both U.S. and international acreage mixes were affected 
by the marketing loan program's signals to U.S. producers.
    Commodities are traded worldwide, and the United States is 
the leading producer of many of the basic commodities in the 
world. Federal assistance provided when Congress establishes 
fixed floor prices for commodities at artificially high level 
substantially increases the potential to create oversupplied 
and depressed markets affecting farmers in the United States 
and overseas; and raises our concerns that such policies could 
lead to further disputes before the WTO.
    Because the AMP Program is structured nearly the same as 
the counter-cyclical program contained in the 2002 and 2008 
Farm Bills, which along with the market loan program was 
subject to a successful dispute by Brazil before the WTO that 
has nearly resulted in retaliation against American exports and 
has required the payment of $147.3 million annually to the 
Brazilian cotton industry by the United States taxpayer, the 
reported bill's inclusion of AMP and continued use of fixed 
reference prices for certain crops creates the risk for future 
WTO challenges. We are concerned that such challenges would be 
likely to be found inconsistent with our WTO commitments, 
putting the American economy at further risk from potential 
retaliation against our exports or requiring further payments 
of taxpayer funds to foreign agricultural industries. Having 
reformed these programs away from market-distorting price 
fixing just last year, we should not consider reinserting such 
provisions as contained in AMP to be a reform of our commodity 
support policies.
    Due to the recent high commodity prices, a greater 
percentage of the U.S. commodity crop production occurs on 
marginal lands, fragile ecosystems, and in areas more prone to 
natural disasters, all of which jeopardize vital natural 
resources, such as soil and water. We are concerned that fixed 
reference prices at levels such as those under AMP are likely 
to influence planting decisions for some commodities and that 
farmers capitalizing on the AMP-generated income when market 
prices drop will be encouraged to further expand commodity crop 
production on marginal and fragile higher risk lands.
    The basis of concern for the Commodity Title in S. 954 goes 
beyond the risks of the fixed high reference prices for certain 
crops under the AMP Program. Of even greater concern to us is 
the possibility that during the Conference Committee action the 
high fixed reference prices in AMP for certain crops will be 
expanded to apply to all crops; and that those fixed reference 
prices will be coupled to or be used to calculate payments on 
the planted acres of each participating commodity crop. This 
combination of high fixed target prices coupled to planted 
acres to calculate payments would greatly magnify the concerns 
expressed based solely on AMP.
    For the reasons above, we provide these additional views to 
the Committee's report.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that, in its 
opinion, it is necessary to dispense with the requirements of 
that paragraph in order to expedite the business of the Senate.