Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013

Updated on Oct 04, 2024

Edit

Comment

Introduced on May 13, 2013		Number of Co-Sponsors 1

Full title To provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. Introduced in 113th United States Congress Sponsored by Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R, OK-3) Act(s) affected Food Security Act of 1985, Federal Crop Insurance Act, Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, and many others

The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 (H.R. 1947) is a bill that was introduced into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress. Commonly referred to as "the farm bill," this proposed legislation is the latest in a series of United States "farm bills" dealing with agricultural policy in the United States. A "farm bill" is passed roughly every five years. On June 20, 2013, the bill was rejected by the House in a vote of 195-234, recorded in Roll Call 286.

In light of the failure of the House version of the farm bill to pass, attention has shifted to focus on the reaction of the House to the Senate-passed draft farm bill, known as the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 (S. 954). This is the bill that was introduced into the United States Senate, and passed on June 10, 2013.

The Senate bill failed to pass in the House, so the two chambers organized a conference committee to combine provisions from the two bills. The result was the Agricultural Act of 2014, which passed both houses and was signed into law in February 2014. The Agriculture Act of 2014 includes provisions from both the House and the Senate bills.

Background

A "farm bill" is one of the primary tools of the United States federal government to set policy related to agriculture in the United States. Farm bills are passed roughly every five years. The farm bills typically cover laws and policies related to supplemental nutrition, land payments, crop insurance, environmental practices, some international trade, and research.

Provisions/Elements of the bill

The bill totaled $940 billion and cut funding for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program by $20 billion.

Congressional Budget Office report

This summary is based largely on the summary provided by the Congressional Budget Office, a public domain source.

Estimated budgetary effects

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that direct spending stemming from the program authorizations in H.R. 1947 would total $939 billion over the 2014-2023 period. That 10-year total reflects the bill’s authorization of expiring programs through 2018 and an extension of those authorizations through 2023, consistent with the rules governing baseline projections that are specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

Relative to spending projected under CBO’s May 2013 baseline, the CBO estimates that enacting the bill would reduce direct spending by $33.4 billion over the 2014-2023 period. The estimated budgetary effects of H.R. 1947 are summarized in Table 1 of the report.

Assuming appropriation of the specified and necessary amounts, the CBO also estimates that implementing the bill would result in discretionary spending of $27.3 billion over the 2014-2018 period and $33.2 billion over the 2014-2023 period. Further details of that estimate for discretionary spending are displayed in Table 3.

Intergovernmental mandates

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

Private-sector mandates

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

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

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

Previous CBO cost estimate

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

Not affect federal revenues, whereas the Agriculture Committee’s version would increase revenues by $64 million over the 2014-2023 period;

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

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

Pay-As-You-Go considerations

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. Enacting H.R. 1947 would affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. The net change in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 4.

Procedural history

The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 was introduced by Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), chair of the House Agricultural Committee, on May 13, 2013. It was immediately referred to the United States House Committee on Agriculture, which considered, marked-up, and reported the bill on May 15. The vote was 36-10. It was also referred sequentially to the United States House Committee on the Judiciary (voice vote - June 6) and to the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs (discharged June 10). The bill was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 73. on June 10. The House started considering the bill on the floor during the week of June 17, 2013.

On June 20, 2013, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 was received a vote on the House floor - it failed 195-234 (Roll Call 286). Only 24 Democrats voted in favor of the bill, with most voting against due to its cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 62 Republicans voted against the bill, defecting from their own party. Comments made by the House Republican leadership immediately following the vote suggested that they had expected more Democratic support. Since they hadn't received it, they indicated they would be rewriting the bill to appeal more to the conservative Republicans whose votes they lost.

Presidential reaction

On June 17, 2013, President of the United States Barack Obama released a statement of administration policy announcing that the Administration "strongly opposes" the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013. The statement provided three specific criticisms. First, the bill would cut some of the funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a federal program that provides money for food for low income Americans. Second, the bill would need meet the president's expectations for commodity and crop reforms. Third, the bill would not provide funding for renewable energy. The memo concludes with the statement that "if the President were presented with H.R. 1947, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

References

Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 Wikipedia

(Text) CC BY-SA

Contents