DOCSLIB.ORG

2015 FFS Supplement Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2015 FFS Supplement Final FOOD, FARMING, & SUSTAINABILITY: READINGS IN AGRICULTURAL LAW 2015 SUPPLEMENT © Susan A. Schneider August 1, 2015 This supplement is supported by a website that provides electronic copies of documents cited and/or direct links to the websites and documents referenced. The website is at www.FoodFarmingSustainability.com. Select the Resources tab; references are organized by chapter. DISCLAIMER The book, FOOD, FARMING, & SUSTAINABILITY: READINGS IN AGRICULTURAL LAW, this 2015 SUPPLEMENT, and the companion website at www.FoodFarmingSustainability.com are intended for educational use only and not as legal advice. The author is not engaged in the private practice of law and does not provide any advice or suggestion on individual legal needs. All materials and resources provided are for educational purposes only. Copyright © 2015 Susan A. Schneider. All rights reserved. I. Agriculture and Agricultural Law A. The Agrarian Ideal or the Agrarian Myth? B. Agrarianism and the Development of U.S. Agricultural Law C. The Industrialization of Agriculture 1. Improved Agricultural Production Through Technology 2. The Large Scale Production of a Specialized Product 3. Vertical Integration 4. Industrialization in Animal Agriculture 5. Unanticipated Costs D. Sustainability E. What is a Family Farm? F. A Survey of Current U.S. Agricultural Production G. Consumer Awareness and Impact Links to the resources referenced in this supplement are provided on the FoodFarming Sustainability website, under Resources, Agriculture and Agricultural Law. I. Agriculture and Agricultural Law E. What is a family farm? Additional Information to be added at the end of this section, on page 44: In 2013, as a reflection of commodity price increases and a shift in production to larger farms, the USDA categories of farms were revised. The following table provides the new definitions. Revised ERS Farm Typology Farm Type Farm Operator’s Farm Size Measured by Primary Occupation Annual Gross Cash Farm Sales Small Family Farm Varies Less than $350,000 Retirement Farms Retired from farming Less than $350,000 Off-farm Occupation Farms Non-farm Less than $350,000 Farm Occupation Farms: Low-sales Farming Less than $150,000 Moderate-sales Farming $150,000 - $349,999 Mid-Sized Family Farm Not a criterion $350,000-$999,999 Large-scale Family Farm Not a criterion $1,000,000 or more Large farms Not a criterion $1,000,000 to $499,999,999 Very large farms $,5,000,000,000 or more Robert A. Hoppe, Structure and Finances of Family Farms: Family Farm, Report 2014 Edition 4, USDA, ERS, Econ. Inform. Bull. No. 132 (Dec. 2014) (linked on www.FoodFarmingSustainability.com). 2 Copyright © 2015 Susan A. Schneider. All rights reserved. The USDA ERS summarizes its findings as follows: Family farms accounted for 97 percent of U.S. farms in 2011. Small family farms alone—those reporting annual gross cash farm income (GCFI) less than $350,000—made up 90 percent of farms. They also operated 52 percent of the Nation’s farmland. In contrast, small farms accounted for a relatively small share of production, 26 percent, although their share of production was much higher for specific commodities. For example, small farms accounted for 56 percent of poultry production, which accounted for the largest share of small farms’ production under contract. Midsize and large-scale family farms together produce the bulk of agricultural output. Large-scale and midsize family farms made up only 8 percent of all U.S. farms in 2011, but they accounted for 60 percent of the value of U.S. agricultural production. Another 3 percent of farms were nonfamily farms, producing 15 percent of U.S. farm output; roughly 85 percent of nonfamily farm output was on farms with GCFI of $1,000,000 or more. Most nonfamily farms (78 percent), however, had GCFI below the $350,000 cutoff used to identify small farms. Small family farms are more likely to have profitability measures that fall in the critical zone, indicating potential financial problems. About three-fourths of U.S. farms are in the critical zone for rate of return on assets (a value less than 1 percent), and two-thirds are in the critical zone for operating profit margin (a value less than 10 percent). The shares in these critical zones are especially high for farms in the retirement, off-farm occupation, and low-sales categories, tapering off rapidly as farm size (measured by GCFI) increases. Robert A. Hoppe, Structure and Finances of Family Farms: Family Farm, Report 2014 Edition, Report Summary, USDA, ERS, Econ. Inform. Bull. No. 132 (Dec. 2014), available on the USDA ERS website and linked on www.FoodFarmingSustainability.com F. A Survey of Current U.S. Agricultural Production Updated Information, replacing the text in this subsection, pages 45-49: Every 5 years, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducts a Census or survey of U.S. agriculture. NASS describes this census providing "a complete count of U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate them" and it includes information about "land use and ownership, operator characteristics, production practices, income and expenditures, and many other areas." The first agriculture Census was taken in 1840, and for the next 156 years (1840–1996) the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census conducted the Census of Agriculture. In 1997, responsibility for conducting the Census of Agriculture transferred to the USDA NASS. The most recent census, the 2012 Census of Agriculture was the 28th Federal Census of Agriculture and the fourth conducted by NASS. 3 Copyright © 2015 Susan A. Schneider. All rights reserved. The 2012 Census reports fewer farmers than in 2007, but the productivity and economic influence of American agriculture has increased. The Census reveals a productive, largely industrialized agricultural sector that produces food, fiber, and fuel for the United States and for export. The following summary of U.S. agriculture is based on the 2012 Census of Agriculture. The data and the summary reports are available on the USDA NASS Ag Census website and a link is provided on www.FoodFarmingSustainability.com. 1. The Number of Farms As noted, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) uses a broad definition of the term “farm” for purpose of the census, defining it as any place that produced or sold — or normally would have produced or sold — $1,000 or more of agricultural products in a given year. The 2012 Census of Agriculture counted 2,109,303 farms in the United States, down 4.3 percent from the previous census in 2007. The 2007 Census had shown an increase, an exception to the general trend. Other than in 2007, the number of farms has declined each census since World War II. The majority of these 2.1 million farms are small farms, measured by sales, and the majority are supported by off-farm income. Seventy-five percent had farm sales of less than $50,000 in 2012, and almost 57 percent had sales less than $10,000. 2. The Number of Farmers and Farm Demographics The number of farmers is also down, from 2007 to 2012, a disappointment to many who were encouraged by an increase observed in 2007. The 2012 Census counted 3,180,074 farmers, a decline of 3.1 percent over 2007. The number of farmers is determined by the “farm operators” identified. The Census of Agriculture identifies the “principal operator” of the farm, defined as the “person primarily responsible for the day-to- day operation of the farm,” but also identifies any second or third farm operators who are also involved in the day-to-day decision making on the farm. These categories combine to reveal the reported number of “farmers.” The number of principal farm operators declined by 4.3 percent from 2007 to 2012. Seventy-eight percent of principal operators had been on their current farm for at least 10 years. Almost 80 percent of principal operators lived on their farm, but 70 percent indicated that less than 25 percent of their household income came from farming. Just over 52 percent had a primary occupation other than farming, but most worked some days off the farm. The decline in the number of farmers is consistent with the movement toward larger farms. A separate concern is raised, however, by the aging of the farmer population. The 2012 Census revealed a continuation of the long term trend of the aging of farm operators. The average age of the principal farm operator is now 58.3 years. The average age has increased roughly one year in each census cycle for the last 30 years. 4 Copyright © 2015 Susan A. Schneider. All rights reserved. Average Age of Principal Farm Operator 60 58.3 57.1 58 55.3 56 54.3 53.3 54 52 52 50.5 50 48 46 1982 1992 2002 2012 USDA NASS , 2012 Census of Agriculture, Highlights: Farm Demographics These averages reveal a potential concern for the farming profession. Younger farmers decreased in number. Between 2007 and 2012, there was a decrease in each age category of principal operators from age 54 downward, with a statistically significant drop in operators from 45-54 and from 35-44 years of age. In contrast, older farmers increased in number as existing farmers aged. From 2007 to 2012, there was an increase in each of the categories of principal operator at the high end of the age spectrum, with a statistically significant increase in the top age categories, 65 to 74 and 75 years of age and older. Principal Operators by Age Group: 2007 and 2012 243,472 75 years of age and older 257,705 412,182 65 to 74 years of age 443,571 596,306 55 to 64 years of age 608,052 565,401 2007 Census 45 to 54 years of age 466,036 2012 Census 268,818 35-44 years of age 214,106 106,735 25-34 years of age 109,119 11,878 Under 25 10,714 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 USDA NASS , 2012 Census of Agriculture, Highlights: Farm Demographics 5 Copyright © 2015 Susan A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North Carolina FSA June 2014 Electronic Monthly Newsletter
    North Carolina FSA June 2014 Electronic Monthly Newsletter USDA Announces Planting and harvesting fruits, participation in programs vegetables and wild rice on established by the 2014 Farm Bill Changes to Fruit, ARC/PLC acreage is subject to the will mean for their businesses. Vegetable and Wild Rice acre-for-acre payment reduction North Carolina State University Planting Rules when those crops are planted on receives $57,460. North Carolina either more than 15 percent of the A&T State University receives Farm Service Agency (FSA) base acres of a farm enrolled in $24,907. has announced fruit, vegetable and ARC using the county coverage or wild rice provisions that affect PLC, or more than 35 percent of The University of Illinois (lead the base acres of a farm enrolled in for the National Coalition for producers who intend to participate ARC using the individual coverage. Producer Education), along with in certain programs authorized by the Food and Agricultural Policy the Agricultural Act of 2014. Fruits, vegetables and wild rice Research Institute (FAPRI) at the that are planted in an approved University of Missouri and the double-cropping practice will not Agricultural and Food Policy Producers who intend to cause a payment reduction if the Center at Texas A&M (co-leads for participate in the Agriculture Risk farm is in a double-cropping region the National Association of Coverage (ARC) or Price Loss as designated by the USDA’s Agricultural and Food Policy), will Coverage (PLC) programs are Commodity Credit Corporation. receive a total of $3 million to subject to an acre-for-acre develop the new online tools and payment reduction when fruits and train state-based extension agents nuts, vegetables or wild rice are who can in turn help educate planted on the payment acres of a USDA Awarding $6 farmers.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 113 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 113 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 160 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2014 No. 82 Senate The Senate was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Friday, May 30, 2014, at 2 p.m. House of Representatives THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2014 The House met at 10 a.m. and was ment that my colleagues and I were proach me at Memorial Day events to called to order by the Speaker pro tem- prevented from offering an amendment say that they agree that Afghanistan is pore (Mr. BENTIVOLIO). to the NDAA dealing with the constitu- not worth the blood that has been shed f tional responsibility of Congress to de- there. Furthermore, they agreed with clare war. me that Afghanistan is not worth DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO Like many Members of Congress, I America continuing to borrow money TEMPORE had the opportunity to speak at events from foreign nations, driving up fur- The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday on ther the debt of our Nation to fund fore the House the following commu- Memorial Day weekend. Every time I President Karzai’s corrupt government nication from the Speaker: spoke, I mentioned my frustration that when we have a multitude of problems WASHINGTON, DC, the McGovern-Jones amendment was and needs right here in America. May 29, 2014. not able to be brought to the floor for Mr. Speaker, I would like to close my I hereby appoint the Honorable KERRY L.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Animal Law Update Seminar Handbook
    2015 Animal Law Update CLE Seminar Presented by the Kentucky Bar Association Animal Law Section Kentucky Bar Association 514 West Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 502.564.3795 www.kybar.org The Kentucky Bar Association Animal Law Section presents: 2015 Animal Law Update This program has been approved in Kentucky for 5.00 CLE credits including 0.00 Ethics credits. Compiled and Edited by: The Kentucky Bar Association Office of Continuing Legal Education for Kentucky Bar Association Animal Law Section © 2015 All Rights Reserved Published and Printed by: The Kentucky Bar Association, February 2015. Editor’s Note: The materials included in this Animal Law Update seminar book are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. The program materials were compiled for you by volunteer authors. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of the Kentucky Bar Association disclaim liability therefor. Attorneys using these materials or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter, have a duty to research original and current sources of authority. 2015 Animal Law Update CLE Seminar Table of Contents Agenda............................................................................................................................. i Speakers ........................................................................................................................ iii Kentucky Animal Cruelty Statutes, Case Law and Collaboration between Prosecutors and Law Enforcement .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the Secretary, USDA § 2.28
    § 1c.121 7 CFR Subtitle A (1–1–21 Edition) agency through such officers and em- § 1c.124 Conditions. ployees of the Federal department or With respect to any research project agency and such experts and consult- or any class of research projects the de- ants as the department or agency head partment or agency head of either the determines to be appropriate. This conducting or the supporting Federal evaluation will take into consideration department or agency may impose ad- the risks to the subjects, the adequacy ditional conditions prior to or at the of protection against these risks, the time of approval when in the judgment potential benefits of the research to of the department or agency head addi- the subjects and others, and the impor- tional conditions are necessary for the tance of the knowledge gained or to be protection of human subjects. gained. (b) On the basis of this evaluation, the department or agency head may PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF AU- approve or disapprove the application THORITY BY THE SECRETARY OF or proposal, or enter into negotiations AGRICULTURE AND GENERAL OF- to develop an approvable one. FICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT § 1c.121 [Reserved] Subpart A—General § 1c.122 Use of Federal funds. Sec. 2.1 Establishment of the Department. Federal funds administered by a Fed- 2.2 Authority of the Secretary to prescribe eral department or agency may not be regulations. expended for research involving human 2.3 Authority of the Secretary to delegate subjects unless the requirements of authority. this policy have been satisfied. 2.4 General officers.
    [Show full text]
  • House-Senate Negotiators Announce Bipartisan Agreement on Final Farm Bill
    House-Senate Negotiators Announce Bipartisan Agreement on Final Farm Bill Bill Reforms Agricultural Policy, Reduces Deficit, Grows Economy Jan 27, 2014 Issues: Farm Bill MEDIA CONTACT: Tamara Hinton, 202.225.0184 [email protected] WASHINGTON – House and Senate agriculture leaders today announced a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a five-year farm bill that will reduce the deficit, grow the economy and provide certainty to the 16 million Americans whose jobs depend on agriculture. The Agricultural Act of 2014 contains major reforms, including eliminating the direct payments program, streamlining and consolidating numerous programs to improve their effectiveness and reduce duplication, and cutting down on program misuse. The bill also strengthens our nation's commitment to support farmers and ranchers affected by natural disasters or significant economic losses; and renews a national commitment to protect land, water, and other natural resources. "I am proud of our efforts to finish a farm bill conference report with significant savings and reforms," said Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. "We are putting in place sound policy that is good for farmers, ranchers, consumers, and those who have hit difficult times. I appreciate the work of everyone who helped in this process. We never lost sight of the goal, we never wavered in our commitment to enacting a five-year, comprehensive farm bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage." "Today's bipartisan agreement puts us on the verge of enacting a five-year Farm Bill that saves taxpayers billions, eliminates unnecessary subsidies, creates a more effective farm safety-net and helps farmers and businesses create jobs," said Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • Table Egg Production and Hen Welfare: Agreement and Legislative Proposals
    Table Egg Production and Hen Welfare: Agreement and Legislative Proposals Joel L. Greene Analyst in Agricultural Policy Tadlock Cowan Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development February 14, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42534 Table Egg Production and Hen Welfare: Agreement and Legislative Proposals Summary The United Egg Producers (UEP), the largest group representing egg producers, and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the largest animal protection group, have been adversaries for many years over the use of conventional cages in table egg production. In July 2011, the animal agriculture community was stunned when the UEP and HSUS announced that they had agreed to work together to push for federal legislation to regulate how U.S. table eggs are produced. The agreement between UEP and HSUS called for federal legislation that would set cage sizes, establish labeling requirements, and regulate other production practices. As part of the agreement, HSUS agreed to immediately suspend state-level ballot initiative efforts in Oregon and Washington. On April 25, 2013, the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013 (S. 820 and H.R. 1731) were introduced in the 113th Congress. The bills are nearly identical to the legislation that was introduced during the 112th Congress (S. 3239 and H.R. 3798). The provisions in S. 820 and H.R. 1731 reflect the 2011 agreement between UEP and HSUS to establish uniform, national cage size requirements for table egg-laying hens. The bills would codify national standards for laying-hen housing over a 15- to 16-year phase-in period, including labeling requirements to disclose how eggs are produced, and set air quality, molting, and euthanasia standards for laying hens.
    [Show full text]
  • The Agricultural Act of 2014
    The Agricultural Act of 2014 On February 7, President Obama signed the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) into law. The signing marks an end to the multi-year and multi-bill process for reauthorizing the 2008 Farm Bill, which initially expired September 2012, and was then extended until September 2013. The bill passed the House 251-166 on January 29, while the Senate approved it 68-32 on February 4. Overall, the 2014 Farm Bill extends most of the major federal farm and nutrition assistance programs through FY 2018, at a cost of $956 billion over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. In particular, $756 billion, or 79 percent, would be for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The legislation is expected to reduce the deficit by $23 billion dollars. These savings are the result of $33 billion in reductions to certain programs combined with $10 billion in funding increases in other areas. Of the $33 billion in savings, $19 billion comes from reductions in farm programs, including ending direct payments to farmers, $6 billion from conservation programs and $8 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The $10 billion in increased funding is targeted towards crop insurance, research, export promotion, specialty crop support, rural development, and other areas. The $956 billion is classified as mandatory spending, and will not require annual appropriation by Congress. While the bill totals over 950 pages, below is a short analysis of many of the major, and a few of the minor issues and changes. Please contact Ben Husch (202-624-7779) if you need additional information on any of the topics covered below.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Act of 2014 on the Agricultural Sector in LAC
    Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture Possible impact of the U.S. Agricultural Act of 2014 on the agricultural sector in LAC Prepared by CAESPA1 1. The work of the Center for Strategic Analysis for Agriculture (CAESPA) at IICA is focused on the analysis of strategic issues affecting sustainable development in the Americas. CAESPA is not biased and does not adopt a political position on any topic. Moreover, all the views, positions and conclusions expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). Joaquín Arias was the technical coordinator. Responsibility for drafting the different sections was assigned to Joaquín Arias, Hugo Chavarría, Ileana Ávalos, Adriana Campos and Rafael Trejos, with whom Eugenia Salazar collaborated. Comments made by anonymous external reviewers were also a great help. Introduction the 2008 Farm Bill; see H.R. 2008) for another five years would have cost around USD 494 billion, USD 5.4 billion more than the projected budget for the 2014 The Agricultural Act, first enacted in 1933 and Farm Bill. usually referred to as the Farm Bill, is the primary 3,000 agricultural and food policy tool of the U.S. Federal 2014 Farm Bill: Estimated effects on the 2,000 Government. A new bill is normally passed every five 2014 - 2018 budget (millions of USD) years, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1,000 responsible for implementing it. Since 1973, farm bills 3,000 2,000 have included programs related to commodities, trade, - rural development, farm credit, agricultural research, 1,000 Trade Credit Energy (1,000) Forestry food, nutrition and marketing.
    [Show full text]
  • Hemp As an Agricultural Commodity
    Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity Renée Johnson Specialist in Agricultural Policy June 22, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32725 Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity Summary Industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity that is cultivated for use in the production of a wide range of products, including foods and beverages, cosmetics and personal care products, nutritional supplements, fabrics and textiles, yarns and spun fibers, paper, construction and insulation materials, and other manufactured goods. Hemp can be grown as a fiber, seed, or other dual-purpose crop. However, hemp is also from the same species of plant, Cannabis sativa, as marijuana. As a result, production in the United States is restricted due to hemp’s association with marijuana, and the U.S. market is largely dependent on imports, both as finished hemp-containing products and as ingredients for use in further processing (mostly from Canada and China). Current industry estimates report U.S. hemp product sales at nearly $700 million annually. In the early 1990s there was a sustained resurgence of interest to allow for commercial hemp cultivation in the United States. Several states conducted economic or market studies and initiated or enacted legislation to expand state-level resources and production. Congress made significant changes to federal policies regarding hemp in the 2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, §7606). The 2014 farm bill provided that certain research institutions and state departments of agriculture may grow hemp under an agricultural pilot program. The bill further established a statutory definition for industrial hemp as “the plant Cannabis sativa L.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Crop Insurance Act.Xml
    Q:\COMP\AGMISC\75-30 - Agricultural Adjustment Act Of 1938 & Federal Crop Insurance Act.xml 1–3 75-30 - Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 & Fed... Sec. 2 TITLE V—CROP INSURANCE Subtitle A—Federal Crop Insurance Act Sec. 501. Short title and application of other provisions. Sec. 502. Purpose and definitions. Sec. 503. Creation of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Sec. 504. Capital stock. Sec. 505. Management of Corporation. Sec. 506. General powers. Sec. 507. Personnel. Sec. 508. Crop insurance. Sec. 508A. Double insurance and prevented planting. Sec. 509. Indemnities exempt from levy. Sec. 510. Deposit of funds. Sec. 511. Tax exemption. Sec. 512. Fiscal agency of government. Sec. 513. Accounting by Corporation. Sec. 514. Crimes and offenses. Sec. 515. Program compliance and integrity. Sec. 516. Funding. Sec. 517. Separability. Sec. 518. Agricultural commodity. Sec. 520. Producer eligibility. Sec. 521. Ineligibility for catastrophic risk and noninsured assistance payments. Sec. 522. Research and development. Sec. 523. Pilot programs. Sec. 524. Education and risk management assistance. Subtitle B—Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Sec. 531. Supplemental agricultural assistance.disaster an adequate and balanced flow of agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ø7 U.S.C. 1281¿ That this Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938’’. TITLE V—CROP INSURANCE Subtitle A— Federal Crop Insurance Act SEC. 501. ø7 U.S.C. 1501¿ SHORT TITLE AND APPLICATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS. This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Crop Insurance Act’’.
    [Show full text]
  • One Hundred Thirteenth Congress of the United States of America
    H. R. 2642 One Hundred Thirteenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen An Act 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. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Act of 2014’’. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary of Agriculture. TITLE I—COMMODITIES Subtitle A—Repeals and Reforms PART I—REPEALS Sec. 1101. Repeal of direct payments. Sec. 1102. Repeal of counter-cyclical payments. Sec. 1103. Repeal of average crop revenue election program. PART II—COMMODITY POLICY Sec. 1111. Definitions. Sec. 1112. Base acres. Sec. 1113. Payment yields. Sec. 1114. Payment acres. Sec. 1115. Producer election. Sec. 1116. Price loss coverage. Sec. 1117. Agriculture risk coverage. Sec. 1118. Producer agreements. Sec. 1119. Transition assistance for producers of upland cotton. Subtitle B—Marketing Loans Sec. 1201. Availability of nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for loan commod- ities. Sec. 1202. Loan rates for nonrecourse marketing assistance loans. Sec. 1203. Term of loans. Sec. 1204. Repayment of loans. Sec. 1205. Loan deficiency payments. Sec. 1206. Payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments for grazed acreage.
    [Show full text]
  • Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agen- Cies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016
    S. HRG. 114–633 AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGEN- CIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 3049/S. 1800 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVEL- OPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGEN- CIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2016, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Agriculture Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 24–506 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Vice RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama Chairwoman LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine PATTY MURRAY, Washington LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MARK KIRK, Illinois JACK REED, Rhode Island ROY BLUNT, Missouri JON TESTER, Montana JERRY MORAN, Kansas TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin STEVE DAINES, Montana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut BRUCE EVANS, Staff Director CHARLES E.
    [Show full text]