Budget deal enters agriculture sphere
December 11, 2013 | 06:50 PM
The budget deal entered the agriculture sphere today as House Democrats proposed using farm bill savings to pay for unemployment benefits, conservation groups criticized plans to ask farmers to pay for technical assistance, and a key food aid group endorsed it.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. announced a deal to avoid the sequestration cuts that would come in January.
That deal does not include an extension of unemployment benefits, but today at a House Rules Committee hearing Democrats said they should be extended for three months by using $6 billion in savings from the farm bill that has not yet passed.
Republicans immediately dismissed the idea, but extending unemployment benefits and fixing the Medicare service payments to doctors appeared still to be live issues.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said he does not approve of using farm bill savings in the budget deal, but Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., criticized the decision not to take them into consideration.
“Though I support this agreement, it’s a compromise and it’s not perfect.” Mikulski said in a statement.
“I’m deeply disappointed it requires some federal employees to pay more for their retirement,” Mikulski said. “For too long, federal employees have been scapegoats of deficit reduction. I would have preferred for negotiators to find savings by closing tax loopholes and cancelling outdated dust bowl era farm subsidies.”
Meanwhile, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the National Association of Conservation Districts and the National Farmers Union today criticized cuts to conservation and a provision that would require farmers to pay fees for technical assistance.
“The Ryan-Murray budget deal extends all mandatory program automatic budget cuts, including mandatory farm bill conservation program cuts, for an additional two years,” NSAC said.
“For conservation this is another near half-billion dollars in cuts on top of the over $2 billion in cuts already occurring due to sequestration, on top of whatever a final farm bill deal may cut into conservation spending, and on top of whatever the final omnibus appropriations bill decides to take from the farm bill through backdoor mandatory program spending cuts,” NSAC said.
“Adding insult to injury, the budget deal would, for the very first time, charge farmers when they seek technical help from USDA to improve their soil and water conservation practices. The net effect is less conservation on the land, and higher long-term costs in lost productivity and environmental clean up in the future. Sadly, the lack of coordination between the budget process and the farm bill process couldn’t be clearer than it is tonight.
The National Association of Conservation Districts said today that it is pleased that the budget agreement avoids a government shutdown and replaces sequestration for the next two years with some additional non-defense discretionary funding, but opposes the fees for technical assistance services provided by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
“Imposing conservation planning technical assistance user fees is short-sighted, creating a burden on producers who are simply trying to be proactive and do the right thing for the land and water resources,” said NACD President Earl Garber.
“User fees will discourage producers from implementing critical conservation practices at a time when they have the heavy burden of meeting the demand of a growing population,” Garber said. “This will ultimately take a toll on our nation’s natural resource base, when as we know, the cost of repair is always greater that the cost of proactive maintenance in the first place.”
NACD said it can’t support user fees if they are not “going toward the technical assistance that is necessary to do conservation planning.”
“We recognize that waivers are included in the resolution; however, even the process of seeking a waiver creates an administrative burden for an agency already managing a large workload,” the NACD said. “At the end of the day, the administrative burden of collecting these fees would potentially outweigh the dollars that would be saved.”
"We urge the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to prioritize conservation as they make allocations for the Agriculture Subcommittees,” Garber continued. “Specifically, we’re calling for an increase in Conservation Operations funding to help offset the budget cuts to conservation in relation to NRCS user fees for proactive conservation planning.”
National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson said “Unfortunately the budget deal hits agriculture programs again and doesn’t deal with the biggest legislative issue facing farmers and rural America: the lack of a five-year farm bill.”
“Charging a fee for helping farmers to become more environmentally-friendly is counterproductive,” Johnson said. “Congress ought to encourage farmers to establish these sorts of conservation improvements, not make them more difficult. The savings provided to the federal budget by imposing fees on this very helpful program are minimal.”
Johnson also noted that passing a farm bill could save as much as the budget deal that has been announced.
“There’s been much in the press that the budget deal saves $23 billion without tax increases,” he said. “The farm bill would likely provide about the same level of savings while sensibly reforming many farm, conservation and other programs. Passing a farm bill before the end of the year would be a better budget deal than what’s been proposed.”
Bread for the World endorsed the budget deal because it “helps keep a circle of protection around crucial programs for poor and hungry people,” but said Congress should extend unemployment benefits.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. announced a deal to avoid the sequestration cuts that would come in January.
That deal does not include an extension of unemployment benefits, but today at a House Rules Committee hearing Democrats said they should be extended for three months by using $6 billion in savings from the farm bill that has not yet passed.
Republicans immediately dismissed the idea, but extending unemployment benefits and fixing the Medicare service payments to doctors appeared still to be live issues.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said he does not approve of using farm bill savings in the budget deal, but Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., criticized the decision not to take them into consideration.
“Though I support this agreement, it’s a compromise and it’s not perfect.” Mikulski said in a statement.
“I’m deeply disappointed it requires some federal employees to pay more for their retirement,” Mikulski said. “For too long, federal employees have been scapegoats of deficit reduction. I would have preferred for negotiators to find savings by closing tax loopholes and cancelling outdated dust bowl era farm subsidies.”
Meanwhile, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the National Association of Conservation Districts and the National Farmers Union today criticized cuts to conservation and a provision that would require farmers to pay fees for technical assistance.
“The Ryan-Murray budget deal extends all mandatory program automatic budget cuts, including mandatory farm bill conservation program cuts, for an additional two years,” NSAC said.
“For conservation this is another near half-billion dollars in cuts on top of the over $2 billion in cuts already occurring due to sequestration, on top of whatever a final farm bill deal may cut into conservation spending, and on top of whatever the final omnibus appropriations bill decides to take from the farm bill through backdoor mandatory program spending cuts,” NSAC said.
“Adding insult to injury, the budget deal would, for the very first time, charge farmers when they seek technical help from USDA to improve their soil and water conservation practices. The net effect is less conservation on the land, and higher long-term costs in lost productivity and environmental clean up in the future. Sadly, the lack of coordination between the budget process and the farm bill process couldn’t be clearer than it is tonight.
The National Association of Conservation Districts said today that it is pleased that the budget agreement avoids a government shutdown and replaces sequestration for the next two years with some additional non-defense discretionary funding, but opposes the fees for technical assistance services provided by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
“Imposing conservation planning technical assistance user fees is short-sighted, creating a burden on producers who are simply trying to be proactive and do the right thing for the land and water resources,” said NACD President Earl Garber.
“User fees will discourage producers from implementing critical conservation practices at a time when they have the heavy burden of meeting the demand of a growing population,” Garber said. “This will ultimately take a toll on our nation’s natural resource base, when as we know, the cost of repair is always greater that the cost of proactive maintenance in the first place.”
NACD said it can’t support user fees if they are not “going toward the technical assistance that is necessary to do conservation planning.”
“We recognize that waivers are included in the resolution; however, even the process of seeking a waiver creates an administrative burden for an agency already managing a large workload,” the NACD said. “At the end of the day, the administrative burden of collecting these fees would potentially outweigh the dollars that would be saved.”
"We urge the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to prioritize conservation as they make allocations for the Agriculture Subcommittees,” Garber continued. “Specifically, we’re calling for an increase in Conservation Operations funding to help offset the budget cuts to conservation in relation to NRCS user fees for proactive conservation planning.”
National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson said “Unfortunately the budget deal hits agriculture programs again and doesn’t deal with the biggest legislative issue facing farmers and rural America: the lack of a five-year farm bill.”
“Charging a fee for helping farmers to become more environmentally-friendly is counterproductive,” Johnson said. “Congress ought to encourage farmers to establish these sorts of conservation improvements, not make them more difficult. The savings provided to the federal budget by imposing fees on this very helpful program are minimal.”
Johnson also noted that passing a farm bill could save as much as the budget deal that has been announced.
“There’s been much in the press that the budget deal saves $23 billion without tax increases,” he said. “The farm bill would likely provide about the same level of savings while sensibly reforming many farm, conservation and other programs. Passing a farm bill before the end of the year would be a better budget deal than what’s been proposed.”
Bread for the World endorsed the budget deal because it “helps keep a circle of protection around crucial programs for poor and hungry people,” but said Congress should extend unemployment benefits.
