President’s budget features proposals Congress has not favored in the past
March 04, 2014 | 07:55 PM
President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, released today, promotes rural growth but features several items that Congress has rejected in the past or found difficult to accept: cuts to the crop insurance program, user fees for several agencies, a cut in funding for meat and poultry inspection, and consolidation of Farm Service Agency county offices.
The budget also includes a previously announced proposal to change the financing of fighting major forest fires so that other U.S. Forest Service programs are not cut when major fires break out.
Although Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell suggested today when discussing the administration’s proposals for increases in defense spending “why don’t we all sign on to the president’s budget?,” the overall budgets of all presidents are rejected by Congress.
Each budget, however, is seen as a statement of the administration’s priorities for the year, and some items — usually the ones for which the administration fights the hardest — do get enacted. The fiscal year 2015 budget is a month late because Congress and the administration did not reach agreement on the remainder of the fiscal year 2014 budget until early this calendar year.
The administration’s user fees would raise money for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration among others and the fees have all been proposed before, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a call to reporters.
Congress has to authorize creation of the fees and has refused in the past.
Vilsack did not mention any of these proposals in his written statement or call except the forest fire fighting initiative. Instead he emphasized the administration’s overall message about achieving deficit reduction and yet creating jobs and economic growth through its “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative.”
“The president’s 2015 USDA budget proposal achieves reform and results for the American taxpayer; fosters opportunity for the men and women living, working and raising families in rural America; and supports innovation through strategic, future-focused investments,” Vilsack said in a written statement.
In his call to reporters, Vilsack said that USDA faces the challenge of using limited resources to implement the farm bill, reduce the rate of population decline in rural America, help areas with the highest levels of poverty and address climate change.
“The president’s proposed Climate Resilience Fund will provide farmers and ranchers with much-needed assistance after extreme weather events, which are occurring with increasing frequency,” said Roger Johnson, president of the Democratic-leaning National Farmers Union.
“I hope Congress follows the president’s lead and takes action to comprehensively address global climate change in a way that engages and recognizes the valuable contributions the agricultural community can make to reducing our nation’s carbon footprint,” Johnson said.
The government-wide “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative” features a number of activities at USDA in the Agricultural Research Service, the National Institute for Food and Agriculture, and the U.S. Forest Service. They include a poultry disease lab in Georgia and innovation institutes on antimicrobial research, bio-based products and pollinator health.
The Midterm Review section of the budget notes that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will cost more $2 billion more in 2013 than had been expected because the rate of participation — now at 79 percent of eligible people — is higher than expected.
Vilsack said that USDA expects the number of SNAP participants to go down as the economy improves, but the budget also notes that the administration’s goal is to continue to raise the participation rate of eligible people.
Answering questions, Vilsack seemed to acknowledge that the president’s budget proposal is only the beginning of discussions with congressional appropriators.
Less than a month after Obama signed a farm bill that includes increases for crop insurance, the administration has proposed cutting $14.2 billion over 10 years in payments to companies and premium subsidies for farmers, and wants to use the money to fund its growth initiative.
Vilsack said Congress has “established a defined amount of money” to fund all of the federal government and the administration “needed to remain consistent with previous budgets” as a way to raise the question of whether the crop insurance program is “as equitable and fair to taxpayers as it is to producers and companies.”
The government doesn’t have to convince farmers to buy crop insurance anymore, Vilsack noted, because most of their lenders require it.
The budget also calls for a reduction in the appropriated FSIS budget from an estimated $894 million in 2014 to $885 million in 2015. Vilsack cited an 11 percent reduction in foodborne illnesses from the foods that FSIS inspects as a sign that FSIS’s actions have improved food safety.
Vilsack said that the agency’s proposal to make a change in the way poultry is inspected is the reason the Obama administration believes FSIS can operate with a lower level of appropriated funds.
Vilsack also said that a new poultry inspection system that involves more company involvement and speeded up lines would save money.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., a leading food safety advocate on Capitol Hill, said in a news release, “I am disappointed that the president is proposing we cut the Food Service and Inspection Service’s budget, particularly as it is already underfunded and has a crucial role protecting public health. FSIS has serious structural problems and moving to a system where we have fewer inspectors and more strained resources is not the answer. The president proposed establishing necessary user fees to pay for food safety inspections done by the Food and Drug Administration — that is the direction we should be going in at FSIS as well.”
The budget also proposes “consolidating” 250 of the Farm Service Agency county offices that USDA has in almost all of the 3,000 counties in the country to work with farmers to keep track of acreage and production and deliver crop subsidies and disaster payments.
Vilsack noted that there are 31 FSA county offices in which there are no full-time employees and others that have only one or two employees.
As these offices become better equipped with technology, their staffs should be able to handle a broader range of activities such as informing farmers about rural development programs, he said.
Offices in which a county employee is present only occasionally will not be able to handle such duties while offices with several employees can offer a broader range of services, he said.
Vilsack noted that the proposed consolidation would not begin until 2015 after most farmers’ questions about the new farm bill have been answered.
Many agriculture secretaries have proposed consolidating the county offices, and a few have succeeded.
While farmers have gotten used to driving longer distances for repairs, for example, local officials protest that closing the office will reduce farmers’ needs to stop in the town. The issue is particularly sensitive in the South where many of the county borders were established so that residents could make a round trip from their homes to the county seat and back in a single day.
Congress made some changes to the food aid authorities in the farm bill to allow for more assistance to low-income farmers overseas to increase food self-sufficiency in food-deficient countries and to allow more purchases of food in countries near centers of the hunger.
Congress rejected some of the administration’s proposals, however, and both the USDA budget and the State Department budget for the U.S. Agency for International Development call for further changes.
The USDA budget request includes new authority to use up to 25 percent ($350 million) of the P.L. 480 Title II appropriation in emergencies for interventions such as local or regional procurement of agricultural commodities near crises, food vouchers or cash transfers.
“The additional flexibility makes emergency food aid more timely and cost effective, improving program efficiencies and performance and increasing the number of people assisted by about 2 million annually with the same level of resources,” the USDA budget document says.
The budget also includes a previously announced proposal to change the financing of fighting major forest fires so that other U.S. Forest Service programs are not cut when major fires break out.
Although Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell suggested today when discussing the administration’s proposals for increases in defense spending “why don’t we all sign on to the president’s budget?,” the overall budgets of all presidents are rejected by Congress.
Each budget, however, is seen as a statement of the administration’s priorities for the year, and some items — usually the ones for which the administration fights the hardest — do get enacted. The fiscal year 2015 budget is a month late because Congress and the administration did not reach agreement on the remainder of the fiscal year 2014 budget until early this calendar year.
The administration’s user fees would raise money for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration among others and the fees have all been proposed before, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a call to reporters.
Congress has to authorize creation of the fees and has refused in the past.
Vilsack did not mention any of these proposals in his written statement or call except the forest fire fighting initiative. Instead he emphasized the administration’s overall message about achieving deficit reduction and yet creating jobs and economic growth through its “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative.”
“The president’s 2015 USDA budget proposal achieves reform and results for the American taxpayer; fosters opportunity for the men and women living, working and raising families in rural America; and supports innovation through strategic, future-focused investments,” Vilsack said in a written statement.
In his call to reporters, Vilsack said that USDA faces the challenge of using limited resources to implement the farm bill, reduce the rate of population decline in rural America, help areas with the highest levels of poverty and address climate change.
“The president’s proposed Climate Resilience Fund will provide farmers and ranchers with much-needed assistance after extreme weather events, which are occurring with increasing frequency,” said Roger Johnson, president of the Democratic-leaning National Farmers Union.
“I hope Congress follows the president’s lead and takes action to comprehensively address global climate change in a way that engages and recognizes the valuable contributions the agricultural community can make to reducing our nation’s carbon footprint,” Johnson said.
The government-wide “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative” features a number of activities at USDA in the Agricultural Research Service, the National Institute for Food and Agriculture, and the U.S. Forest Service. They include a poultry disease lab in Georgia and innovation institutes on antimicrobial research, bio-based products and pollinator health.
The Midterm Review section of the budget notes that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will cost more $2 billion more in 2013 than had been expected because the rate of participation — now at 79 percent of eligible people — is higher than expected.
Vilsack said that USDA expects the number of SNAP participants to go down as the economy improves, but the budget also notes that the administration’s goal is to continue to raise the participation rate of eligible people.
Answering questions, Vilsack seemed to acknowledge that the president’s budget proposal is only the beginning of discussions with congressional appropriators.
Crop insurance
Less than a month after Obama signed a farm bill that includes increases for crop insurance, the administration has proposed cutting $14.2 billion over 10 years in payments to companies and premium subsidies for farmers, and wants to use the money to fund its growth initiative.
Vilsack said Congress has “established a defined amount of money” to fund all of the federal government and the administration “needed to remain consistent with previous budgets” as a way to raise the question of whether the crop insurance program is “as equitable and fair to taxpayers as it is to producers and companies.”
The government doesn’t have to convince farmers to buy crop insurance anymore, Vilsack noted, because most of their lenders require it.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
The budget also calls for a reduction in the appropriated FSIS budget from an estimated $894 million in 2014 to $885 million in 2015. Vilsack cited an 11 percent reduction in foodborne illnesses from the foods that FSIS inspects as a sign that FSIS’s actions have improved food safety.
Vilsack said that the agency’s proposal to make a change in the way poultry is inspected is the reason the Obama administration believes FSIS can operate with a lower level of appropriated funds.
Vilsack also said that a new poultry inspection system that involves more company involvement and speeded up lines would save money.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., a leading food safety advocate on Capitol Hill, said in a news release, “I am disappointed that the president is proposing we cut the Food Service and Inspection Service’s budget, particularly as it is already underfunded and has a crucial role protecting public health. FSIS has serious structural problems and moving to a system where we have fewer inspectors and more strained resources is not the answer. The president proposed establishing necessary user fees to pay for food safety inspections done by the Food and Drug Administration — that is the direction we should be going in at FSIS as well.”
Farm Service Agency
The budget also proposes “consolidating” 250 of the Farm Service Agency county offices that USDA has in almost all of the 3,000 counties in the country to work with farmers to keep track of acreage and production and deliver crop subsidies and disaster payments.
Vilsack noted that there are 31 FSA county offices in which there are no full-time employees and others that have only one or two employees.
As these offices become better equipped with technology, their staffs should be able to handle a broader range of activities such as informing farmers about rural development programs, he said.
Offices in which a county employee is present only occasionally will not be able to handle such duties while offices with several employees can offer a broader range of services, he said.
Vilsack noted that the proposed consolidation would not begin until 2015 after most farmers’ questions about the new farm bill have been answered.
Many agriculture secretaries have proposed consolidating the county offices, and a few have succeeded.
While farmers have gotten used to driving longer distances for repairs, for example, local officials protest that closing the office will reduce farmers’ needs to stop in the town. The issue is particularly sensitive in the South where many of the county borders were established so that residents could make a round trip from their homes to the county seat and back in a single day.
Food aid
Congress made some changes to the food aid authorities in the farm bill to allow for more assistance to low-income farmers overseas to increase food self-sufficiency in food-deficient countries and to allow more purchases of food in countries near centers of the hunger.
Congress rejected some of the administration’s proposals, however, and both the USDA budget and the State Department budget for the U.S. Agency for International Development call for further changes.
The USDA budget request includes new authority to use up to 25 percent ($350 million) of the P.L. 480 Title II appropriation in emergencies for interventions such as local or regional procurement of agricultural commodities near crises, food vouchers or cash transfers.
“The additional flexibility makes emergency food aid more timely and cost effective, improving program efficiencies and performance and increasing the number of people assisted by about 2 million annually with the same level of resources,” the USDA budget document says.
- The Budget for Fiscal Year 2015: Department of Agriculture
- — USDA Fiscal Year 2015 Highlights
- — USDA Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan
- Office of Management and Budget — Fiscal Year 2015: Budget of the U.S. Government
- — Mid-Session Review: Budget of the U.S. Government
