|
|
|
|
|
Farm program funding would suffer under budget resolutions adopted by the House and Senate.
The House plan calls for $5.3 billion in cuts, while the Senate budget includes $2.8 billion in cuts. over the next five years.
The American Farm Bureau Federation opposes any cuts in programs authorized under the 2002 farm bill and will work to have the cuts removed in conference committee.
"Obviously, we like the Senate number a whole lot better than the House, but we're still working toward not having any cuts in USDA's budget," said Mary Kay Thatcher, AFBF director of public policy.
No cuts is not a viable position, according to some members of Congress. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the House majority whip, told a group of Farm Bureau members visiting Washington, D.C., that they shouldn't "try to convince farm state legislators that they can't vote for any cuts made by the Agriculture Committee on anything."
However, Thatcher said, "We must continue for no cuts. If we say we're okay with $2.8 billion in cuts, that sets a new floor, and then there's no incentive for Congress to try to go lower than that. It's not an easy sell, but we need to keep them on the line that we don't want these cuts."
Thatcher said one of the most important reasons not to cut the farm program before Congress debates and passes a new farm bill is because it could hurt U.S. agriculture in ongoing world trade negotiations. U.S. trade negotiators have been offering to reduce farm payments as leverage to get other countries to reduce their import tariffs, as well as their own farm supports.
The United States provides more farm support than several other World Trade Organization member countries, but it certainly isn't the largest subsidizer. The European Union, Switzerland, Korea and Japan all provide substantially higher farm payments per acre than the United States does.
In addition, the average tariff import of other countries is 62 percent, compared to the United States' 12 percent, and the EU significantly out spends the United States in export subsidies.
"If we take cuts in agricultural production programs now, we're going to decrease the leverage that our negotiators have to make sure we're playing in a fairer trading world," Thatcher said.
Farm Bureau also says that farmers have made long-range plans based on Congress' commitment to them in the 2002 farm bill.
Neither of the budget resolutions specifies the distribution of the cuts among programs. Rather, they instruct the House and Senate committees to figure out where and how to achieve a set amount of reduced spending.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, has said that agriculture should not take cuts that are proportionally higher than in other budget areas.
Farm Bureau estimates that the Senate budget proposal, which cuts $2.8 billion from USDA programs, would burden agriculture with 9 percent of total federal budget reduction—almost twice the 4.7 percent that would be agriculture's "fair share."
Farm Bureau isn't alone in the fight. A coalition of 218 anti-hunger, conservation and agricultural groups signed a March 8 letter to the House and Senate Budget Committee chairmen, urging them not to require farm bill funding cuts.
