The House Agriculture Committee, during a business meeting on Feb. 27, approved and sent a letter on its budget views and estimates for fiscal year 2019 to the House Budget Committee. The letter is a required step under the section 310(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and clause 4(f) of House Rule X.
In opening comments of the business meeting, Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway (R-TX) said a large task ahead is getting a farm bill done, and done on time. He commented, “Given the state of the ag economy, it can’t come soon enough for producers. With a 52 percent drop in net farm income over the past five years, and USDA predicting another drop in farm income to the lowest level in 12 years, the American farmer and rancher is a serious risk.”
He explained that in order to pass a farm bill that meaningfully addresses the needs in farm country, and delivers affordable food to American consumers, the ag committee needs the help of its colleagues to produce a budget that reflects the tough times facing rural America. “That is why we are renewing our request to write a budget-neutral farm bill,” Conaway said.
He continued, “Like previous budgets, the administration put forward a proposal. And, like other budget proposals, some ideas make more of a splash than others—that’s all part of the process. Our job is to evaluate all options and determine what is the best policy.”
Looking to the farm bill, Conaway said he recognizes that people are eager to see a draft. He said there are a number of things outside the control of the committee and it has been a balancing act to write a budget-neutral bill that works for all producers and consumers. He added, “With respect to the things we can control, we are still on track to move a bill through our committee by the end of the first quarter.”
Saying he expects to work with Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) to soon release a draft, Conaway said the committee will follow regular order “through a robust and open amendment process that will ultimately let the committee work its will.” He added, “But for that to happen, we need the flexibility to move a budget-neutral bill, and today we renew that request with our fiscal year 2019 budget views and estimates letter.”
Offering his comments, Peterson echoed Conaway in talking about difficult times facing agriculture. He also explained that agriculture and nutrition programs have also provided significant budget savings over Congressional Budget Office estimates. With that in mind, he said, “It is for these reasons that I am opposed to any attempts to further reduce farm bill program spending.”
Saying writing a farm bill without any new money will be difficult, Peterson explained that members of the committee understand the situation and should be able to work together to make sure farm bill programs are operating as efficiently as possible.
“It is important that we are united in opposition to cutting our programs,” said Peterson. “The administration’s budget proposal calls for $265 billion in mandatory farm bill cuts and I would anticipate some members looking to that document as a blueprint when it comes time to debate the farm bill on the floor.”
Also echoing Conaway’s desire to work together, Peterson said they are working to reach an agreement and unveil a bipartisan farm bill in the coming weeks. He noted, “I look forward to continuing this collaboration throughout the farm bill reauthorization process.”
In the letter, the ag committee outlined its previous requests and accomplishments while working with a reduced budget. The agricultural leaders explained that the current farm bill is on target to contribute more than $100 billion to deficit reduction over a 10-year period. This is four times more than what was pledged by the committee during the legislation’s development and passage.
Going on the ag leaders said the savings are being achieved despite a budget that constitutes just 1.7 percent of total federal spending, and with the farm safety net under the commodity and crop insurance titles constituting about 0.26 percent of the total federal expenditures.
The agriculture committee noted that in view of contributions already made toward deficit reduction, it was renewing its request to the House Budget Committee to “require no further budget reductions from within our jurisdiction.” The ag committee also asked for flexibility needed to develop and enact a farm bill that is capable of addressing current conditions.
The letter talked about the importance of strong commodity and trade programs, citing natural disasters in 2017 as well as tariff and non-tariff trade barriers. Also mentioned was a strong conservation title aimed at promoting cleaner water, air, reducing soil erosion and enhancing wildlife habitat. Further, the ag committee wrote that policies under the credit, rural development forestry and energy titles are also of great importance.
Saying that, despite the fiscal success of the 2014 Farm Bill, proposals have already been floated to reform or cut some of the policies. “We regret that too many of them appear to be ideologically motivated rather than grounded in a solid understanding of the issues involved. Whatever the motivation behind them, we will undoubtedly have to contend with these kinds of proposals and the damage they threaten to do to rural America,” the ag committee wrote.
While saying that faced with reduced resources, “tough choices must be made,” the ag committee concluded, “We are determined to make these difficult choices in a fiscally responsible manner and are prepared to do so in a way that is fully consistent with our obligations under the current budget.”
Following committee approval of the letter, Conaway released a statement, saying, “Our committee is writing a farm bill under significantly different circumstances than it was four years ago—prices were high and the farm economy was strong. Things couldn’t look more different today. In the midst of a very tenuous agriculture economy, we need the flexibility to craft a budget-neutral farm bill that benefits producers and consumers alike.” — Rae Price, WLJ editor
