Farm Bill Discussions Involve Many Proposals for Cuts

Over the past several months, the special Congressional Deficit Reduction Committee has worked to cut $1.2 trillion in spending from proposed budgets, including farm bill programs. This effort represents a drastic change in the usual process of negotiating a new farm bill, and the parameters of the proposed cuts, if enacted, will change farm balance sheets.

President Obama asked for $33 billion in cuts to mandatory agriculture spending. Congressional agricultural leaders originally asked for no more than $10 billion in cuts. In mid-October, leaders of the Senate and House agriculture committees sent a letter recommending a $23 billion cut.

In offering up the cut, the four committee leaders, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Frank Lucas (R-OK) and Collin Peterson (D-MN), made the case that agriculture has already taken significant cuts. “Commodity program spending represents less than one quarter of one percent of the federal budget, and actual commodity title spending has been almost $25 billion below Congressional Budget Office projections at the time the 2002 and 2008 farm bills were passed,” the group wrote.

In addition, the ag committee leaders pointed out crop insurance underwent $6 billion in reductions in the renegotiation of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement, $6 billion in the 2008 farm bill and $2 billion in the 2002 farm bill. Conservation spending has been cut by more than $3 billion over the past five years. And there are 37 programs, totaling nearly $10 billion, which expire and have no baseline in future years.

The committee leaders proposed a complete legislative package on November 1, which was a combination of several proposals by various groups, saying those cuts “should absolve the [farm bill] programs from any further reductions.”

During the farm bill process, most agricultural groups weighed in with their members’ views on possible cuts. Members of the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) Farm Bill Study Team decided to focus on the overall value of supporting strong agricultural programs.  

The ISA report emphasized the value of agricultural trade, research, conservation, energy programs and transportation systems to the overall economic health of the country.  The report said, “We need to inform the public that our investments in agriculture are providing a huge benefit to the economy with fewer farmers. Agriculture is doing ‘OK’ because of government and personal investments that should continue.”  The report also pointed to “the need for government to provide a risk-management system that protects individual farmers of all sizes from things out of their control, including weather, market volatility and politically-based decisions.”

ISA worked directly with Senator Grassley’s office during the ag committee leaders’ discussion process.