Press Room
On The Issues
Photo Gallery
Committees
Just For Kids!

Contact Stephanie
Flag Requests
Visit DC
Casework

Sponsored 109th
Co-Sponsored 109th
Sponsored 108th
Co-Sponsored 108th

About Stephanie
About South Dakota
House of Representatives
Thomas
Blue Dog Coalition

By U.S. Representative Stephanie Herseth, D-SD

American agriculture is facing a host of challenges today, and they go far beyond farmers' effort to produce a good crop or a healthy animal. The most pressing policy issue we are facing on the House Agriculture Committee currently is the reconciliation process for next year's budget.

As you know, Congress debates and passes a budget every year. Through this process, the House and Senate Budget Committees have the authority to force the other congressional committees to cut spending from programs under their respective jurisdictions. This is called "reconciliation." Regrettably, the budget for Fiscal Year 2006 requires the Agriculture Committee to cut $3 billion in mandatory spending.

The deadline for identifying these significant cuts is September 16. If we on the Agriculture Committee fail to come up with this savings, the Budget Committee will make the cuts for us. While it will force some tough choices, now that the budget has been passed, no one on the Agriculture Committee wants to leave these decisions to another committee.

Because budget reconciliation instructions pertain only to "mandatory" spending, the cuts must come from programs that deal with conservation, crop insurance, commodity price supports, or the Food Stamp Program.

Currently, most of the mandatory spending under the purview of the Agriculture Committee goes to the Food Stamp Program - about 56 percent - and the next largest programs are commodity price supports, at approximately 27 percent. The rest of the money is split between conservation, crop insurance, and other minor programs.

I strongly opposed this budget when it came to the House floor for a host of reasons. It contains too many misplaced priorities, and continues a troubling trend of under-estimating and under-valuing the role that rural and agricultural sectors play in our nation’s economy. This budget proposes massive cutbacks in funding levels for many programs that are vital to rural America.

I particularly opposed the efforts that House leadership undertook to slash agriculture spending. The 2002 Farm Bill was a compact between the federal government and American farmers and ranchers, intended to run through 2007. Significant long-term financial and business decisions have been made in reliance on the guarantees in that bill, and it is unfair to change the provisions of the bill in the middle of its intended life.

The agricultural budget is roughly one half of one percent (0.5%) of the federal budget, but helps sustain an industry that is responsible for 15% of our nation's GDP, 25 million jobs, and a supply of food and fiber that is the safest, most abundant and most affordable in all the world. Simply put, funding agriculture programs is a good investment, and the federal government and taxpayers are getting their money’s worth.

Moreover, the budget deficits that we are currently experiencing certainly have not been caused by agriculture. Due to higher than projected commodity prices over the past several years, the 2002 Farm Bill has cost approximately $17 billion less than projected at the time of its passage. In light of these facts, it makes no sense to demand a pound of flesh from agriculture today. The budget should have given agriculture credit for this savings and allowed the Agriculture Committee to wait and hash out any spending concerns during the broad negotiations for the next farm bill.

We will begin negotiations on identifying this $3 billion as soon as Congress returns to Washington after Labor Day. Unfortunately, Agriculture Committee leadership has been silent on how they plan to achieve this savings, so we do not even have a proposal to review or discuss with farmers as we travel home for the August recess.

This budget reconciliation debate also has a larger significance. How we address this year's budget is likely have a significant impact on the "baseline" funding levels for the next farm bill. And, if we allow the 2007 budget to take another chunk of our funding, it could severely damage our negotiating position going into the next farm bill debate.

Farmers Union has been a strong and vocal national leader in the effort to protect funding for the vital farm bill programs that producers across the country rely upon. I value their leadership and their counsel on all agricultural matters and will be working with them to both minimize the damage caused by this year's budget and also ensure that we go into the next farm bill negotiations in a strong position on behalf of American producers. With a strong and unified voice from rural America, we can protect this funding and ensure adequate funding for our farm policies for years to come.

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth represents South Dakota’s at-large Congressional District. She serves on the Agriculture committee and is co-chair of the House Democratic Rural Working Group.