Agriculture

The importance of agriculture to Wisconsin cannot be understated; the industry provides more than 10% of the state’s employment and generates $59.6 billion in economic activity annually. In 2011, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported there to be over 77,000 farms statewide, 99% of which are family-owned. Further, Wisconsin has justifiably been nicknamed “America’s Dairyland,” producing 13.3% of dairy products nationwide. Milk, corn, cattle, and soybeans are just a few of the products that come from the more than 15 million acres of farmland in Wisconsin.

Agriculture in the House-passed Budget

Compared to an overall economy that is recovering slowly, the American agriculture sector is improving dramatically. The record-breaking prosperity of American farmers and farm communities is to be celebrated. But it also calls for a re-examination of federal agricultural programs that spend billions each year. Taxpayers should not finance payments for a business sector that is more than capable of thriving on its own.

Net farm income this year is forecast to be modestly lower than last years’ very high level, but it would still be the third highest inflation-adjusted income level recorded since 1980. Production costs have risen, but farmer incomes continue to be supported by strong prices for most crop and livestock commodities. The top five earnings years for farmers in the last 35 years have occurred in the last decade. Yet, at the same time, numerous overlapping government programs exist to provide income support to farmers.

With farm profitability – and deficits – continuing at high levels, it is time to adjust support to this industry to reflect economic realities. This budget proposes two major reforms to achieve this: First, reduce the fixed payments that go to farmers irrespective of price levels, to reflect that soaring commodity prices are reducing the need for high levels of farm-income support. Second, reform the open-ended nature of government’s support for crop insurance, so that agricultural producers assume the same kind of responsibility for managing risk that other businesses do.

Further, while acknowledging the important role that the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) serves in providing food aid to low-income Americans, this program cannot continue to grow at its current rates. The cost has exploded in the last decade, from less than $18 billion in 2001 to over $80 billion today. While much of this is due to the recession, enrollment in the SNAP program actually grew during years of economic growth, when the number of recipients should have fallen. The program, as currently administered, is rife with waste, fraud and abuse; under the House-passed budget, states are incentivized to curb the misuse of taxpayer funds to ensure that SNAP dollars effectively address hunger and malnutrition in the United States as intended.

Recognizing that the Agriculture Committee is responsible for implementing these reductions, and to maintain flexibility for the Agriculture Committee, this proposal assumes that these savings do not take effect until the beginning of the next farm bill. These reforms will save taxpayers roughly $30 billion over the next decade.

H.R.8 – American Taxpayer Relief Act

Without Congressional action to address these issues, the American people would have been hit with a $4.4 trillion tax increase, and the Farm Bill would have reverted to the 1949 legislation; instead revenues will increase by $600 billion, and the 2008 provisions have been extended. In the end, the choice presented to Members of Congress was to raise taxes by either $4.4 trillion or by $600 billion — I voted for the latter. Despite my concerns with other provisions in the bill, at a time when families and small businesses are facing high gas prices and overall increases in the cost of living, the last thing taxpayers need – right now or in the future – is a tax increase.

H.J.Res.117 – Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2013

H.J.Res.117 is a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the federal government until March 27, 2013. The funding measure maintains funding levels and was signed into law on September 28, 2012. The pre-cursor to the CR was the Conference Report to H.R.2112, the Agriculture Appropriations bill of 2012. This legislation set the levels at which H.J.Res.117 would extend funding. H.R.2112 provided a total of $125.5 billion in funding to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the conference report extended the maximum loan limit rules and reinstated loan limits through December 31, 2013.

Farm Bill

The Farm Bill, which is comprised of the crop insurance and food stamp programs, was passed into law on June 18, 2008, and the majority of the provisions extended through 2012. H.R.8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act, passed the House on January 1, 2013 and extended the provisions for another year.

On July 11, 2012, the House Agriculture Committee passed H.R.6083, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012. The bill would have reduced spending overall by $35.1 billion by eliminating direct payments, increasing the crop insurance program and reforming the nutrition title to more effectively provide assistance to those in need. The bill was not brought to a vote on the House floor and the 2008 Farm Bill extension was signed into law on January 2.

It is likely that a five-year reauthorization of the full Farm Bill will be taken up prior to the expiration of the current provisions. I believe that the bill should be designed to assist family farmers in times of need, rather than to direct subsidies to large, corporate farming operations. The United States ought to have the ability to export our agricultural products, and I remain committed to ensuring that American farmers are provided with the necessary resources to compete on the international market.

Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP)

The Dairy Market Stabilization Program, also referred to as “supply chain management,” was not included in the extension of the 2008 Farm Bill as passed in H.R.8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act. Should a full five-year reauthorization of the Farm Bill be voted on in the 113th Congress, I will remain vigilant in monitoring the development of this issue and its effects on dairy farmers in Wisconsin.

Immigration

Immigration policy has a direct impact on agricultural employment in Wisconsin. Farmers have historically relied on seasonal labor to assist with farm work; due to a shortage of seasonal H-2B visas, which permit employers to temporarily hire foreign workers, some businesses have faced annual labor shortfalls. Reforms to immigration policy ought to include expanding access to visas for seasonal and temporary labor as well as a temporary guest worker program, complete with an employee verification system that allows employers to verify the legal status of their employees.

By providing a method to legally link employers with immigrant workers, we would relieve pressure on the borders from people who attempt to illegally immigrate to the United States in search of employment. In turn, government agencies would have the ability to more effectively allocate resources to illegal and unauthorized aliens who mean to do us harm – criminals, terrorists, and drug smugglers.

Dodd-Frank

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was signed into law in July 2010, is a lengthy and complex law designed to implement wide reaching financial regulatory reform. Unfortunately, the overhaul involves radical changes to financial regulation – changes that will affect every feature of our financial-services industry, increase the power of current financial regulatory agencies, and create new ones. Dodd-Frank promotes the rule of bureaucrats to our economic detriment and has had negative impacts on the agricultural industry. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas has proposed changes to the Dodd-Frank regulation, which would relieve the industry from burdensome regulation. As the committee continues to consider these proposals, I will remain vigilant in monitoring their development as it relates to farmers in the First District of Wisconsin.

For example, on April 25, 2012, I voted in favor of H.R.3336, the Small Business Credit Availability Act, which amends Dodd-Frank to exclude community and farm credit banks from being classified as “swap dealers.” As currently defined by the legislation, “swap dealers” include any entity with an exposure to swaps; H.R.3336 would set a $1 billion threshold for aggregate exposure as a requirement of the classification. Easing regulation on small financial institutions enables them to continue making loans to small companies and reverses the damaging effects of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Preserving access to loans is vital to farmers, manufacturers and small businesses as they continue to grow and create new jobs. While this regulation aimed to minimize the damaging effects of the Dodd-Frank legislation, the bill was not voted on in the Senate, and would need to be reintroduced in the 113th Congress to be signed into law.

H.R.6156 – Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanick Repeal Act of 2012

H.R.6156 passed the House with my support on November 11, 2012 and was signed into law on December 14. This legislation established permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with Moldova and Russia by repealing the 1974 Jackson-Vanick amendment on trade restrictions. It ensures that U.S. agricultural producers can benefit from Russia’s membership in the World Trade Organization and provides increased access to a growing market for American farmers and ranchers through lower tariffs and more certain trade rules.

Conclusion

Agriculture is a cornerstone of both Wisconsin’s culture and economy. As I continue to work with my colleagues on the important issues facing the 113th Congress, making sure farmers are in a competitive international position remains a priority along with making sure we get our economy and job creation growing again.

Additional Information