Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is under fire again from House Republicans over the Commodity Credit Corporation, this time not just for suggesting the CCC could be used to supplement farm bill funding but also for declining to use it to make disaster relief payments to some California producers.
At a hearing Thursday before the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., accused Vilsack of employing the CCC account as a “slush fund” and questioned his legal authority to use it to help growers challenged by a drop in commodity prices while input costs remain elevated.
Vilsack hasn’t provided any details of how such a program would work, and the idea hasn’t gained traction with Republicans on the House and Senate Ag committees who continue to struggle to get Democrats to agree on how to fund modifications in farm bill commodity programs.
“I hope our colleagues at the House and Senate Ag committees can complete a farm bill this year, but if not, that does not give USDA the green light to start raiding the CCC to de facto start setting up new programs not authorized by Congress,” Harris told Vilsack.
In response, Vilsack said it was his intent that the House and Senate Ag committees could use the CCC as they wanted to supplement farm bill funding.
“I never suggested, nor did I ever say, that we will be using the CCC outside of the scope of farm bill discussions and negotiations. What I did say was in order for us to have a farm bill, it's going to be necessary for members of the committees to be creative in how they can use the resources within the CCC at their instruction and direction to be able to provide the relief and assistance they're looking for,” Vilsack said.
Vilsack has already used the CCC to supplement the farm bill by funding a new foreign market development initiative at the request of leaders of the Senate Ag Committee.
Harris inserted a provision in the subcommittee’s fiscal 2024 spending bill that would have restored restrictions on the CCC account that were removed in 2018 so that USDA could provide payments to growers to offset the impact of retaliatory tariffs imposed on U.S. ag imports after then-President Donald Trump started his trade war with China. Harris’ provision was dropped from the final FY24 spending package enacted earlier this month.
He and other congressional Republicans have questioned the legal grounds for funding the Biden administration’s $3 billion Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative to test ways to develop markets for low-carbon farm products. The Government Accountability Office upheld the legality of using the CCC to fund the projects.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here.
In a new twist to the CCC debate, subcommittee Republican David Valadao of California on Thursday asked Vilsack why he wouldn’t use the CCC to provide assistance to dairy producers affected by flooding last year in the Central Valley. Valadao noted that Trump’s ag secretary, Sonny Perdue, had provided disaster relief to Puerto Rico with the CCC authority.
Citing Harris, Vilsack said, “I don't have discretionary authority. I have to work within the guidelines set forth in the [CCC] charter.” Vilsack was referring to Section 5 of the CCC’s enabling law, which allows USDA to use the account to expand markets for agricultural commodities.
Valadao shot back that Perdue’s payments to Puerto Rico weren't challenged. “That was a territory. Now we're talking about one of our own states.”
“Harris apparently wasn’t in the position he is now,” Vilsack quipped. “In order for the CCC to work, you have to stay within the guidelines. You have to stay within the charter.”
Harris later came to Valadao’s defense, saying he “raised a very good point,” Harris told Vilsack his legal counsel “shows credible ingenuity in defining what's allowed” under the CCC, “so I find it hard to believe some of that ingenuity couldn't be extended” to Valadao’s request.
Harris also used the hearing to continue his push for USDA to test restricting the types of foods and beverages that can be purchased by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients. His proposal for SNAP pilot projects to test such restrictions was dropped during final negotiations on the FY24 spending legislation. Harris noted that the newly permanent summer EBT program, which will provide nutrition benefits to children after the school year ends, also allows purchasing of “sugary beverages, salty snacks, the whole deal.”
The Women, Infants and Children nutrition assistance program strictly limits what WIC benefits can be used for, and Harris noted that tribes also put food restrictions on some USDA-funded assistance.
Vilsack said USDA had the authority to allow states to test restrictions on SNAP purchasing but that such projects would have to be accompanied by a significant evaluation process. He also questioned whether it was fair to restrict SNAP food choices, when USDA doesn’t limit what farmers can do with the money they receive from USDA.
“There's a fairness and consistency issue,” Vilsack said. “If indeed the goal here is for taxpayer dollars to be directly linked to more nutritious decisions, are you going to make that same decision for farm emergency relief?” Vilsack asked.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
