116 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
Home / Opinion / Guest Columnists
Grassley's USDA spending reforms would protect farmers and taxpayers
Patricia Patnode
Oct. 22, 2023 5:00 am
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is spending billions of dollars each year for programs that Congress never specifically authorized.
Fortunately, Sens. Chuck Grassley, (R-IA.) Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) introduced a bill, the “U.S. Department of Agriculture Spending Accountability Act” (S. 2244), that ensures Congress, and not the USDA, decides how to spend this massive amount of taxpayer dollars.
The funding mechanism used to provide the money for most farm bill programs is known as the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Each year, the CCC has $30 billion to spend. But in any given year, there is a certain amount of money, recently between $12 and $17 billion, leftover in the CCC that can be used by the agriculture secretary (currently this is Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor) to fund programs of his creation without congressional approval. The underlying law gives significant discretion to the Secretary on how to spend the money, which makes matters worse because he can often spend money for almost anything he wants.
Historically, past administrations have not taken advantage of this discretionary spending authority. However, starting with the Obama administration, agriculture secretaries have grown more comfortable using the money to get around Congress to fund their preferred programs. The Trump administration took this spending to a new level.
CCC funding was used during the Trump administration to soften the blow to farmers from the administration's trade war with China. Now, the Biden administration is using this slush fund to encourage farmers to adopt certain agricultural practices in line with Biden’s climate agenda, spending over $3 billion for a program called “Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities" that Congress never authorized.
Setting aside the nature of the programs, the primary issue is that the USDA is going around Congress, which has the lawmaking power under the U.S. Constitution. Legislators, not agency bureaucrats, should be deciding whether to create new multibillion dollar programs. Sen. Grassley was right when he said, “U.S. dollars should only go to programs that have been specifically authorized by Congress …”
The farm bill, which is supposed to be passed every five years, requires legislators to debate the merits of the farm safety net, conservation initiatives, and nutrition programs. Programs are created and shuttered, funded and unfunded depending on stakeholder input and Congressional negotiation.
However, this discretionary spending power at the USDA can serve as a means to get around the important farm bill process in order to push programs that can’t get Congressional support. Sen. Grassley recently said in a news release, “I’m concerned that the CCC is at risk of becoming a slush fund for politically-driven pet projects …” The reality is that the CCC is already such a slush fund.
This large bucket of money giving Agriculture Secretaries broad discretion in its use, leaves space for abuse, corruption, and opportunities for special favors. Furthermore, these funds could actively work against farmers. In fact, the Biden administration is already trying to alter the agriculture practices of farmers through its climate smart program. But it could get much worse. Vice President Kamala Harris’ interest in discouraging red-meat consumption and the administration's stated mission to reform the food system as we know it, such as by focusing more on social equity than actual production, could all potentially serve as a justification for new programs that could work against farmers.
No presidential administration should have a slush fund to unilaterally create programs out of whole-cloth or unilaterally change the way our food system works or the way farmers grow our food.
This is precisely what is happening though as administrations use this USDA slush fund to serve their own ideological and political agendas. Fortunately, the “U.S. Department of Agriculture Spending Accountability Act” would put an end to this abuse.
Patricia Patnode is from Waterloo, graduated from Loras College and is a research fellow for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Opinion content represents the viewpoint of the author or The Gazette editorial board. You can join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to editorial@thegazette.com