House appropriators yesterday raised concerns about the potential harm to struggling farmers from cuts proposed in the Obama administration's fiscal 2012 budget and possible spending reductions for the rest of 2011.

"Any budget decision has to be a reflection of shared sacrifice and shared opportunity," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told lawmakers in defending the Agriculture Department's $144 billion proposed budget.

The 2012 budget would decrease discretionary spending by $3.2 billion from current levels. Targeted in that cut are homeowner programs, conservation spending and direct payments to wealthy farmers.

The measure also would eliminate earmarks and use that money to pay for other programs. For example, the Agricultural Research Service would increase its commitments to regional biofuels feedstock, offset by $41 million in earmarks, Vilsack said.

But members of the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, many from farm states, questioned how rural America could be rebuilt with the cuts proposed in the budget.

Ranking member Sam Farr (D-Calif.) said the elimination of earmarks could wipe out money that has been set for agricultural research stations, for example. He also questioned how zeroing out conservation programs, which he labeled "part of an effective strategy for rural America," would help.

While some conservation programs like the Environmental Qualities Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Reserve Program would increase in funding over last year, they still would receive less than scheduled under the growth levels written into the farm bill. Other programs would be cut drastically or completely.

Vilsack repeated what he has said about conservation cuts at various events since the budget was introduced on Feb. 14: It's a matter of prioritization.

"You're faced with constraints and we tried to prioritize where we thought the best bang for the conservation buck could be obtained," Vilsack said. "Some of the smaller programs had to go. Some of the guaranteed loan programs in conservation had to go."

Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) said he was concerned about cuts to the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, which promotes competitive trading practices. He said that the next farm bill needs to be policy-driven, not money-driven.

"Sometimes you have dramatic, unintended consequences," Latham said. "I'm more concerned about the little guy out there because I think he's going to be put at a real disadvantage long term."

House appropriators also criticized budget cuts to smaller programs that help the poor with day-to-day food needs.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who chaired the subcommittee in the 111th Congress, suggested cutting $40 billion in subsidies to the oil industry to fund programs like Meals on Wheels that help the elderly.

"We could apply it to deficit reduction, and we don't have to touch these programs," DeLauro said.

The Obama budget proposes to cap direct payments to wealthy farmers to save $2.5 billion over 10 years. Vilsack said the proposal is a means of providing a safety net to those who need it most.

Energy programs also would receive $6.5 billion for financial assistance to expand renewable energy and biofuels in rural areas, which Vilsack identified as growth opportunities. Reaching the government's goal of producing 36 billion gallons annually of ethanol will create 1 million jobs in rural America, he said.

2011 funding concerns

Lawmakers also questioned the potential effects of the House-passed continuing resolution, which would fund the government for the rest of fiscal 2011 and would cut USDA and the Food and Drug Administration by 22 percent. Lawmakers especially focused on the Food Safety & Inspection Service, which would lose $88 million from current levels during the remainder of fiscal 2011.

"How many inspectors would have be furloughed for how long a period of time?" asked DeLauro. "How many chickens and beef carcasses would be destroyed because they will go uninspected?"

Vilsack said he would rather Congress give the department "time to manage" by holding funding levels flat for a number of years, because the department could then plan a long-term strategy.

"If you're talking about reducing commitments to rural development, then I would simply say, well, you have to be careful about that because you're basically compromising our ability to invest in the future," he said.

Thirty-five agriculture and conservation groups also strongly opposed the House-passed spending bill in a letter sent yesterday to the Senate, which is now considering the cuts. The bill would cut more than $500 million from the Conservation Stewardship Program, EQIP, the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Biomass Crop Assistance Program relative to the spending levels in the 2008 farm bill.

The CR "not only far overshoots reasonable reduction levels, but also singles out funding for agriculture and rural America for a disproportionately high cut," said the letter spearheaded by Environmental Defense Fund and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. "These conservation programs are crucial to the health and viability of agriculture and rural America."

Subcommittee Chairman Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) asked Vilsack to send recommendations to members of Congress as they begin writing the next farm bill, especially on the Conservation Reserve Program. There are 32 million acres currently involved in the program, which pays farmers to idle sensitive land for conservation.

He called the program "very over-subscribed" and "one that we should look at."

"I think the land is supposed to be highly erodible, and I don't believe a lot of it is highly erodible," Kingston said. "I think it's paying farms not to farm in many cases."