Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today defended the Obama administration's 2013 agriculture budget request, saying it would allow rural America to continue growing while avoiding furloughs and layoffs.

But Republican members of a House Appropriations subpanel criticized the Obama administration over an increase in mandatory spending and took jabs at federal funding and regulations.

"This escalation of uncontrolled spending is weighing heavily on the taxpayers of our country. We all must make some sacrifice," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.

In a fiscal 2013 proposal that would cut farmer subsidies and boost renewable energy, President Obama requested $23 billion in discretionary spending for U.S. Department of Agriculture programs. Discretionary spending would be about 3 percent lower than the enacted fiscal 2012 levels.

GOP members praised Vilsack for moving to close more than 150 U.S. Department of Agriculture offices across the country but criticized the administration for the bump in mandatory spending, which is required by law.

Mandatory spending for USDA would total $128 billion under the president's proposal, an increase of $8 billion from fiscal 2012 enacted levels, according to USDA. Of the total budget request, mandatory spending makes up roughly 83 percent, according to USDA.

The Appropriations Committee has control only over the discretionary portion of the agriculture budget.

"Only 15 percent of your budget request is appropriated. That points out the larger problems," said House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.). "Of all federal spending, everything, more than two-thirds of it, is on automatic pilot."

"How can you justify that?" Rogers asked.

Vilsack defended USDA's mandatory programs, which are set through the expiration of the farm bill this fall. Conservation programs, for example, provide both benefits to the environment and jobs, he said.

The administration, however, has not requested funding for some mandatory programs, including wetlands and grasslands conservation programs and a biofuels program, that expire in 2012 under the farm bill.

Vilsack added that Congress has an opportunity to change mandatory programs during the writing of the 2012 farm bill.

"Congress has directed this, and we are just simply following the directions and instructions of Congress," he said.

He made no predictions on what Congress would do with disaster programs, the Conservation Reserve Program and direct payments. Those items are among the Obama administration's top priorities in the budget.

The Obama proposal would eliminate direct payments for farmers and reduce both crop insurance and the conservation program, which pays farmers to idle their crops. The proposed $8 billion cut over 10 years to crop insurance has sparked almost unanimous disapproval from Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

Democratic Rep. Norman Dicks (Wash.) defended the Obama administration's overall proposal and said it was vital to prevent draconian GOP cuts "that will do more damage than good."

"I think the administration has submitted a balanced and responsible proposal," said Dicks, ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee.