CQ News
Dec. 7, 2023 – 11:22 a.m.
Lawmakers cry foul on USDA changes to stretch disaster aid money
By Ellyn Ferguson, CQ
The Agriculture Department's payment formula for the second phase of the emergency disaster relief program has sparked letters of concern from Republicans and a request for a Government Accountability Office review.
The lawmakers say the USDA's formula for providing relief from 2022 damages caused by a megadrought, Hurricane Ian, historic flooding, catastrophic wildfires and other natural disasters looks like a cap that they say is unfairly creating winners and losers.
But a USDA spokesperson said Wednesday night that the department had warned lawmakers for months that the $3.74 billion appropriated in a fiscal 2023 omnibus (PL 117-328) for losses in 2022 was inadequate. It was a big decline from the $10 billion provided for losses in 2020 and 2021 in the first phase of the emergency relief program (ERP).
“Given that dynamic, choices had to be made in order to direct as much help as possible to those most in need. If members of Congress don’t like those choices, they can — and should — fight harder for more resources to allow USDA to fully cover farmers' losses," the department spokesperson said by email.
The USDA says its use of a “progressive payment factor” means payments will be spread more broadly across the U.S. and among a broader cross section of agricultural operations.
However, House and Senate members say the USDA shouldn't have departed from past procedures by using new methodologies to determine whether a farmer qualifies for a disaster payment, and how much. Although mostly Republicans have voiced concern, Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., sent a bipartisan letter Tuesday from 18 lawmakers to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asking for clarification of various points of the program. Five other Democrats from the House and Senate also signed the letter.
By changing the methodology, the department will give larger operations with bigger losses little or nothing in this second round, the Republicans say. Rep. Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma, a senior House Agriculture Committee member, was among 66 Republicans who signed a Dec. 4 letter led by Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., and Rep. Jodey C. Arrington, R-Texas, to Vilsack urging the USDA "to depart from its current path.'
Lucas said past disaster aid programs have focused on aid to farmers based on the size of loss in production. The second round of ERP deviates from that, he said. He said the USDA may have made an already complex program unworkable with its new methodology.
“The tradition of farm bills going back to 1933 are resources follow production. Instead of supporting production, they are going to use the policies to determine who farms and what they farm. That is contrary to farm policy,” Lucas said.
House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., said he has heard complaints from farmers and colleagues concerned about the disaster aid.
“This is not how these programs have been done in the past, so there are significant concerns. I think there is some tangible information people have that they will be negatively impacted,” Thompson said.
He said the letters and complaints reflect “responsibility to do our due diligence to weigh in and to try to influence” how programs are executed.
On Dec. 5, 12 senators pressed even further with a letter to Comptroller General Gene Dodaro asking the Government Accountability Office to examine the Agriculture Department’s design of the program. Senate Agriculture ranking member John Boozman, R-Ark., and committee members Marshall, John Hoeven, R-N.D., Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., John Thune, R-S.D., and Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., were among the signers.
“Unfortunately, several policy changes made by USDA run counter to our intent to provide assistance fairly to all producers based on their loss,” the senators said.
“These changes include the reimbursement of crop insurance premiums for only certain producers, along with a new 'progressive' payment factor,” they added.
The lawmakers asked the GAO to answer six questions, including whether the progressive payment factor or the decision to reimburse crop insurance premiums for select farmers violate statutory requirements or congressional intent.