Ag lawmakers balk on budget due to crop insurance cuts

The new budget pact is facing fresh fire from both parties, as members announce opposition to agriculture cuts included in the package.

Top members of the House and Senate Agriculture committees said Tuesday that cuts to a crop insurance program are enough to push them away from the two-year budget accord that was hammered out by congressional leaders and the White House.

{mosads}The members, who include the top Republicans and Democrats from both committees, argue the changes included in the budget represent an unfair reworking of terms already established in the 2014 farm bill.

“Farmers and ranchers have done more than their fair share to reduce government spending,” said Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). “To target the number one priority for producers with additional cuts will undermine the delivery of this important protection for agriculture. While Congressional leaders may sell this package as providing budget stability, it is anything but stable for farmers and ranchers.”

The budget proposal would raise $3 billion to help offset $80 billion in new spending by cutting the maximum rate of return available to crop insurers. The current 14.5 percent rate would fall to 8.9 percent under the new deal.

In addition to Roberts, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) opposed the provision. Stabenow is the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee.

However, a Stabenow spokesperson said she would not necessarily oppose the overall budget due to the crop insurance provision. While she opposes the proposed cut, she is “continuing to analyze the whole deal.”

And in the House, Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas) was joined in opposition by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the panel.

Conaway said Tuesday the crop insurance changes were opposed by “an overwhelming majority” of the committee, suggesting a significant number of lawmakers could balk at the budget accord thanks to that offset.

Already, conservatives were lining up in opposition to the deal, which lifts spending caps by a combined $80 billion over two years.

This post updated at 4:50pm.