LEGISLATIVE REPORT

As many of you are aware, NASCOE scheduled a legislative conference in Washington, DC March 17-18^th.  Steve Morrison and I went as your MASCOE representatives.  NASCOE had targeted four key contacts from Missouri for us to visit.  They were Representative Sam Graves from the 6^th District and Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer of the 9^th District, both of whom serve on the House Ag Committee.  Also targeted as a member of the House Ag Approps sub-committee was Representative Jo Ann Emerson of the 8th District.  Senator Bond of the Senate Budget Committee was the 4^th key contact.  Steve and I were able to meet with the four targeted legislators, and we also met with Senator McCaskill’s and Representative Skelton’s legislative aides.

The position papers that we delivered to the Congressional members should be posted in a few days on the NASCOE webpage.  We will also try to link them to the Missouri webpage.  I will try to summarize our discussions here, but would encourage everyone to take a look at the papers once they are posted.

USDA Modernization

During the development of the Farm Bill, Chairman of the House Ag Committee Collin Peterson, mentioned the topic of reorganization or restructuring USDA several times.  I guess in an effort to make it sound a little more palatable, they are now calling it USDA Modernization.  NASCOE identified a couple of topics that could not only increase efficiency and save money, but could directly benefit our producers as well.  Chairman Peterson mentioned reassigning administrative functions of Conservation programs to FSA during the writing of the farm bill.  NASCOE believes that as an administrative agency, FSA is fully prepared and capable to handle the administrative functions for all Conservation programs.  This would eliminate producers having to complete similar forms for both NRCS and FSA and would allow both agencies to do what they do best.  NRCS could focus on the technical side of the Conservation programs, and FSA could handle the application and payment side of the programs.  A recent report showed that as much as 24% of program allocations are being diverted to administrative services in some programs administered by NRCS.  NASCOE believes this could be reduced back to the 10 to 15% that has been normally been used by NRSC for their technical services by reassigning the administrative functions to FSA.

Another obvious duplication of services is in acreage reporting.  USDA currently funds three different agencies to gather crop reports.  Participants in DCP are required to report their acreage to FSA.  Producers with crop insurance are required to report their acreage to RMA.  Then NASS will contact some producers a third time to complete an Ag Census.  NASCOE believes that the producer should only have to report to FSA, and then that information should be shared among the agencies.  This should result in consistent numbers among the agencies and reduce the cost to USDA.

Another position paper dealt with animal ID.  NASCOE was not there to promote animal ID, nor was it there to discourage animal ID.  Many appropriators are disappointed in the results they are getting, in return for the millions of dollars that have already been spent on voluntary animal ID.  There were hearings a couple of weeks ago, and there is some discussion of making animal ID a mandatory process.  Since FSA currently deals with a significant percentage of livestock producers, NASCOE suggests that FSA would be a logical partner to help in the animal ID process should it become mandatory.

A third position paper dealt with RMA and FSA’s role in saving taxpayer dollars since we have been involved in the compliance process.  FSA’s on site growing season inspections have resulted in many claims being denied, especially for prevented planting claims that weren’t justified.

The last thing we discussed with our Senators and Representatives were employee benefits.  There is currently only one bill pending that we asked for support.  H. R. 958 deals with unused sick leave for FERS employees.  This bill would give FERS employees the same benefit that CSRS employees currently enjoy and would let us credit any unused sick leave to our years of service when we retire.  As a footnote, there is another bill out there that would credit our sick leave also, but NASCOE has not supported it.  It would require employees to contribute 3% of their salary to the Thrift Savings Plan.  While we all agree that contributing to the TSP can be a good thing, NASCOE believes that should be an individual decision and not be required by law.

 NASCOE also believes there could be a benefit to our employees and to the government if there was a third option on our health insurance.  NASCOE has asked that when bids are solicited for coverage that a self plus one option be offered in addition to the self and self plus family choices that we have currently. 

With many college students now on the five or six year graduation plan, NASCOE has requested the eligible age of dependent coverage be increased from 22 to 25 so that dependents would not be forced off their parents’ plan before they are out in the workforce themselves.

The timing of the visit turned out to be fortunate.  There were hearings a couple of weeks ago on animal ID, and there are hearings scheduled in the next few weeks with RMA and with the Conservation Sub-committee.  With the turnover during the last election, it was also a good time to introduce NASCOE to the new members of Congress. 

I would like to personally thank Steve Morrison for his willingness to go to Washington on our behalf.  Over the years Steve has donated countless hours of annual leave and personal time to promote NASCOE and the county office employees it represents.  If you see Steve, I hope you will thank him for his time and effort spent on your behalf.

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.  My personal contact information is djray2239@sbcglobal.net and my cell phone number is 573-382-2087.

Dennis