October 23, 2013
www.gfb.org
Vol. 31 No. 43
MARKET ACCESS LOAN REDUCTION DRAWS QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESS Georgia members of both houses of Congress have sent inquiries to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack regarding a Sept. 30 USDA announcement that Marketing Access Loans (MALs) would be reduced by 5.1 percent under sequestration rules. The adjustments were to go into effect on Oct. 1 and applied to loans issued by the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA), marketing associations and loan servicing agents. Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-2nd District) wrote to Vilsack on Oct. 15 asking that the USDA refrain from imposing the MAL loan reductions. A group of 14 senators, including Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, wrote to Vilsack on Oct. 17 asking for an explanation on multiple aspects of the loan reduction decision. The impact of the loan rate reduction was emphasized in both letters. The reduction would result in a corresponding reduction of commodity prices farmers receive for their crops. Bishop pointed out that the price per ton received by peanut producers could be reduced by $18.11 and cotton producers could lose $13 per bale as a result. “While I understand there is a requirement to reduce outlays through sequestration, applying sequestration to market assistance loans is unlikely to achieve any significant savings since loans are repaid with principal and interest. The impact of these actions will have a severe effect on the peanut and cotton industries in my district and nationwide, with a negligible contribution to budget savings,” Bishop wrote. Bishop’s letter can be seen at http://tinyurl.com/l7dd7x7. The timing of the reductions means less operating capital for farmers during harvest, and the timing of the announcement - one day prior to the reductions taking effect - left farmers no time to put alternate financial plans into place. The senators pointed out that some producers would have to seek loans from other more costly sources to maintain anticipated cash flow and many would suffer unrecoverable income losses working under “option-to-purchase” contracts. They also noted that farmers would not be the only stakeholders affected. “Growers, marketing cooperatives, private merchandising firms and agribusinesses were unable to make any alternative plans to mitigate the financial hardship imposed by the decisions,” the senators wrote. The senators’ letter can be seen at http://tinyurl.com/l75xxle. The senators also asked for explanations on why sequestration was not applied to 2012 or early 2013 MALS, why the sequestration cuts were not announced earlier, why software adjustments were not started earlier to minimize loan processing delays and whether the USDA took the economic impact into consideration when deciding to sequester MAL funds.