Foreign Agriculture Service U.S. budget crunch will result in fewer trade opportunities for growers, says agriculture secretary
KISSIMMEE, Fla. — Budget cuts could make U.S. agriculture vulnerable to competitors in export markets, says the top official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The department’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) will have fewer dollars at its disposal to use in trade promotion once it is forced to implement its $1 to $1.5 billion share of the $85 billion in federal government sequester cuts.
Every line item in the USDA’s budget will be reduced by five to six percent.
“It’s not a situation where we can take money from conservation and move it over into the Foreign Agricultural Service to make sure that trade isn’t disrupted or take money from nutrition and put it into food safety,” agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack told the 2013 Commodity Classic.
Read Also
Claims filed in Alberta hailstorm aftermath
The numbers are still coming in for the cost of the damage caused by a huge hail storm that hit various areas of Alberta Aug. 20.
The cuts have to be implemented during the remaining half of the fiscal year, which means they will amount to 10 to 12 percent.
Vilsack said the cuts will have direct and indirect impacts on the farm. One of the areas he highlighted was the reduction in the FAS budget, which will limit its trade promotion efforts.
“That will probably mean about half a billion dollars in fewer trade opportunities,” said Vilsack.
“Lord knows what it will do with our competitors and their ability to go into foreign markets and suggest that perhaps the American market is not as certain as it once was. And that may have long-term impacts.”
There will be $35 million less in credit funding, which means 1,500 growers won’t be able to operate their farms this spring.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service won’t have the money to develop conservation plans for 2,600 farmers or the ability to fund the plans of another 12,000 growers.
Land grant universities will see a $60 million reduction in research funding, which will force them to shelve 100 projects.
About 600,000 people will no longer have access to a federal nutrition program.
The USDA will also be forced to temporarily lay off food inspectors.
“It’s not something I want to do. It’s not something I like doing but it is the law and it’s something I’m going to have to do,” said Vilsack.
He estimates that will result in an $8 billion reduction in meat exports because no meat can be processed on the days inspectors are furloughed.
Vilsack expressed frustration about the everything-has-to-be-slashed approach to the sequester cuts.
“In a functioning democracy, this shouldn’t happen,” he said.
Vilsack believes affected government departments should have discretion over where the money comes from.
The USDA “saw this train coming” and already sliced its budget by $700 million to $1 billion in advance of the sequester cuts.
It is now operating with a budget that is smaller than it was in 2009.
