[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 11, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-959 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JIM COSTA, California
STEVE KING, Iowa TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
BOB GIBBS, Ohio SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia FILEMON VELA, Texas
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JEFF DENHAM, California ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DOUG LaMALFA, California PETE AGUILAR, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
TED S. YOHO, Florida ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
MIKE BOST, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
TOM EMMER, Minnesota
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
______
Scott C. Graves, Staff Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from
New Mexico, submitted letter on behalf of David Sanchez, Vice
President, Northern New Mexico Stockman's Association.......... 84
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 3
Witness
Vilsack, Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J., Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Submitted questions.......................................... 63
HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Conaway, Neugebauer,
Goodlatte, Lucas, King, Thompson, Gibbs, Austin Scott of
Georgia, Crawford, DesJarlais, Gibson, Hartzler, Benishek,
LaMalfa, Davis, Yoho, Walorski, Allen, Bost, Rouzer, Abraham,
Emmer, Moolenaar, Newhouse, Peterson, David Scott of Georgia,
Costa, Walz, McGovern, DelBene, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan,
Maloney, Kirkpatrick, Aguilar, Plaskett, Adams, Graham, and
Ashford.
Staff present: Bart Fischer, Haley Graves, Jackie Barber,
Jessica Carter, John Goldberg, Leah Christensen, Margaret
Wetherald, Matt Schertz, Scott Graves, Ted Monoson, Anne
Simmons, Keith Jones, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, Mike
Stranz, and Nicole Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. I now call the hearing to order. I have asked
Ralph Lee Abraham to open us with a prayer. Ralph?
Mr. Abraham. Our Father, we thank You for Your presence
today on this beautiful day. As always, we ask for knowledge
and understanding, but more importantly, we ask for wisdom, so
we can take that knowledge and apply it to our country. To our
servicemen and servicewomen in harm's way today, please give
them comfort and security always. In Jesus' name we pray, amen.
Thank you, Ralph, I appreciate that. The hearing will come
to order. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture to
review the state of the rural economy, will come to order.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing before the Committee
today. We know you are really busy. We appreciate you coming
here to visit with us today. You have, and we all enjoy, a good
working relationship with each other, including with our
previous Chairman, Mr. Lucas, and I look forward to continuing
that tradition.
Saturday marked the 1 year anniversary of the signing of
the Agricultural Act of 2014. As you know, economic conditions
for many producers have changed dramatically since then, with
commodity prices plunging up to 50 percent. Drought, and other
natural disasters, have resulted in disaster declarations in 32
states across the country last year. The net effect is an
estimated 43 percent decline in net farm income over the past 2
years.
A good many producers are struggling to demonstrate to
lenders that they can cash flow their operations in order to
secure credit, and to farm for another year. Adding to the
anxiety of producers is the implementation of the farm bill,
where hard decisions, with very significant consequences, will
have to be made in the coming weeks.
While the agricultural economy has been turned on its head,
Mr. Secretary, you and your team have been hard at work
implementing the 2014 Farm Bill, and I want to publicly thank
you for the work your team has done thus far. I also want to
thank, here at this hearing, the RMA Administrator, Brandon
Willis in particular, for your dogged determination in getting
the actual production history adjustment, now called the yield
exclusion, implemented in time for spring planted crops. This
was a significant lift, and the efforts did not go unnoticed,
so thank you very much. While there have been a few bumps along
the way, and certain challenges remain, you and your team
deserve to be commended for your work in this effort.
While I thank you for your hard work in implementing the
farm bill, including several improvements made to crop
insurance, I must admit that I was disappointed to see the
Administration's 2016 budget proposal, which slashes $16
billion from crop insurance, a reduction of over 17 percent.
With commodity markets plummeting, and producers struggling to
find financing, now is precisely the wrong time to weaken crop
insurance.
I would also note that, despite the economic turbulence in
rural America, the commodity title of the farm bill is still
slated to save taxpayers money relative to the old direct
payment system, and the cost of Federal crop insurance is also
expected to decline. Moreover, overall farm bill savings
anticipated during the farm bill debate remain intact under the
January baseline.
We are at the beginning of a new Congress, and a new year,
and just like farmers don't know what the year will bring in
terms of weather and markets, we too cannot predict the twists
and turns of the political process. But what we do know is that
hard work always finds its rewards. To that end, my colleagues
and I look forward to rolling up our sleeves and getting to
work.
Mr. Secretary, again, thank you for being with us today. I
look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
Thank you Mr. Secretary for appearing before the Committee today.
You are a very busy man (we might have contributed to that) so we
appreciate you taking the time to be here with us today. You have long
enjoyed a good working relationship with this Committee, including with
our previous Chairman, Mr. Lucas, and I look forward to continuing that
tradition, going forward.
Saturday marked the 1 year anniversary of the signing of the
Agricultural Act of 2014. As you know, economic conditions for many
producers have changed dramatically since then, with commodity markets
plunging by up to 50 percent. Drought and other natural disasters also
resulted in disaster declarations in 33 states across the country last
year. The net effect was an estimated 43 percent decline in net farm
income over the past 2 years.
A good many producers are struggling to demonstrate to lenders that
they can cash flow in order to secure credit and farm for another year.
Adding to the anxiety of producers is the implementation of the farm
bill where hard decisions with very significant consequences will have
to be made in the coming weeks.
While the agricultural economy has been turned on its head, Mr.
Secretary, you and your team have been hard at work implementing the
2014 Farm Bill, and I want to publicly thank you for the work your team
has done thus far. I also want to thank you--and RMA Administrator
Brandon Willis in particular--for your dogged determination in getting
the APH Adjustment--now called the Yield Exclusion--implemented in time
for spring-planted crops. That was a significant lift, and it did not
go unnoticed.
While there have been a few bumps along the way--and to be certain,
challenges remain--you and your team deserve to be commended for your
work.
While I thank you for your hard work implementing the farm bill--
including several improvements made to crop insurance--I must admit
that I was disappointed to see the Administration's FY 2016 budget
proposal that slashes $16 billion from crop insurance--a reduction of
over 17%. With commodity markets plummeting and producers struggling to
find financing, now is precisely the wrong time to weaken crop
insurance.
I would also note that, despite the economic turbulence in rural
America, the commodity title of the farm bill is still slated to save
taxpayers money relative to the old direct payment, and the cost of
federal crop insurance is also expected to decline. Moreover, overall
farm bill savings anticipated during the farm bill debate remain intact
under the January baseline.
We are at the beginning of a new Congress and a new year. And just
like farmers don't know what the year will bring in terms of weather
and markets, we too can't predict the twists and turns of the political
process. But what we do know is that hard work always finds its reward.
To that end, my colleagues and I look forward to rolling up our sleeves
and getting to work.
Mr. Secretary, again thank you for being with us today. I look
forward to your testimony.
The Chairman. And now an opening statement from the Ranking
Member, Mr. Peterson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing, and thank the Secretary for joining us today.
Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Secretary. Today we are
looking at the rural economy, which, over the past few years,
has done pretty well. I think that is partly why it was so
difficult to get a farm bill passed, frankly.
And it is good that we were able to get it done, because
the farm bill provides a safety net to farmers during difficult
times. Although I have been to some of these meetings that they
have been putting on in our state on the provisions of the farm
bill, I am concerned about some of the things that I have
heard. And this is no reflection on the Department. They have
done a great job of implementing it. These are problems that we
caused with this base acre situation, which was not something
that Frank Lucas and I were for.
I am concerned about some of the things that I am hearing.
And I am a little bit worried that we might run into a time
constraint of getting this thing done by March 31, because you
have a lot of farmers out there maneuvering around. So we will
just have to see how it happens. At least we have the farm bill
in place, and we still have crop insurance in place, so we will
see how things work out.
Even with the budget savings we provided, there are still
people out there talking about re-opening the farm bill, and
saving money in crop insurance, or SNAP, or other areas of the
farm bill. This is, in my opinion, a very bad idea. We had a
hard enough time getting this bill done. We do not need to get
back into that quagmire again, and so I hope the Committee
stays together in opposition to any cuts to farm bill programs,
or any opening of the farm bill. We have done our work, and we
were the one committee that stepped up to the plate and
actually reduced the budget.
With regard to the implementation, as I said, I have been
generally pleased. We didn't make this easy, and some of these
programs, as I have indicated, are more complicated than I
would have liked, but it seems like things are going along, and
hopefully people will meet the deadlines of updating their
bases and yields by the end of this month, and making the
decisions on which program to choose by the end of next month.
So, again, I thank the Chairman for holding today's
hearing, and look forward to hearing from the Secretary, and
the discussion that ensues.
The Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member. The chair will
request that other Members submit their opening statements for
the record so the witness may begin his testimony, and to
ensure there is ample time for questions.
With that, I would like to welcome our witness to the
table, the Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary, 30th Secretary, I
believe, of the Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C.
Secretary Vilsack, please begin when you are ready, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS ``TOM'' J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and
to Representative Peterson, and Members of the Committee, I
appreciate the invitation that was extended by the Chairman to
address you today. Let me spend just a couple of minutes, if I
might, giving more detail on the implementation of the farm
bill so the Committee is fully aware of the steps that have
been taken over the last year.
We have conducted over 4,600 events and interactions with
producers to explain some of the complicated provisions of the
farm bill. We are pleased with the activities of our very
dedicated people at USDA. Over 546,000 payments have been made
under the disaster assistance programs established by Congress
in the farm bill, resulting in close to $4.8 billion being
provided, primarily to livestock producers who suffered through
some very difficult times as a result of drought and other
issues.
We are excited about the opportunity to continue to promote
credit to farmers. The microloan program limit has been
increased, as Congress directed, to $50,000, and we are taking
a look at how we might be able to help beginning farmers access
new credit opportunities that were created by the farm bill.
Supplemental crop insurance, the STAX program has been
established. Over $500 million has been provided in the Cotton
Assistance Transition Program. The organic price election is in
place. Changes have been made to the Noninsured Crop Disaster
Assistance Program (NAP) to expand opportunities for specialty
crop producers.
Over 23,000 producers did, in fact, sign up to participate
in 2015 in the Dairy Margin Protection Program. Approximately
55 percent of that number decided to buy up coverage, and it
may very well be at the end of this year that those who
purchased buy up coverage may be happy that they did.
Mention has been made of the safety net, and indeed we are
in the process of implementing the Agricultural Risk Coverage
Program (ARC) and the Price Loss Coverage Program (PLC). Over
\1/2\ million farms have already re-allocated their base acres,
and over 208,000 farms, which represents roughly nine percent
of eligible farms, have already made the election of ARC or
PLC. Obviously, this is an extremely important election.
Our hope is that farmers who have made up their mind, who
have looked at the numbers and made the determination of what
is best for each individual farm will get to make that decision
quickly, so that we are not faced with a situation where
everyone makes that decision at the last minute. We obviously
want to be able to process all of this work in a timely way, so
to the extent that people can be encouraged to do so early,
that would be beneficial.
The Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research has been
set up. Several meetings have been held: $200 million has been
directed to an account, and we anticipate and expect that
private foundation will begin making decisions about research
projects sometime in 2015.
We are pleased with the response to the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program: 115 projects were funded,
with $372 million. We anticipate another round of this Regional
Conservation Partnership Program competition at the end of the
year. Roughly $200 million will be made available at that time.
Easement programs have been consolidated. In the forestry
title the stewardship contracting has been extended. We worked
with governors across the country in 35 states to identify
millions of acres of forested land that provide an opportunity
for us to focus our attention, and used a streamlined NEPA
process to encourage more treatment, and more resilience in
restoration of our forests.
We are working on amendments to the section 9003 energy
program to expand that opportunity to include the bioeconomy.
Local and regional food systems have benefited from the
Farmers' Market Promotion Program and the Local Foods Promotion
Program established in the farm bill. And we are now in the
process of reviewing over 40 applications we received from
states to take advantage of the SNAP employment and training
pilot, and we are very pleased with the interest that that
program has generated.
Mr. Chairman, I remain very bullish on the economy, the
agricultural economy, and the rural economy. I think we are
focused on an opportunity of not only expanding at a record
level of exports, a record expansion of local and regional food
system market opportunities, the development of new ecosystem
markets, and additional investment in conservation, and the
expansion of the bio-economy, where we are seeing manufacturing
returning to the rural economy. We still have work to do, no
question.
Obviously, commodity prices are down a bit, but, as I said
yesterday to our team, it is sort of like major league baseball
players who begin spring training, you hit .370 one year, you
hit .320 the next year. Maybe you are down a little bit, but
you still had a pretty decent year. We have the best farmers in
the world, the most productive farmers in the world, providing
the best product in the world. I am confident that that will
continue.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Vilsack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee, I am pleased to provide an update on the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) progress in implementing the Agricultural Act of
2014 (2014 Farm Bill) and the state of rural America. First, I would
like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee for its hard work
in crafting this critical piece of legislation. The farm bill provides
the necessary tools to allow the proud men and women of rural America
to feed hundreds of millions around the world and resources to support
economic development and job creation in rural America.
The new farm bill, with 12 titles and more than 450 provisions, is
a large piece of legislation and implementing it has required a
coordinated effort across all areas of USDA. We made implementation a
top priority at the Department. Immediately after enactment, USDA
established a 2014 Farm Bill implementation team composed of key sub-
cabinet officials and experts from every mission area of the Department
to put new programs in place and make mandated reforms to existing
programs. I am proud of the work USDA employees have undertaken to
implement the farm bill. Through their hard work, this effort has been
called ``the most successful farm bill implementation'' to date.
As we mark the 1 year anniversary of the farm bill being signed
into law, I am pleased to say that we have made major progress on every
title of the law and achieved significant results for those impacted by
the law. I have no doubt that these results will only continue as we
begin year two.
Title I: Commodities
Farmers, ranchers and those working in supporting industries
maintain an agriculture sector that has seen strong growth over the
past 5 years. Agriculture accounts for about $775.8 billion in economic
activity, supports one out of every eleven jobs in the economy, and
helps to maintain vibrant, thriving rural communities. U.S. agriculture
is expanding into new markets around the world, spurring innovation,
and creating jobs and opportunity on and off the farm.
The future of rural America depends on the continued leadership of
our farmers and ranchers, and we must make sure they have the tools
they need to continue to grow, and a strong safety net to support them
during tough times.
At the direction of the President, USDA made the disaster programs
our number one priority and expedited the implementation of these
programs. The new farm bill reauthorized disaster assistance programs
(including the Livestock Forage Disaster Program, the Livestock
Indemnity Program, the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees,
and Farm-Raised Fish Program, and the Tree Assistance Program) that had
not been operational since 2011.
These programs provide much-needed relief to struggling farmers and
ranchers impacted by natural disasters. I'm proud to say that within 60
days of enactment, USDA began accepting applications for disaster
assistance programs restored in the 2014 Farm Bill. This was truly a
significant accomplishment, as it took a year to implement disaster
relief programs after the last farm bill was passed in 2008.
USDA has received over 567,000 applications for these programs and
more than $4.7 billion in disaster program payments have been issued to
producers to assist in their financial recovery. While these disaster
payments will not replace all of the losses farmers and ranchers faced,
they provided some relief to ensure that extreme weather won't cause
families to lose their farms.
In September, USDA ushered in one of the most significant reforms
to U.S. farm programs in decades by unveiling the Agricultural Risk
Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs. Producers will
have through the end of March 2015 to select which program works best
for their operations.
To help farmers choose between ARC and PLC, USDA helped create
online tools that allow farmers to enter information about their
operation that is used to provide projections about what each program
will mean for their operation under possible future scenarios. USDA
provided $3 million to the Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri and the Agricultural
and Food Policy Center (AFPC) at Texas A&M (co-leads for the National
Association of Agricultural and Food Policy), along with the University
of Illinois (lead for the National Coalition for Producer Education) to
develop the tools.
USDA's Farm Service Agency and Risk Management Agency also worked
together to offer certified yield data that producers can use to better
calculate how the new safety net programs can offer the best protection
against market swings. This is the first time that producers will
update yields since 1986.
More than 23,000 of the nation's dairy operations--over \1/2\ of
all dairy farms in America--have enrolled in the new Margin Protection
Program. During the 3 months of the enrollment period, USDA conducted a
robust education and outreach effort to the nation's dairy producers.
The Department held over 500 public meetings, sent out nearly 60,000
direct mailings, and conducted more than 400 demonstrations of the Web-
based tool designed to help applicants to calculate their specific
coverage needs.
Title II: Conservation
USDA's conservation efforts have enrolled a record number of acres
in programs that have saved millions of tons of soil, improved water
quality, preserved habitat for wildlife and protected sensitive
ecological areas. To accomplish these goals, USDA has partnered with a
record number of farmers, ranchers and landowners on conservation
projects since 2009. In addition to protecting cropland and critical
habitats, conservation can help to boost local economies. For example,
a 2013 study commissioned by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
found that conservation activities supported more than 600,000 jobs.
USDA launched the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
in May 2014. This new farm bill program is an entirely new approach to
conservation efforts. RCPP is a competitive program where local
partners, in partnership with Natural Resources Conservation Services
(NRCS) design conservation projects that are specific to their region.
It has three funding pools: 35 percent of total program funding
directed eight to designated critical conservation areas, including the
Great Lakes Region, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Mississippi River Basin,
Longleaf Pine Range, Columbia River Basin, California Bay Delta,
Prairie Grasslands, and the Colorado River Basin; 40 percent directed
to regional or multi-state projects through a national competitive
process; and 25 percent directed to state-level projects through a
competitive process established by NRCS State leaders.
Nearly 600 pre-proposals were submitted for RCPP, and the top pre-
proposals were invited to submit a full proposal. This resulted in 210
full proposals requesting $1.4 billion--four times the available
funding for the first round ($370 million). In January, USDA awarded
funding to 115 high-impact, locally-led projects across all 50 states
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. USDA provided more than $370
million that will leverage an estimated $400 million in partner
contributions. The total investment of nearly $800 million will improve
the nation's water quality, support wildlife habitat and enhance the
environment.
These partnerships empower communities to set priorities and lead
the way on conservation efforts important for their region.
RCPP builds on the results achieved by USDA's traditional
conservation programs, which have achieved significant results over the
past 6 years. USDA has enrolled more than 79 million acres of
agricultural working lands in the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) to help producers implement conservation practices. In
addition, more than 67 million acres, an area about the size of the
State of Colorado, have been enrolled into the Conservation Stewardship
Program (CSP) to incentivize the most productive, beneficial
conservation practices.
At the end of 2014, USDA published interim final rules for CSP and
EQIP. The EQIP interim final rule includes efforts to simplify the
existing regulation regarding conservation practice scheduling, payment
limitations and other administrative actions.
The 2014 Farm Bill extended authority to enroll acreage in
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) through September 30, 2018 and
requires enrollment to be no more than 24 million acres beginning
October 1, 2016. Enrollment under continuous CRP and 1 year extensions
were offered last year and FSA expects to publish a rule late this
spring to fully restart the program and implement the remaining farm
bill changes. With the cap on acreage, the Department is focused on
ways to increase per acre conservation, wildlife and environmental
benefits through a variety of targeted approaches.
Title III: Trade
USDA is supporting America's farmers and ranchers as they build on
record agricultural exports. In FY 2014, exports of U.S. food and
agricultural products reached a record $152.5 billion and supported
nearly one million American jobs. The potential for agricultural
exports is considerable and USDA is already taking action to help
producers secure and expand market access for American agricultural
products. But it is also critically important that we have Trade
Promotion Authority as we seek approval of trade agreements that
support and create U.S. jobs while helping American agriculture to
compete even more successfully. Trade Promotion Authority will help
ensure that America's farmers, ranchers, and food processors receive
the greatest benefit from these negotiations, and builds on efforts
that have helped achieve record agricultural exports over the past 6
years.
Thanks to resources in the new farm bill, USDA is also able to
continue funding for trade promotion and market expansion for U.S.
agricultural products overseas. An independent study released in 2010
found that trade promotion programs like Market Access Program (MAP),
and Foreign Market Development (FMD) provide $35 in economic benefits
for every dollar spent by government and industry on market
development. USDA moved quickly to implement trade promotion programs
reauthorized under the 2014 Farm Bill. Through the MAP, USDA has
provided $173.2 million in FY 2015 to 62 nonprofit organizations and
cooperatives to help build commercial export markets for U.S.
agricultural products and commodities. Participants contribute on
average a 214 percent match for generic marketing and promotion
activities and a dollar-for-dollar match for promotion of branded
products. Through the FMD Program, USDA has provided $26.7 million in
FY 2015 to 22 trade organizations to help create, expand, and maintain
long-term export markets for U.S. agricultural products.
In addition to the MAP and FMD programs, eligible organizations can
apply for funding through the Quality Samples Program (QSP), Emerging
Markets Program (EMP), and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
(TASC) Program, which includes the programmatic change under the 2014
Farm Bill to allow participants to address technical barriers to trade
regardless of whether they are related to a sanitary or phytosanitary
barrier.
Title IV: Nutrition
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provisions of
the 2014 Farm Bill preserve the fundamental structure of the program,
invest in helping SNAP participants move to self-sufficiency,
strengthen program integrity efforts, continue to modernize the program
through technology, and emphasize the importance of good nutrition
through enhanced retailer standards and grants for incentives that help
SNAP participants stretch their dollars further to buy fruits and
vegetables.
SNAP helps millions of hardworking families put healthy food on the
table as they get back on their feet. More than \1/2\ of SNAP
recipients are children and the elderly, and less than 7% of households
receive cash assistance. Among SNAP households with at least one
working-age, non-disabled adult, more than \1/2\ work--and more than 80
percent work in the year before or after receiving SNAP. With a
stronger economy SNAP participation is beginning to gradually decline.
Comparing Fiscal Year 2014 with Fiscal Year 2013, average participation
decreased 2.3 percent or by approximately 1.1 million people. While the
economic trends are encouraging, SNAP remains critical to millions of
Americans.
The farm bill provided $200 million for SNAP employment and
training pilots to help participants find jobs and increase their
earnings. The funds will be used to develop and test innovative
approaches that connect SNAP recipients with the preparation, training,
work supports, and opportunities they need to enter and remain in the
workforce, to move off of SNAP, and to build stronger futures for their
families. The pilots are intended to help recipients build their skills
and match them with good paying jobs. The goal of the pilots will be to
increase the number of work registrants who obtain employment, increase
their earned income, and move toward self-sufficiency. USDA put out a
request for proposals for pilot projects in August 2014 and plans to
award funding for up to ten projects. We were pleased with the strong
response to this RFP with proposals from over 30 states. USDA plans to
work with all states to maximize the core E&T program, even if they are
not recipients of the farm bill funding.
The new farm bill builds on USDA's ongoing efforts to root out any
waste, fraud, and abuse from the program, protect the taxpayer
investment in SNAP and make sure that the program is there for those
who truly need it. In FY 2013, SNAP achieved a record level of payment
accuracy of 96.8 percent. Payment errors in FY 2013 were almost 64
percent lower than they were in FY 2000, among the lowest in the
Federal Government. USDA efforts have also resulted in a significant
reduction in trafficking--USDA's The Extent of Trafficking in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: 2009-2011 study shows that
the exchange of SNAP benefits for cash--which was estimated to be as
high as four percent 15 years ago, down to just 1.3 percent according
to the most recent data.
The farm bill authorized a Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP)
pilot to allow participating schools in at least five states to serve
canned, frozen, and dried forms of fruits and vegetables through the
program. Four states--Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine--applied to
participate. The pilots are operating this school year. Each pilot has
an evaluation component and results of the evaluations are expected in
fall 2016.
USDA also issued guidance and provided technical assistance to
state agencies regarding the requirement that state and local agencies
begin phasing out the participation of women, infants and children in
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, resulting in a smooth
transition to a seniors-only program.
Title V: Credit
The 2012 Census of Agriculture data indicate there is tremendous
growth potential for small and mid-sized producers, but many need
additional support in order to become competitive. Accordingly, USDA
has expanded efforts to connect small- and mid-sized farmers and
ranchers with tools and resources to help them access capital, get
information about land management and conservation practices, manage
risk, find local markets, and other educational resources that will
help them grow their operations and expand into new markets. The new
farm bill expands lending opportunities for thousands of farmers and
ranchers to begin and continue operations, including greater
flexibility in determining eligibility, raising loan limits, and
emphasizing beginning and socially disadvantaged producers.
USDA has acted quickly to implement changes to Farm Loan Programs,
including, among other things, eliminating loan term limits for
guaranteed operating loans; modifying the definition of beginning
farmers; allowing debt forgiveness on youth loans; and increasing the
guaranteed amount on conservation loans from 75 to 80 percent and 90
percent for socially disadvantaged borrowers and beginning farmers.
USDA also implemented changes in the interest rate on Direct Farm
Ownership loans that are made in conjunction with other lenders and
increased the maximum loan amount for the down payment loan program
from $225,000 to $300,000. On March 25, 2014, FSA issued an agency
directive implementing non-discretionary microloan provisions. USDA
also raised the borrowing limit for its microloan program from $35,000
to $50,000. Since the program began in January 2013, USDA has issued
more than 10,000 microloans, 70 percent of which went to beginning
farmers.
Title VI: Rural Development
USDA has made strategic investments in infrastructure, housing and
community facilities to help improve quality of life in rural America.
Since 2009, USDA has helped more than 900,000 families buy, repair or
refinance a home; extended new or improved broadband service for 1.4
million Americans; improved or constructed more than 158,000 miles of
electric line; invested in approximately 7,000 water and wastewater
projects for nearly 14.5 million Americans; invested in more than 6,600
critical community facilities projects; and provided grants and loans
to assist nearly 89,000 small and mid-sized businesses in rural
America, creating or saving an estimated 420,000 jobs.
The 2014 Farm Bill reauthorized the tools that enable USDA to
continue offering municipalities, businesses, and families the
financing tools that can prompt economic growth and prosperity in rural
communities. USDA is making good use of these tools in communities
across the country. Because the farm bill included funding to address
the backlog of water/wastewater improvement projects across the
country, USDA acted quickly and on April 22, 2014, awarded $150 million
in grants, plus an additional $237 million in loans and grants through
the Water and Environmental Program, to 116 projects in 40 states and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to improve water and wastewater
services and ensure that rural communities have access to reliable,
clean and safe water. These awards go predominantly to very small,
remote, and poor places.
USDA has also acted quickly to implement key new farm bill
provisions that invest in rural businesses and critical infrastructure
in order to strengthen rural communities and build on its rural
development initiatives. In FY15 USDA will reopen the farm bill
broadband program with new rules that align with the changes the
Congress included in the 2014 Farm Bill and make approximately $50
million in loans available to help ensure every corner of this country
has reliable, high-speed Internet access. Similarly, in FY15 USDA will
accept applications for the Value-Added Producer Grant program, which
helps agricultural producers generate new products, crate and expand
marketing opportunities, and increase income. Since 2009, USDA has
awarded 863 Value-Added Producer Grants totaling $108 million.
The new farm bill streamlines the Rural Business Opportunity Grant
(RBOG) program and Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG) program to
create a new Rural Business Development Grant Program with all the same
authorities as the previous two programs. In FY 2014, USDA ran RBOG and
RBEG as separate programs and in FY 2015, will issue a final rule
establishing the new Rural Business Grant Program. In September 2014,
USDA announced nearly $3 million in grants to 28 organizations in 12
states through the two programs.
Even as we make these investments, rural America continues to face
a unique set of challenges when it comes to combating poverty. While
poverty is not limited to rural America, nearly 85 percent of
persistent poverty counties are located in rural areas. In fact, \1/3\
of rural counties have child poverty rates of over 30 percent, at a
time when research increasingly demonstrates the negative effect of
poverty on child development and educational attainment. Children are
our future and we must do more to create better futures for our
children and families and those striving to reach the middle class--
this is something I look forward to working on with all of you.
Title VII: Research, Extension, and Related Matters
Scientific breakthroughs have helped our farmers, ranchers and
growers increase production on the same amounts of land, using fewer
inputs. Studies have shown that every dollar invested in agricultural
research returns up to $20 to the economy.
In the past 6 years alone, research by USDA scientists has led to
over 750 patent applications covering a wide range of topics and
discoveries. USDA also continues to aggressively partner with private
companies, universities and others to transfer technology to the
marketplace to benefit consumers and stakeholders. In Fiscal Year 2014
alone USDA received 83 patents, filed 119 patent applications, and
disclosed 117 new inventions. Helping drive these innovations, USDA
also had 267 active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
with outside investigators, which includes universities and other
organizations, including 102 with small businesses.
In July, USDA created the Foundation for Food and Agricultural
Research (FFAR) and appointed individuals to a 15-member board of
directors. The foundation's board of directors was chosen to represent
the diverse sectors of agriculture. Seven of these board members were
selected by the unanimous vote of the board's five ex officio members
from lists of candidates provided by industry, while eight
representatives were unanimously elected from a list of candidates
provided by the National Academy of Sciences. Congress mandated that
the ex officio members choose the initial 15 board members from among
the lists provided by these two groups. The board members have the
option of adding additional members, if they so choose.
FFAR will leverage public and private resources to increase the
scientific and technological research, innovation, and partnerships
critical to boosting America's agricultural economy. In a time of
Federal budgetary restraints, the new foundation is another innovative
way to continue and expand investment in agricultural research. It will
complement existing Federal and federally-funded agricultural science
research endeavors and accelerate solutions to the challenges American
agriculture.
Other research provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill focus on
investments at colleges and universities throughout the United States,
with an emphasis on Land-Grant institutions. The farm bill provides new
or expanded investments in research critical for the success of
beginning farmers and ranchers, specialty crop producers, and organic
producers.
As authorized by the farm bill, USDA has provided significant sums
for a variety of research, extension, and education efforts. For
example, on Feb. 2, 2015, USDA announced more than $18 million in
grants to educate, mentor, and enhance the potential of the next
generation of farmers to sustain careers in agriculture through the
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program. This program aims to
support those who have farmed or ranched less than 10 years with
workshops, educational teams, training, and technical assistance
throughout the United States. USDA's National Institute of Food and
Agriculture awards grants to organizations that implement programs to
train beginning farmers and ranchers.
On October 2, 2014, USDA announced the award of $51.8 million in
grants through its Specialty Crop Research Initiative to support the
specialty crop sector by developing and disseminating science-based
tools to address the needs of specific crops. These research and
extension project grants fund a wide variety of efforts, including
research to improve crop characteristics, identifying and addressing
threats from pests and diseases, improving production and
profitability, developing new production innovations and technologies,
and developing methods to respond to food safety hazards.
Through the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), USDA
awarded on September 29, 2014, more than $19 million in grants to help
producers and processors who have already adopted organic standards
grow and market high-quality organic agricultural products. OREI's
priority concerns include biological, physical and social sciences.
OREI-funded projects assist farmers and ranchers with whole farm
planning by delivering practical research-based information and will
improve the ability of growers to develop the Organic System Plan
required for certification.
Title VIII: Forestry
Under the new farm bill, the Forest Service is provided greater
tools to maintain the nation's forests and grasslands, including
permanent stewardship contracting and Good Neighbor authorities, and
provisions to aid efficient planning and implementation of landscape
scale projects that reduce insect, disease and fire risks. These tools
give the agency increased ability to work collaboratively with states,
Tribes and a wide range of citizens and stakeholders to accomplish
critical forest and watershed restoration work and conserve the
nation's forests and grasslands.
Last May, USDA designated 94 National Forest areas in 35 states to
address insect and disease threats that weaken forests and increase the
risk of forest fire.
Title IX: Energy
New opportunities in advanced biobased products and renewable
energy expand the potential to strengthen rural manufacturing,
particularly of products made from renewable materials from our farms
and forests. Rural America desperately needs those jobs, and every
American benefits from our expanded competitiveness in this globally
emerging market.
USDA is helping to create markets for advanced biofuels from non-
food, non-feed sources--from the farm field to the end-user. To
encourage feedstock production for renewable energy, the Biomass Crop
Assistance Program (BCAP) is incentivizing more than 850 growers and
landowners farming nearly 48,000 acres to establish and produce
dedicated, nonfood advanced biofuel feedstocks for energy conversion
facilities. In July, we selected 36 energy facilities in 14 states to
accept biomass deliveries supported by BCAP.
USDA has also invested in the work needed to create advanced
biofuels refineries. Since 2009, USDA has invested in efforts to create
nine new advanced refineries nationwide. We have also created six
regional research centers across America to develop advanced biobased
energy technology that's appropriate to every region. With the nearly
$900 million in mandatory money provided in the Energy Title of the
2014 Farm Bill, we can continue these efforts to expand the biobased
economy and support economic development opportunities in rural
America.
The new farm bill makes significant investments in the bioeconomy
and renewable energy programs. The legislation preserves the Rural
Energy for America Program (REAP), which provides critical investments
in renewable energy and energy efficiency across rural America, helping
to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Over the past few years we
have collected good feedback from folks around the country about how we
could improve the REAP program--and Congress also provided some
direction in the 2014 Farm Bill. In December, USDA published a new REAP
rule, which takes these changes into account and also strives to make
the program more accessible to rural business owners and producers of
all kinds. The rule goes into effect this week and USDA will be
announcing the availability of approximately $280 million in grants and
loan guarantees for the new REAP program in the near future.
Title X: Horticulture
A surge in consumer demand for locally-produced food is creating
jobs and opportunity throughout rural America, for farms as well as
small businesses that store, process, market and distribute food
locally and regionally. USDA data indicate that local food sales were
at least $6.1 billion in 2012, with industry sources estimating the
market's value at more than $9 billion. Perhaps more important for
USDA's mission, our research shows that money spent on local food
continues to circulate locally, creating demand for other businesses
and services in rural communities. As such, this strategy is a critical
piece of USDA's work to support rural economies more generally.
With the release of the Census of Agriculture results last year,
USDA learned that over 160,000 farmers and ranchers nationwide are
selling their products locally. They're tapping in to growing consumer
demand for locally-grown food; consumers want to support their local
economy when they purchase food, whether that's at a farmers market, a
grocery store, or their workplace cafeteria.
Direct-to-consumer sales like those that take place at a farmers
market help consumers connect with the source of their food and learn
more about agriculture. Today, we have more than 8,200 farmers markets
registered with the AMS National Farmers Market Directory. But this
economic sector is more than that. As it matures, it is opening
opportunities for farms of all sizes, especially mid-sized farms, to
supply larger-volume buyers like local retailers. USDA has invested in
local food infrastructure--from cold storage facilities, to processing
plants, to food hubs that aggregate and distribute local products--and
has helped facilitate new market access for these producers. Recently,
we launched a new set of Local Food Directories to help consumers find
Community Supported Agriculture enterprises, food hubs and on-farm
stores.
The 2014 Farm Bill continues to build on programs established in
the 2008 Farm Bill to promote local and regional food systems and
support specialty crop and organic agriculture. Sales of specialty
crops total nearly $65 billion per year, making them a critical part of
the U.S. economy. In October, USDA announced $66 million for 838
Specialty Crop Block Grants to State Departments of Agriculture for
projects that help support specialty crop growers, including locally
grown fruits and vegetables, through research and programs to increase
demand. As directed by the farm bill, the block grants were allocated
to U.S. States, the District of Columbia, and territories based on a
formula that took into consideration both specialty crop acreage and
production value. Nearly all states saw an increase in funds.
In September, USDA awarded over $27 million in competitive grant
funds for projects through the new Farmers Market and Local Food
Promotion Program that support local and regional food systems. As
directed by the 2014 Farm Bill, priority will be given to projects that
benefit under-served communities, including those that are located in
areas of concentrated poverty with limited access to fresh locally or
regionally grown foods.
In order to help prevent the introduction or spread of plant pests
and diseases that threaten America's agriculture economy and the
environment, in April 2014 USDA allocated $48.1 million to 383 projects
in 49 states, Guam and Puerto Rico through the Plant Pest and Disease
Management and Disaster Prevention Program. The projects are helping
states and other partners continue providing and strengthening
protections against agricultural threats and could also allow the
reallocation of resources to other critical programs. In addition, in
June, USDA allocated $5 million to support 19 projects in 14 states
through the National Clean Plant Network cooperative agreements
program.
Title XI: Crop Insurance
The crop insurance program has become an increasingly important
component of the farm safety net, and crop insurance protections for
all farmers, particularly beginning farmers and ranchers, have been
strengthened under the new farm bill. For example, changes made by the
2014 Farm Bill have allowed us to provide better crop insurance
coverage for almost 1,300 beginning farmers and ranchers already, only
ten percent into the reporting cycle. We've also expanded coverage for
26 organic crops so that these producers can buy the level of insurance
that meets their production needs.
USDA is now able to offer Whole-Farm Revenue Protection plan of
insurance to provide safety net protection for specialty, fresh fruit
and vegetable growers and organic producers, as well as reward farm
diversification through premium discounts on crop insurance coverage.
The Whole-Farm Revenue Protection plan of insurance was made available
in 45 states for 2015. USDA has started the work to expand Whole-Farm
Revenue Protection to the rest of the country. These areas are targeted
for expansion for the 2016 crop year.
USDA staff worked hard to implement several 2014 Farm Bill programs
ahead of schedule, such as ARC, PLC, the Price Loss Coverage,
Supplemental Coverage Option and Stacked Income Protection Plan.
Because of that, USDA was able to leverage data from ARC and PLC to
extract the information needed to implement Actual Production History
(APH) Yield Exclusion earlier than expected.
In October, USDA announced that the APH Yield Exclusion will be
available for farmers of select crops starting in spring 2015. APH
allows eligible producers who have been hit with severe weather to
receive a higher approved yield on their insurance policies through the
Federal Crop Insurance Program. The APH Yield Exclusion is being
implemented beginning with the 2015 crop year for corn, soybeans,
spring wheat, cotton, grain sorghum, rice, barley, canola, sunflowers,
peanuts, and popcorn.
APH Yield Exclusion will be available for additional crops
beginning with the 2016 crop year, including winter wheat. USDA is
currently reviewing crops that will be eligible for APH Yield Exclusion
for the 2016 crop year. The choice of crops and counties selected for
2016 and subsequent crop years will be based on data availability
criteria designed to ensure actuarial soundness and program integrity.
USDA expects to announce the new crops throughout the year with most of
the announcements to be made in the fall of 2015.
Title XII: Miscellaneous
In November, USDA announced Karis T. Gutter, a Marine Corps Reserve
veteran and current USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services as the first USDA Military Veterans Agricultural
Liaison, a position created by the 2014 Farm Bill. The MVA Liaison will
coordinate USDA leadership across the Department to provide
information, resources and support for active duty military and
veterans interested in agriculture. The MVA Liaison will also have
authority to facilitate formal relationships between USDA and other
government agencies and nonprofit organizations to strengthen USDA
support for veterans.
In December, USDA awarded grants to 62 community-based and
nonprofit organizations and educational institutions to conduct
training, outreach and technical assistance for socially disadvantaged
(including Tribal) and veteran farmers and ranchers through the 2501
Program. USDA has assisted more than 6,100 beginning, small, veteran
and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers through the program
since October 2014.
USDA also implemented the receipt for service requirement in the
2014 Farm Bill and has issued 101,462 receipts for service to USDA
customers between December 1, 2014 and January 28, 2015.
Conclusion
Again, thank you for this opportunity to update you on USDA's
progress to implement the 2014 Farm Bill. Farmers, ranchers, rural
communities and other USDA stakeholders have waited several years for
this legislation, and USDA has made implementation of the bill a high
priority.
I am pleased to say that in just over a year, important progress
has been made on every title, including updates to risk management
tools, modifications to farm loan programs, announcements regarding
available funds for agricultural research and much more. Moving
forward, USDA staff and I will continue to engage with Members of
Congress and stakeholders during the implementation process and as we
continue to carry out critical mission of serving America's farmers,
ranchers and rural communities.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Again, thank
you for being here today. The chair would remind Members that
they will be recognized for questions in order of seniority,
for the Members who were here at the start of the hearing.
After that, Members will be recognized in order of arrival. I
appreciate our Members' understanding. I recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Secretary, again, thanks. Crop insurance is clearly the
backbone of our safety net, and for several budgets in a row
the Administration has proposed additional cuts, on top of the
money that was cut in 2008, on top of the money that was cut as
a result of the SRA. You are on record with Politico saying
that you think the company returns are way too healthy. I am a
CPA, and return on investment, and whether or not somebody is
making money, that is a mathematical computation, and there
seems to be some differences of opinion.
RMA thinks that the companies are making a lot--in the six
percent range, well south of the 14 percent cap that is put
into the farm bill. We have had crop reinsurance folks come to
us saying they are exiting the business, they are making very
difficult decisions whether or not they can continue to
allocate capital to this important initiative. It is the
public-private team that has driven the success of crop
insurance.
Could you give us your thoughts on this? Could you share
with us how RMA computes the numbers, and can we get a better
sense of why the Administration believes that crop insurance
folks are making too much money?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I
certainly acknowledge the importance of crop insurance as a
critical component to the safety net. Over $55 billion has been
paid out since I have been Secretary in crop insurance payouts,
so obviously it is extraordinarily important.
It is a balance between producers, insurance companies, and
the taxpayer. And the reality is that both the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), our own Inspector General, have
raised questions and concerns about various aspects of the
program.
What we have proposed is a reform in the Prevented Planting
Program. Essentially, it creates a current disincentive for
planting the second crop. We think that should be dealt with
and addressed. In terms of the harvest price option loss
coverage, that is a question of whether or not we, or you, or
us, believe that the partnership should be more of a 50/50
partnership, instead of a 65/35 partnership, in terms of the
level of subsidy.
The bottom line is you can look at any 1 year, and you can
make a conclusion about whether or not this is a profitable or
not profitable enterprise. The reality is, if you look at a
long enough period of time, and it is important because folks
can point to a year where maybe it was a loss, 1 or 2 years out
of the last 15 or 16. We can also point to a place where the
return on premiums was 34 percent, 32 percent, so you have to
look at the long trend.
What we have found is that this enterprise can be
actuarially sound at 12 percent on balance. Over history, the
return has been somewhere between 14 and 17 percent. So it is
just a matter of the long term. This is a healthy industry, and
we are seeing an expansion of the number of insurance policies
and crops being insured.
The Chairman. You are clearly saying that, but you are not
saying it expands the number of folks. If this is such a
profitable business, there would be folks trying to get in it,
and what we are being told is that there are folks getting out.
It seems like there is a sense at OMB that they don't want a
public-private partnership. They want crop insurance to be
solely public, and that makes no sense to many of us.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I don't think that is quite
accurate, Mr. Chairman. I think that OMB's position, and our
position, is that it is a balance. It is a proper balance, and
a partnership. When subsidies are as high as 65, 70, 80
percent, the question is, is that the right level?
The Chairman. And those have been coming down.
Secretary Vilsack. They----
The Chairman. In those early years, I mean these guys are
in the arena for today forward. I get the historical look back,
but the trend is in the wrong direction. Much of that happened
before the 2008 Farm Bill, as well as the standard reinsurance
agreement that was done in 2011. I am hard pressed to see how
those previous years can be used as an excuse for further cuts.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, again, we have seen years where
the profits have been pretty good----
The Chairman. All right, which year was that, post-2011?
Secretary Vilsack. I will get that to you. I think it is--
--
The Chairman. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack.--2012, 2011-2012.
The Chairman. Right: 2012 was a disaster drought year. The
other thing I would like to get, if we could, is an agreement
that whatever RMA is using to drive the conversation, that that
would be shared with the rest of us so we could see the
numbers. This isn't rocket science. This is premiums in,
expenses out. What expenses get included in the number ought to
be a part of the conversation, so rather than talk about what
it ought to be we can talk about what it is, and then talk
about what it ought to be?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am happy to provide you, but
2011 was 18 percent.
The Chairman. Was what?
Secretary Vilsack. It was 18 percent.
The Chairman. Yes, and 2011 was prior to the SRA
renegotiation, which stripped another $8 billion out of the
system, so I have you on that. I understand the 2008. This is
an important industry, all of us believe that. Your statement
is full of compliments to the crop insurance system. We need to
keep it in business, and my personal opinion is we need to keep
it as a public-private partnership, so----
Secretary Vilsack. I don't disagree with that, Mr.
Chairman. I think you are right about that.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr.
Peterson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, you and I
have had many conversations about the future of CRP. We are in
agreement that this has been a good program, and it has a
number of different aspects which I support, improving water
quality, protecting highly erodible land. But one of the
components is also wildlife, and we made that \1/3\ of the
components.
So as we go forward, because we had to lower the cap, and
we have all these different continuous programs within the
system and so forth, I am concerned that we are going to lose
kind of the way it was spread across the landscape when it
started. And it started not as a conservation program, but as a
way to get land out of production, so it is a little different
situation.
But one of the reasons, in my opinion, it has been so
successful with wildlife is the fact that it kind of was all
over the place, and we had big tracts that spread out
predators, and allowed these birds to survive. What are your
thoughts about doing a general sign-up? I know there are things
that are being looked at, in terms of programs within the
system, but we have 1.9 million acres coming out this year, and
we have room to do a million acre general sign-up. And,
according to your folks you are considering it, but you haven't
made decisions yet? I would like to know where you are at with
that.
Secretary Vilsack. We are taking a look at this, and the
decision-making process is probably going to lead us to an
early spring decision-making process, in terms of what we do.
I am confident we will have, at some point, a general sign-
up. I think the general sign-up will focus, as it should, on
highly erodible areas, and making sure that we use our precious
resources in the most effective way. We obviously will continue
some of the continuous programs that have been pretty popular,
the Safe Program, for example, the programs that refocused on
upland bird populations, that, obviously, will continue.
And we are also looking at a way in which we could use
Conservation Reserve Program creatively to complement the
regional conservation partnership efforts to the extent that
folks are not able to qualify for the competitive resources in
that program. There is a possibility of using CRP in a very
creative way to enhance larger watershed and larger scale
conservation efforts. I don't think you are going to be
disappointed, Congressman, in terms of our commitment to CRP.
Mr. Peterson. And are you looking at using some of the
grassland reserve to maybe take the place of some of this land
that is going out? Have you looked at that?
Secretary Vilsack. That is a possibility. It is also a
possibility of taking a look at the new easement programs in an
effort to try to encourage utilization of these. We have
created greater flexibility in those programs to be able to
adjust to the individual state requirements and needs.
Mr. Peterson. And I don't know what the answer to this is,
but I understand we want to protect highly erodible land, but
if you focus the whole program on that, what you are going to
do, at least in my part of the world, is concentrate this in a
very narrow area, and exclude a whole bunch of other people. I
am not sure that is where we want to go long term.
There should be some way to move this CRP into some of
these areas where you have traditionally had CRP that are going
to be excluded because they don't meet the highly erodible land
test. In terms of wildlife, I am concerned about that. I don't
know what the answer is, necessarily, but that is what I am
worried about.
And you have people concentrating on these highly erodible
areas, and you have the wildlife groups involved, and what you
have happening is you have a lot of folks that are going out
there and buying farms for wildlife, and using these programs
to fund it? Which I guess is okay, but we want to have the
ability for ordinary farmers to be involved in this too,
farmers that are going to put this land into CRP, and open it
up for hunting. If this goes to only people that are buying
things for wildlife, they are not going to let anybody on the
land except their friends. So I am just concerned about making
this too restrictive.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I certainly hear you, and I would
also say that you have raised an issue that is an even larger
issue to converse about, which is this issue of land tenure,
and who is going to own the land, and who is going to operate
the land in the future. In the next 10 to 15 years we are
facing a significant shift in transfer of land ownership, based
on the age of existing landowners. And it is something that I
have just instructed our beginning farmer and rancher advisory
group to take a very concerted look at this issue. It is a
serious one.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Mr. Neugebauer, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
thank you for being here this morning. Now, first of all, I
want to also thank you for your efforts to go ahead and resolve
the production history issue. That was very important to people
in my district. I also want to associate myself with the
remarks of the Chairman.
As you know, Mr. Secretary, when we did the farm bill, we
moved a lot of the safety net to, basically, the risk
management area, and so a lot of the safety net for farmers
across the country today relies more on crop insurance than it
did on the commodity programs, and so protecting them is
extremely important.
An issue that has come up, and maybe you can reflect on it
a little bit, over the past few weeks we have been hearing from
the cotton producers and cotton marketing cooperatives that
there is a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the payment
status on any gains realized in the cotton loan program as it
relates to payment limits. And while this issue affects
individual producers, there is some concern that it will impact
the marketing practices for cotton, and the follow of cotton,
through the supply chain and the textile mills.
The issue is, with the payment limits in place, some of the
producers don't know exactly what their gains are. In certain
circumstances, they might have to pay those monies back. Is the
Department working on a real-time basis to kind of keep
producers up to date on what the status is?
Secretary Vilsack. We are aware of this, and we have been
working with the Cotton Council to try to figure this out. Part
of the challenge is the statute is written in such a way that
we don't have a great deal of flexibility, in terms of the
timing of all of this, but we are working to try to figure out
a way in which producers will not be harmed and not be hurt by
this. And we are working directly with the Council to try to
figure this out.
I don't know that we have found the answer yet, but we are
certainly aware of the problem, and we are diligently working
to try to figure out how to do it in the confines of the fairly
strict direction from the statute. We can't create the
flexibility that you might be able to create by waiting for
another year to institute the program. We don't think we have
that flexibility, so we have to figure something out.
Mr. Neugebauer. I appreciate that. And if you could keep
the Committee advised on that process, I would appreciate it.
The other thing that I wanted to visit with you, when you came
to sit with some of the Members of the House Agriculture
Committee last week, and talked about what is going on in
trade. As you know, trade is extremely important to
agriculture. With the recent defeat at the WTO with cotton with
the Brazil case, we were forced to kind of basically re-draft
our farm program, particularly for cotton producers.
One of the concerns that a lot of the people in cotton have
right now is, particularly with China, are they playing by the
rules? Their policy is not very transparent, and they have a
huge influence on the world price of cotton. Right now the
price is down. Can you kind of expand on what the Department is
doing to help make sure that our friends in China are playing
by the rules?
Secretary Vilsack. That is a big challenge, Congressman. I
would say that we are heartened by the announcement today from
the U.S. Trade Representative's office beginning the process
within the WTO to raise questions about the export subsidies
that China is engaged in, and agriculture is one of the
industries that was identified as being part of that effort.
And certainly it is fairly clear that they have not necessarily
been playing by the rules in a number of areas.
We have also urged them, in terms of their reserves, their
cotton reserves, to have much greater transparency in terms of
what they have, and where they have it, and what they are going
to do with it, because that obviously does indeed impact and
create instability in the market, which we don't need. This is
an issue that is raised in every meeting that we have with the
Chinese, along with several other issues that we have with
them.
In the last meeting I have had, we suggested that there
needs to be a strategic dialogue with China, a much more in-
depth dialogue and conversation about a variety of issues, from
biotech, to regulatory processes, to subsidies, to the way in
which they control markets. And they have agreed to the
strategic dialogue. We will be submitting to them a proposed
agenda, and the hope would be that that dialogue will begin
this spring.
They are our number one customer, and so we obviously have
to be sensitive to that. But, at the same time, we want a
science-based and rules-based system, because if everyone plays
fair, we will do just fine in that system. If we are at a
disadvantage, obviously that is a problem. We are calling them
out, and we should.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Scott,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, the Federal Government has had a drastic,
very dangerous decline in their Federal purchases of peanut
butter. This is very devastating to our peanut producers and
farmers, and all throughout our retail industry. This is going
on while peanut butter is perhaps one of the most nutrient
packed protein foods that you can eat. It helps fight our
children's obesity, and it helps with our nutrition and food
program.
Yet, just listen to this fact, Mr. Chairman: 20 years ago,
in 1995, the Federal Government was purchasing 80 million
pounds of peanut butter; 20 years later, last year in 2014, it
is just below 13 million pounds. That is almost 150 percent
loss. I mean, that is devastating to any industry, but can you
imagine what that is to the peanut industry? And we have to
find out a reason for that.
So what I want to ask you to do, Mr. Chairman, is to stop
by the side of the road here for a moment and help the peanut
industry. Help particularly in Georgia. Many of our states
share this problem, but Georgia leads the nation. I want you to
know that I am leading the fight to get an answer to this
situation.
So what I want to ask you, if you would be kind enough, and
your staff, to review this situation with the urgency that
these farmers and producers are sensing. We are losing farms.
Our children are not getting the nutritious food that they
need. Our food and nutrition program is losing. To go from 80
million pounds of purchasing down to less than 30 million, that
is unacceptable. Mr. Secretary, I know you care about our
children and our families; so, please, will you direct your
staff to report back to this Committee some solutions that we
can go to work on to turn this train around?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I will direct my deputy,
who is a Georgia native, to pay some attention to this issue
and get back to you. It is a question I am not prepared to
answer today, but you have raised it, and you deserve an
answer.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you so much, and you
couldn't have a better person leading the fight than a good
citizen from Georgia.
Let me go back to COOL for a second, the Country-of-Origin
Labeling. How do we fix this problem, Mr. Secretary, with the
country-of-origin labeling? It is a grave concern to our beef,
our poultry folks, who are very concerned. Can you give us an
update on COOL, and how we will be able to fix this problem so
it doesn't cause any more harm to the United States agriculture
industry?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I would say three
things. One, we are in the process of appealing the adverse
decision in the WTO. That decision is likely to come out
sometime this spring, and, obviously, that would potentially
solve the problem. If we aren't successful in that appeal, we
have looked at this from a regulatory perspective, and we have
concluded that we cannot, at the agency and Department level,
navigate the difficult path between what Congress has mandated
to us, and what the WTO says is acceptable.
So Congress is either going to have to rescind the rule, or
modify the rule, to create some kind of more generic label, a
North American label, for example, that would enable
enforcement and implementation without segregation of
livestock. I would say that our Canadian friends, with all due
respect, overstate the challenge and the issue that it is
created for them, in terms of the damages they sustained. There
is a recent report by the National Farmers' Union that suggests
that they have not been damaged anywhere near as much as they
claim.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. All right, Mr. Secretary, thank
you. I have just a few seconds. Could you give us an update on
the proposed rule that could very well allow South American
beef entering into this country? And many of our farmers are
concerned about that, because it could bring in foot and mouth
disease.
Secretary Vilsack. If I can ask the chair for just about 30
seconds to respond to this, because it is a very important
question. We have traveled around the country, and around the
world, touting American agriculture, and suggesting that we
need in our trading relationships a rules-based and science-
based system, which means that we have to live by that system
that we advocate. If we are asking the Chinese to play by a
certain set of rules, we obviously have to play by those rules
as well.
That involves, basically, a focus on risk assessment, and
our folks at Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
have done a very detailed risk assessment, and have concluded
that certain regions of countries can indeed be allowed to
export fresh and chilled beef to the United States without
raising an undue risk relative to foot-and-mouth. In other
regions, the risk assessment has not indicated safety. So the
ability to export to the United States would be restricted to
those areas where we have already done a very extensive risk
assessment. There would obviously also be checks at the border
when this beef comes in.
If we don't do this, then it is very difficult for me to go
to China and say, ``You need a rules-based and science-based
system for GMOs,'' or to Europe and say, ``Hormone beef ought
to be allowed to be traded, because the science says it is
okay, and the rules say it is okay.'' It is about consistency,
and it starts with a very strong and significant risk
assessment that we have done over the course of years.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Right. Well, thank you very
much, Mr. Secretary, but the major point I want to make in
conclusion is that we need to give our beef, and our pork, and
our poultry folks here some kind of relief. Particularly our
beef, because there is a reason why they are fearing that this
South American beef could cause foot-and-mouth disease. And I
just hope that before we let the chickens out of the barn here,
so to speak, that we close the barn door.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Lucas
for, 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for participating in a little anniversary, the first
anniversary of the farm bill when you were in Oklahoma a couple
weeks ago.
Secretary, I think we would all agree, and certainly you
and I would agree, that using cover crops is a good
conservation practice. In fact, I know the Administration has
been doing a lot to encourage the use of cover crops. You can
imagine my surprise when I hear from my producers that perhaps
FSA may not be counting cover crops as eligible for ARC or PLC
on generic base. Can you help us make sure that we don't punish
producers who are trying to adopt sound conservation practices
like planting cover crops?
Secretary Vilsack. I am used to referring to you as Mr.
Chairman, so I may slip, Mr. Chairman, if I----
Mr. Lucas. No, that title goes with you, no matter where
you are----
Secretary Vilsack. It goes both sides----
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, look, we are indeed a
strong proponent of cover crops, and we have seen a 350 percent
increase in the amount of cover crop activity in the last
several years, which is a good thing. We recognize that cover
crops are part of the stewardship ethic that farmers and
ranchers have. The problem is that we are not certain that
there is the kind of flexibility that we would need to have in
terms of the definition under ARC and PLC to be able to cover
this. It is an interpretation of the statute.
So the question is whether or not we can work together to
see whether or not there is a change, or a modification, or if
there is additional information you want to supply to us that
would suggest that our interpretation of the statute is not
correct.
Mr. Lucas. I would just note, Mr. Secretary, the practice
is a solid conservation practice. The Department has encouraged
whatever we can do to work together to help make sure this
continues forward would be in the best interest of the
environment and the soil out there. That said, while you were
in Oklahoma, some peanut producers expressed their concerns--
and not just in Oklahoma, but a number of adjoining states--of
their issues where they were contracted with a company for
their peanut crop that is now going through bankruptcy. Can you
assure us that you are doing everything in your power to
protect those producers, and to ensure that they are able to
stay in their marketing--which is a really important issue with
them.
And I know this is sort of a unique circumstance, we have
not gone through this process before, but can you shed a little
light on that, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, indeed there were a number
of producers that did business with this entity that has now
filed bankruptcy. We are working with the lawyers of the new
licensee, or the new owner of the facility, in an effort to try
to navigate the tricky bankruptcy laws to ensure we do
everything we possibly can to protect producers. I am hopeful
that we can get something worked out, but I don't want to over-
represent where we are in this process. We are trying to get to
a place where producers can be protected, those contracts can
be honored, and it doesn't cause significant financial harm to
those producers. But it does depend a great deal on the new
owner, or licensee.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I would simply
note to my colleagues on the Committee that farm bills are
written not for the good times, but the bad times. And when we
started this process, Mr. Chairman, some years ago, corn,
wheat, things were in an amazingly different set of
circumstances, and now we are in potentially some challenging
times.
But that is what the farm bill is for, and that is the
effort that we put into it, and how we implement all that is
critically important to our constituents, our neighbors'
ability to survive. I would just simply, once again, I thank
the Secretary for his help through that long and daunting
process, and the patience of everyone, from our present
Chairman on down. And by the way, I have gotten to the point
where I kind of like the phrase Chairman Conaway.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
that very much, and the gentleman yields back. Mr. Costa for, 5
minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member, for holding this timely hearing, and, Mr. Secretary,
for your good efforts in implementing the farm bill on the
first year anniversary. I have a number of questions. I want to
go quickly. A number of them relate to California specifically.
You came out almost about a year ago this month with myself
and the President and, firsthand, looked at the impacts of this
devastating drought, that now is in its fourth year, that is
having catastrophic impacts. I would like to get a sense from
you as to what the USDA is doing for farmers in the San Joaquin
Valley who are suffering because of a lack of a reliable water
supply, 600,000 acres out of 6 million acres in California have
been fallowed last year. Could you please quickly talk about
any mitigation efforts?
Secretary Vilsack. Obviously additional livestock disaster
assistance, $109 million, additional EQIP resources have been
provided, additional emergency community water resources have
been provided. Emergency water grants totaling roughly $40 to
$50 million, that are in the process of being distributed and
provided to producers to look at irrigation systems. There is
also additional research that is taking place, not just in
California, but around the country, through the Conservation
Innovation Grant, to see how we might be able to deal with the
consequences of drought.
Mr. Costa. Well, I would like to talk with you about this
at greater length. Let me move on. This is more West Coast
oriented. Has the Department conducted an economic analysis on
the results of the labor dispute on West Coast ports?
The Administration obviously has a mediator that is
involved right now. I don't know if the President has been made
aware of the current strain on products that have been sold
that are sitting at Long Beach, L.A. Harbor, Oakland, up the
West Coast now for several months. It is really having the
ripple effect, in terms of from the farm to the selling of
these products. Well, the products have been sold, and they are
sitting there.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I personally wrote a letter
to the President several weeks ago, advising him of the
concerns that we had about the situation at the port. I can you
tell you that we know from prior history, where there have been
labor issues at the port, that it is a serious issue to
containerized supplies. Bulk grain supplies are moving, but the
containerized supplies have been, as you have indicated,
delayed. So we are looking at a very serious situation in----
Mr. Costa. The implications for employees, retailers,
processors, transportation sector, farmers, ranchers,
consumers, are significant.
Secretary Vilsack. We are fully aware of this. We meet on a
day to day basis encouraging the sides to get this resolved. It
is my understanding that there are just a couple of remaining
issues. They are serious issues, but the hope is that these
folks can get the last two issues resolved so this thing can--
--
Mr. Costa. Well, your support, and your efforts with the
Secretary of Labor, would be very much appreciated to bring
this to an end for all the right reasons.
The trade agreements, both TPA, T-TIP, have potential
benefits to America's agriculture economy, and I am wondering
if you have been doing an economic analysis that we could look
at on a region by region basis, sector by sector benefits to
American agricultures, and have that finalized before Fast
Track is proposed, or comes to the Congress?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, we will get you an
evaluation we have done by Congressional district.
Mr. Costa. That would be terrific. A year ago, as a part of
the negotiations with the farm bill, we had a segment in there
as it related to allowing California dairy industry to
participate in the Federal Milk Marketing Order. Can you assure
me that we are moving ahead on schedule? Three of the major
dairy industries have written a letter, and they would like to
get moving, that you have done your due diligence, and we
appreciate that?
Secretary Vilsack. If I am not mistaken, a petition has
been filed, and the process----
Mr. Costa. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--has started. That involves, obviously,
a hearing, and then there is a referendum, but we are moving
forward. We have had folks go out there on four occasions to
talk about this issue.
Mr. Costa. Yes, and they have done a good job. I want to
thank you and the Department. Finally, this Argentine lemon
import situation, will the Department be following up with
APHIS in permitting access of Argentine lemons to the U.S.
market?
Secretary Vilsack. It will, consistent with an appropriate
pest risk analysis and assessment. It gets back to this issue
of science-based and rules-based systems. Absolutely.
Mr. Costa. Right. And I just want to add my thoughts on the
COOL effort. This does need to be resolved sooner than later.
You and I have had a different take on it, but whether or not a
North American labeling is a solution I am not sure, but, for
the benefit of good trade for our partners, and for America, we
need to resolve it.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Gibbs,
5 minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary,
for being here. There is one big issue that the agriculture
community is really concerned about, and you mentioned in your
testimony the EPA and the Army Corps WOTUS rule, and almost
every agricultural organization and agricultural entity is
opposed to the proposed rule. The majority of the states are.
We had a hearing in another committee last week, with the
EPA Director and Secretary of the Army, Civil Works, and one
thing they talk about is significant nexus, meaning that waters
that have biological or chemical relationship to navigable
waters could be a significant nexus, which is kind of open-
ended, case-by-case determination.
And we also learned that if, in furrows, grassed waterways,
if they have significant nexus under that determination, then a
farmer and an adjoining land owner would come into that
dictate, that they would have to get a section 404 permit if
they are doing any plowing activities, dredge or fill, or a
section 402 permit from the EPA in regard to apply pesticide
and herbicides if they are waters of the United States. And we
heard from, I think it was the Deputy Attorney General of
Oklahoma that said that that can cost over $300,000.
So the impact to American agriculture can be quite severe
in this area. What has USDA done to advocate for farmers on
this? Did you make comments during the comment period that has
been ongoing? What has USDA's role been to address the
agricultural community's issues?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, we have indeed discussed
this issue with the Administrator, and with EPA officials. The
ephemeral issue is one that we have specifically commented on,
the difficulty of establishing something with a bank and a bed,
and an occasional water resource, and how that actually in the
real world works. So we have educated--that is--we see our role
as educating, as providing input in terms of how this might
impact. Obviously, it is not our decision to make. It is
another sister agency, we have to respect that, but we have
expressed some issues and some concerns about the ephemeral
definition.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, if I was in your position, I would take a
tough stance advocating, which I I assume you are. But with the
aspect of saying that agriculture is so important, and that
they ought to go back and work back with the states. They did
not involve the states. They are saying they are involving the
states now, but they didn't, because we have had a majority of
the states actually testify that there was no interaction with
them.
And the Clean Water Act was really set up to be a
partnership with the Federal Government and the states, with
the states implementing the Clean Water Act and enforcing it
under the guidance and advisement of the Federal Government,
and not just a complete power grab.
The other issue I wanted to mention, and Mr. Costa
mentioned a little bit, a concern about the work slowdown on
the West Coast ports, and especially when we are looking at the
trade agreements, and the possibility, as this continues or
even gets worse, of losing market share because our foreign
customers are going to look for other options if they don't
think we are a reliable customer.
You made the comment that you have and the Administration
tried to work on this, but if it comes to a complete lockout or
a strike, would the USDA advocate to the President to invoke
the Taft-Hartley Act?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, the issue with Taft-Hartley
is an interesting one, because, as you know, it requires a
Federal Judge being convinced to issue an injunction. Thirty
years ago that was a relatively simple process. Recent port
difficulties, and recent requests for Taft-Hartley, have
indicated a much higher bar, from an evidentiary standpoint, to
inject that.
Frankly, the preferred option, obviously, is for the
parties to get this resolved. And it is my understanding that,
as I said earlier, there are just a couple of issues. If there
are only a couple of issues left, it----
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think the couple of issues are pretty
significant.
Secretary Vilsack. They are significant. I am not
suggesting they are not. But, as you all have outlined, the
impact of this is quite significant. And when you take a look
at how this could ripple throughout not just agriculture, but a
variety of other parts of our economy, at a time when we are
seeing the economy begin to pick up, it seems to me that the
parties ought to be doing everything they possibly can----
Mr. Gibbs. I guess I would just advocate that the
Administration needs to use all the resources they can to make
sure that the slowdown ends, and it doesn't get worse, because
the ripple impact, even to my state, to Ohio, is significant.
Secretary Vilsack. I can tell you that we have reached out
to both parties, encouraging them to get this done, and we have
literally daily meetings on this.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms.
DelBene, for 5 minutes.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being with us today, and I want to thank you and
your staff for all the work you are doing to quickly implement
the farm bill. And I would also like to extend an invitation
for you to come out and visit Washington's First Congressional
District and see some of the great work happening with our
farmers and agriculture there. I sent you a more formal
invitation, but I hope you will be able to find the time to
come out. Plus, we are getting starting to get to the time of
year where weather gets better, and it will be pretty beautiful
out there.
I have very high hopes for the new SNAP employment and
training programs that are out there, the pilots that are out
there. We introduced a bill that was based on work we had done
in Washington State, and that has kind of been the model of the
program that we included in the farm bill, and I wanted to get
your feedback. I think you said you had 43 responses so far,
but I wanted your feedback on how the request for proposal
process has been going, what types of proposals you have
received, and are you on track to make a decision on those
later this month?
Secretary Vilsack. There have been 35 states, over 40
applications. They are in the process of being reviewed. I
believe that our decision-making will probably take place in
the first part of March.
Ms. DelBene. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. The projects range everywhere from
demand job opportunities--some of these folks are obviously
very difficult, in terms of their circumstances, their barriers
to employment, so there will be a concerted effort in some of
these projects to remove those barriers, and to provide the
help and assistance that folks need to get to work. Some are
folks on potentially apprenticeships that could potentially
lead to gainful employment. So there is a broad array of
options.
You are correct, Washington is a model for the rest of the
country, and our hope is that, through these ten projects, that
we create a best practices model, if you will, or manual that
other states can follow. We also hope that the conversation
allows states that are currently receiving over $300 million to
utilize those resources fully and more efficiently. Many states
do not take full advantage of the 50/50 money in employment
training, which is unfortunate, and many states may not be
using those resources as efficiently and as effectively as they
can.
We have put a lot of time and effort into this, and I am
personally involved.
Ms. DelBene. Well, thank you. I look forward to hearing the
results in March. On trade, in your testimony you highlighted
the importance of trade to agriculture, definitely in our
region, and making sure we open new markets. Ambassador Froman
came out to my district and met with my farmers on the Trans-
Pacific Partnership in particular, and it is very, very
important to our dairy farmers that any access that U.S. grants
under imports is balanced with commercially meaningful access
in Canada and Japan.
And my farmers are very concerned at this point that there
may be new access to the U.S. market without making sure that
we have made meaningful new access into Japan and Canada. And
while we made great progress on the safety net in the farm
bill, I hope you will encourage a positive deal for our dairy
farmers, and I wondered if you have engaged with your Canadian
counterparts at all on this issue, or have any other feedback
for us on this issue.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have engaged with the
Canadians, but they have been very reluctant to negotiate. Very
reluctant to negotiate. And, in fact, they have acknowledged an
unwillingness to put any real significant deal in the
discussion. I am not quite sure whether it is their politics,
or whether they are concerned about whether or not we can make
a deal without the President having the trade promotion
authority that every President has had since Franklin
Roosevelt, but, whatever the reason, they have been far less
willing to negotiate than the Japanese.
We have been making some progress in terms of our
conversations with the Japanese. There is still work to be
done, but the with the Canadians are another matter. My hope
is, given the magnitude of this deal, and the importance of it
to American agriculture, and to the American economy, that the
Canadians take a different view and engage more meaningfully in
negotiations.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. I would say--let me, if I----
Ms. DelBene. Go ahead.
Secretary Vilsack.--could just say, this is not about
getting a deal, it is about getting a good deal. And if it is
not a good deal, then there won't be a deal.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you. This is a very important issue, so
thank you for being engaged and involved there, and I will
yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. Mr.
Austin Scott, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Vilsack, thanks for being here today. And I want to
just kind of, again, follow up on what Chairman Lucas said
about when a producer is planting multiple crops, a cover crop,
or a grazing crop. And I hope that you will continue to work
with the Committee to give the farmer the flexibility that they
need. I certainly don't pretend to speak for the Committee as a
whole, but if you do need flexibility or additional language, I
hope that you will let us know sooner rather than later so that
we can work together to resolve that issue.
When we talk about the economy in rural Georgia, in my part
of the state, it revolves on a couple of different commodities.
One of them is cotton. And I have read the most recent World
Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. I have watched cotton
prices lately, and I can tell you I am extremely concerned
about what I see happening in the cotton market. And I am going
to give you a couple of numbers, and then I am just going to
ask, if you would, that someone from your Department could
maybe look a little further into this and follow up with us.
But the National Cotton Council is estimating 15 percent fewer
acres. We, the USDA, in the most recent report revised export
projections up, yet, on the World Agricultural Supply and
Demand Estimates, our expected price is holding at 61 , the
61 , 65 range.
One of the things that we are seeing is that Pakistan's
production would actually go up in our report. News reports
from Pakistan actually estimate that they may miss their crop
by as much as 3 million bales of cotton. So I would just ask,
if we could, that we would have your specialist in cotton look
at that, again, specifically with regard to Pakistan. I am
extremely concerned about what appears to be a dysfunction in
the market with price, and that is coming from some
manipulation in some other countries, not Pakistan, but China
more so, and a couple of others.
And I would just ask if you could get your people to check
that Pakistan estimate again? Because we are saying it is that
we are anticipating that it is going up, their reports are
suggesting that it is going down, and it would be helpful to
our producers if we just took a second look at that. Because I
am extremely concerned that, if these prices stay where they
are, that the number of acres planted will be significantly
less than 15 percent.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, you made the request, and
we will follow up on it.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you for that. And one
other thing that I would mention, in the President's budget, he
has given no authority for guaranteed lending, but given $2.2
billion for direct lending. And my question is since the USDA,
in the past, has worked in this partnership with the guaranteed
lending, and why have we seen the shift to 100 percent direct
lending, instead of the guaranteed lending from the
Administration?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I want to make sure I know
which loan program you are talking about. Are you talking about
the Community Facility Program?
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, sir.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay. First of all, we have had better
luck with the direct program working with folks locally. We
have seen a continued interest in this. It has to do with the
subsidy rate. Guaranteed program, obviously, the subsidy rate
is less and less of the impact on the budget. Part of the
challenge that we face is that our discretionary budget, which
this is part of----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--is less than it was in Fiscal Year
2010: more than 50 percent of the budget is in four areas, WIC,
it is in fire suppression, and forest maintenance. It is in
food safety, and it is in rental assistance. And part of the
challenge is that, when you are dealing with sequester, and
dealing with cuts, and dealing with reductions, when 50 percent
is going up, the other 50 percent, obviously, you have to take
a look at it. We can continue to do as much work with the
guaranteed as with the direct, but it doesn't cost as much to
the budget.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. I would appreciate it if you
would be willing to share the loss ratios in both of those
programs. And it just seems to me that with the lending
program, where we have the private sector participating, we
actually get more dollars into the economy than if it is the
direct lending.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield my time, and apologize,
Secretary Vilsack. I am going to be stepping out to an Armed
Services Committee meeting.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms.
Plaskett, for 5 minutes?
Ms. Plaskett. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
and a pleasant good day to you, Mr. Secretary. I first also
want to invite you to visit the U.S. Virgin Islands, which I
hope you and your staff could make a visit to, I am sure you
will find the weather to be much more pleasant now, if you make
that trip earlier rather than later.
But the U.S. Virgin Islands, in all seriousness, at one
time was considered the bread basket of the Caribbean.
Particularly on the island of St. Croix, which was primarily
agriculture at one time, and has since fallen off of the track,
in terms of its agricultural--not only it--feeding itself, but
also its exports.
I notice so many of the programs that are available in the
Department of Agriculture, your MAP, your Farmers' Market
Development Programs, particularly the Emerging Markets
Program, which would be of great assistance to us in the U.S.
Virgin Islands, we seem to have a bottleneck because so many of
those offices come through Puerto Rico.
And I wanted you to speak on the availability of this
funding to those areas that your agency has identified as being
remote, small, and impoverished as well. We have, over the
entire island, \1/3\ of the children in the U.S. Virgin Islands
living in poverty. So I wanted to know if you could talk about
the effectiveness of these programs on growing new markets, in
terms of agriculture, and how the Virgin Islands could benefit
from that.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congresswoman, the programs you
mentioned are primarily export promotion programs----
Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--that work with commodity groups and
organizations that are involved in exports. I think what I
would suggest, in terms of rebuilding the economy, is that
there may be an opportunity for us to focus on some of our
value-added processing resources, some of our local and
regional food promotion resources to create more product that
could potentially be available for export and/or to furnish the
needs of the island.
We are seeing a significant increase in local and regional
food systems, and it is a multi-billion dollar opportunity, and
we have a number of programs under our Know Your Farmer, Know
Your Food initiative that would potentially be useful. I would
be happy to have our team at USDA reach out to your staff to
give you a full briefing on both the export assistance
programs, as well as the local and regional food promotion
programs.
Ms. Plaskett. Additionally, with respect to that, if you
would also talk about the rural development? We are, in fact,
as your statement talks about, very small, remote, and a poor
place. We know that your water and environmental programs were
available to 40 states, as well as the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico received the benefit from those programs. We, in fact,
have infrastructure, as well as housing and community
facilities issues which are at an extreme rate.
In terms of our facilities, we haven't had a new school
built in the U.S. Virgin Islands in over 30 years, so you can
imagine the great need that the people of the territories have
for some of the availability that comes under the agency. And I
was hoping you would talk about the awarding of that $150
million grant that those other places, who had access to--in
terms of our waterways--and some of the other things that those
things could be used to strengthen rural communities.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the $150 million was an allocation
from the farm bill, but we have a series of infrastructure
projects under Rural Development. Electric, water, community
facilities, and broadband, and all of those would potentially
be available----
Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--for utilization in the Virgin Islands.
In fact, we have been having conversations with folks down
there about some of the high costs of electricity and power----
Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--and whether or not--either the Rural
Energy for America Program, or our general electric program
could provide help and assistance to create more reliance on
renewables, and less reliance on high cost energy sources. So
all of those programs, again, are available. It is just a
matter of prioritizing and figuring out what is the most
important thing you need, and having our teams work with your
office to identify the program, and to make sure that the
application is in an appropriate form.
Ms. Plaskett. Well, my office wants to work very vigilantly
with you on alleviating any bottlenecks, or any problems we may
have in those applications. With our cost of electricity at
potentially, in some instances, 49 per kilowatt, when, here on
the mainland it is about 11 to 14 , that is cataclysmic to
families, as well as businesses there.
Secretary Vilsack. It may be helpful for one member of your
staff to attend a function we are holding on March 23 down at
the Department, where we are going to outline some of our
programs to a group of folks who are interested in knowing more
detail about them. So we will get an invitation out to your
staff.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much. I yield the balance of
my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
Crawford, 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, a
couple of quick questions, but first I want to thank you on
behalf of Arkansas rice farmers. We had a little bit of a snafu
due to a price reporting issue that would have delayed
payments, PLC and ARC payments, specifically to rice farmers,
and you and your staff have been very diligent in helping us
rectify that problem. So, on behalf of Arkansas rice farmers,
thank you for that, I appreciate it.
I have an issue with the safety net sign-up deadline. I
know you and your team have been working on the farm bill
implementation, and I certainly appreciate that. What I am
hearing at home from my farmers is that there is still an awful
lot to learn about it, and they are working with the decision
aides in evaluating their options. Do you suspect that there is
going to be adequate FSA resources at local offices to handle
what I would assume would be a rush of farmers here in the
latter part of the sign-up window?
Secretary Vilsack. That is why we are encouraging folks who
have made a decision, Congressman, to let us know now, as over
200,000 producers have. And, obviously, if they decide now, and
a week or 2 from now they decide they wanted to change, they
could do that. So we are encouraging folks as they make
decisions to basically implement those decisions.
We are obviously going to do what we have to do to make
sure that we meet the demand, but it would be lot easier for us
if it was spread out over a period of time, than----
Mr. Crawford. Sure.
Secretary Vilsack.--everybody waiting until the last
minute.
Mr. Crawford. Is there a protocol possibly in place for a
situation that might arise, where the appointment slots are
unavailable, due to just the volume? Is there a possible
protocol to address that issue?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have in the past, in situations
like this, created a process. At this point it really is an
issue of folks going online, taking a look at the models, and
making a decision. And it really is not quite as detailed as
perhaps making an appointment to sign up for disaster
assistance. It is a little bit different than that.
Mr. Crawford. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack. So I am not sure that we necessarily
need a specific protocol. We have already done 4,600 meetings,
so we are obviously getting out there. And hundreds of
thousands of hits on the model, so this is about folks getting
online, doing the calculation, coming to a conclusion, and just
simply letting us know.
Mr. Crawford. Okay. Last question here, and I know I am
going to sound like a broken record, particularly to my
colleagues here, and I am hoping this is the last time I will
have to ask this question, but we had this hearing last year,
and I asked this question at the same time last year, when
would USDA issue a final rule implementing a catfish inspection
program? And you told me then it will be ready to go by
December of 2014, and we still haven't got that. December has
come and gone, and I haven't seen the progress we need. This
was authorized 7 years ago. Can you give me a date-certain when
we can actually expect a final rule on catfish inspection?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am very, very hopeful that you
will see something in April of this year.
Mr. Crawford. Okay. All right. I appreciate you being here,
and look forward to working with you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Lujan Grisham,
5 minutes.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Vilsack. I get to be one of the Members that says
thank you for coming to New Mexico, and meeting with me, and
our farmers and ranchers, and thank you very much for
increasing the staff of USDA, in New Mexico and in the region.
I think that that is going to facilitate many of the programs
and heighten the success of the rural economic development
investments that you have made in New Mexico, and I appreciate
all those.
I want to focus today, really, on the SNAP program in the
state. As you know, New Mexico still ranks last. We are the
worst for child hunger. We are third in the nation for adult
hunger. We have one of the worst economies in the country, if
not the worst. Our unemployment is much higher than the
national average. And, basically, in fact in most of rural New
Mexico, there are no job opportunities, except for oil and gas,
and actually that is beginning now to diminish in the state, so
we are really suffering.
So, as a result, we have many able-bodied adults without
dependents that are looking for work, but remain unemployed,
because, quite frankly, there are just no jobs in the state. I
am very concerned that the state did not seek a Federal waiver
of the SNAP work rules, despite the economic situation in the
state. And, in addition, the state has developed a 2015
employment and training program, which USDA has approved, that,
as we all know, requires additional participants to sign up
online for job searches, to appear in local benefit offices,
and, in many cases, do community service.
And while I think that these are all productive
requirements in circumstances where they are available, many
New Mexicans cannot meet these requirements because they don't
have access to technology, and they frequently lack access to
child care and transportation. So instead of helping New
Mexicans find jobs, or access job training opportunities, I am
afraid that the unworkable employment and training (E&T) plan
will, in fact, result in more needy families getting kicked off
SNAP.
While the 2015 E&T plan was put on hold due to court
action, I expect the states to resume the programs, in
limitation, later this year. Can you talk to me a little bit
about what kind of oversight you conduct when evaluating and
approving state E&T programs, and maybe in light of the fact
that New Mexico has such a terrible economic situation, and the
hunger rates are so high, would that oversight be enhanced in
some way?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are going to learn something
from the pilots that we are trying to fund through the farm
bill pilot program. I am not sure if New Mexico applied, if
they are one of the 35 states that did. If they didn't, they
should have, given the outline of the circumstances that you
have addressed.
We are spending more time taking a look at this issue
because of the fact that so little of the 50/50 money is
actually spent by states, and the money that is spent, the $90
million that is 100 percent Federal money, I have raised
questions about whether or not it is as effectively spent as it
should.
I can tell you that our teams have gone out and actually
have visited Workforce Development Centers, they visited human
resource departments, they have visited states throughout the
country to identify who is doing well and who is not doing very
well. And I am happy to have our team take a specific look at
New Mexico, if they haven't already taken a look at that. So
there has been heightened oversight, and we are very focused on
trying to make sure that these dollars are used wisely and
effectively.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Mr. Secretary, I would really welcome
more attention to New Mexico. Given my opening remarks, I think
that you have done an outstanding job investing in the state,
and really taking a look. We don't want to see any of these
pilots, or these initiatives, cause more hunger in the state,
and I would really encourage you not just to look at the
operations of the state, but really the impact on the
beneficiaries.
And, in fact, New Mexico does have some of USDA money that
would help with the reimbursements for participants to pay for
transportation and child care costs in the E&T program, but the
problem is they can't fund those costs, so getting a
reimbursement when you are at or below the poverty line isn't
helpful. And, also, the state only requested funding for about
900 people, but we have tens of thousands of individuals who
were affected, and are on SNAP, and now required to do either
the E&T or the work requirements.
So I am very concerned we are not seeing the kind of
movement to move away from the really tragic hunger problems we
have in New Mexico. So I appreciate that offer.
I would like to submit the following letter and two
supporting reports that were sent to our office by the Northern
New Mexico Stockmen's Association (NNMSA) on February 11, 2015.
The letter details NNMSA's concerns regarding the Forest
Service's management of grazing permits and Forest Service's
inconsistent implementation of regulations toward minority
ranchers.
[The documents referred to are located on p. 84.]
Ms. Lujan Grisham. I know I am out of time, and anything
else that we can do to support you to do that oversight, you
can count on my office. Mr. Chairman, thank you, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Benishek, 5
minutes.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here today, Secretary Vilsack. The many rural areas in the
country that are very dependent on the timber industry for
their economic sustainability and growth, including my
district, which covers northern Michigan, I have three large
Federal forests in my district, what changes are being
advocated by the Department that would encourage the Forest
Service to focus on growing the timber harvest, enhancing
mineral development, and offering additional recreational
opportunities on Federal forest land?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are several things,
Congressman. First of all, we are, each and every year,
attempting to treat more wood so that we create more
opportunities for timber industry. Last year it was close to
2.8 billion board feet. I think the goal is close to 3 billion
board feet this year. Second, we are focusing on wood energy
opportunities. There are over 230 wood energy projects that the
Department has funded. We have looked at a way of streamlining
the NEPA process so that we can get work done more quickly, and
that is some of the areas that have been designated as a result
of the farm bill.
We have created a new wood energy--a wood contest that is
taking a look at cross-laminated timber to create a new
industry that doesn't exist in this country that would allow
wood to be used as structural materials in multi-story
buildings. The contest is essentially challenging someone to
come up and actually build a----
Mr. Benishek. Well, no, that is very admirable, but, to
tell you the truth, Secretary Vilsack, in my experience, it is
very difficult to get the timber out of the woods. In the last
5 years, the three National Forests of Michigan, all of which
are in my district, have just sold over 49 percent of their
ASQ. What is preventing you from getting a higher percentage of
the ASQ out of the forest?
Secretary Vilsack. Part of the challenge is the budget, and
the reason it is a challenge is because 40 percent of our
budget is spent on fire suppression. That is 15 years ago it
was about 15 percent. And so what happens is we cannot do the
kind of work that we would like to be able to do because we
have to borrow from the restoration resiliency funds to put
fires out. That is----
Mr. Benishek. Well, and this is the answer I get from you
guys a lot, and that is in the private sector, when you cut
down trees in your forest, you make money, and you produce
money. And, actually, in the Federal forests, in our areas,
part of the income from the Federal forests goes to local
schools. And from industry, you are talking about the timber
industry, and the structural timber stuff, and that is all well
and good, but the real problem is we have difficulty getting
the timber out of the forest.
And a lot of it is due to the fact that, to get timber out
of the forest, it costs the Federal Government a lot more than
it costs the average person on the state forest, or on a
private forest. And when you keep asking for more budget, it
doesn't make any sense to me, because states and private
industry, they make money when they cut trees down, and you are
supposed to be the steward of America's resource, the American
forest, which belongs to the American people. And you should be
able to find a way to harvest these resources, manage these
resources that provide a return for the American people, not
asking for more budget, so----
Secretary Vilsack. Well----
Mr. Benishek.--tell me a way we can make that more
efficient.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, we are not asking for more
money. We are asking it to be structured and budgeted in a
slightly different way. It is not more money. Essentially, we
would like some of these catastrophic fires to be treated as
the disasters that they are, and funded out of that source.
That would free up the resources----
Mr. Benishek. Well, Mr. Vilsack, let me tell you this. If
you could give me some guidance into how to direct this
Committee to change the law that would allow the Forest Service
to be more efficient in managing the Federal forest, I will be
right there to make that happen. Because I have been looking
for some ideas to make the Forest Service more efficient and
not cost so much to manage our forests. And I would look for
your, or anyone else's, input as to how to make that happen.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have created a lot of
efficiencies. I am happy to sit down with you and talk about
the efficiencies that we have had to create because our budget
is less than it was when I first became Secretary.
Mr. Benishek. I have time for maybe one more question here.
When you submitted your budget last year, you requested a
budget increase of $50 million, and estimated that you would
harvest 3.1 billion board feet, but you didn't get to that. Why
weren't you able to achieve your original goal?
Secretary Vilsack. It gets back to the point I tried to
make to you, sir, that when we have to borrow money from the
restoration and resiliency portions of the budget because
Congress doesn't provide adequate resources to fight fires, it
creates a situation where we can't contract for the work that
you would like us to do because we don't have the resources.
Congress repays the fund the following year, but there is never
the stability.
That is why it is important to treat these catastrophic
fires as the catastrophes they are, fund that out of the
emergency fund. That frees up resources, and provides stability
that would allow us to do a lot more work. We have been asking
for this for a couple years. That is the answer.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
McGovern, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another
hearing, so I am going to be very brief. Mr. Vilsack, as you
know, hunger still remains a problem in this country. Ms. Lujan
Grisham talked about the situation in New Mexico, but it is all
over this country. And USDA has reported that last year that
nearly 60 million children, one in five, lived in households
that were food insecure, and they found that a food insecure
household is a household at a level with an economic and social
condition of limited access to food. And this is an issue that
impacts not only urban areas, but rural areas as well.
I am concerned about reports that there are some in this
body who want to go back after the SNAP program. It is one of
the most efficiently run Federal programs that we have. I think
there is more than enough data to prove that. It is a benefit
that, quite frankly, is inadequate for a lot of people. They
end up going to food banks and food pantries as well. But this
idea of going back after the program would be a huge mistake. I
don't think SNAP should be used as an ATM machine to pay for
other priorities, or to balance the budget. There are people
who literally depend on it to put food on the table.
My request to the Administration, and to you, is to draw a
line in the sand on this issue. No more cuts to SNAP, no more
cuts to food and nutrition programs. We cannot balance the
budget on the backs of poor people. I am all for, if you want
to do oversight hearings, that is fine. You want to find ways
to make the program more efficient, but not at the expense of
taking benefits away from people who need it.
The majority of people on this program are children, and
are senior citizens, and are people who are disabled. Of those
who work, the majority do work, but they don't earn enough to
be able to not require this benefit. So my request is simple.
It is important to draw a line in the sand so we don't start
going down a road that would be detrimental to a lot of people
in this country.
This is an important program, again, SNAP is given. We gave
it in the farm bill, gave for the Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act. The ARRA monies weren't extended enough,
and we need some strong pushback from the Administration to
make it clear to everybody here that we are not going to
tolerate any more cuts in this program.
Secretary Vilsack. Did the gentleman have----
Mr. McGovern. Yes. If you could give me the answer yes,
that that is all I am looking for, and then I am done.
Secretary Vilsack. I think the President is the person who
draws the lines in the sand, and I am certainly not going to
pre-empt him, but I will certainly, obviously, express concerns
we have about the level of food insecurity. I will express
concerns about folks who suggest that this is a program that is
overrun by fraud when the fraud rate is a little over one
percent, one of the lowest in the Federal Government. Or the
error rate, which is about 3\1/2\ percent. So, combined, it is
the lowest it has been in history.
And you are correct, that 80 percent of the folks that are
on SNAP are either people with disabilities, senior citizens,
children, or folks who are actually in the workforce. The right
way to deal with the cost of this program is to figure out ways
in which we can get folks who are able-bodied and want to work
to work.
Mr. McGovern. And I will just point out that CBO estimates
show that the costs are starting to fall as a result of the
fact that we didn't extend the ARRA monies, but also the
economy is getting better.
Secretary Vilsack. Two percent reduction apart from the
recovery money not being extended because, as you indicated,
the economy is getting better, and people are finding
opportunities. That is the right way to do this, which is why
we are putting a lot of time and emphasis on the employment and
training aspect of it.
Mr. McGovern. All right. Well, I appreciate it. Again, the
strongest possible signal should be sent for the
Administration, that enough is enough, and I appreciate all
your work, and your service, and the people who work with you
over at USDA. They do a great job, and they are always
responsive, and so we are very grateful, so thank you. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. My apologies to
Mr. Ashburn, you should have gone ahead of Mr. McGovern. Mr.
Yoho for, 5 minutes.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Vilsack, thank
you for being here, and I want to commend you on implementing
so much of the farm bill so fast, especially the emphasis put
on citrus. I come from Florida, and Florida is the number one
citrus producer in the country. But you also realize that we
have 90 percent of our trees affected by citrus greening, and
it is a devastating situation.
Florida without oranges would be like, for those old enough
to remember, Sears without Roebuck. They kind of go hand in
hand. And it is important that we work--and I commend you--what
the University of Florida, and IFAS, the Institute of Food and
Agricultural Science is doing in that area. It is estimated in
our area that the citrus industry is a $1.3 billion in lost
revenue just from citrus greening, and it has roughly put 6,500
people out of work.
One of my questions to you is that I have heard from
growers in Florida that the antimicrobials and bactericides
seem to be key in developing a cure for this. How does the USDA
plan to work with the CDC, the FDA, EPA, to ensure these
treatments are approved in a timely manner? And if we can focus
on fast-tracking, because if we lose those groves, they are
going to go into condominiums, they are going to go into
something else, and I would prefer to keep them in ag.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I certainly understand the
challenge that citrus greening represents to your state. It is
a $9 billion industry, and 76,000 jobs impacted and effected.
We will do everything we can to make sure that whatever the
treatments are, or whatever the solutions are, get into the
marketplace as quickly as we can. As you know, we announced
yesterday $30 million of assistance divided among a variety of
different avenues. We have had an entity that involves state
and local folks working with us to try to prioritize where we
should spend this money. When we come up with a solution, I
guarantee you we will do everything we possibly can to get it
implemented as quickly as we can.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. And then I agree with Mr. Scott on a couple
things. We are going to have to work together, Mr. Scott, to
revisit peanuts, especially peanut butter, and look at ways to
increase the consumption here domestically. And if you look at
the nutrient contents of that, it is a high protein, high
energy source, and it can solve a lot of the problems we have
here.
In addition, when we look at other countries and foreign
aid, I hope that we put a lot of emphasis on the assistance to
other nations instead of money, we look at ways of giving
trade, not aid. And the aid and, good, healthy nutritional
sources, and that would help solve a problem here with our
oversupply of domestic peanuts. So if you would work on that
with the trade people, I know a lot of people would really
appreciate that.
And going, again, back to what Mr. Scott said about foot-
and-mouth disease in our beef imports from South America,
Brazil, and northern Argentina, you said our policy should be
based on science, and it is what our policy should be based on.
We sent a letter to Mr. Shea, in charge of APHIS, requesting
transparency on the studies. Because if you look at what they
have done over there, as far as a study with APHIS, what they
have come out with it is not a requirement for the written
reporting or documentation of the visits by the APHIS
personnel, so we don't know really when they got there, when
they inspected the plants.
And since that region is still actively vaccinating for
foot-and-mouth disease, and looking at the rules, Title 9 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, they can't be deemed free of
foot-and-mouth disease. That economic impact on our country, if
foot-and-mouth disease, came to America, would be devastating
to our livestock industry. Reports I have heard is $50 to $100
billion, and it would kill our export market. So I implore you
to really stand strong on that.
And if it is based on science, we could use that same
argument on BSE in our cattle. You know, going to other
nations, as far as a source of contamination, which it is not.
When we have had two cases in the span of--since it has been
diagnosed, two cases, and one of them was an atypical case, and
we have 330 million people here, and a lot of us are meat
consumers, and that is a pretty good study, that we don't
really have a problem, but yet other nations are using that to
prevent us from importing our beef.
Secretary Vilsack. We make that case to the Chinese every
single time we meet with them. It is the case we made to re-
open in Japan. It is the case we made to re-open in Korea. It
is the case we made to re-open in Hong Kong. It is the case we
made, and are making, in Taiwan. So this is the consistency
issue, Congressman.
Mr. Yoho. It is.
Secretary Vilsack. You have to be consistent. You can't say
to China, follow science, follow the risk assessment. And then
disagree when the risk assessment and science tells us that we
have to open up opportunities here in the U.S. to import, we
have to be consistent.
Mr. Yoho. But without the transparency----
Secretary Vilsack. That is a fair point.
Mr. Yoho.--and we need to get that out. And the last thing
is that I hope----
Secretary Vilsack. That is a fair point.
Mr. Yoho.--you stand strong on WOTUS, especially with our
agricultural income down 25 percent, the net income, and stay
strong on the ag side. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Adams,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Vilsack. North Carolina is the nation's third most diverse
agricultural state, with nearly all climatic and soil
conditions represented. The state is also home to a strong
public university system, with robust research in the
agricultural sciences, and this includes North Carolina
Agricultural and Technical State University, of which I am a
proud graduate, twice, of.
The USDA budget requests $10 million for research at 1890
institutions, and that includes North Carolina A&T. The budget
also requests $2 million for facilities improvement. My
question is, how will these funds translate into improvements
at individual institutions, such as North Carolina A&T?
Secretary Vilsack. It is an application process, where
universities will come to us with plans, in terms of how they
could use the resources most effectively, and then those
applications are sort of judged and scored, and the folks who
have the strongest application, the folks who have leveraging
resources, the folks that have partnerships with other
universities or other entities, obviously score higher. And it
is an effort to try to compliment the additional resources that
are provided on a formula basis to the 1890s.
Ms. Adams. Okay. My next question, when I look at the
budget, and there is no new funding for STEM programs through
the National Institute for Food and Agriculture, why was this
program cut, and what can STEM schools do for funding through
other programs? How can they seek that funding?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, NIFA has a variety of programs. If
someone has a STEM opportunity, they can participate in the
other competitive programs that NIFA is engaged in. We provide
hundreds of millions of dollars of competitive grants every
single year. Again, I don't know specifically about the STEM
budget item. I know that there was a conversation with a number
of other entities, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the
Department of Education, in an effort to sort of coordinate all
STEM programs.
So they were sort of put under a different heading in the
budget, so the resources are still there, but there is a more
collaborative process in deciding where they are spent, so that
we have a coordinated and consolidated approach to STEM. And,
in fact, the budget the President submitted actually has a 50
percent increase over last year for those programs. So there is
more money, it is just not necessarily in our budget. It is
sort of a U.S. Government-wide effort.
Ms. Adams. Okay. First of all, let me just make this
comment: North Carolina is a specialty crop state, third most
diverse state for crops, 90 commodity groups. Specialty crops
include fruits, vegetables which are fundamental to a healthy
diet. The USDA Specialty Crops Grant Program is a good start to
help support all of these specialty crops, which are important
to North Carolina, but much more could be done to improve the
yield, the variety, the drought tolerance, and nutritional
value. What is the Department's plan to improve research for
specialty crops?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there is a specific Specialty Crop
Research Initiative, which is designed to focus on greater
protection and productivity of specialty crops. It is a
different part of the farm bill, and that is part of that also
we had the discussion about citrus greening, and it is sort of
included in that. But I believe it is over $100 million that
was allocated for this initiative, so there is a research
initiative.
The block grant initiative is essentially money that is
given to states to promote, to market, to create new market
opportunities for specialty crops. It is a slightly different
program.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Ashford, I apologize to you one more time. I skipped
you again. You need to be more vocal or something down there.
No, not yet. Mrs. Walorski, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I am
grateful that you are here today. We have never formally met,
and I am thrilled to already hear the discussion that has been
going on about the SNAP program. And I will be chairing the
Subcommittee on Nutrition, and I am grateful for that
opportunity. We are going to take on a full scale review of the
SNAP program. It is intended to be a thoughtful, deliberative
process, so as we approach re-authorization, we will be
prepared to make meaningful improvements to the program to
benefit the recipients, the program administrators, and the
taxpayers. I want to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable
populations, that we have already talked about here, and find a
collective means to not have hungry kids in America. That is a
passion of mine.
As legislators, we are accountable to the taxpayers who
fund the program. We have an obligation to ensure that these
programs run in the most efficient and effective way possible.
To do this, it is going to take a systematic approach to
reviewing the various aspects of the SNAP program, from its
overall mission down to the administration of benefits, and
ultimately the recipient experience. The review process will
include a range of stakeholder perspectives, including current
and former recipients, nonprofits, the on the ground service
providers, states, and localities, the food industry, nutrition
experts, and policy researchers.
I know you have an incredible history, and I commend your
history on being active in this program. You have been a
positive force, and I appreciate that as well for the changes
that came out in the last farm bill. One of the things I am
asking for is your commitment to fully engaging with us on this
dialogue in this thoughtful, deliberative process that we are
going to embark upon, and that your staff will be a useful
resource to us so we all get to the end goal here. And I just
wanted just to give you the opportunity to say that you are
going to be a willing partner, and not be wary in the ensuing
process. So, sir?
Secretary Vilsack. We, obviously, will cooperate, and try
to be as helpful as we possibly can in the review that you
undertake.
Mrs. Walorski. Well, and I believe we share the same goal.
We want to see what works too, and we want to be able to stand
by some of the programs you have already been talking about
here for the last hour and a half. And I appreciate that you
are holding the task of getting that stuff done, even from the
new farm bill.
I also want to just go on the record quickly, like many of
my colleagues here, on the issue with the WOTUS Program, the
Waters of the U.S. I live, obviously, in northern Indiana. We
have about 12,000 family farms. This has been one of the
general concerns since I was elected to Congress, and I just
want to make sure that you are on board.
And I appreciate some of your answers in this, but being
able to stand up in the position you are in and fight for both
rural and urban farms, this is one of the most devastating
regulations that I hear about in my district. Can you take just
a second and just speak to that again?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, first of all, we have made a
concerted effort to--myself directly, with the Administrator,
and through our senior staff, and through our technical staff
to do what we can to educate folks at EPA, as they formulate
policy, on the impacts of potential policies on folks in the
real world.
Second, we have encouraged Administrator McCarthy to
actually talk to farmers, to go out and visit farm areas, which
she has. Third, we have encouraged the Administrator to meet
regularly with commodity groups so that there is a vehicle for
which they can express concerns. And we have clearly indicated
some issues that have arisen, especially as I related to
earlier with ephemeral streams. The reality is that those of us
who own farmland are very familiar with those circumstances and
situations, and it is a very difficult task, and so we have
conveyed that.
Now, it is a sister agency, and I have to respect that. And
it is sort of like asking you to make sure the Senate does what
it should do. Well, you can't dictate to the Senate, can you? I
mean, you try, maybe, but----
Mrs. Walorski. True, I appreciate that, and I do appreciate
the bully pulpit, though, you do have. I think there is a
difference when you are a Secretary, and you have the
opportunity to speak to another Secretary. I would just
encourage you to keep holding a line for the family farmers.
They don't feel like they are being heard by this
Administration, so I feel like, with my fellow Hoosier farmers,
they feel like there is really nobody at the table arguing for
them. But I want to thank you for what you have done for it.
Secretary Vilsack. If I can respond to that, there are a
multitude of ways in which this Department is speaking up for,
and defending, and advocating on behalf of American farmers. We
were engaged in making sure that folks across the country
understood the importance of having a farm bill to them. Not
just to the producers, but to the entire country. We have been
very aggressive in our trade promotion. We have been very
aggressive in opening up new markets here locally, so that big
guys and small guys can co-exist and prosper.
This Department is not very well understood by a lot of
folks, and we are trying our best to make sure that everybody
understands how significant and important it is. And I go out
and speak to groups all across the country in an effort to try
to make sure that rural America and farmers are not forgotten.
Mrs. Walorski. I appreciate that, sir, and I was one that
voted for the farm bill three times, every which way it came,
every which way but loose, and I appreciate that as well, and I
want to commend you for that. But I wouldn't be doing my duty
as well if I didn't stand up for Hoosier farmers today and say
thank you, and please keep them in mind. We appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
Ashford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ashford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, just as a
quick aside, I am from Omaha, and when you were Governor, I
want to thank you for the vision that you had then in
developing the riverfront between Council Bluffs and Omaha. We
are now seeing a 50 year vision statement that started, really,
with your Administration, and it is a big deal for Sarpy
County, and Douglas County, and Pottawattamie County, Iowa too.
I want to thank you publicly for starting that process. It is a
big deal for our state.
My question, one topic is the USDA Center, Clay Center. And
I know we did ask the Mead Animal Research Center issue that
was focused upon in The New York Times article a couple of
weeks ago, or 10 days ago or so. What is going on in that area?
We did send a letter over, and I know we will get a response,
but the University of Nebraska is very concerned about it, as
are Nebraskans generally. Do you have any comments or thoughts
on----
Secretary Vilsack. Sure. I would say three things. First of
all, obviously, we take any assertions along the lines of that
article very seriously. I would point out that some of the
issues that were raised in that article are no longer the
practice, and no longer the case, and haven't been for a number
of years. But, nevertheless, out of respect for the concerns
that had been raised, I ordered a 60 day independent review,
outside of our people, to take a look at processes and
procedures that are taking place, in terms of approvals of
research projects, and the oversight of research projects.
We appointed an ombudsman, so that individuals who are at
research facilities who have concerns about practices, and want
to raise those concerns, but are fearful in doing so, that they
will now have an outlet to be able to do that without
retaliation.
And, third, after we get the report, and whatever
recommendations are made, we will certainly take a look at
those and implement them as quickly and as effectively as
possible, and then we will follow up with a more general review
of other facilities in the USDA network that are involved maybe
not as much as the Center is in animal research. So we are
taking a look at this, we are being thoughtful about it, and we
are being proactive about it.
Mr. Ashford. Thank you. There are many at the University
that are very concerned, because they are involved, to some
extent, at the Center.
Secretary Vilsack. They are.
Mr. Ashford. It is a USDA facility, obviously, and there
have been some concerns raised by veterinarians, and others at
the University of Nebraska, and researchers. So I appreciate
that, and I will yield back the rest of my time. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back. Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Secretary, first I want to thank you for
coming before the Committee today, and thank you for your works
for agriculture across America. I would also like to echo a few
of my colleagues' statements, and encourage you, as the voice
of agriculture in the President's cabinet, to stand up for
America's farmers and ranchers, and defend these hardworking
men and women against any policies that could threaten their
livelihood.
As you know, in my home State of Georgia, agriculture is
the number one economic industry. In 2012 alone, Georgia
planted over 1 million acres of cotton. Specifically, in my
district, cotton is among the largest crops planted, and
currently many of my farmers are very concerned. The 2014 Farm
Bill made necessary changes to the cotton program, and with
extremely low prices, many of my farmers are worried, and even
debating whether or not they should plant cotton.
You had mentioned good progress in the implementation of
the STAX Program, but what can USDA do to address some of their
concerns, or what would your advice be to some of the cotton
farmers in my district?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, first of all, we did provide
nearly $\1/2\ billion of transition assistance to cotton
producers. We have the STAX Program up and going. We continue
to promote exports, and we continue to try to make sure that
countries like China play by the rules. Those are four very
important points to be made. And that last point, in
particular, is that I am very pleased with the USTR's
announcement today of additional actions potentially against
China to try to get them to play by the rules. At the end of
the day, that is extremely important, especially in the cotton
area.
Mr. Allen. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack. And greater transparency from our
friends in China. I recognize they are our number one customer,
and I respect that, and we, obviously, are providing them a
good quality product at an affordable price, but they are, at
times, unpredictable in their approach towards trade. And to
the extent we can get them more aligned with a science-based
and rules-based system, it would beneficial not just for us,
but also for them.
And we are just going to continue to promote trade as a
vehicle for advocating for all of agriculture. We have the best
farmers in the world, and we have the best product in the
world, and it is affordable. The current situation with the
dollar makes it a little bit more challenging, but that means
that we need to do an even better job of aggressively promoting
agriculture overseas. That is why these trade agreements are
important. That is why we believe the trade promotion authority
is important.
This Trans-Pacific Partnership is a big deal. Just to give
you a sense of this, you may know this already, but I want you
to know that I know that, in Asia, we are looking at 525
million middle class consumers today, and in 15 years, that
number is 2.7 billion. So there is an enormous opportunity
there for high value products that American producers can
provide.
But if we are shut out of that, if we cannot conclude that
agreement, it is not as if nothing else happens. China fills
the void, creates agreements that is an all Asia trade
agreement that doesn't have side standards, doesn't provide us
a fair opportunity, or members of TPP negotiate their own
individual side deals, at which point we are also left out. So
it is extremely important long term for your producers that we
continue to promote fair, high standards, trade opportunities
where everyone plays by the same set of rules.
Mr. Allen. I agree. Also, one other follow up question. The
Conservation Reserve Program has changed considerably over the
last 30 years. As you know, the Agricultural Act of 2014
reduces the CRP acreage cap. What do you see is the future of
the CRP Program?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is a continuation of the good
work that it does. In earlier discussions I pointed out that
there no doubt will be a general sign-up, and there will be a
continued focus on the continuous programs that have been
popular.
I do think, because we are seeing a reduction in acres,
that we need to find creative ways to encourage CRP, and one of
the creative ways that I am interested in doing is a better
coordination between NRCS and FSA, in terms of this regional
conservation partnership effort, and CRP. I think there is an
opportunity to leverage, potentially, and get more acres
involved in conservation. Maybe not specifically in CRP, but
leverage those resources more effectively. We are looking at
creative ways to do that.
Mr. Allen. I want to put on your radar that I have some
constituents who are having trouble with the opt-out provision
in the CRP Program, and I may ask for your help at a later
date, should some of these issues not get resolved.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Batta is right behind me----
Mr. Allen. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack.--he is our person. Let us know what the
issue is, and we will definitely get you an answer. Hopefully
it will be the answer you want, but we will definitely get you
an answer.
Mr. Allen. Okay.
I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Rouzer?
The Chairman. David Rouzer?
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I
appreciate you coming--did I lose my microphone? There we go. I
appreciate you coming before the Committee today. I have had to
step out a couple times, and I apologize, during the course of
one of my excursions, on the way back, I heard you talking a
little bit about Country-of-Origin Labeling. This is such an
important trade matter that I want to bring that back up, and
forgive me if I am asking a duplicate question.
I know the farm bill, which was enacted a little bit more
than a year ago, included language requiring USDA to conduct an
economic analysis of the impact of our nation's current
mandatory country-of-origin labeling regulations on consumers,
livestock producers, and packers. I understand this report was
due last August. Do we know when this report will be completed?
Secretary Vilsack. I just wanted to check with my staff. We
have contracted with an outside entity, and we expect their
report shortly.
Mr. Rouzer. Very good. One follow-up associated with this.
Can you take a moment to outline the timetable associated with
the current WTO process on this COOL case?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we expect and anticipate sometime
this spring seeing where we are headed, in terms of the appeal.
And if we win the appeal, then, obviously, that is one route.
If we lose the appeal, then the question is whether or not
Canada and Mexico decide to retaliate, and if so, what. There
will be some issues relative to the size of the retaliation,
based on studies that I have seen.
There is also the opportunity for Congress to weigh in on
this. The problem, Congressman, is that Congress has said to
us, ``Look, we want a label that identifies U.S. product.'' The
problem, from a WTO perspective is that, once you have that
label, then you have to segregate livestock that comes in from
different sources. WTO says once you segregate, that is a
problem, that is an undue burden, you can't do that. So there
is no way we can square the hole here. We either have to get
rid of the rule, or we have to amend the rule to provide a more
generic label that gets away from segregation. Or we win the
appeal. One of those two routes.
Mr. Rouzer. Assuming we would lose the appeal, how soon do
you anticipate Mexico and Canada would retaliate?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, our hope would be that we would be
able to, first and foremost, talk about the extent. There are
some serious differences of opinion about how dramatic this has
been, for Canadian producers in particular, and so that would
have to be resolved. I don't think it would be immediate, as in
the next day or next week, but certainly would be in the short
term, there would be an effort. We looked at this, we tried to
figure out, if there is a regulatory way around this? We tried
a couple of times, and we have not been successful, so either
we win the appeal, or Congress has to act.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you. One final question with the time I
have remaining. I represent southeastern North Carolina. We
have everything from tobacco, to sweet potatoes, to
strawberries, to blueberries, a lot of livestock. My question
for you with regard to the implementation of the unified
payment limit: how is that proceeding? How is that coming
along?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I am going to have to get
back to you on that. I don't know the answer to that question,
and I will find out, and get back to you immediately.
Mr. Rouzer. I have a lot of producers that would have an
interest in that.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back
my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Emmer, for 5
minutes. Mr. Emmer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Emmer. I have to--sorry.
The Chairman. Excuse me.
Mr. Emmer. I think in the old country it was Congressman.
Secretary Vilsack. Excuse me for just a second.
The Chairman. I am sorry, yes, sir? Secretary.
Secretary Vilsack. I didn't understand your question. If
you are asking about the actively engaged definition, if that
is what you are asking about, yes, sir, then I can tell you
that we are in the process of completing work on that, and we
would anticipate something perhaps this spring in terms of what
it is.
Let me just simply point out to you, and to everyone who is
interested in this issue, the area that we are dealing with,
and the number of farmers that we are dealing with, and the
type of farmers we are dealing with is very narrow. This does
not apply to family farms. It doesn't apply to corporations. It
is really pretty much limited to partnerships and limited
partnerships, based on the language that is in the farm bill,
so we are talking about a relatively very small percentage of
producers that may be impacted by whatever we decide. But we
are completing work on this, and I would anticipate sometime
this spring.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. Sorry, I----
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Emmer, 5
minutes.
Mr. Emmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing. Mr. Secretary, it is nice to have a dialogue. I
will just say to you I have been very impressed. When we get
the little sound bites that you see, it is not quite the same
as when we have an opportunity to have a dialogue with you, and
listen to you.
There are three areas that I am going to try to cover in
the limited time that I have. One, I just want to quickly go
back to the issue on waters of the U.S. that you have commented
a couple times already today. It is my understanding that the
Small Business Administration's Department of Advocacy had
written a letter to the EPA asking to pull the rule. And I
listened to your answer to Representative Walorski, if I said
it right, earlier, where you pointed out, or you commented that
it is a sister agency, and because of that you respect the
agency process.
But I guess my question to you is, if it is harmful, and I
hear this all over Minnesota, where I come from, not just in
the district that I represent, they are very concerned with
this potential rule, the finalization of the rule, based on the
one that was proposed. If there has been a call by others to
pull the rule, and you have some concerns that you have even
expressed, why wouldn't you, or your agency, request the EPA
actually pull the rule?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is about how you could have the
most effective relationship on not just a single issue, but on
all issues impacting agriculture. EPA is engaged in quite a
few. I wake up every morning, when I say my prayers, and I am
thankful that I am not the EPA Administrator, because we are
involved in a multitude of issues with the EPA. And so it is a
question of style, I guess. Some people want a more open style,
some people think it is more effective to work, in a sense,
behind the scenes. You and I can have a difference of opinion
about that, but I am concerned about making sure that I have a
relationship so that I am in a position to have an impact on
not just one rule, but on all of the rules.
Mr. Emmer. And I take that back, Mr. Secretary. I
appreciate that. After listening to you today, even though we
might disagree on some things, I would actually be happy if you
were at the EPA, but we will leave that alone.
Secretary Vilsack. You obviously----
Mr. Emmer. I didn't mean to upset----
Secretary Vilsack. You have some serious concerns with me,
if that is the case.
Mr. Emmer. No. I am teasing too. I hope you appreciate the
levity. Trade Promotion Authority, very quickly. You have
talked about that a little bit. That is something that I am
seriously interested in. We have a letter going around right
now amongst Republican freshmen, trying to encourage them to
give the President a strong message that we are supportive of
trade promotion authority in getting these deals done.
I asked the Trade Representative the other day, Michael
Froman, he said that the President is going to make actual
phone calls to people in his party to get support for an
eventual vote. What are you doing personally, or your agency,
to try and educate and encourage votes on the President's side?
Secretary Vilsack. I have a list of 13 individual Members,
either Representatives or Senators, that I am responsible for
calling, and I am looking at a couple of them as I speak that I
call on a regular basis to inform on the impacts of trade. I
have made two rounds of calls. We have also created, within the
Department, fact sheets so that folks understand and appreciate
the impact that trade has on their state, or on their
Congressional district, and the importance of getting this
done. And we have also, obviously, in public appearances,
expressed support for a strong effort on the part of TPA,
because without it it is very difficult to negotiate, when the
folks on the other side of the table think that you can't
actually deliver whatever it is you are negotiating, because
somebody else is going to have the ability to amend or modify.
Mr. Emmer. You probably already know this, but I met with
some of the Canadian folks in our area the day before
yesterday, and they told me the reason that they are hesitating
doing anything is because they want to know that when they come
to the table that the Administration has the ability to do a
final deal. At least, that is their position.
Secretary Vilsack. I think that is part of it. I think they
are waiting to see what other deals are negotiated, and they
also have an eye on their own politics, which is----
Mr. Emmer. Right.
Secretary Vilsack.--understandable.
Mr. Emmer. Well, and that is all the more reason to
eliminate another excuse, by taking----
Secretary Vilsack. Right.
Mr. Emmer.--care of TPA. Last, with whatever little time I
have left, could you just give me a thumbnail as to how the
Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Loan Program is working?
Secretary Vilsack. Sure. Well, there are two aspects of
this. The first aspect is roughly $18 million is allocated to a
number of entities to basically create systems that impress
upon young people, veterans, and others who are interested in
farming the various programs that are available. The second
piece of this is the loan portfolio that we have. We do roughly
42,000 loans a year. Well over 50 percent of those loans go to
beginning farmers. I think the budget the President proposed
would be roughly 23,000 loans would be made available, either
operating or ownership loans.
Third, there is a new opportunity with reference to crop
insurance, where beginning farmers are given a slight break on
premiums. The last is the conservation part of it. Most of our
conservation programs require match, and require up-front
investment for beginning farmers. There is a little flexibility
in terms of advancing conservation resources. So all of that is
taking place right now. And we have a very aggressive effort
that the deputy is leading to go out and make sure that folks
are aware of these programs.
We are trying to encourage the Department of Defense to
allow us to come on to bases before people are discharged from
their military service to give them a sense of what the
programs are. And we are also heavily engaged in encouraging
them to even look at our microloan program. A number of
beginning farmers have taken advantage. We have done about
10,000 of those loans in the past. The majority of them are to
beginning farmers.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Gibson,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gibson. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary,
thank you for being here today. I think this hearing has been
very productive. I have read very closely your testimony, and
have also been enlightened by your elaboration here today. And
let me also say, and I believe I have shared this with you when
you have come here before, that my area in upstate New York
deeply appreciates your commitment to agriculture, and to
helping New York. You have been to our area a number of times,
and certainly, from a nonpartisan perspective, we view you as
somebody who has been very helpful. And I know you have some
roots there with Hamilton College and Albany Law, so thank you
for all that you are doing.
I do want to make another pass at waters of the U.S. I am
opposed to this proposed rule, very concerned about it, but I
am going to come at it in a slightly--perhaps a different way
here, and I have a question for you. It is a difficult one, but
I would appreciate your response to it. And, really, thinking
about it conceptually, how important the environment is to all
us, and to future generations, and you would be hard pressed to
find stronger stewards of our environment.
And, when you think about how the Administration is
approaching this, it seems to me that, from a conceptual
standpoint, you have the EPA, that is bringing forward this
proposed rule at the same time the Administration is proposing
cuts to conservation programs, like EQIP, which is a really
good program that helps with the environment. So I just wonder,
has anybody engaged--and I understand that you have a purview,
and you have a charter, and you have to work with your
colleagues, and I certainly appreciate that, but has anybody
broached that just as a point that it seems contradictory that,
while we all want to advance balanced policies that help
promote the economy, and balance our need to protect the
environment, that we are bringing forward, what I would
describe as an onerous regime under the EPA, at the same time
we are taking back money from farmers, who are good stewards of
the environment.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I have a slightly different view
on terms of the overall financing of conservation, in the sense
that it may very well be that individual programs may not have
as much increase as they were destined to, based on the farm
bill, based on the authority, but that doesn't necessarily mean
that less money is being spent on conservation. And the reason
I say that is because we are really focused at USDA in trying
to figure out how best to leverage the dollars we have.
So creating ecosystem markets, creating incentives for
corporations to invest in conservation to fulfill some social
responsibility that they have identified--we do business with
Coca-Cola. We recently had Chevrolet purchase some carbon
credits for a working ranch, that is extending the amount of
money that is actually invested. And we actually have a record
number of acres enrolled in conservation today, and a record
number of participants and producers, and we are doing an
assessment, trying to make sure that people understand that
this conservation is working.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but what we
are trying to do is to work around tight budgets and difficult
budgets to figure out ways in which we can be creative to use
the dollars we have, to leverage them to actually do more work
in the field. And the great deal of interest in the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program is reflective of that. We are
going to double the amount of conservation activity in those
115 projects because of the leveraging opportunity.
Mr. Gibson. Well, I certainly appreciate those comments.
And, to your broader point that, how smartly we use these
resources is at least as important as the total extent of
investment. I agree with that point. I would also share with
you that, in our area, we always have a list of folks who want
to be involved in these conservation programs. We don't get to
all those that want to use these programs, and I think that
they have been a good investment, by way of the American
taxpayer dollars, and so we will continue to work with you on
this. And, once again, I just appreciate your diligence and
your commitment.
I am going to submit for the record--we have been working
with you guys on broadband extensively. Thank you for that as
well, and we will be submitting, a question for the record on
that score too, in terms of this year, and the years to come.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think this has been a
productive hearing, and I appreciate that very much. So thank,
you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. LaMalfa, for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Vilsack, for appearing today. To echo just a little bit on what
Mr. Benishek was very frustrated, as am I, on our forestry,
U.S.--National Forest Service in northern California as well,
we appreciate your visit to Trinity County a year or 2 ago. The
neighboring county, Siskiyou County, suffered 250,000+ acres of
fire loss last year, much of that on national lands, but it
also affects the neighbors as well.
The point you brought up, separating the funding, the
emergency funding, that is something we will work on. We
understand, and get that. That should be a separate pot so you
can do your work, but also there is a component that there is
revenue generated by getting these sales out there. And when
one of the forest units, all they could put out was a couple of
sales for a couple loads of firewood, we are not going to get
very far at that rate, so we need to be much more aggressive on
meeting these numbers for how each of these forest units would
perform.
Of critical importance to the West Coast, obviously, coming
back to the ports that have been mentioned a couple times here,
we have estimates of beef sales are down $40 million for a
recent period of time, per week, I think. Citrus exports, of
course, \1/3\ of our citrus in California is exported. It is
getting to the point where it is spoiling, and they don't have
the time period to wait for this much longer. It will take 4
months to clear a backlog: $20 million a week to the citrus
industry. Almonds, we grow a lot of those in California as
well, and we have a lot of containers sitting on the port
docks, as well as back at their facilities at home, and so this
is a very real effect. We are looking at--if this gets to its
worst--one estimate, $2.1 billion a day to the national
economy. In an economy that is trying to recover, that doesn't
help much.
So what I would ask you, as one arm of the Administration,
is to be really aggressive, and urge your colleagues inside the
Administration--and I know you are. You have been working at
them, but this needs to be taken to the next step, because of
the effect on the ag economy, on all of our exports, and the
American economy.
One more stat I have is that USDA released, just yesterday,
an estimate of farm income decreasing 43 percent in this coming
year. Sir, how much of this decrease can be attributed to
either the drought in California, the western states, and/or
this West Coast port slowdown?
Secretary Vilsack. The answer to your question would
probably be better answered by our Chief Economist, and I am
going to have him provide a more detailed response to your
question.
But let me suggest that the primary reason we are seeing a
decrease is because commodity prices have come down across the
board. This is not just one or two areas of agriculture, this
is--and you would expect that, because we had bumper crops.
Mr. LaMalfa. You see market share from this port thing
being a part of that, or because of drought?
Secretary Vilsack. Not today, if this thing continues to
linger, there is always that risk, because we become a less
reliable supplier. One of the things we market to the rest of
the world is how reliable a supplier we are. So there is a
consequence to this, which is why we meet on a daily basis, and
are encouraging these folks to get these things worked out.
There are two issues, as I understand it, and both of those
issues, it seems to me, could be worked out if reasonable
people got in a room, and really were dedicated to getting it
done. And I hope that they do.
Mr. LaMalfa. Let us get the reasonable people in the room,
then.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are other issues. There is
the rail issue, which we haven't talked about today, which is
not as acute as it was maybe a couple of months ago, but it is
still something that is a long term challenge, especially in
the upper Midwest, in terms of the competition for rail, and
the need for rail service, and the rail companies to continue
to invest in new locomotives, and new cars, and new track, and
improved track.
Mr. LaMalfa. Certainly.
Secretary Vilsack. There is also the fact that other parts
of the world have also had pretty good crops. So, I mean, it is
a combination of things, but----
Mr. LaMalfa. There is a market, we just need to be sure we
are as strong as possible. I am sorry, my time is so limited
here. To the waters of the United States, this really is a vast
overreach of property rights, and we need you to be a strong
voice to have sense restored back to that. We have things we
can do here to slow it up via funding, like that, but it really
needs to go back to the drawing board, and not have them put in
this rule that is devastating--they are already getting ahead
of the curve in my district, enforcing things that go against
the section 404 of what is a legitimate farming practice. They
are interpreting beyond their bounds.
Last, I know----
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. We have
other Members to come, so the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. DesJarlais, for 5 minutes.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Secretary Vilsack, for being here today. I have two issues.
First, each year, in Tennessee's Fourth Congressional District,
we host the Tennessee Walking Horse National Championship,
known as The Celebration, and since my election in 2010, my
staff and I have been working closely with the staff and
members of APHIS to find an amenable solution to some of the
discrepancies that have been highlighted in the current
inspection process. I think horse owners, trainers, staff
members, and Members of this Committee all can agree that the
welfare of these beautiful animals are certainly worthy of our
concern.
However, as I learn more about the process, it is my belief
that many participants, in fact, the overwhelming majority,
have been subjected to an inspection process system that is
inconsistent, and overly subjective. And I simply bring this
issue to your attention today, Mr. Secretary, to ask for your
agency's continued engagement to find a common sense workable
solution that will allow this time-honored tradition to
continue and flourish. So can I have your assurance that your
staff will continue to work with me in this matter?
Secretary Vilsack. As we have, and the key here is to
continue to focus on technologies that would allow us to do a
good job of making sure that we protect these wonderful
animals, and at the same time allow this important tradition. I
am very well aware of this issue, and I know it is hotly
contested among a lot of folks down your way.
Mr. DesJarlais. Well, I think that people are coming
together, and we are just trying to have a set of rules that
everybody can play by that is fair. And I appreciate the
efforts of USDA, and them coming to the table and talking, I
really do. So we will look forward to continuing to work with
you on that.
Second, this issue has been plaguing a lot of farmers and
cattlemen throughout Tennessee and other states, and that is
getting compensated for losses by the black vultures. And, in
one instance, the farmer had pictures of a live calf, and a
couple hours later another picture of the same calf that was
dead, with the vultures flying around it, but yet it is hard to
get compensation.
Losses are higher this year, and we have been working
primarily with Fish and Wildlife Services on this issue. But
one of the issues my constituents have raised is the trouble
they are having getting necessary documentation of such losses
to satisfy the requirement for FSA offices. The Tennessee
Cattlemen's Association said that FSA is claiming that they
need someone from a Federal agency to come out to farms and
verify losses. However, FSA believes that Fish and Wildlife
folks are not able to come and make such verifications, so
currently it seems as though there is no way for producers to
receive payment through the Livestock Indemnity Program for
such losses.
Long story short, this seems to be a communication issue,
and I would greatly appreciate if your staff could follow up
with mine to see if we can sort through this matter.
Secretary Vilsack. We will absolutely do that. The
wonderful thing about this Department is that you get things
like black vultures, and issues involving black vultures.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you for your time, sir. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. King, for 5
minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, I
thank you for your testimony here today. It is a bit of a long
haul through here. A whole series of things come in front for
me, and some of it has been addressed. I wanted to take up the
case, and ask if you are aware, or if not, I encourage you to
take a look at, a case that was decided in the Central District
of California in Federal Court. A Canadian company, a French-
Canadian corporation also, Hot's Restaurant Group, Inc. v.
Harris, (Association des Eleveurs de Canards et D'Oies du
Quebec, a Canadian nonprofit corporation; HVFG LLC, a New York
limited liability company; and Hot's Restaurant Group, Inc., a
California corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Kamala D. Harris) the
Attorney General of California on foie gras liver. Have you
happened to see that decision at this point?
Secretary Vilsack. I have not, Congressman.
Mr. King. Thank you. I will briefly, then, touch that, and
direct your attention to it. There has been an objection on the
part of some of the animal rights organization, included HSUS,
against force feeding ducks and geese to enlarge their liver,
the French foie gras liver. And, in that case, it was decided,
this is a couple of weeks ago, by my information, that Federal
pre-emption supersedes California law.
And it would be a case, I believe, exactly on point with
the ag issue in California that I know you are aware of. And so
I want to direct the attention of you and your office to that
case, and perhaps we could get some support for our egg
producers who are watching as California is dictating the cage
size in all of the states, and created the beginnings of a
patchwork of regulations.
The second thing I would bring up, then, would be the
President's State of the Union Address. It caught my attention
when he said that they would be creating new jobs by converting
sunlight into liquid fuel. I am an Iowan. That sounded like
ethanol to me. How did you interpret that statement?
Secretary Vilsack. I think that is a consistent
interpretation.
Mr. King. Thank you. Then I will take it that way as well.
And you also mentioned that there have been $55 billion in
payouts in crop insurance. And that $55 billion in payouts, can
you tell me what percentage of that is the unsubsidized portion
of the producer premium versus the subsidized portion of the
premium, and then, of course, the shortfall?
Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure I understand the question,
Congressman, but, basically what I know is that $55 billion has
been paid out in indemnification, so----
Mr. King. That means $55 billion worth of----
Secretary Vilsack. Total.
Mr. King.--claims--total. When I ask the question of the
premiums that are billed to our producers, a portion of that
premium is out of their pocket, a portion of that premium is
subsidized. And so can you break that down as to how much of
that is paid for by the producers, and how much of it is paid
for by the taxpayers?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I will try to answer the question,
and if I don't answer it correctly, we will get you the correct
answer. What I do know is that roughly 62 percent of overall
premiums are subsidized by the taxpayer, paid by the taxpayer,
and 38 percent is paid by the producer.
Mr. King. That is generally what I am looking for. Have you
or your office looked at this from any perspective on
disparity, could you identify if there were a geographical
transfer taking place consistently under Federal crop indemnity
payments?
Secretary Vilsack. In other words, is one region of the
country paying a disproportionate share of premiums, and not
getting much in the way of recovery versus another that is--I
don't know that that exists. I am fairly certain that the
Midwest, obviously, pays a significant part of those premiums,
because of the commodities that are grown there. We could
certainly ask our folks to take a look at that.
Mr. King. And you do have people that are the go-to people
for me to have a conversation with----
Secretary Vilsack. Sure.
Mr. King.--as well?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes. I do know that there is a disparity
in terms of the size of operations, and the amount of premium
subsidy, and so forth; whether it is geographic--but certainly
the size of the operation, there are significant disparities.
Mr. King. And did you know how broad the span is of years
we use to measure and set those premiums?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't know the answer to that
question, but I know that we have, in the past, talked about
10, 15 year timeframes, but that may not be what is used. I----
Mr. King. And I am aware we have 30 years' worth of
records, and so raise this topic, and I would like it if you
could inform my office of who my contact person should be in
your Department to drill into this a little deeper, if you
could, Mr.----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Brandon Willis, the RMA
Administrator, would probably be the best place to start.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Newhouse--I
missed you a while ago. You are recognized for 5 minutes. I am
sorry about that.
Mr. Newhouse. It is hard to see me down here, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the----
The Chairman. That is outpost forward.
Secretary Vilsack. It is easier for me to see you.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes. We are closer. But thank you, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate you
sticking it out to the bitter end here, and the opportunity to
be part of this conversation. I very much appreciate your
answers so far this morning, and I look forward to working with
you, just let me say that. Let me agree with one of your
earlier statements, our American farmers are some of the best
farmers in the world, producing some of the best products in
the world, which I have had the honor and privilege to
represent in different venues. And I agree with that statement,
and it truly is a privilege to represent agriculture in the
United States of America.
Having said that, let me add to what some of my other
colleagues are talking about, as far as the labor dispute we
are experiencing on the West Coast ports. Being from the State
of Washington, this is a huge issue for us. If we can produce
the best products, and can't get them to our markets, what good
is that? Just to personalize this a little bit, some of my
friends, my farmer friends, are experiencing potential
bankruptcies because of the slowdown at the ports because of
the labor disputes.
We are seeing, as you know, in Washington State we have a
record apple crop this year, which we had plenty of challenging
marketing, even without the labor problems, so that is causing
a huge upheaval in the apple industry. We were seeing layoffs
of people at warehouses, loss of jobs. I am seeing a tremendous
loss in opportunities when it comes to marketing those apples
in Asia, or some of our primary markets. We just can't get the
fruit there at particular times, like the Chinese New Year,
which is a huge marketing window for us we are losing.
Just, daily I am hearing stories about the hardships people
are facing. Organic poultry producers are unable to get organic
feed greens and are at the risk of losing their certification.
So just huge implications all up and down the agricultural
sector. As you know, Washington State is a very--I hate to use
the word dependent, but we are very involved in exports. At
least 30 percent of our crops are exported, but on some
commodities it is upwards of 90 percent. When you are talking
about hops or wheat, potatoes, 40 percent. It is a huge part of
our economy.
From a little different perspective, investments in MAP
dollars, certainly the Foreign Agricultural Service, trade
partnerships, all those things add up to a huge investment in
this area. And so I guess my question is, how can we help you?
I know you have been a tremendous advocate, and that is
something that we would like to get to the bottom of, and
puzzle it out.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, you have helped
producers in your area, and producers who are impacted by this,
by the series of questions that have been raised here, because
obviously that has been a focus of our conversation here today,
and that will, obviously, be reported, and that will strengthen
the resolve that we have to try to put appropriate pressure on
both sides to work out whatever differences remain, because
there are real people being affected in a real way by all of
this, and it is not just the people around the negotiating
table who get impacted. There are good, hard-working folks who,
through no fault of theirs, are faced with some very serious
issues, which you have outlined.
The very fact of bringing it up, and continuing to bring it
up, puts the spotlight on it. As the spotlight gets brighter
and brighter, the hope would be that people would be reasonable
and get it worked out.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. Let me switch gears really
quickly, limited amount of time. Headlines every year, the West
is burning. In my state we had a record forest fire approaching
500,000 acres, so the issue of forest management by the Federal
Government is at the top of a lot of people's minds. I know in
the 2014 Farm Bill there was a section that allowed states to
designate some landscape scale area. Just maybe briefly an
update on that, and maybe get some help on where Washington's
application is, and how can we move the dial improving the
partnership with states and local entities in order to improve
forest management?
Secretary Vilsack. Thirty five states have expressed a
desire to have segments of their forest involved in that
program. The Forest Service Chief expanded the acreage, so it
now constitutes 45 million acres that have been identified, in
terms of pest and disease issues. Unfortunately, the farm bill
basically provides for the accelerated NEPA process for 3,000
acres, which is important, but, obviously, we are talking about
millions of acres, not thousands of acres. We will use that
power.
The other thing the Forest Service has done is they have
created a large scale NEPA, where they are basically taking a
look at large scale landscapes, which means that when
individual projects come up, the time it takes to do the NEPA
analysis that is required for the project will be less. So we
are trying to figure out ways in which by using a large scale
effort we can reduce the amount of time overall to get
projects.
The other thing we are doing is we are trying to expand
market opportunities across the board. It is traditional, it is
wood to energy, and it is new market opportunities. And this--
the structural material--we at the Forest Service, every
building over 10,0002 has to be first and foremost
built with wood, if it can be. That is sort of a directive that
we have provided as part of a green building initiative. So
there are a number of things we are doing in that space.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Goodlatte, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, welcome.
In the new farm bill, there is a key bipartisan compromise that
I was proud to spearhead with Congressman David Scott that
protects dairy farmers, as well as restaurants, food
processors, grocery stores, and consumers. This amendment
formed the framework for the dairy title of the farm bill, and
was designed to provide our nation's dairy producers with a
viable safety net, without supply management, or new
administrative burdens. And it was supported by more than 140
diverse groups, and 291 Members of the House voted for it.
In implementing the regulations, as I understand it, they
restrict individuals with significant ownership interest in one
dairy from establishing ownership in a new dairy, and gaining
eligibility. Could you please confirm the ability of a dairy
farmer to expand his dairy production capacity through new farm
operations, and maintain eligibility in the MPP?
Secretary Vilsack. I think we are still in the process of
working on precisely how that can be done, and we have
solicited input from the producers in terms of how we navigate
the ability to expand against the assurance that the program
will not be misused. And we are still in the process of
formulating a final determination and decision about that. It
is not an effort to try to avoid expansion, but we have to be
sensitive, obviously, to making sure that folks don't take
advantage of the system when it is inappropriate.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, we certainly understand that, but we
also want to encourage having an abundant supply of milk, both
for use here at home, and for export, and would encourage you
to take an open-minded approach to not replacing one form of
supply management with another. So thank you.
I would also like to switch gears and talk about demand
management, I am not from Iowa, as you are, and my friend Mr.
King is. I am from a district where my livestock producing
farmers do not have demand management on the chickens, and
turkeys, and beef cattle, and dairy products that they produce.
And, therefore, I am concerned about the continued growth of
the consumption of corn under the Renewable Fuel Standard.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, if
implemented, the heightened 2017 RFS requirements would
increase the amount of total U.S. food expenditures by $3\1/2\
billion in just that 1 year, and it is going to continue to
accelerate and get worse in years where there is a shortage of
corn production, and in years down the road, when you get
closer to 2022, when the requirement is that we produce 36
billion gallons of ethanol a year.
This problem is only going to get worse, so I would like to
ask if you would let us know how the Department of Agriculture
is working with the EPA and impacted livestock producers to
ameliorate the cost of what I consider to be, and an increasing
number of Americans considered to be, unworkable RFS standards.
That seems to pit one sector of U.S. agriculture against
another.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, you and I are going to have to
respectfully disagree about this, Congressman.
Mr. Goodlatte. We always have. I----
Secretary Vilsack. I mean, I am sure that you are not
surprised by that. And the reason why I feel as strongly as I
do on the other side of this is because of the productivity of
American agriculture. Corn production has increased
significantly. I remember practicing law in 1975 with my
father-in-law, and doing income tax returns, and producers were
planting, in my state, about 16,000, 17,000 seeds per acre.
Today those very same producers, on that very same land, are
actually utilizing somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 seeds
per acre. The technology has allowed us to grow more. So, in
terms of the percentage of food--of corn that is being used for
production of feed, and food, and exports, that hasn't changed.
The excess is basically going into production of ethanol.
Second, when ethanol is produced, it is not just ethanol,
it is also co-products and byproducts, as you well know. And
the DDGs are a feed supplement that is pretty significant, and
represent roughly \1/3\ of everything that goes into the
ethanol production. And then, finally, we are obviously
gravitating away from an over-reliance on corn towards corn
stover, towards woody biomass, towards perennial grasses. And
there are plants now that are up and running, and work towards
commercial-sized operations, where you are not going to have--
--
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Secretary, reclaiming my time, which is
running out, I don't disagree with the ability to produce fuel
from a wide variety of sources, and certainly from non-
productive sources today. That would be a good thing, but that
has been the promise for a long, long time. In the meantime,
there are growing concerns by consumer groups, hunger
organizations, environmental organizations, as well as those of
us who traditionally believe in free market agriculture, to
make sure that our corn crop is not manipulated the way it is
by an artificial government policy.
So I understand your disagreement. I understand that you
are, as Mr. King noted, from Iowa, the capital of ethanol
production, but I will just note that it doesn't sell as well
in the hinterlands of many other parts of American agriculture,
or the American economy in general.
Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Davis,
5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. It is good to be sandwiched between Mr. King,
and then my colleague, Mr. Goodlatte. And I come back to you
and say I agree with many of your statements. It is good,
maybe, not to be the king of ethanol like Iowa is, but we are a
close second in Illinois, and I do believe that many in the
livestock industry are going to be taking advantage of the low
prices, and also the oversupply of some of our corn this year.
And I am concerned about what EPA is going to do with the RFS
myself, so thank you for your support on that issue, and I will
respectfully disagree with my friend and colleague Mr.
Goodlatte.
A couple of issues that have already been brought up, I
don't want to continue to ask you questions about them, but I
at least want to give my thoughts. I hope that the
Administration can do whatever it takes to help end the strike
on the West Coast, because it is severely impacting products in
the Midwest. And I would urge you to do whatever you can, and
thank you for your vigilance.
Also, crop insurance, I am concerned with the President's
proposal. I oppose the President's call for a $16 billion cut
to crop insurance. Farmers have endured an estimated 43 percent
decline in net farm income over the last 2 years, and now is
not the time, as Chairman Conaway said, to cut out this public-
private partnership. And this is working, and it requires
producers to have skin in the game.
Now, a question I have, it relates to a provision that I
helped author in the farm bill that would give agriculture a
seat at the table as part of the EPA Science Advisory Board. I
think we need agriculture to have a seat at the table as part
of this board, and I was hoping that the EPA has consulted with
you on appointing new members, since they extended the time
period. Have they--has Administrator McCarthy reached out to
USDA on this issue?
Secretary Vilsack. There has been communication about this,
and I know that there has been communication--two-way
communication, in terms of our suggesting and responding. The
application period is extended to March----
Mr. Davis. Right.
Secretary Vilsack.--30, and they have focused on a variety
of agricultural expertise that they are looking for, so----
Mr. Davis. Great. But they have reached out to you, and you
guys have been in communication? That is great. Thank you. I am
actually very glad to hear that. I reinforced last week to
Administrator McCarthy, Mr. Secretary, the Congressional intent
of this bill, and I would hope the USDA would agree with me
that we want somebody who is not just an agricultural scientist
to be a part of this board. We want some real world production
agriculture experience. And I would hope that you would take my
Congressional intent to the Administrator when the decision is
made. So thank you very much for your time there.
Now, the issue that I always talk to you about, school
nutrition. I wanted to thank you for putting out the guidance
memo for the exemption that our schools can apply for, if they
show hardship, for the whole grain requirement. And, also, I
want to thank you for implementing the freeze in current sodium
levels until science can further back up target levels, which
would be shown to benefit the health of children.
In your view, how are the schools going to be able to
benefit from these provisions, and do you support efforts to
continue providing this flexibility?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, throughout this process we have
indicated a willingness to be flexible, as circumstances
dictated. We are very excited about the opportunities that we
are pursuing with our Team Up For Success Initiative, which is
designed to mentor and pair up school districts that are having
a difficult time dealing with the new requirements, for
whatever reason, with school districts that are similarly
situated, similar size, similar geographic location.
There was a day and a half seminar that was done down in
Mississippi, University of Mississippi. We sort of piloted this
notion. It was very well received, and so we want to see if we
can continue doing that. We obviously want to continue the
smarter lunchroom grants, and the school equipment grants, and
the other financial resources that we are making available. So
it is a combination of a variety of things, and that is why we
are seeing----
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--general acceptance notwithstanding,
some of the concerns that have been expressed by school
districts and by students. A recent survey showed 70 percent of
elementary students, and 63 percent of high school students,
were okay with what is going on. When I was governor, I would
have died for a 63 or 70 approval rating, and I suspect Members
of Congress would too.
Mr. Davis. I wouldn't die, but I would be very excited for
that approval rating. I want to thank you for sending members
of the USDA to my district to talk with school lunch officials,
and hear some of their concerns. And I appreciate what you are
doing in implementing the flexibility, Mr. Secretary, and I
look forward to working with you on this issue as we continue
to move forward, and express the concerns of my school
districts. And I still have an open invitation to have you come
to central Illinois and talk to our superintendents. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Thompson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, good to
see you.
Secretary Vilsack. Good to see you.
Mr. Thompson. I wanted to revisit, as a number of Members
have, Title VIII--Forestry. A robust forestry program through
USDA and the Forest Service, U.S. Forest Service, that is best
for a healthy forest and healthy rural communities. And you had
talked about wildfires as being a big issue, and it certainly
is, but my perspective on that is that, quite frankly, we have
had decades of bipartisan neglectful management within our
forests, which has resulted in forests that are not healthy,
that have not been well maintained. And a lot of that comes
from outside influences, through courts, and sometimes not
through courts, onto the USDA and the Forest Service.
But the fact is, though, I sense that we are making some
progress, let me just say. I want to thank you for the 230 wood
energy projects. I think that is a part of what we are working
together, putting together to make progress, but we have a long
ways to go.
And what I would like to do is work with you and the
Subcommittee that has shared, once again, responsibility for
forestry and conservation to look at that. How do we continue
that transition, going from burning money, and that is what we
do when we don't properly manage our forests, to making money,
to growing money. We know that we can do that, because timber
is a commodity. It is an ag commodity. I am pleased with the
things that we are doing that you have talked about, as I have,
about the construction, mobile storage. We are creating market
demand, and that is really good.
So there were a couple tools that we did give you that you
didn't address in the testimony that you submitted, and I just
wanted to touch base on--these are additional helpful tools to
help us in that transition. If we properly manage the forest,
and get close to that yield rate, we will reduce wildfires. We
can never totally eliminate them, but we will reduce
dramatically. And taking money away from marketing and selling
timber only compounds wildfires, so we really need to step back
and look at that.
So some of the things that we had in there--just three
things real briefly, and get an update, if you can, for me. The
Bio-Preferred Program, where we actually added timber, first
time ever, into the Bio-Preferred Program was really good for
forest products. That helps our domestic timber industry. That
speaks to increasing demand.
The forest roads--a point source of pollution designation
was, quite frankly--if we are going to get in and do good
timbering, we have to re-open some of the roads. A lot of our
roads were shut down in the 1990s. Thirty percent of National
Forest roads were shut down in the 1990s by an Administration,
and I am hoping that this non-point source of pollution would
help us get more roads.
And, finally, the categorical exclusion, which we granted
for routine activities on the forests, but, quite frankly, we
were sucking money out of timbering, and harvesting, and
production of green timber sales. Stewardship contracting is
good, but it is the green timber sales that really makes the
most progress, and helps, financially, in rural communities. So
the categorical exclusion for routine activities I hope will
help strengthen the budgets. In the end, we won't be taking
monies.
So those are at least three tools we provided in the farm
bill. Just real briefly, I didn't know if you had any update on
any of those three.
Secretary Vilsack. We are moving forward on the Bio-
Preferred Program. In fact, I have this on the list that I ask
our folks on a monthly basis about when progress is being made.
And we are looking at guidelines for designating those entities
sometime summer to late summer.
Mr. Thompson. Great.
Secretary Vilsack. I am trying recall the issue of roads,
and, honestly, right now I am having a hard time remembering--
--
Mr. Thompson. Well, of course, we are pushing this into a
point source----
Secretary Vilsack. Right.
Mr. Thompson.--pollution designation, which means we
wouldn't be able to get in to access the natural resources of
the forest.
Secretary Vilsack. I will have to get back to you on it. I
think there has been progress on that, but I want to make sure
that I give you the right answer on that, so I will ask staff
to get back to you.
On the categorical exclusion, we definitely want to move
forward on that. We have designated areas where that can be
used, and we are looking at not just the 3,000 acres that are
involved in that. We have, as I said, 45 million acres.
Mr. Thompson. Correct.
Secretary Vilsack. To your point earlier, there is plenty
of blame to go around here. This is not about blame. It is
really about what we do about this.
Mr. Thompson. Where we go in the future.
Secretary Vilsack. And so we are aggressively using this,
and we are aggressively looking at ways in which we can comply
with all the requirements, and evaluations, and assessment
requirements, but also get this thing moving.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I look forward to working with you as
we transition away from burning money to growing money, so
thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Secretary, I have a second question I want to ask you really
quickly. It is rumored that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee----
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
The Chairman.--is wanting to eliminate red meat from our
diets as a part of those guidelines. Coming from cattle
country, I am a little fired up about that. I hope that the
whole panel is focused on nutrition science in developing those
guidelines. Can you talk to us a little bit about if, in fact,
you have all the authorities you need to insist that it is
nutrition science that drives that train?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, and the operative word of your
question was rumored. That is just not the case.
The Chairman. Well, with reducing portion sizes, all
those----
Secretary Vilsack. No, first of all, these are
recommendations, which the Department of Health and Human
Services, and Department of Agriculture are free to accept,
reject, or modify, based on, ultimately, the decision-making
that we are responsible for. Second, these folks get together,
they look at a literature review of the latest science. It is
supposed to be driven by science, and it needs to be driven by
science. There are a lot of issues that have to be resolved
yet. This is by no means finalized.
The Chairman. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. And then last, but not least, I would be
surprised if the recommendations relative to meat are
fundamentally different than they were in previous guidelines.
The Chairman. Okay. Can you give me a sense of what the
timeline is, and the steps between here----
Secretary Vilsack. Sure.
The Chairman.--and that final recommendation and report,
whatever it is that goes on?
Secretary Vilsack. I think that we will be getting the
recommendations, rather, very soon, within a matter of weeks,
if not days. Then our team basically begins the process of
working collaboratively with HHS, and they are the lead agency
in this go-round.
The Chairman. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. I would anticipate and expect by the
fall to early winter we have whatever the guidelines are going
to be.
The Chairman. All right. Well, again, we have mentioned
this science-based decision-making process, and nutrition
science ought to drive the train, and not sustainability, or
environmental things, or other things like that. It ought to be
nutrition based science, so I appreciate that. Mr. Peterson has
one more question.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was out, I
apologize, but I was talking to our State DNR Commissioner, and
he reminded me, this issue where the court stopped the wolf
management system in Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Hopefully the Fish and Wildlife is going to appeal this,
although they have not told us, and it has to be done pretty
quick, so whatever you could do there.
But his concern is that if we turned over the management to
the state, and they were using that system to trap and hunt the
wolves to keep them in line. Now that they have been put back
on the endangered species list, or whatever they have done,
their concern is that there is no funding for the Wildlife
Services situation in Grand Rapids. Apparently you had $\1/2\
million in your budget for Wildlife Services for wolf control,
and you transferred that, because there wasn't need anymore or
something. And so his question is, in light of what happened
with this court case, is there going to be a way that we can
get money back into Wildlife Services to deal with this?
Secretary Vilsack. There was a little over $700,000 that
was essentially taken out in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget
process, and I am not sure whether we took it out or you all
took it out, but in any event, it was taken out.
We are currently providing technical assistance to
producers, and we will, obviously, be careful in how we are
providing resources and prioritizing those, but we are still
able to provide technical assistance.
Mr. Peterson. What does that mean?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, basically providing information as
to how they might be able to control against predators, and if
they have a predator problem, the possibility of partial or
full reimbursement for losses.
Mr. Peterson. Now, they were using the money to hire
trappers, so would technical services include that?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't want to say yes or no to that
because I am not sure of the answer, so let me get back to you.
Mr. Peterson. That is what they need. There are some
trappers out there----
Secretary Vilsack. Okay.
Mr. Peterson.--so I wanted to put it on your radar, that it
is a big issue out there. And the other thing, in the previous
discussion we had on CRP, our State DNR Commissioner
corroborated what I was trying to bring up to you about where
this stuff could end up, so I would request you--if you could,
if you could have your people talk to the state? Because they
had a big summit out there on CRP, and they have some of the
same concerns that I have. And if you could have your people
visit with them? And they have some good ideas about what maybe
should be looked at, going forward.
Secretary Vilsack. This would be the DNR of Minnesota.
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay.
Mr. Peterson. State DNR, yes.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. LaMalfa, the Secretary has a meeting at
1:00, so be very brief.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, sir, thank you. I did not get another
shot, so one more time on the drama with Waters of the United
States, what we have is pretty clear, pretty sensible section
404 exemptions on what a farming activity is, with regard to
plowing, disking, land use, planting, things like that, and
that is what is not being interpreted well, to reasonable
people. So we really need your strong voice in those
discussions you have with fellow Secretaries, and in the
Administration. We really need that help on that, because they
are doing it to us up in the district at home.
Coming back to the ports issue here, please get the word
out, with additional force with Secretary of Labor and others
in the Administration that have a piece of that, because we
have citrus in my state, and others, they are going to go bad,
as well as the almonds I mentioned that are sitting on the
dock. And I will finish on the almonds.
I slipped you a note, in case I didn't get a chance to talk
to you again, on almond exports to Pakistan, and there is a lot
of funny business going on with that, and how they are also
getting pushed in through India without our tariffs, without
our pricing on that. So they are underselling the value of our
almonds, mislabeled as some other fashion. So we will need to
have that discussion in the USTR to help make sure that that
the integrity of that trade with our almonds going over there
is held in place, and----
Secretary Vilsack. We will make sure that they know you are
concerned about this.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Congressman Denham, my colleague, is
also very interested in that too as well.
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, I have it.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Secretary. I appreciate the indulgence.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Ranking Member, you
have a----
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Secretary, thank you so very much. I want
to reiterate what I said at the beginning of the meeting. You
and your team did a great job on implementing the farm bill to
date, and I don't want any kind of nits and nats remain to
cause us to lose sight of the very hard work that went into not
having nits and nats in a lot of other places.
But as we go forward, there will be some things that we
will need to have conversations with, but I want to thank you,
your team, Brandon Willis over at RMA as well, for the work
that they did on getting us to where we are today, and we
shouldn't discount all that other hard work that kept it from
being a problem, should we have anything like that, going
forward. So thank you for your views today. We all share a keen
interest in a vibrant rural America, and it is based in
production agriculture at its core, and so we all share that
goal. And I appreciate you being here today, and I appreciate
the working relationship that we have had so far, and that we
intend to have in the future.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
the opportunity, and certainly look forward to working with you
and the Committee.
The Chairman. All right. Under the rules of the Committee,
the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar
days to receive additional material and supplementary written
responses from the witness to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
Question 1. During consideration of the farm bill it was estimated
that CC would affect a very limited number of producers. What is the
number of producers that have been notified (total and per state) that
they don't have an AD-1026 on file in order to be eligible for crop
insurance premium subsidy?
Answer. In December 2014, the Risk Management Agency sent letters
to those (see chart below) that were identified as possibly not having
an AD-1026 on file. However, this is not necessarily an accurate
reflection of the number of producers affected by conservation
compliance as many producers may have received multiple letters due to
the fact that a producer could be a member of several entities such as
a corporation or LLC. Further, some of these individuals and entities
may no longer farm or be in existence. Therefore, a significant amount
of the letters went to individuals or entities that may not actually
need to file an AD-1026, but this methodology was the only way to
ensure that everyone was notified. The cost benefit analysis associated
with the interim conservation compliance rule estimated 16,000 to
25,000 persons or entities would be impacted by the expanded
requirements, and that slightly less than \1/3\ of those producers will
need a conservation plan.
Producer Letters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Sent State Sent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-U.S. 12 MT 628
AK 15 NC 1,007
AL 378 ND 2,013
AR 551 NE 2,582
AZ 265 NH 33
CA 11,029 NJ 111
CO 1,058 NM 221
CT 124 NV 83
D.C. 4 NY 845
DE 48 OH 1,346
FL 3,196 OK 931
GA 1,118 OR 791
HI 67 PA 716
IA 2,853 RI 13
ID 530 SC 353
IL 3,333 SD 1,222
IN 1,221 TN 694
KS 3,140 TX 5,401
KY 1,468 UT 64
LA 506 VA 486
MA 256 VI 1
MD 168 VT 153
ME 170 WA 2,261
MI 1,163 WI 1,376
MN 2,965 WV 51
MO 2,260 WY 211
-----------------
MS 418 Total 61,909
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. Does the USDA support working in partnership with the
Private Sector regarding investments in rural infrastructure and
projects to provide essential services?
Answer. Yes, USDA is working to ensure that rural communities have
increased financing options for investments in rural infrastructure and
essential services. For example, in July 2014, the White House Rural
Council, Chaired by USDA Secretary Vilsack, convened the inaugural
Rural Opportunity Investment Conference (ROI) to promote the investment
opportunities that exist throughout rural America. At the event the
Rural Council announced a new public private partnership to drive more
investment to rural infrastructure. The U.S. Rural Infrastructure
Opportunity Initiative represents a new approach to catalyzing private
investment in infrastructure projects in rural America.
USDA currently uses a variety of ways to encourage public-private
partnerships to provide affordable and sustainable infrastructure
projects through financing and technical assistance. StrikeForce was
launched in 2010 as a pilot project to strengthen economies. Since
2010, StrikeForce teams have collaborated with more than 500 community
partners and public entities across twenty states to bring targeted
assistance to rural areas experiencing chronic poverty. USDA's Rural
Utilities Service funds projects and provides training in rural areas
to ensure the delivery of quality water and wastewater service,
necessary for healthy, growing rural communities.
Question 3. Wouldn't the Public-Private Partnership model be
enhanced if a more balanced budget allocation were applied to the
guaranteed lending program rather than the USDA being the sole lender
with the taxpayers' money entirely exposed through the direct loan
program?
Answer. The direct lending done by the Federal government occurs
primarily to achieve a policy goal that is not be fulfilled by the
private sector or through loan guarantees. This is the case with USDA's
direct loans. Many of USDA's direct lending programs were established
to serve those families, farmers, and communities whose rural and
economic condition do not afford them access to private lending. Many
of these programs have a ``credit elsewhere test''. The public-private
partnerships found in the guaranteed lending programs administered by
RD and FSA are robust and growing. In addition, the Department has
successfully used Community Facilities (CF) Direct funds to leverage
over $1.2 billion of private investment into 335 of the CF Direct
projects built between FY11 and FY14. Every year CF Direct loans
combine with hundreds of millions from institutional investors and the
capital credit markets to strengthen investment in critical community
infrastructure projects spurring economic growth, job creation and
access to improved health care, education and other critical services.
Working together, the direct and guaranteed programs expand access to
credit into markets not well served by private lenders, in a way where
the underwriting risk is captured in the subsidy rate and budgetary
decisions to fund these programs to achieve the policy goals can be
debated with the cost to the taxpayers clearly defined.
Question 4. Doesn't the probability of loan defaults become
elevated if the Private Sector is excluded from shared underwriting,
monitoring and overall risk?
Answer. Consistent with Federal policies, credit assistance should
be targeted to avoid displacing private markets, and where assistance
is warranted, partial guarantees through private lenders should be used
unless a deeper subsidy is necessary to meet policy goals, or loans on
reasonable financing terms are not available. Moreover, there is no
evidence that Federal direct loans default more frequently than private
sector loans in a similar risk category. USDA's careful underwriting
and servicing standards maintain strong portfolio performance with
modest delinquency and foreclosure rates.
Question 5. Considering the burden on the Agency's reduced staff to
deploy a $2.2 billion in Community Facilities Direct loans annually,
how can USDA assure this Committee that monitoring loans made in prior
years remains a top priority?
Answer. The Community Facilities (CF) Direct Loan program continues
to make the soundness of its portfolio a top priority, as shown by
consistently low delinquency and default rates. RD is cognizant of our
responsibilities to properly manage credit risk, and has not changed
its strong underwriting criteria and practices despite the opportunity
presented by increased program levels. It should also be noted that CF
staffing was increased by 44 percent in the first quarter of FY15. All
of the new hires are underwriters.
CF Direct Lending is also expanding its monitoring of loans through
public private partnerships (PPP) with institutional investors and the
capital credit markets. PPPs bring additional underwriting and
monitoring to a transaction, and distribute risk among the partners. CF
has also used the PPPs to improve its knowledge and technical expertise
on financing large and complex community infrastructure projects and
build long-term partnerships for future transactions, servicing current
loans, and communicating with applicants and borrowers.
Question 6. Since commercial banks are highly regulated by Federal
or state authorities, won't the safety and soundness of the USDA's loan
portfolio be strengthened when partnering with the Private Sector
instead of ``going it alone''?
Question 6a. Consider the following when partnering with the
Private Sector:
Commercial bank partners will underwrite the entire risk of the
loan, not just their share to determine the financial health and
repayment ability of the borrower. Their conclusions are submitted to
the USDA for their secondary review and concurrence thus easing the
burden on Agency staff, especially for highly complex situations such
as hospital loans.
Question 6b. Risk underwriting will follow bank policies and
procedures which are examined annually by Federal or state regulators
to ensure safe and sound lending practices (banks will have ``skin'' in
the game).
Question 6c. Continuous monitoring is required after loan
origination as the risk of default and loss is inherent throughout the
life of a loan. Partnering with the Private sector enhances the
proactive nature and effectiveness of this critical area of credit
management.
Question 6d. In the event of a default, Private sector partners
collaborating with the Agency provide additional attention and
strategies to correct deficiencies and avoid loss.
Answer 6-6d. USDA-RD is not going it alone. The largest portion of
RD's loan portfolio comes from its Guaranteed Loan programs. These
loans are originated by commercial lenders in accordance with their
regulators. For those markets commercial lenders do not serve, loans
may be originated directly by RD in accordance with an equally
effective set of laws, regulations and practices that assure the safety
and soundness of its portfolio. The Department welcomes private sector
lending to families and communities whose rural and economic conditions
do not currently afford them access to commercial credit.
Question 7. I am sure you are aware of the many concerns that the
agriculture community have raised over the Administration's waters of
the U.S. proposed rule. The rule, as proposed, will have far reaching
consequences for the agriculture community. Can you give us some
examples of how have you advocated for rural America throughout this
rulemaking process?
Answer. USDA is aware that its role in the development of waters of
the U.S. proposed rule is one of informing and educating, and that the
authority and responsibility for developing and implementing
regulations to achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act reside
wholly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army.
Throughout the rulemaking process, USDA consistently emphasized
agriculture's outstanding stewardship track record in delivering water
resource benefits locally, regionally, and nationally. The commitment
in the proposed rule to maintaining and clarifying existing
agricultural exemptions underscored the recognition of agriculture as a
valuable partner in achieving clean water objectives. USDA also
highlighted the need for straightforward language for the many complex
concepts contained in the proposed rule, for example in definitions of
tributaries and other waters, as the agricultural community has
consistently called for clarity.
Question 8. What role will USDA play during the interagency review
of the waters of the U.S. proposed rule?
Answer. USDA is invited to review and provide comments on Waters of
the U.S. rule via the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) interagency
review process. The Department is in the process of reviewing that
draft currently and will be providing comments to OMB for EPA and Army
for consideration as it works to finalize the rule. USDA's objective in
this process is to continue to ensure the impacts on agriculture are
fully evaluated.
Question 9. Do you feel that stakeholders in rural America where
properly consulted in the development of the waters of the U.S.
proposed rule?
Answer. The Federal Government has established processes and
procedures for developing regulations that allow for public input. In
general, the public is normally provided 60 days to provide comments on
a proposed rule. However, recognizing the significant public interest
in this rulemaking, the EPA and Army, extended the comment period on
the proposed rule several times. All involved recognize that this is an
important rule with potential to affect many sectors in achieving its
objective of good water quality for all Americans, rural and urban
alike.
Question 10. The Committee is aware of APHIS' proposed rule to
establish a performance standard for authorizing the importation and
interstate movement of fruits and vegetables. This appears to be a
significant modification of the current process for reviewing import
petitions by foreign governments, as it eliminates certain economic
analysis requirements and also eliminates interagency review.
Therefore, the Committee is interested in how the important rights of
due process that are embedded in the current process will be maintained
under this modified proposal. Additionally, the Committee would like an
explanation as to why this modification only addresses fruits and
vegetables rather than the full scope of import petitions for which
APHIS is responsible.
Answer. In September 2014, USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) proposed a rule to streamline the approval
of fruit and vegetable imports into the United States and the
interstate movement from Hawaii and the U.S. territories. Reducing the
regulatory burdens associated with our import approval process will
give us more leverage with trading partners when negotiating more
streamlined approvals for U.S. exports and access to new markets, to
the benefit of U.S. producers. By putting in place a process that will
allow us to be more responsive to our trading partners' requests, we
expect to obtain quicker and more immediate access for U.S. commodities
into their markets.
Under the proposed rule, instead of codifying region- and
commodity-specific requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations,
APHIS would use a streamlined noticed-based process. However, USDA
would continue to use the same rigorous, science-based pest risk
evaluations it does now when it reviews import requests. Further, the
public would still be able to provide comments on the Agency's proposal
at two separate times: for 30 days when APHIS publishes the draft pest
risk assessment, and for 60 days when APHIS publishes the notice.
APHIS, as it does under the existing process, would not take final
actions before considering and responding to the public's comments.
APHIS would also ensure that the Office of Management and Budget and
other interested Federal agencies receive advanced notice of APHIS'
actions and have the opportunity to provide input. APHIS would also
continue to analyze the economic effects of a potential pest
introduction as part of the pest risk analysis process.
In developing the proposed rule, APHIS actively solicited feedback
from the public and reached out to explain the need for the rule; APHIS
twice extended the comment period to allow stakeholders more time to
provide comments and held a webinar with interested stakeholders to
address their questions. APHIS is currently reviewing the comments and
input it has received--including comments expressing some of the same
concerns in your question--and will address them and incorporate them,
as appropriate, when publishing a final rule.
Although the 2014 proposed rule only addresses fruits and
vegetables, it is not the only instance of APHIS using this type of
approach. A 2007 rule established a notice-based process for certain
fruits and vegetables that do not have region- or commodity-specific
phytosanitary import requirements, such as irradiated or fumigated
fruit. There are other instances of APHIS using this notice-based
approach. This includes notices that recognize the animal health
disease status of certain countries; notices to prohibit entry of
certain articles under the plants-for-planting regulations; and notices
that quickly add or remove acceptable treatments for imported
commodities. APHIS will continue to look for opportunities to
streamline its regulations to provide more flexibility and
adaptability, especially where the regulations lay out clear
performance-based standards.
Question 11. The President's FY16 budget request states that under
the goal of enhancing mitigation capabilities, APHIS provides technical
assistance and develops new mitigation tools and strategies to address
plant pest outbreaks. In FY14, APHIS spent $17.6 million on 73 projects
in this goal area.
How many of these projects addressed Mexfly exclusion and
eradication?
Answer. The projects referenced in the question are specific to
those funded by section 10007 of the 2014 Farm Bill, Plant Pest and
Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Programs. In 2014, there
were two Farm Bill projects for Mexfly exclusion and eradication,
totaling $1.793 million. There is a separate appropriated line item
that specifically includes fruit fly activities.
Question 11a. What was the total funding level allocated to Mexfly?
Answer. Aside from the farm bill funding mentioned above, APHIS
funds ongoing activities to detect and respond to exotic fruit flies,
including Mexfly, from the Specialty Crop Pests line item. In FY 2014,
APHIS spent $56.175 million on fruit fly activities, with $11.6 million
of this amount going towards Mexfly eradication and prevention
activities. APHIS plans to use $59 million from the Specialty Crop
Pests line item in FY 2015 for fruit fly activities overall and
anticipates spending a similar amount on Mexfly as in FY 2014.
Question 12. The Mexican Fruit Fly Rearing Facility located in
Edinburg, Texas is a critical component of the USDA APHIS Mexfly
Eradication program. However, APHIS's ability to effectively manage and
prevent Mexfly populations has been hindered due to the condition of
the Edinburg sterile fly production facility, which is nearly 30 years
old.
How does this facility rank based on the APHIS facility condition
index (FCI)?
Answer. The last FCI rating evaluation of the Edinburg, Texas
sterile fly facility was in 2011. The facility scored 0.21, which
placed it into the category of USDA facilities that need the most
repair.
Based upon the results of the FCI, and the needs of the sterile
insect program (notably a need for an increased insect-rearing
capacity), APHIS is developing a plan for potential construction or
renovation of the facility.
Question 13. PPQ requires 200 million sterile fly releases per week
in order to manage Mexfly populations in Texas, but as a result of
constant problems and lack of production capacity at the Texas facility
this goal is never achieved. In addition, Mexfly populations have
significantly increased in Mexico within the last year, meaning it is
imperative that USDA take immediate action to reduce the threat of
Mexfly in Texas and other citrus producing states.
How many sterile flies are currently being released on a weekly
basis?
Answer. On average, APHIS is releasing approximately 100 million
sterile male Mexflies per week produced by the Texas facility. In
addition, APHIS brings in approximately 70 million sterile male
Mexflies per week from the facility in Guatemala to supplement the
Texas program.
Question 13a. How many more are needed to address increased Mexfly
populations?
Answer. Based upon the technical review APHIS has conducted of the
needs of the fruit fly program in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the
Agency believes the total needs are 400 million sterile male Mexflies,
over 200 million more than it currently produces. APHIS recognizes that
the demand for sterile insects in the Lower Rio Grande Valley is unable
to be met by the existing sterile insect facility in Texas.
Accordingly, the Agency is preparing a report to evaluate how best to
meet those needs and what resources may be required.
Question 14. It has been reported that APHIS is in the process of
developing a construction and renovation plan for the Edinburg sterile
Mexfly production facility.
When will this report be finalized?
Answer. APHIS expects the report on design and construction
specifications to be completed in summer of 2015.
Question 14a. What can you tell me about USDA's plans for upgrading
this facility? More specifically, what is the timeline for construction
and when is the earliest date the facility can be completed? What
resources are needed?
Answer. APHIS recognizes that the demand for sterile insects in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley is unable to be met by the existing sterile
insect facility in Texas. Accordingly, the Agency is preparing a report
to evaluate how best to meet those needs and what resources may be
required.
Question 14b. What is APHIS strategy for future investments?
Answer. APHIS recognizes that all of the fruit fly rearing
facilities in Florida, Texas, and California are aging facilities and
are likely in need of significant improvement or replacement. A
systematic review of facility needs is being conducted to develop
technical specifications, the statement of work, and other requirements
for these three facilities. The information will be used in developing
future plans for ensuring adequate production in all three facilities.
Question 15. In order to limit the economic damage caused by
Mexfly, PPQ has successfully contained, controlled, eradicated pest
populations and lifted Federal quarantines within the span of one
growing season. However, on January 23, 2014, the Texas Department of
Agriculture filed an emergency quarantine that has since been extended
through January 2015.
What steps has APHIS taken to address this quarantine?
Answer. To prevent the spread of Mexfly to noninfested areas of the
United States, APHIS and the Texas Department of Agriculture
established a Mexfly regulated area that restricted the interstate
movement of regulated articles in the quarantine area. APHIS has
activated its emergency response protocols for fruit fly which include
mobilizing Agency personnel to the Brownsville area and concentrating
sterile fly resources in this area. The emergency response also
includes intensive trapping and the use of chemical treatments. APHIS
and the Texas Department of Agriculture are implementing additional
strategies which include ``new attract and kill'' stations and targeted
insecticidal ground sprays.
Question 15a. How does APHIS intend to improve Mexfly management
and eradication efforts?
Answer. APHIS will continue with eradication efforts until full
eradication is achieved. Central to this is the ongoing evaluation of
the program's technical and infrastructure needs referenced in the
previous question. Additionally, the Mexfly Technical Team, which
includes APHIS and its international partners, is closely evaluating
the outbreak and making recommendations to enhance detection and
control.
APHIS is also working to establish systems in Mexico to reduce the
influx of the Mexfly population from Mexico into the United States, and
is conducting risk analysis to understand the epidemiology of the
outbreak in order to respond more effectively.
Question 16. We keep hearing from NIFA about an ``iterative
process'' to improving the SCRI review. What recommendations have been
received and how are they being implemented?
Answer. NIFA received 18 recommendations from the Specialty Crops
Committee of the NAREEE Advisory Board and provided detailed responses
to each recommendation. The Specialty Crops Committee recommendations
and NIFA's responses are included in the Farm Bill mandated Secretary's
report to the Congress, which is currently under development.
Question 17. The farm bill specifically included the statement,
``final awards determinations should, to the maximum extent
practicable, emphasize the results of the merit/relevance review
process.'' How did each grant application score on merit/relevancy
review and how did this impact the final awards decision?
Answer. For the Specialty Crop Research Initiative Program, six
page pre-applications were evaluated by panels of industry experts
using a specific and consistent criteria for relevancy. The relevancy
criteria include the level of stakeholder involvement in developing
project goals and program evaluation, their continued engagement in the
activities, and whether information developed by the project team will
be delivered to stakeholders in ways that allow them to implement new
and/or improved practices. These panels decide which pre-applications
would be invited to submit full proposals for the program. If a pre-
application was not deemed highly relevant, it was not invited to
submit a full proposal. Full proposals are first evaluated for
scientific merit. After the scientific merit discussion, the panel
considers both evaluations (relevancy and scientific) and the comments
of the relevancy reviewers to decide on the final ranking of priority
for funding. Final award recommendations are developed by consensus
after all evaluations are considered. The merit review panel also has a
specific set of criteria on the scientific merit, including the
potential impact of the work on the industry and outreach to the
stakeholders.
Question 18. As you know, Congress has indicated its very clear
intent through the most recent Farm Bill that industry be substantively
and significantly involved in the review of the competitive grants
programs including, but not limited to the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative. Please tell us specifically what changes you are making in
this year's Request for Proposals to ensure that the projects funded
are industry's top priorities.
Answer. This year, content of pre-applications and full
applications, as well as the process includes, industry representation.
Currently SCRI has two separate and sequential review stages: relevancy
review by the industry representatives and merit review by scientists
from academia and industry. Only the preliminary proposals rated highly
relevant by the industrial representatives are invited as full
proposals. The merit review panel also contains industry scientists and
considers both relevancy review panel comments as well as scientific
merit in determining the ranking. Thus industry is involved in the
initial selection of project pre-proposals as well as in final ranking
of the projects for funding.
NIFA has always strived to ensure and improve industry involvement
in the SCRI review process. In addition to the involvement of industry
representatives during the relevancy review, industry scientists have
been, and will continue to be, involved in the scientific merit review
process. Whenever possible, other NIFA competitive programs include
industry representatives and scientists on the review panels. NIFA
offers several methods to submit stakeholder input including webinars
and ongoing solicitation of comments on requests for proposals. NIFA
considers this feedback when new requests for proposals are developed.
Question 19. Please describe in detail for us how the industry
ranking of the most recent proposals to the SCRI will be conducted.
Answer. The Request for Applications, posted March 3, 2015, (http:/
/nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/rfa/15_SCRI%20final%20to%20post.pdf)
details how NIFA will conduct the industry relevancy review and the
scientific merit review and how the outcomes of these processes will be
combined to develop a funding recommendation. There are 3 points in the
overall process where industry ranking will be considered. Industry
relevancy reviewers will recommend which applicants will be invited to
submit full applications. NIFA intends to abide by those
recommendations.
Question 20. Please tell us exactly how the industry rankings were
considered during the scientists' review of the proposals. Were all of
the proposals considered by the science panel regardless of their
industry rankings? Were the industry rankings communicated to the
science panel reviewers?
Answer. SCRI is competed as two distinct areas: SCRI and the Citrus
Disease Research and Extension program (CDRE). For both programs in
2014, applicants were invited to submit full applications based on the
recommendation of the industry relevancy review panels. Presumably, the
industry panels only recommended submission of applications that were
highly relevant to their industries. All applications reviewed by the
scientific merit panels contained the pre-application containing the
Stakeholder Relevance Statement, and the reviews and comments from all
industry reviewers. CDRE was competed after NIFA consulted with the
SCC, so industry rankings were considered as described in the SCRI
Management Plan.
Question 21. Mr. Secretary on November 13, 2014, the U.S. Forest
Service issued a press release (http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/
forest-service-exceeds-yearly-forest-restoration-goals) stating that
you had exceeded your yearly restoration goals for Fiscal Year 2014.
Among other things, the Forest Service claimed that they had maintained
or restored 2.9 million acres and resulted in 2.8 billion board feet of
timber volume sold. Since over 1 million acres appear to have been
prescribed burned (89% of which was in the Southeastern Region), please
provide for the committee the following information:
Of the 2.8 million acres on which the Forest Service conducted
restoration work, how many acres:
Were treated with prescribed fire? Which Regions were these
treatments in?
Answer. There were a total of 1,357,791 acres treated with
prescribed fire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Rx Fire Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
01 24,559
02 19,968
03 61,681
04 38,422
05 23,522
06 64,084
08 1,045,312
09 80,040
10 203
-----------------------------------
Grand Total....................... 1,357,791
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 21a. Were treated by wildfires being allowed to burn
within prescription, or allowed to burn for resource benefit?
Answer. For 2014, 246,018 acres burned by wildfire were judged to
have met land management objectives and were counted as fuel treatment
accomplishments. NOTE: The 2009 guidance for federal fire policy does
not categorize certain fires as ``beneficial'' at their onset as was
the previous policy. Current policy guidance does continue to recognize
that fire effects can produce beneficial results, however it does not
require that there be explicit management intent to seek beneficial
outcomes from a wildfire in order to count its' effects as beneficial.
As a result, many wildfires are found to produce effects that are
beneficial to natural resource objectives even though protection
concerns required that they be suppressed either in part or in whole.
At the discretion of the local Forest Supervisor, any wildfire
initiated from a natural ignition source, such as lightning, may be
assessed after the fire has been controlled to determine where fire
effects have improved resource conditions and where they did not.
Question 21b. Were treated during fire suppression operations by
ignition of backfires or other burnout operations?
Answer. We do not attempt to attribute acres burned to either the
wildfire or firefighting efforts, because such estimates would be
highly suspect and unreliable. When timing and conditions allow,
firefighters may design their fire suppression actions with the intent
of controlling the intensity and patterns of burning so as to minimize
the negative effects and possibly even improve forest conditions.
However, the convergence of the wildfire and any burnout actions
initiated by firefighters typically occurs out of sight of the
firefighters because safety concerns do not permit personnel to linger
near the convergence zone; smoke, vegetation and terrain obscure the
view from any vantage point; the convergence may occur at night or
several days or even weeks after the burnout occurred, so we do not
have the means to track the information requested.
Question 21c. Were treated by mechanical removal of hazardous
fuels?, including:
i. Removal of non-commercial trees or brush
ii. Removal of commercial timber that was sold pursuant to a timber
sale or IRTC
Answer. 107,083 acres saw the removal of biomass which includes
non-commercial trees and brush. ``Removal of Biomass'' is the physical
removal of biomass from the site which is typically done by trucking
the materials to a site where the biomass is stored for utilization.
150, 951 acres were treated with commercial timber harvest. This
includes acres treated through Integrated Resource Timber Contracts
(IRTC).
Question 21d. Were treated by other methods including:
i. Removal of noxious weeds
ii. Hand trimming of brush
iii. Treatment of lakes or streams to improve water quality.
Answer. The number of acres treated on Forest Service lands for
invasive plants (noxious weeds) was 229,587. In addition, 30,721 acres
of lakes and 3,488 miles of streams were treated for water quality and
aquatic habitat restoration. Forest Service does not discern between
hand trimming/thinning and other methods of trimming/thinning nor do we
discern between activities in brush vs. tree forms of vegetation. Any
manipulation done by hand is lumped together with mechanical treatments
according to the treatment classifications found in table below.
2014 Forest Service Hazardous Fuels Treatment Acres Accomplished by Region and Method
2014 \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biomass Lop and Machine Pile Mastication
Region Rx Fire Fire Use Biological Removal Chemical Chipping Crushing Grazing Scatter \1\ or Mowing Thinning Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01 24,559 51,788 0 11,711 0 212 140 4,500 10,950 4,102 0 17,573 125,535
02 19,968 1,571 0 39,921 89 659 920 1,930 11,329 6,016 0 38,634 121,037
03 61,681 63,833 0 4,985 0 0 514 534 5,754 6,003 0 54,789 198,093
04 38,422 53,789 0 2,266 0 5,131 6,003 1,500 10,411 5,177 35 31,474 154,208
05 23,522 35,876 0 11,561 0 2,703 2,794 1,974 4,334 14,352 0 54,927 152,043
06 64,084 38,305 0 14,157 0 6,045 1,524 0 16,508 27,271 272 108,235 276,401
08 1,045,312 842 0 11,163 6,519 605 3,158 610 2,276 6,023 0 78,955 1,155,463
09 80,040 14 0 11,273 123 1,363 69 389 3,168 4,314 0 27,330 128,083
10 203 0 0 46 0 52 0 0 0 99 0 43 443
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total 1,357,791 246,018 0 107,083 6,731 16,770 15,122 11,437 64,730 73,357 307 411,960 2,311,306
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes Recovery Act acres
\1\ FY14 Data Source: NFPORS Extract as of 11/01/2014 a.m.
\2\ Includes Hand and Machine Pile acres.
Question 22. How many projects do you intend to implement this
fiscal year under the Farm Bill Insect and Disease Treatment Areas
authority? Please include how many acres you believe will be treated,
and where those acres are.
Answer. Currently, nine farm bill projects have been entered in the
Agency's Planning Appeals and Litigation System (PALS) database. Seven
are categorical exclusions and two are EAs. Two of the seven CEs have
decisions associated with them, and the Forest Service plans to
implement them this year. The estimated size of these two projects to
be implemented in FY 2015 is approximately 700 acres. The initial
projects were developed in California, Idaho, Montana, New York and
Utah where the new insect and disease provisions were identified as
appropriate tools to address insect and disease issues on units of the
National Forest System and where the projects are in areas where there
has been support from the state and other partners. These initial
projects will help the agency and its partners better understand and
implement the new CE authority while additional projects are
identified, planned and implemented.
Question 23. Please provide the Committee a detailed breakdown on
CFLR project accomplishments, particularly:
a. The state of NEPA documentation on CFLR projects, including:
Project selection date.
Date of scoping initiation.
NEPA documentation method selected (Decision Notice,
CE, EA, EIS).
NEPA completion date (signed final EIS).
b. How many acres have actually been treated on each CFLR project.
Answer. The agency has funded 23 projects through the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Through the CFLRP, the agency and
partners have made significant progress in reducing wildfire threats
while exceeding the 5 year target for timber volume sold by nearly 25
percent. In addition to making 1.45 million acres more resilient to
wildfire, the program improved the health of 1.33 million acres of
wildlife habitat, and helped local economies support an average of
4,360 jobs each year.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
from Illinois
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has proposed
a new rule (``the proposed rule'') that would revise Agricultural
Quarantine and Inspection (AQI) fees on commercial transportation
arriving at U.S. ports. This proposed new rule would affect incoming
aircraft, ships, trucks and railroad cars. According to the summary of
the proposed rule, APHIS is:
[We are] proposing to amend the user fee regulations by
adding new fee categories and adjusting current fees charged
for certain agricultural quarantine and inspection services
that are provided in connection with certain commercial
vessels, commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars,
commercial aircraft, and international passengers arriving at
ports in the customs territory of the United States. We are
also proposing to adjust or remove the fee caps associated with
commercial trucks, commercial vessels, and commercial railcars.
We have determined that revised user fee categories and revised
user fees are necessary to recover the costs of the current
level of activity, to account for actual and projected
increases in the cost of doing business, and to more accurately
align fees with the costs associated with each fee service.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Summary of Proposed Rule available at http://
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0021-0002 (last
visited Feb. 11, 2015).
However, according to certain industries, under the proposed fee
structure, a single international passenger flight would pay somewhere
between $225 and $1,800 in AQI fees. In contrast, an all-cargo flight
(regardless of size and how much cargo it is carrying) would pay a flat
fee of $225. Private flights (regardless of size and how many
passengers or how much cargo it is carrying) would pay nothing at all.
All flights--as you know--are subject to inspection.
It is unclear to individuals and entities outside of government
what level engagement APHIS had with industry and affected parties,
prior to drafting the proposed rule. In the future, I would encourage
APHIS and any other rulemaking body to engage in dialogue with affected
parties prior to proposing rules.
As to my questions and requests, please provide the following
documents and information to the U.S. House Agriculture Committee and
my personal office:
b A narrative justifying the proposed fee structure and its failure
to account for commercial carrier's cargo size.
b All documents and communications related to the analysis APHIS did
to determine the proposed fee structure.
b All AQI cost data for both commercial cargo and passenger aircraft.
With regard to passenger aircraft, identify which AQI costs for
these flights are not covered by air-passenger paid AQI fees.
b A narrative justifying APHIS' decision to collect amounts from air
passengers that exceed their inspection costs in order to fund
reserves rather than collect amounts from commercial air
passengers.
Answer. USDA agrees that stakeholder engagement is an important
part of rulemaking; and in that spirit, went to great lengths to
educate interested parties and obtain their feedback about this rule.
Throughout the process, APHIS held meetings with industry and affected
parties to:
Explore potential regulatory alternatives to adjusting user
fees,
Determine the need for a formal review of AQI user fees,
Share the user fee review methodology,
Provide an overview of the detailed findings of the user fee
review,
Explain the proposed user fee adjustments, and
Receive feedback from affected stakeholders on the proposed
changes.
In total, APHIS conducted six formal stakeholder meetings between
2011 and 2015 along with numerous small group meetings with affected
stakeholders upon request. In addition, APHIS published information on
its site about the user fee review, including two reports prepared by
Grant Thornton on the fee setting process and the comprehensive
findings of the review. In April 2014, when APHIS published the
proposed rule to adjust user fees, the Agency conducted extensive
outreach to impacted and interested stakeholders. This included
briefings for House Agriculture Committee staff and other congressional
Committees; courtesy calls and direct emails to representatives of
affected industries, national associations, and potentially interested
industry groups; and a conference call with interested stakeholders. In
addition, APHIS sent messages through the APHIS Stakeholder Registry to
announce the proposed changes and inform stakeholders of upcoming
stakeholder meetings. Messages sent via the Registry in 2014 and 2015
were delivered to more than 11,000 unique subscribers.
b A narrative justifying the proposed fee structure and its failure
to account for commercial carrier's cargo size.
APHIS followed federal guidance, including OMB A-25, Government
Accountability Office (GAO) guidance for fee setting, and Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement of Accounting Standards
Number 4, to appropriately account for the AQI program costs used to
determine the appropriate fees. The proposed fees represent the true
cost to the Federal government for providing AQI services for
commercial air carriers for cargo and passenger inspection. All
arriving international commercial flights, except those specifically
exempted under 7 CFR 354.3(e)(2) (exclusive government aircraft,
emergency landings, etc.) are subject to inspection because they may
pose a sanitary or phytosanitary risk and are therefore subject to
paying the commercial airline user fees.
In establishing AQI user fees, the proposed rule did not
differentiate based on cargo size. Any cargo could carry insect pests,
weed seeds, waste material from garbage, or other waste that is capable
of harboring animal disease and may therefore be subject to inspection.
Rather, the costs of our AQI activities were made contingent upon the
time and effort required of APHIS and Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) staff to perform those activities identified via activity based
cost modeling. Those activities must be performed regardless of the
size or volume of the shipment; therefore, the size of the shipment
does not determine the amount of the fees.
b All AQI cost data for both commercial cargo and passenger aircraft.
With regard to passenger aircraft, identify which AQI costs for
these flights are not covered by air-passenger paid AQI fees.
The 2010, 2011 and 2012 actual cost data for both air passenger and
commercial aircraft used in the model for calculating the proposed fees
are available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-
2013-0021.
The air passenger fee covers the cost of inspections related to
passengers and the passenger and crew compartments of the plane, while
the commercial aircraft fee covers cargo-related inspection costs.
Specifically, the air passenger fee covers the costs for, among other
things, screening passengers upon arrival for agricultural products by
CBP Agriculture Specialists and CBP Officers; inspecting baggage using
CBP agriculture canines and specialized non-intrusive inspection
equipment; inspecting the interior of the passenger aircraft;
monitoring the storage and removal of regulated international garbage
from the aircraft; safeguarding and disposing of any seized or
abandoned prohibited agricultural products; and identifying pests found
on prohibited agricultural products brought into the country by air
passengers.
The commercial aircraft fee charged to passenger flights covers,
among other things, costs incurred in reviewing manifests and
documentation accompanying incoming cargo; targeting higher-risk cargo
for inspection or clearance; inspecting agricultural and agricultural-
related commodities, international mail, expedited courier packages,
containers, wood packaging and other packing materials and determining
entry status; inspecting the aircraft hold or exterior for
contaminants, pests, or invasive species; identifying pests found
during those inspections; and safeguarding shipments pending PPQ
determination for treatment or final disposition. If cargo being
transported on a passenger flight requires treatment due to pest
infestation, there would be an additional fee for such treatment.
b A narrative justifying APHIS' decision to collect amounts from air
passengers that exceed their inspection costs in order to fund
reserves rather than collect amounts from commercial air
passengers.
The proposed air passenger fee is $4 per passenger--a reduction of
$1 from the current fee structure--and represents the true cost to the
Federal government for providing AQI services. Section 2509(a) of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 136a,
FACT Act) authorizes APHIS to establish fees in a reasonable manner to
recover funds spent on safeguarding activities. In addition to
authorizing APHIS to collect user fees for inspection and related
activities, the FACT Act directs APHIS to ensure that the fees cover
the costs of administering the user fee program and maintaining a
reasonable balance, also known as a ``reserve,'' to ensure that funding
is available in the event that there are temporary reductions in the
demand for AQI services leading to reduced fee collections, as was
experienced in the past. As there are fixed costs (i.e., cost that do
not fluctuate with demand for AQI services) that the program incurs, a
reserve is needed to ensure continuity of service in times of reduced
fee collection. This provides certainty to importers regarding the
availability of inspection services. In addition, the FACT Act, as
amended, also requires that the cost of AQI services with respect to
passengers as a class should include the cost of inspections of the
aircraft or other conveyance. In the case of air passengers, the
inspection of the aircraft includes the passenger and crew
compartments.
b All documents and communications related to the analysis APHIS did
to determine the proposed fee structure.
In April 2014, APHIS published the proposed rule, User Fees for
Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Services, with a 60 day comment
period that was extended 30 days. APHIS made several documents
available with the proposed rule outlining the data used and analysis
conducted in support of the proposed fee structure. These documents,
``Fee Setting Process Documentation and Recommendations, October 2011''
and ``AQI Fee Schedule Assessment and Alternatives, May 2012'' along
with the approximately 250 stakeholder comments submitted on the
proposal are available at http://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0021.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the docket, in toto is retained in Committee file.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, on the subject of pollinators and
pollinator health, I have the following questions:
What research is currently being conducted on proper habitat and
nutrition for managed bees? Are forage and nutrition significant
contributors to bee health? How significant is the Varroa mite problem
for bee health and what steps is the Department taking to address this
problem?
Answer. Currently, investigations are underway through the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS). These investigations study the
nutritional needs of colonies throughout the year and the effects of
nutritional stress on immunity, queen retention, and colony growth and
survival. Studies are conducted at multiple levels. At the molecular
level, the role of beneficial microbes in the bees and the colony food
stores are being investigated by scientists in Tucson, Arizona, to
determine the contributions of microbial communities to nutrient
synthesis and food digestion and storage.
The effects of nutrition on the chemical communication system in
the colony, especially as it relates to worker-queen interactions, also
are being investigated. This is particularly important due to high
queen losses experienced by commercial beekeepers. Studies were
conducted comparing the nutritional quality of supplemental diets and
natural forage and the effects on colony health. The resulting pathogen
loads, and queen and overwintering colony loss, were determined and
found to be higher in colonies fed the supplements. The nutritional
analyses can serve as a basis for improving the nutritional quality of
commercially available supplements. The study results pointed to the
need for natural forage to ensure colony health and survival.
ARS scientists in Logan, Utah, are also evaluating the use of
Conservation Reserve Program acreages to provide floral forage to
multiply alfalfa leafcutting bees to supplement commercial populations
for alfalfa seed production. Canadian populations must now be bought to
pollinate alfalfa for seed. After 2 years of successful pilot trials,
the scientists are now monitoring commercial production efforts (in
collaboration with Forage Genetics). ARS scientists are quantifying
pollen and nectar production, the bees' nest cell production, and
specific losses (e.g., release dispersal) and mortality factors that
subtract from reproduction. Sweet clover is delivering annual,
profitable population increases, which will be improved once several
pestilence problems are fixed.
ARS scientists are addressing the continued feeding and
reproduction of blue orchard bees for almond pollination after that
crop's petal fall. Working with commercial growers, they are field-
testing growing flowering resources that bloom right after almond,
monitoring flower use, and later, provisioning and reproduction back at
the nests. This promising strategy is needed to sustain these
pollinators' managed populations for almond pollination, thus making it
an economically attractive complement to honey bees.
These scientists are also studying ways to improve shelter designs
for managed leafcutting bees. Diverse shelter designs in use today vary
greatly in interior microclimate, and some are harmful (too hot) for
bees or their progeny. Shelter design may also be influencing when and
under what conditions healthy diapausing (a state of metabolic arrest
similar to hibernating bears) alfalfa leafcutting bee brood is
produced. The goal is to understand variation in shelter microclimate
so that changes to design and/or board placement can provide
environmental conditions most favorable for brood production.
ARS scientists are studying ways to improve the acceptability and
practicality of nesting materials for cavity-nesting mason bee species,
such as the blue orchard bee, which are useful for pollinating western
U.S. berry and nut (almond) crops. New and practical designs are being
tested to improve a prototype design by ARS of an affordable, portable
nesting shelter. Alternate cavity designs to supplant straw inserts in
polystyrene nesting boards are being explored with a manufacturer. A
foolproof emergence box design has been designed and tested. A bee
nesting attractant product was developed and a patent application has
been filed. This product attracts blue orchard bees to nesting blocks,
thus increasing the ability to maintain these orchard pollinators in
commercial domiciles.
ARS scientists recently completed studies about wildflowers used by
bees and grazing management practices, specifically their effect on the
abundance and diversity of wildflowers utilized as forage by native
bees in rangeland pastures of Wyoming. They found that, over time, a
large-scale (30,000 acres) nest-rotation, pasture management scheme
used by The Nature Conservancy led to less bare ground and shrub cover
and more grass for cattle to eat. Wildflower diversity and densities
remained mostly the same, although highly variable from pasture to
pasture. At more favorable sites and years, wildflowers used by bees
benefited. In harsh sites or drought years, the effect was not
apparent.
NIFA also funds extramural research to address honey bee nutrition.
NIFA-funded researchers at Iowa State University a combination of
laboratory and field-based studies to examine the effects of three
viruses and nutritional stress on worker bees and their colonies to
determine whether these two negative factors together can cause the
symptoms of CCD. These findings may lead to changes in apicultural
management, such as: more informed virus quarantine practices, colony
supplementation with multi-source pollen when bees are nutritionally
stressed, allowing bees to forage on crops of high nutritional value
after low, and encouraging farmers and beekeepers to use land
management practices that increase floral diversity.
NIFA-funded researchers at University of Florida, Gainesville are
assessing the effects of exposure to pesticides and other xenobiotics
on the survival, health and productivity of honey bee colonies and
pollinator abundance and diversity. One component of this project is to
determine how land management practices affect pollinator nutrition and
how nutation affects honey bee colony productivity and success in the
context of pesticide and xenobiotic exposure.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) supports
surveys and research to protect the health of honey bees and other
pollinators. APHIS is funding projects with the Pollinator Partnership
to test the associations between honey bees and common nursery plants
to determine the current capacity of the nursery industry to promote
bee forage. In addition, this will help identify plants for which the
nursery industry should actively investigate alternative pest and
disease management strategies. In addition, Project Apis m. is
conducting an APHIS-funded study to support an increase in the quality
and amount of habitat and forage for honey bees, and to relate the
impact of that forage on mitigating honey bee pests and diseases.
USDA is also monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of CRP and
EQIP conservation covers established to provide honey bees and other
pollinators with nutritious forage habitat. FSA and NRCS have entered
into an agreement with USGS's Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
to identify the plants used by honey bee colonies in 5 states:
Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. This
information will combined with observations of colony survival rates to
enhance USDA honey bee conservation effectiveness. In addition, FSA has
agreements or contracts with USGS in Ft. Collins, the Oklahoma State
University USGS Cooperative Study Unit, Iowa State University, and the
Pollinator Partnership to monitor and assess the effectiveness of
various CRP practices on honey bee productivity and native pollinator
use.
As for the Varroa mite problem, Varroa is one of the most important
threats to honey bee health worldwide. Beekeepers rely on a variety of
control measures including resistant lines of bees, two of which were
developed by ARS scientists in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that have won
Federal Consortium Technology Transfer awards. Other measures include
chemical and non-chemical control strategies, e.g., the commercial
HopGuard developed by ARS scientists in Tucson, Arizona.
ARS continues to screen compounds for activity in controlling
Varroa. Research into the interactions of Varroa and viruses is ongoing
and ARS is involved in working to control Varroa with a variety of
sustainable techniques, including RNAi (gene silencing) and biological
control agents.
NIFA also funds a variety of work on pests and diseases of
pollinators. University of Minnesota extension specialists are
assisting honeybee queen breeders in selecting for hygienic behavior, a
trait that helps bees defend against Varroa mites and two other
diseases, American foulbrood and chalk brood.
NIFA-funded Cornell scientists are testing the hypothesis that
producing smaller colonies will give the mites fewer opportunities to
reproduce and so will lower the per capita level of mite infestation of
the bees.
NIFA-funded researchers at Penn State University are investigating
the overall role of formulation ingredients added to chemicals used to
control Varroa mites. The bulk of synthetic organic chemicals are
formulation ingredients, generally recognized as safe, having no
mandated tolerances, and whose residues remain unmonitored. Surfactants
and solvents are showing high eco-toxicity to fish, amphibians, honey
bees and other non-target organisms.
Varroa mites are a particularly detrimental honey bee pest so APHIS
is supporting research to monitor for resistance to pesticides used for
Varroa control. APHIS also collaborated with ARS and EPA to register
oxalic acid as an active ingredient in pesticides for Varroa control.
In addition, ARS and North Carolina State University are investigating
interactions between Varroa and viruses through APHIS-funded projects.
Question 2a. Two summits on pollinator health were conducted last
year on the impact of Varroa (February) and forage and nutrition
(October). When will the findings from those summits be finalized and
made public?
Answer. The proceedings from the Varroa Mite Summit and the Forage
and Nutrition Summit are completed, have been reviewed by USDA and EPA,
and have been released in support of the Strategy developed in response
to the Presidential Memorandum on Creating a Federal Strategy to
Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators.
Question 2b. Reliable data on bee population is challenging to
find. What work is USDA doing to create a reliable system for a bee
census so that a baseline can be determined?
Answer. USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
plans to measure colony loss on a quarterly basis. Survey work is
anticipated to begin this spring. The current plans are for NASS to
publish its first colony loss estimates in April 2016.
Additionally for FY 2016, NASS has requested an increase of
$500,000 for Pollinator Health Surveys as part of the government-wide
Pollinator Health Initiative on Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). These
additional funds will allow NASS to collaborate with USDA and other
Federal partners to create an annual survey designed with the primary
purpose of providing:
(a) Improved baseline data and annual data to determine the extent
of CCD,
(b) Quantitative information on potential causal factors.
(c) Enable more analysis of the Colony Loss survey data;
(d) Determine if a larger sample size is needed for the Colony Loss
surveys;
(e) Discover if and the extent to which pollination costs for any
commodities have increased in association with CCD; and
(f) Enable more analysis of the pollination cost data.
NASS is committed to collaborating with USDA and the other
departments on a unified and complementary approach to develop and
support the Pollinator Health Initiative. This will allow NASS and its
collaborators to address critical information needs at an accelerated
pace and guide honey bee management at a national scale.
Question 2c. EPA has encouraged State Departments of Agriculture to
work with local stakeholders to determine the best practices for
managed pollinator partnership plans. How is USDA coordinating with
State Departments of Agriculture and providing any needed expertise or
resources to help the departments develop plans?
Answer. The USDA Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) staff is
participating in the process with the American Association Pest Control
Officials (AAPCO), which is the association that is spearheading the
development of these plans. OPMP staff is also involved with individual
states, and the land-grant universities in those states, in the
development of the crop specific pollinator plans. USDA also contracted
with the Pollinator Partnership in producing baseline data on adoption
of best management practices by major cropping systems in protecting
honey bees. That report was posted in 2014.
Question 2d. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that
findings from research and other pollinator-related activities are
coordinated with any actions EPA is taking to enhance bee health?
Answer. USDA-ARS has worked closely over the past few years with
EPA to enhance our understanding of the potential role of pesticide
exposure on pollinator health. Activities include several ARS
scientists serving on an EPA Science Advisory Panel to examine protocol
testing and potential improvements needed to test for sub-lethal
effects. ARS scientists have worked closely with EPA to design research
protocols that would generate data to inform EPA of potential pesticide
impacts. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Scientific Advisory Panels (SAP), providing a public review of their
reports, include:
Characterization and non-target organism data requirements
for protein plant pesticides, Arlington, VA, 1999.
Bt plant pesticides risk and benefit assessments, Arlington,
VA, 2000.
Pollinator Risk Assessment Framework, Arlington, VA, Sept.
11-14, 2012. Jenkins, R., M. Berenbaum, K. Delcos, N.
Fefferman, G. Hunt, R. James, S. Klaine, J. McManaman, N.
Ostiguy, J. Pettis, J. Pistorius, T. L. Potter, M. Sandy, A.
Schwab, D. Schlenck, D. Tarpy. A set of scientific issues being
considered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
regarding pollinator risk assessment framework. Advisory Panel
Meeting Sept. 11-14, 2012. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. (Government Report).
The Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, has hosted two
workshops specifically for EPA personnel to help educate individuals
within EPA on pollinator biology. ARS continues to consult regularly
with EPA on a variety of pollinator related issues, including sub-
lethal pesticide effects and the need for alternative Varroa mite
controls. ARS worked closely with EPA in 2015 to bring a new mite
control product to market, oxalic acid, which provides a new tool to
beekeepers to manage Varroa mites.
Another contribution is in the area of bee and mite population
modeling. Quantifying the effects of pesticides on honey bees is
difficult due to the social structure of colonies. Effects from
sublethal exposure to pesticides might not be obvious or immediate. One
tool that may facilitate the evaluation of pesticide effects on honey
bees that also incorporates multiple stressors that bees encounter is a
model that simulates the processes of a honey bee colony and the
impacts on the colony following pesticide exposures.
There are several models in the literature with varying levels of
complexity and evaluation (e.g., validation with empirical data,
analysis of model sensitivity and uncertainty); however, none of the
models were considered suitable for pesticide risk assessments in a
regulatory context by the EPA because the models did not adequately
account for effects of pesticides on bees.
When reviewing the existing honey bee colony models, EPA identified
the BEEPOP model developed by ARS scientists in Tucson, Arizona, as one
of the most important of the colony simulation models given that
portions of other models that simulate in-hive dynamics are based on
BEEPOP. The model allows for consideration of site-specific weather,
which makes the model transferrable to different locations in the
United States. Furthermore, ARS scientists updated BEEPOP to include
the effects of Varroa mite infestation and treatments on colony growth
and survival (VARROAPOP). ARS scientists are now working with EPA to
incorporate pesticide exposure in the VARROAPOP model to determine the
effects on colony population dynamics. With these modifications,
VARROAPOP will be readily parameterized using existing biological and
pesticide-specific data to determine the effects of pesticides on
colony growth and survival.
ARS scientists also contribute to EPA collaboration by presenting
talks, e.g., the Webinar, ``3,500 Species of bees: what to do with them
all?'' for the Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, VA, 2011.
ARS and other USDA, EPA, and other government agencies also
participate in the Bee Health and Colony Collapse Disorder Steering
Committee (since 2007) and now the Pollinator Health Task Force,
initiated in response to a memorandum by President Obama on pollinator
health (2014).
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted S. Yoho, a Representative in Congress
from Florida
Question 1. Secretary Vilsack, in most instances, fine schedules
are made public, for example with traffic infractions, because the
public has a right to know.
In that same regard, the general public has a right to know how
government agencies, like USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), calculate fines. Could you tell me why USDA or APHIS
have not shared the table of penalty guidelines as disclosed in a March
2013 press release with the regulated community? As I understand it,
some in the regulated community were denied the opportunity to see this
information by FOIA and even Members of both the House and Senate are
still waiting for a response to a letter asking for this.
Secretary Vilsack, transparency in government is an important facet
of democracy and a pillar of principle with the current Administration.
I and several other Members requested to see information regarding a
table of penalty guidelines that USDA and APHIS use to enforce the
Animal Welfare Act. Could you tell me, so I may share with my
colleagues, the status of our request to see the table and when could
we expect a response?
Answer. I appreciate your interest in this issue and am happy to
provide you with additional information on this issue. As outlined in
my June 9, 2014, response to your and several other Members' letter on
this issue, APHIS takes into account four factors outlined by the
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) for assessing penalties: (1) the size of the
business; (2) the gravity of the violation(s); (3) whether or not the
regulated entity has shown good faith; and (4) the history of previous
violations. APHIS staff would be happy to brief you or your staff on
the factors we take into consideration in determining penalties under
the AWA.
While I understand the interest in reviewing the AWA penalty
guidelines themselves, USDA has not provided the guidelines in their
entirety to the regulated community or others because the guidelines
contain agency procedures and techniques for enforcing the AWA and
assessing penalties for violations of the AWA. Moreover, release of
these guidelines could lead to circumvention of the AWA. For example,
the penalty guidelines contain additional information considered policy
and guidance that would allow licensees to calculate the cost of doing
business with certain AWA violations and to circumvent the penalty
assessment. Additionally, subjects of enforcement actions may try to
use them as a basis for arguing for reduced penalties in their own
cases. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the version of the
redacted guidelines we have released previously, I am happy to provide
it to you. In addition, I am sharing below a simplified version of the
AWA penalty worksheet that has been released publicly by the USDA
Office of Inspector General and provides a general overview of how
penalties are currently calculated.
Table 1 Simplified Penalty Worksheet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWA Maximum Penalty for One Violation $10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factors to Consider Range of Reduction Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of Business...... \1\ 0 to 50% ($5,000)
Prior History......... 0 to 30% ($3,000)
Gravity............... 0 to 17% ($1,700)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penalty Subtotal $300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Faith............ 0 or 25% of Penalty ($75)
Subtotal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OGC Amount \2\ $225
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement............ 0 or 75% of OGC Amount \3\ ($169)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Stipulation $56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary......... Up to R30% of Initial ($17)
Stipulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Stipulation \4\ $39
Highest Reduction Possible \5\ 99.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This reduction is up to 50 percent for dealers. For all others, the
reduction is up to 43 percent.
\2\ The OGC amount may also be affected by the use of the discretionary
reduction.
\3\ The actual effect of this reduction in most of the cases we reviewed
was significantly higher than all other reductions on the worksheet.
\4\ This hypothetical example is for one violation only; stipulations
usually include fines for multiple violations, which would increase
the stipulation accordingly.
\5\ This is the highest reduction possible; the highest reduction in the
cases we reviewed was 97 percent.
I would like to note, however, that the USDA Office of Inspector
General published an audit in December 2014 that focused on APHIS'
oversight of research facilities. OIG raised concerns with respect to
two examples of reduced penalties that APHIS had calculated; therefore,
the Agency is reviewing the penalty guidelines and worksheets to
determine whether APHIS should adjust the reductions offered when
determining penalties under the AWA.
Questions Submitted by Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in
Congress from Massachusetts
Question 1. I have heard from farmers in my district with questions
about H.R. 609, the Safe Food Act of 2015, which would establish a
single Federal food safety agency. What are your thoughts on this
legislation? How might it impact animal and meat inspections by USDA
and USDA food safety programs such as GAP and harmonized GAP?
Answer. While USDA has not fully evaluated the Safe Food Act,
proposals such as H.R. 609 are part of a larger conversation on
improving public health.
The Administration's FY 16 budget included a proposal for a single
food safety agency. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that
48 million Americans are affected by foodborne illness each year.
128,000 of these individuals become hospitalized and 3,000 die. It is
clear that the food safety system could benefit from increased
coordination beyond the extensive efforts that already exist. Nothing
about the way FSIS conducts its work changes as a result of the
President's proposal. This is an initial step in what, if it goes
forward, will be a long process. Constant line inspection is the
cornerstone of FSIS' work and the President's budget requests $1.012
billion dollars in operational funds for FSIS to continue this year
within USDA. FSIS employees will continue their important work of
ensuring the safety of America's supply of meat, poultry and processed
egg products.
Question 2. I have also heard from several farmers about the issue
of soil health. I understand that NRCS has a main focus on soil health
and works with growers nationally on the importance of soil health for
successful crop production and environmental stewardship. What role, if
any, does EPA have in soil health? Does USDA have a plan to work
cooperatively with EPA on soil health?
Answer. USDA-NRCS has a major emphasis on Soil Health and works
with many partners to promote soil health systems and practices. Fully
functioning, healthy soils absorb and retain more water, cycle
nutrients better, are easier to manage, and suppress pests and
pathogens more effectively. Healthy soils are more resilient to drought
as they store more water that plants can access. With lower runoff and
erosion during heavy rainfall, the risk of flooding of downstream
communities and water pollution is reduced, and food production can be
maintained even with extreme weather events. Additionally, soil health
management practices help maintain biodiversity, including supporting
habitat and food for agriculturally critical pollinators, among other
important functions.
USDA-NRCS has been working to expand the tools and approaches and
partnerships to accelerate the adoption of soil health management
systems (SHMS). In 2014, USDA awarded $9.5 M in NRCS Conservation
Innovation Grants to 23 partners in 24 states to evaluate and increase
adoption of SHMS. The new Regional Conservation Partnership Program
awarded at least 17 projects with a soil health focus in FY 2015. A
National Cover Crop and Soil Health Conference in 2014 conducted in
partnership with the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, reached
approximately 6,000 landowners on the benefits of cover crops and SHMS.
USDA already partners with many entities to enhance soil health, and is
open to expanding that partnership to include any agency or
organization with a mission and an interest in adoption of soil health
management systems.
EPA's Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee
(FRRCC) established in 2008, provides independent policy advice,
information, and recommendations to the Administrator on a range of
environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture
and rural communities. In January 2015, this Committee dedicated its
deliberations to soil health and the environmental benefits of healthy
soils. Those deliberations culminated in discussions about
opportunities to advance soil health, agricultural certainty, and
outreach to agriculture. So while soil health is not a specific mission
for EPA, the agency has demonstrated interest in the potential benefits
of soil health practices related to issues over which the agency has
regulatory responsibilities, such as water or air quality.
Question 3. The rule for the Agriculture Conservation Easement
Program (ACEP) is pending at the White House Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Do you have an estimate on when that rule will be
published? Because this program was a consolidation of three well-known
existing programs, the need for stakeholder engagement and farmer
education will be significant. Can you tell us what your plan is to get
farmers and organizations up to speed on the new program and rule
changes so we can best utilize this program? What is the timeline for
that process?
Answer. The ACEP Interim Rule was published on February 27, 2015
and has a 60 day public comment period that ended April 28, 2015. NRCS
will be conducting outreach and providing educational opportunities to
stakeholders through a series of instructional and question and answer
webinars. For example, NRCS will provide `ACEP-ALE 101' and `ACEP-ALE
Certification Process' webinars for partners in April. Additionally, at
the invitation of various stakeholder groups, NRCS State and National
Headquarters staff will be participating in stakeholder meetings over
the coming months to provide information and address questions. NRCS is
also providing extensive training for Agency employees at the state
level to ensure that they are well equipped to provide assistance to
interested applicants on the new ACEP policy and procedures. Throughout
April, NRCS will participate in a series of at least four live net-
conferences hosted by Tribes to provide specific information and answer
questions on the ACEP related to Tribal lands and opportunities for
Tribes to participate in the program.
Question 4. I understand that because the ACEP rule is currently
under review you can't talk about specific provisions, but I would like
to take this opportunity to highlight the need to make this program
work for farmers of all sizes--specifically access to this program for
beginning and new farmers. As you know, the farm bill included specific
language that talked about the viability of these easements for keeping
land in agriculture and keeping farmers on the farm. That is especially
critical to my constituents in Massachusetts. Can you talk about your
strategy for beginning farmers and this program?
Answer. During the process of developing and finalizing the interim
rule, NRCS actively engaged the stakeholder community to outline key
statutory changes. NRCS paid attention to the needs of beginning and
new farmers in the process. For example, the ACEP interim rule
addresses important issues such as, identifying as a criterion for
projects of special significance whether a farm or ranch is operated
for the purpose of increasing participation in agriculture and natural
resource conservation by under-served communities, veterans, beginning
farmers or ranchers, or farmers or ranchers with disabilities.
NRCS has skilled professionals at the field level who work with
beginning and new farmers as well as other historically under-served
producers, to recommend conservation solutions to their current natural
resource concerns that may be available under ACEP, and assist with
establishing long-term viability of their operations through ACEP and
other NRCS programs. In addition to its dedicated county staff, NRCS
has entered partnership agreements with Community Based Organizations,
Tribal Organizations, 1890 and 1994 Land-Grant Institutions, to expand
the agency's reach to historically under-served farmers and ranchers.
Question 5. I have also received questions about regional equity,
which as I understand, is no longer based on a flat $15 million
minimum, but on a percent of overall funding. Can you tell me what that
percentage will likely translate to in available dollars per state this
year?
Answer. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) revised the
calculation for regional equity from a flat amount of $15 million per
state to a calculated amount based on 0.6 percent of the funding made
available for the conservation programs authorized under subtitle D,
(except the Conservation Reserve Program), subtitle H, and subtitle I
of the Food Security Act of 1985. For FY 2015, the regional equity
calculation for the covered programs is shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Funding Provided RE per State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EQIP $1,347,000,000 $8,082,000
ACEP 393,975,000 2,363,850
RCPP 92,700,000 556,200
CStP 1,164,151,375 6,954,908
-----------------------------------------------
Total................. 1,950,477,000 17,956,958
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States are required to annually submit a State Resource Assessment
that reports on the resource needs in the State and demonstrates the
State's ability to use at least 0.6 percent of the funds made
available, as required by Section 1241(e) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841), as amended by section 2603 of the 2014 Farm
Bill. The State Resource Assessment is the basis, in part, for
allocating available funding across the States.
Question 6. I have also received questions about allocations
between the ALE and WRE programs. How will USDA decide allocations
between ALE and WRE this year? What percent of FA will go to each? What
percent of TA?
Answer. NRCS is implementing Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program (ACEP) to respond to demand on an annual basis and is not
establishing a funding split between the Agricultural Lands Easement
(ALE) and Wetlands Reserve Easement (WRE) components of ACEP over the
life of the farm bill. We anticipate that the funding proportion will
fluctuate reflecting partner and landowner demand and the dynamic
nature of agricultural lands.
Funding for ACEP is less than \1/2\ of that previously available
under the repealed programs (Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), and the Farm and Ranch Lands
Protection Program (FRPP)). Despite reduced funding, in FY 2014, 90,000
acres of farm and ranch lands were enrolled in ACEP-ALE; about 46
percent of the historic average acres under FRPP/GRP. Over 55,000 acres
of wetlands were restored and protected through new ACEP-WRE; about 31
percent of the historic average acres under WRP. NRCS worked diligently
to provide an equitable allocation of acres and funds across states and
will continue to do so in FY 2015.
Question 7. Overall, I am pleased with the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program in the new farm bill. Can you talk about ways we
can encourage partnerships back home in our districts? What have you
seen as successful projects so far and how can we apply lessons learned
to our own states? For those projects that weren't selected, will NRCS
be giving us more information as to how those applications can rise to
the top during the next round?
Answer. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)
demonstrates the importance of strong public-private partnerships in
delivering local solutions to tough natural resource challenges. In the
first offering of RCPP funding, over 230 strong final proposals were
submitted by partners nationwide, and of those 115 proposals were
selected for funding. These final projects demonstrated strong, diverse
partnerships; leveraged significant contributions to the project;
showed innovative solutions to identified natural resource challenges;
and an emphasis on demonstrating positive results.
NRCS is committed to continuing outreach work to engage with
interested partners to expand the reach of RCPP and further leverage
the federal investments. NRCS provided feedback to partners who were
not selected for funding in order to help improve future proposals the
partners may wish to submit. On the RCPP website, NRCS provided
guidance about strengths and opportunities for improvements for
applications submitted at the pre-proposal stage.
NRCS plans to increase webinars and outreach meetings, both
nationally and at the state level, once the FY 2016 RCPP Announcement
of Program Funding is released in April. Further, the agency is open to
and regularly meets with applicants that were not selected in the
initial round to provide additional feedback on ways to strengthen or
improve the application.
Question 8. Finally, the allegations of horrific animal welfare
abuse uncovered by The New York Times at the Agricultural Research
Service's (ARS) U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) shocked the
American public. During your testimony before the Committee on February
11th, you mentioned that some of the practices in the article were
outdated and no longer in use. Can you expand upon your comments? What
practices in the article have been phased out and what practices
described in the article are still in place?
Answer. The New York Times article alleging mistreatment of
livestock at USMARC is of great concern to me. Therefore, I established
an expert panel of veterinarians and experts in animal welfare to
review ARS's animal welfare policies, to assess the status of animals
at USMARC, and to make recommendations to address any shortcomings they
uncovered the draft report was released on March 9th (http://
www.ree.usda.gov/ree/news/USMARC_AWHR_Panel_Report_PrePublic_
Hearing_030602015.pdf).
The Department has solicited public input since release of the
draft report. On March 18, 2015, a public teleconference was convened
to present the expert panel's findings. A public email address has
received thousands of comments. And on April 14, 2015, the NAREEE
Advisory Board held a public teleconference to share their review of
the expert panel report, offer their comments, and listen to public
input. The final report will be provided to the committee upon
completion.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Representative in
Congress from Arizona
Question 1. What have USDA and the USDA Office of Tribal Relations
done to expand outreach efforts to assist Native American farmers and
ranchers start and grow their businesses? What has USDA done to address
underutilization of the Farm Service Agency and rural development
programs within our tribal communities? How is USDA working to assist
these under-served populations?
Answer. USDA provides outreach to Native American Farmers and
Ranchers at the federal level as well as the state level. The USDA
Office of Tribal Relations in the Office of the Secretary (OTR) serves
as a singular point of contact for Tribal leaders, representatives,
producers, and business owners seeking to gain more information on the
USDA programs that can benefit their Tribe, business, or organization.
The OTR works to ensure questions are answered and to arrange meetings
with local USDA representatives in the tribes'/farmers'/ranchers'
locale as well as in Washington, D.C. Through the Secretary's
StrikeForce Initiative for Rural Growth and Opportunity, targeted
assistance addressing poverty has been the focus in 880 counties,
parishes, Colonias, boroughs and tribal reservations across 21 states
and Puerto Rico.
The Office of Tribal Relations administers the USDA Council for
Native American Farming and Ranching (CNAFR), a FACA Committee
established pursuant to the Keepseagle legal settlement. The CNAFR has
made numerous recommendations to the Secretary that have resulted in
USDA programs becoming better accessible to tribes and tribal citizens
and other historically disadvantaged communities as well as small and
beginning farmers and ranchers.
The role of the CNAFR is to:
advise the Secretary of Agriculture on issues related to the
participation of Native American farmers and ranchers in USDA
programs including farm loan programs;
transmit recommendations concerning any changes to USDA
regulations or internal guidance or other measures that would
eliminate barriers to program participation for Native American
farmers and ranchers;
examine methods of maximizing the number of new farming and
ranching opportunities created through USDA programs through
enhanced extension and financial literacy services;
examine methods of encouraging intergovernmental cooperation
to mitigate the effects of land tenure and probate issues on
the delivery of USDA programs;
evaluate other methods of creating new farming or ranching
opportunities for Native American producers; and
address other related issues as deemed appropriate.
In FY 2013, USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) provided over $71
million in direct farm loans to 1,200 Native American-owned farming and
ranching businesses. These funds were used to purchase land, equipment,
and breed stock. The program assists Native American farms and ranches
with their initial financing needs, providing the ability to create or
enhance credit and strengthen small businesses, to improve rural
economies. Additionally, the Agency guaranteed over $35 million in
commercial loans made to Native American farmers and ranchers. In the
last 5 years the Agency has made or guaranteed $470 million in
assistance to Native American farmers and ranchers. Additionally, the
USDA Farm Service Agency is working closely with Treasury's Community
Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund and the Native American
CDFI Network to certify Native American owned CDFIs as eligible lenders
for FSA's Guaranteed Loan Program. This partnership of FSA and Native
CDFI's will improve access to capital for Native American farmers and
ranchers.
USDA made significant investments in economic development, housing
and infrastructure projects to benefit Tribes in 2014. For USDA Rural
Development alone, $290.8 million was invested to directly benefit
American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/AN).
USDA Rural Development Business Programs guaranteed four loans to
AI/AN-owned businesses. The loans provided $30.9 million in financing.
Additionally, 18 Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG) (totaling $2.7
million) and 11 Rural Business Opportunity Grants (RBOG) (totaling
$812,000) were awarded to Tribes and tribal entities, which will help
create and save AI/AN jobs. One RBOG award will be used by the United
South and Eastern Tribes (USET) to develop a comprehensive economic
development plan for 26 Tribes in the southern and eastern United
States, while the Passamaquoddy Tribe in Maine received a $99,500 RBEG
grant to establish a revolving loan fund for maple syrup businesses.
In Fiscal Year 2014 USDA Rural Development invested $12.7 million
to help Tribes finance essential community facilities including schools
and clinics. Twenty-nine grants ($4.1 million) were provided to 1994
Tribal Land-Grant Colleges and Universities through the USDA Rural
Development Community Facilities Program.
USDA loans and grants also provide much needed financing for AI/AN
families to purchase and repair single-family homes. This year, AI/AN
homeowners received 116 direct home loans ($14.8 million) and 961
Single Family Housing loan guarantees ($133.3 million). USDA also
provided $1.4 million, through 229 grants and loans to elderly and very
low income AI/AN homeowners to help make safety and efficiency repairs
and improvements to their homes.
Through the Housing Preservation Grant program, USDA provided
funding to assist tribes improve low income and elder housing in six
states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Washington). For
example, in California the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuillo and Cupeno
Indians received $50,000 to rehabilitate the homes of 15 tribal
families. The Nevada Rural Housing Authority also received $50,000 to
weatherize homes in four counties, including homes of tribal members.
In Washington, the Lummi Nation Housing Authority received over $54,000
to help 24 very-low-income Tribal families rehabilitate and repair
their homes.
In 2014, USDA's Telecommunications Programs provided 26 Distance
Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grants totaling $9.6 million to
entities serving Tribal lands. Funding helps grantees purchase
equipment to facilitate distance learning and telemedicine services.
Navajo Technical College received a DLT grant of $447,000 and the Saint
Regis Mohawk Tribe received $336,000 to create virtual learning and
telemedicine networks that will bolster educational opportunities and
facilitate AI access to specialized medical care.
USDA invested in 71 water and environmental projects benefiting
Tribal communities throughout FY 2014. In total $53.3 million directly
benefited AI/AN. Total development cost of these projects--including
funding from additional investors--totaled $147.7 million. Nearly 57
percent of the project financing came from USDA. In total, 18 of these
projects were in Alaska and 11were funded through the Rural Alaska
Village Grant program.
This year, USDA's Electric Programs invested $17.2 million in
direct loans to rural electric utilities. This investment brought new
and improved electric infrastructure to 10,086 Native American electric
consumers. USDA also provided four High Energy Cost Grants for Tribal
projects, totaling $6.2 million. Two of these grants were awarded to
the Anchorage-based Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, which serves
communities in Southwest Alaska, one was provided to the Denali
Commission and another was awarded to Sacred Power Corporation for
projects within the Navajo Nation.
Question 2. In 2010, you visited my District at the beginning of
the 4 Forest Restoration Initiative, to restore the fire adapted
ecosystems and prevent deadly forest fires in the Ronto, Kaibab,
Coconino, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. What additional
resources does the U.S. Forest Service need to expeditiously complete
the environmental impact study for 4FRI?
Answer. The final Record of Decision on the phase one environmental
impact study for 4FRI was signed April 17, 2015. The selected
alternative includes mechanical treatment on approximately 430,000,000
acres, and just under 600,000 acres of prescribed burning, in addition
to spring and stream channel restoration, road decommissioning, and
aspen and grassland restoration. This summer, the Kaibab and Coconino
will begin preparing timber from the EIS for harvest, and both forests
expect to issue task orders and contracts under the 4FRI project
beginning in late 2016. 4FRI is now shifting from a planning focus to
an implementation focus. The Forest Service continues to work toward
full staffing for successful implementation of the EIS.
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Representative in
Congress from New Mexico; on Behalf of David Sanchez, Vice President,
Northern New Mexico Stockman's Association
February 9, 2015
Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Subject: February 11, 2015 Agriculture Hearing Rural Economy
Honorable Representative Lujan Grisham,
Greetings, the purpose of this letter is to identify and
communicate Rural Economic issues and concerns for the upcoming
Agriculture House Committee [hearing] on the Rural Economy. Northern
New Mexico Stockman's Association represents twenty thousand farmers
and ranchers in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. These
farmers and ranchers are examples of the economic engines of rural
America. Their origins in agriculture are the longest standing in
record for the history of American Agriculture. The information in this
letter and the attached documents are being submitted for the upcoming
subject hearing on Rural Economy. The most important issue we can raise
for the hearing that impacts the rural economy of our state is the
availability of land and natural resources which directly sustain
agriculture families economically and also socially.
Important fact's to reference with regard to ``agriculture land
mass'' is the percentages of private property vs. Federal lands in the
rural counties. We would like to make example of just one county in our
state ``Rio Arriba'' in this economic scenario, only 22 percent of the
land mass is private property and the majority of the land is being
controlled by Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service under
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The huge
agriculture dependency on Federal lands is at the heart of the economic
and social issues for the people of New Mexico. The Social and Economic
sustainability of our people is directly tied to land and access of
natural renewable resources. Historic Grass Root Industries such as
ranching and farming have sustained the Hispanic and Native American
populations since the late fifteen hundreds (Livestock Grazing).
We would like to identify a critical economic dilemma for the
Committee hearing: Grass Root industries such as farming and ranching
are diminishing at an alarming rate in northern New Mexico. The income
losses from these industries make it impossible for these families to
remain economic or socially viable. Our county governments and school
districts are also suffering from the lack of economic activity and the
diminishing Payment In lieu of Taxes revenue from the Federal
Government. The Forest Service Agency is a major contributor to this
economic dilemma and has stifled the ability of the two minority groups
in this region ``Hispanic and Native Americans'' agriculture families
to remain economically and socially sustainable. At this point in our
correspondence we would like to identify and submit as evidence for the
subject hearing the: Economic, Social, and Cultural Aspects of
Livestock Ranching on the Espanola and Canjilon Ranger Districts of the
Santa Fe and Carson National Forests: A Pilot Study, by USDA Forest
Service, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-113, September 2003, authors
Carol Raish, Alice M. McSweeney. Report attached.
This Pilot Study examines current and historic economic, social,
and cultural aspects of livestock operations owned by ranchers
dependent on Federal lands U.S. Forest Service Federal grazing permits.
The study focuses on both the economic and non-economic contributions
of livestock ownership to local families and communities. The Pilot
Study also identifies harsh economic actions by the U.S. Forest Service
agency against minority ranching families in the reduction of Federal
Grazing Permits as depicted on page 5, under the ``American Period'',
right column, paragraphs 7 and 8, Example: ``On the Carson and Santa Fe
National Forests there were 2,200 individuals holding permits in 1940,
which by 1970 had been reduced to fewer than 1,000 (de Buys 1985)''.
``One community had herd reductions of 60 percent, while the ranchers
of another lost permits for 1,000 cattle in a period of a few years (de
Buys 1985''). Also identified in the Pilot Study on page 6 is the 1968
Hassell Report this report also identifies economic conditions in the
rural economy: ``Problems remain in the area, and many of the
situations discussed in the Hassell Report (1968) have not improved.
Severe poverty, disappearance of traditional life ways.'' The Pilot
Study reports on economic conditions on Page 5, 6 and provides shocking
information on the negative impacts the U.S. Forest Service has had on
the two minority classes of people in northern New Mexico
``economically and socially''.
The second USDA report we would like to bring to the attention of
the Committee for the Hearing is the recent Forest Service Compliance
Review Report Civil Rights Program Review (copy attached), which was
released in June 2013 by the United States Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Office of Civil Rights, through the Office of Compliance,
Policy, Training, and Cultural Transformation (OCPTCT). The report
determined that the U.S. Forest Service were non-compliant with several
civil rights requirements and that there had been inconsistent
implementation of USDA/Forest Service regulations toward minority
ranchers Hispanic and Native Americans. The report identifies several
program areas of noncompliance which includes at page 5, the process
used in ``Terminating or suspending grazing permits.'' This report much
like the Pilot Study referenced above identify the negative actions by
the U.S. Forest Service Agency against the same ``minority groups'' of
people that has caused great economic determent.
In closing, the economic state of the rural counties in the State
of New Mexico is below the national poverty levels. The rural
agriculture community has a very clear and complete dependency in the
USDA Forest Service Federal Lands and USDA programs. The reports
provided give a narrative of the current and historic economic and
social issues with regard to USDA's role in the economic and social
well being of northern New Mexico Families. We need a vigorous effort
by our Representatives in Congress to return the Federal lands as an
economic productive engine revitalizing the economy of rural New
Mexico. Utilizing natural and renewable natural resources is healthy
for the entire ecosystem. Northern New Mexico Stockman's Association
has communicated the Forest Service agency issues, and the current
economic social state to Secretary Vilsack. We feel at this time it is
justified to ask for a ``Congressional Hearing'' for northern New
Mexico families on the many Forest Service Grazing issues, and the
economic status of northern New Mexico. Secretary Vilsack has ignored
the formal cries for help from a destitute people.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
David Sanchez,
Vice President, NNMSA.
CC:
Congressman Ben Ray Lujan;
Carlos Salazar, NNMSA President;
Ted Trujillo, Attorney;
Alma Acosta, U.S. Congressional Staff;
Rudy Arredondo, NLFRTA;
Jamie Chavez, Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural.
attachment 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]