[Senate Hearing 115-261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:32 a.m. in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. John Hoeven (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Hoeven, Cochran, Moran, Merkley, Tester,
Udall, and Baldwin.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY PERDUE, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DR. ROBERT JOHANSSON, CHIEF ECONOMIST
MICHAEL YOUNG, BUDGET OFFICER
Opening Statement of Senator John Hoeven
Senator Hoeven. Good morning. We will call the hearing to
order.
The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss the Department
of Agriculture's fiscal year 2018 budget request. And I want to
thank our Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, former
Governor of Georgia, and a good friend. Thank you so much for
being here and for your commitment to agriculture. We
appreciate it.
One of the things obviously that we are concerned about is
the funding level in the budget. We are going to talk about
that right up front. And I recognize you are not involved in
the formulation of the Department's budget given the late
timing of your confirmation, but we really want to talk about
and clarify the Administration's support for rural America and
for production agriculture.
The reductions proposed in the President's budget directly
impact small rural communities that many of us call home.
Production agriculture is the cornerstone of local rural
economies and weakening the farm safety net would leave farmers
and ranchers vulnerable to low commodity prices and unforeseen
weather conditions. We know we have low commodity prices right
now, and unfortunately, it is looking like it could be a
drought year as well. So that makes it a tough time in the farm
patch and I know you are well aware of it.
Cuts to Agriculture research undermine our country's
ability to compete internationally and meet the demands of a
growing global population. Agriculture remains one of America's
net export industries due to open trade and we must continue to
explore foreign markets access for producers. And that is a
bright spot. We have a positive balance of trade in Agriculture
and so those trade agreements are very, very important that
they give our farmers an opportunity to export the great
products that they produce.
While I support many proposals included in the President's
budget such as increased funding for our military and defense,
the burden of balancing the Federal budget cannot be placed on
the backs of farmers and our rural communities. Agriculture has
already done its fair share by reducing spending in the current
Farm Bill. When passed in 2014, the Farm Bill was calculated to
save more than $23 billion. So that was the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimate. In actuality now scored over the
next 10 years, the Farm Bill saves $104 billion.
So clearly Agriculture is doing its part to help with the
budget debt and deficit, but right now they are facing a tough
time. And that is the whole idea behind the countercyclical
safety net, behind crop insurance, is that when they need it,
it is there for them.
Eliminating key rural development programs as proposed in
the budget would inhibit the smallest rural communities from
upgrading aging infrastructure and growing small businesses. I
also remain concerned about the proposed elimination of the
position of Under Secretary for Rural Development. And I look
forward to hearing further rationale for the Department's
approach and how they are going to handle it and make sure that
that commitment is there.
We need to invest in the future of agriculture and rural
America. And as chairman, I look forward to working with
Ranking Member Merkley and other members of the committee to
identify those priorities and make the most effective and
efficient decisions on behalf of the America taxpayer.
Again, I appreciate, Mr. Secretary, you coming here. I
appreciate your commitment to agriculture. I know these are
challenging issues. You and I have talked about them. I
appreciate you coming in this morning so we could do that. But
it is a tough time for our farmers and ranchers and we need to
be there for them and I have every intention of doing that.
Again, thanks for coming and I would turn to Senator
Merkley for his comments.
opening statement of senator jeff merkley
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be here with you at your first opportunity to chair
this subcommittee of appropriations and I greatly enjoyed
working with your predecessor, Senator Moran, who is here with
us today and I know I will enjoy working with you as well.
And Secretary Perdue, welcome to the hearing.
Congratulations on your confirmation and welcome also to Mr.
Young and Mr. Johansson.
The President's budget proposal for the Department of
Agriculture for fiscal year 2018 was developed prior to your
confirmation, Mr. Secretary. And for the sake of today's
hearing, that is probably a good thing because the budget comes
across less as a make American agriculture great budget and
more as a rural America and farmers last budget. Net spending
for agriculture and rural development is cut by about $5
billion or 26 percent. More than 20 research programs are
eliminated and the rest are cut at a time when we desperately
need innovation in agriculture.
USDA's most important customer service agencies,
specifically for farmers, are hit hard. The Farm Service Agency
would lose almost 1,000 employees who help producers across
America access USDA's Farm Loan Programs. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service budget would cut funding for conservation
by $100 million, resulting in thousands of fewer conservation
plans which are a requirement for producers to enroll in USDA's
conservation programs as well as to apply for crop insurance.
You cannot have good customer service if you do not have
customer service representatives.
The proposals for nutrition programs, both domestic and
international, are shortsighted and heartless. To propose the
elimination of McGovern--Dole and Food for Peace Programs at a
time when multiple famines are occurring and people are
literally starving makes little sense from a standpoint of U.S.
compassion or from a standpoint of American security.
Rural Development, an agency that I know that is important
to you, is gutted. More than 40 programs, including a number of
vital housing loan and grant programs, the entire Rural
Business Service, the entire Water and Waste Disposal program
are eliminated. These are important programs that provide
struggling rural communities with access to basic facilities
and they are completely gone if this budget were enacted.
I have noted before that although many of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle believe that a budget is dead on
arrival almost regardless of the President that provides it, it
is still a reflection of the President's priorities and it does
not take long to determine that based on this budget, rural
families and farming are not a priority for this President. The
good news is that I know that rural families and farmers are a
priority of yours, Secretary Perdue. And I am hopeful that you
can do everything in your power to communicate to your boss
what a budget would look like that would empower and support
rural America.
I look forward to working with you over the coming weeks
and months as we write our bill and again, I appreciate you
being here today.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
I would now turn to the other members of the committee for
any opening statements they may have, starting with Senator
Cochran.
opening statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in
welcoming our witnesses today to talk about the budget request
for the Department of Agriculture. This is a very important
part of the appropriations process, to make available the funds
for agriculture research, direct funds to help support
producers, and so a lot of people are looking on with hope and
despair, one end or the other.
You know, somebody said as they walked by the farm field
and the farmer was out there tending his garden or something,
and they said, ``It sure is a pretty day and everything looks
good.'' And he said, ``Yeah, but you know what? All this hot
sun and rain, it really saps the soul.'' It is hard to please
everybody.
Senator Hoeven. It is.
Senator Cochran. That is what that illustrates. But we are
going to try to make as many happy and do the thoughtful
process so that we do not have anybody that is left out that
ought to be included. And we will be working toward that end.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Tester.
opening statement of senator jon tester
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for your statement as well as the
ranking member's statement. Governor, Secretary, good to have
you here. I appreciate you being here today to talk about the
budget.
I think it is a bipartisan--maybe disgust is too big of a
word--but disappointment with this budget. I am very concerned,
being somebody from rural America, and quite frankly, you
understand rural America, the impacts of this budget. The fact
is that it came on prior to you being Secretary of Agriculture,
but the real question here today is how the hell do we fix it,
because it does not work.
Right now farm income, because of prices being in the
toilet, is down about half of what it was in record year 2013,
a $62 billion drop. And as was pointed out by the chairman, and
I believe the ranking member too, safety net programs are there
for this exact reason. When times are not always good in
Agriculture. We know that. And, quite frankly, when prices drop
there needs to be a safety net to help manage risk.
You were in Montana a few weeks ago. I appreciate you
coming to our great state. You said something that was a little
bit disturbing, and that is that you would not buy home
insurance and hope that your house burned down, would you? No,
but the fact of the matter is mother nature is mother nature.
And we know that mother nature is going to do things that are
totally unpredictable, whether it is a drought in North Dakota
this year or whether it is a hail storm in some other part of
the country. Hell, I lost my barley crop a few years ago just
because it rained really, really hard a day before I was
supposed to cut it, literally. And so making sure that when
disasters happen that we have a safety net is critically
important.
I want to close with this. I have had about a half dozen
listening sessions around Montana, east, west, north, and
south. Farmers and ranchers are not asking for much, maybe with
the exception of the Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram
(EQIP) that they would like to have plussed up. What they are
asking for is let us not take a step backwards because if we
take a step backwards, especially in this time when we have low
commodity prices, and they truly are very bad.
For example, I took the farm over in 1978. Prices are as
low now as they were when I took the farm over in 1978, and you
know what a tractor or a pickup costs compared to what they did
in 1978. So they just do not want to take a step back and I
think this budget takes a giant step back. And I think we need
to flesh that out and find out what the Secretary of
Agriculture is going to do about that moving forward.
Thank you for being here.
Senator Hoeven. Other opening comments before the Secretary
provides his testimony? Hearing none.
Again, Mr. Secretary, Dr. Johansson, and Mr. Young, thank
you all for being here and we would welcome your opening
statement.
summary statement hon. sonny perdue
Secretary Perdue. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
Ranking Member Merkley. I very much appreciate the confidence
that you all have expressed in me and my understanding of
agriculture. It is true that I have lived it. It has been my
life and, Senator Tester, I want to tell you again to thank you
personally for the nomination on the confirmation on the floor.
Thank you for that. And you all have expressed a lot of
confidence and my goal is to live up to that confidence in that
area.
Senator Tester, I hope to address the question that you had
regarding crop insurance in my comments in Montana.
What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is to give you
broadly the vision that I outlined on the first day that I went
to the Whitten Building for our employees for the Department of
Agriculture. I am delighted, frankly, that it is attached to
this committee which does demonstrate a working together, both
for the authorizing committee and the appropriating committee.
And I think we all have U.S. agriculture's heart at mind
when we make these decisions. And I take your vision sincerely
about that, how do we go forward in right sizing an
agricultural budget for the benefit of our producers and the
benefit mostly of America. So that is our goal.
I outlined really four broad goals there as I went to the
USDA. The first was to maximize the opportunity and the ability
of the men and women of agriculture and the agribusiness sector
to create jobs, to produce and sell the foods and fiber and
energy that feed and clothe the world, and to reap the earned
reward of their labor. I think it should be the aim of the
American government to remove every obstacle to give farmers
and ranchers and producers every opportunity to prosper from
their labor.
Secondly, I want to prioritize customer service every day
for American consumers, customers, and taxpayers. I think they
have the right to expect and demand that their government
conduct the people's business efficiently, effectively, and
with the utmost integrity, and that is our goal at USDA. I
think also our vast array of investors, the American taxpayers,
all of our citizens have a right to expect a safe and secure
food supply. And I want to commit to you that USDA will
continue to serve in the critical role of ensuring the food
that we put on our table to feed our families each and every
day meets the strict safety standards that have been
established and we all aspire to.
And then fourthly, farmers are great stewards and I want
the USDA to be a great steward of American agriculture. Simply
put, we must preserve the land. We must pursue clean water,
clean air, and it is not an option. Stewardship for farmers and
for ranchers and producers is a requirement. And I have found
them to be the best stewards of our land.
So American agricultural bounty comes directly from all the
resources used to produce food and fiber. Those were the
principles that were driven into me as a young boy growing up
on a diversified row crop farm.
I know that you all have some questions and I look forward
to answering all of them. I want to address our efforts of
reorganization and I will answer your questions specifically
that you may have regarding the new mission area for the Under
Secretary of International Trade.
As you know, this was directed in the 2014 Farm Bill and we
felt we took you all seriously and created a new Under
Secretary for Trade in the mission areas. It recognizes the
growing importance of international trade to the Agriculture
sector of the American economy. I am one of those who believes
that the U.S. economy is tied to the Agriculture economy and
the Agriculture economy is tied to international trade.
As I visited with you all and 75 of your colleagues there,
there were three points that were really made. Trade was number
one. Labor was number two. And regulation was number three. I
heard those repeatedly overall and I took those to heart.
As you know and have heard, yesterday we reached an
agreement with Chinese officials on the final details of a
protocol to allow the U.S. to begin beef exports with China.
This is a huge deal and we are happy to have that. I am very
impressed and very pleased--honored, frankly--to work with
Secretary Wilbur Ross of Commerce as well as Ambassador
Lighthizer as we go around the world to sell U.S. Agriculture
products.
You rightly noted, Mr. Chairman, it is a balance of trade
that we have that we should be proud of. Our producers are the
best in the world and we think that they produce a product that
can be used for world peace, figuratively and literally, around
that.
Secondly, we reconstituted our domestic customer facing
agencies under the newly named Secretary of Farm Production and
Conservation. We removed the National Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) from the forestry mission area into I believe a
more logical fashion when farmers walk in the door to have a
domestic agency that represents them. We have an Under
Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agriculture Affairs,
international relationships. We have got an Under Secretary for
Farm Production and Conservation that deals with our domestic
issues that farmers deal with each and every time.
I know there has been more conversation and more concern
regarding our efforts in Rural Development. I have done what I
believe and I literally continue to believe by elevating the
Rural Development, mission area, and position it where it
reports directly to the Secretary. There is not going to be an
intermediary.
That person that we named yesterday, Anne Hazlett, who has
been a member of your committee, authorizing committee staff
here, and has been vastly experienced in rural development
issues. We named her to the Assistant to the Secretary for
Rural Development yesterday. She comes from an impressive
background in agriculture, and most appropriately, rural
development, working in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.
Anne has most recently served as a Republican Chief Counsel for
the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. In
addition to her public service here, she also had the
experience of Director of Agriculture for her home state where
she managed the Indiana State Department of Agriculture and was
a huge advisor to those governors on agriculture and rural
issues.
Additionally, we have her put to work. You know that the
Farm Bill directed the Under Secretary for Trade. It did not
direct an eighth Under Secretary position, nor did it fund
that. And the good news is with our confirmation process
lagging, Anne Hazlett is on the job working for Rural
Development today whereas it could possibly be after the August
recess before we get our other nominees in place. And that was
another function. Rural Development was too important to wait
and we chose to go to work right away.
As I close, I would like to address Senator Tester's quote
from me regarding crop insurance in his home state of Montana.
And I hope that it was not misinterpreted. What I indicated was
as producers, agriculturalists across the country, we have got
to understand that insurance is just that. When there is a
tragedy, when there is a drought, when there is a flood, when
there is hail, we need a safety net to call upon, but no longer
can we think about insurance as an investment. We do not invest
a dollar in insurance and expect to get $1.10 back every year
in that area.
So I want crop insurance to be just like we have property
and casualty insurance. Otherwise, hopefully never using. I
have never met a real farmer, Senator that wanted to--would
rather have to call on insurance rather than have a good crop
at a fair price. And that is really what we want to do. We know
the vagaries of agriculture from weather, from all the risks
they take year in and year out, that is altogether possible and
they deserve--America deserves a healthy safety net of crop
insurance. And I trust that this committee and the Congress as
a whole will make sure that we right size that crop insurance
budget where our producers can continue to rely on that and
make good crop decisions based on that.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering
any and all of your questions from your committee and your
members.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sonny Perdue
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
Administration's priorities for the Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and provide you an overview of the President's 2018 budget. Joining me
today are Robert Johansson, USDA's Chief Economist, and Michael Young,
USDA's Budget Officer.
a strong vision for agriculture
It is an honor to be with you today as the nation's 31st Secretary
of Agriculture. I am truly humbled by the opportunity to serve the
American people and our farmers, and I assure you I will work
tirelessly on their behalf. I thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today, and I look forward to working with you in the coming
months and years as we can continue our nation's agricultural
preeminence, building on the innovative progress of years gone by and
growing to meet the needs and demands of customers and consumers here
in America and around the world.
While I am new to the Federal budget process, I know firsthand the
challenges related to developing and enacting budgets at the state
level. As governor, I reformed state budget priorities to transform a
budget deficit into a surplus, improved program performance, and helped
Georgians create more than 200,000 new jobs. Now, in my role as
Secretary of Agriculture, I will be the leading advocate for rural
America and agricultural producers, bringing to the Department the same
energy and creativity I brought to my job as Governor. As U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture, I have set four goals for my time as
Secretary.
First, I will maximize the ability of the men and women of
America's agriculture and agribusiness sector to create jobs, to
produce and sell the foods and fiber that feed and clothe the world,
and to reap the earned reward of their labor. We want to remove
obstacles, and give them every opportunity to prosper.
Today, we need to feed some 7 billion people. By the year 2050,
that population will swell to 9.5 billion, over half of which will be
living in under-developed conditions. Also, the demographics of that
population will change over time. If we examine the data available, we
can see that our global population is aging, and by the year 2050, more
of the population will be older than 65 than younger than 5 years of
age. What this means is that as we move forward, the dietary demands of
the global population are going to change. We are also going to see
stronger middle classes in developing countries that will join the
already strong middle classes in the developed world. This means that
the demand for meat will grow exponentially as will the demand for
grain production. To put the demand for food into perspective, we are
going to have to double our production between now and 2050. We will
have to produce more food in the next 30 years than has been produced
in the last 8,000 years--a daunting task, to say the least. Rest
assured it is a task that USDA is ready to take on.
That being said, we cannot feed the world if we continue to place
obstacle after obstacle in front of those who produce our food and
fiber. People in agriculture used to fear disease and drought as the
greatest threats to their livelihoods and their mission of feeding
their neighbors and the world. Those hazards remain, but now too often
it is the government--through interference and regulation--that poses
the most existential threat to American farmers and producers. We aim
to put a stop to that. As you may know, the President recently
announced the creation of the Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and
Rural Prosperity. With USDA as chair, we will examine, consider and
take actions to address current barriers to economic prosperity and the
welfare of communities in in rural America, including how innovation
and modern technology, and infrastructure play a critical role in fully
bringing communities into the 21st century. This multi-department group
will find ways to improve regulatory flexibility and provide relief for
farms and small businesses. We will examine how the Federal government
does business and how that impacts rural communities, and food and
fiber production. And, we will, at every turn, ensure that decisions
and actions are founded in principles of sound science and validated
facts. The questions we are asking at USDA, and that I will be asking
the task force, are fundamental to this process: How do we impact jobs
and job creation; are we doing things that make sense; do the costs
outweigh the benefits; and, is there better way or better place we can
do it? We have a lot to tackle. It is long overdue and must and will be
done.
Another key issue that I hear about is the continued instability in
the agricultural workforce. This instability often limits not only
farmer's ability to grow their businesses but also consumers' access to
freshly grown, local products. It is my priority to ensure farmers and
ranchers have access to a legal and stable workforce and I look forward
to working with the President, Congress, and with the other
stakeholders to find a solution.
We must also work with our producers to expand foreign markets to
sell their products. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live
outside of our borders. That means our trade agreements open a world of
opportunities for American businesses. In fiscal year 2016, American
agricultural producers achieved $129.7 billion in exports, and fiscal
year 2017 exports are projected to reach $136 billion. Agricultural
exports totaled over $1 trillion for the period fiscal year 2009
through fiscal year 2016, the best eight year stretch in history, and
agriculture has produced a trade surplus each year since the 1960s.
Agricultural exports support more than 1 million American jobs both on
and off the farm each year, a significant part of the estimated 11.5
million jobs supported by total exports all across the country.
Agricultural exports support farm income, which translates into more
economic activity in rural areas. Each dollar of agricultural exports
is estimated to stimulate another $1.27 in business activity.
However, the slowing global economy and appreciating dollar have
put unprecedented competition on U.S. farmers. Many countries do not
respect fair trading rules that have already been agreed to as part of
previous agreements and many others insist on enforcing trade barriers
to our products that are not based on sound science. I assure you that
USDA will use all the instruments available to us to ensure our
agricultural producers and products get fair treatment in foreign
markets. This Administration will not stand idly by as other countries
try to take advantage.
In addition, on May 11, 2017, I directed a reorganization of USDA
to focus our attention keenly on agricultural trade, consistent with
direction from the 2014 Farm Bill. The newly established Under
Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs will be
responsible for coordinating agency efforts at opening new and
protecting current markets. I believe Congress had great forethought in
including this provision in the Farm Bill, and this will strengthen
USDA's ability to ensure a level playing field for U.S. farmers and
ranchers in the global marketplace. Moreover, the Under Secretary for
Trade will bring new energy and support to our interagency
relationships with the Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative.
As part of that reorganization, and touching on the equally
important priority of customer service, we are combining the critical
functions in our Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency, and
Natural Resources Conservation Service under a single umbrella to
ensure our services to farmers and ranchers are efficient, streamlined,
and deliver the results that our producers expect and need. Our
customers will have a one stop shop, with common leadership and one
voice, to provide the services they need. The walls are coming down,
and our employees will be empowered to work together to serve USDA's
customers. I am also elevating our Rural Development program to report
directly to my office. The economic vitality of small towns across
America is crucial to the future of the agriculture economy, and we
will be leveraging USDA's expertise in rural development as the
Administration works to increase investments in America's
infrastructure.
Through these, the Department's further reorganization proposals
that are being developed as part of the Administration's government-
wide reorganization effort, and other actions, USDA will prioritize
customer service every day, across the mission areas. Our customers
expect, and have every right to demand, that we conduct the people's
business efficiently, effectively, and with the utmost integrity.
Arguably, no other Federal agency has more direct interface with
Americans than does the Department of Agriculture. In the Food and
Nutrition Services alone, we serve one in four Americans every year,
including more than 30.6 million children per day who benefit from a
healthy meal at school and the 42.8 million participants in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program each month. We touch millions
of Americans through a host of other programs, as well. If we take into
account our farm services, rural development, conservation, extension
and education programs, we touch every single facet of American life.
If we are to do the best for our producers and feed the world by 2050,
we must not only continue to provide top rate customer service, but we
must also develop strong partnerships so that we can face our
challenges together. Together with our 100,000 plus employees spread
across thousands of locations around the United States and the globe, I
know we can make USDA the best agency in the country.
Next, since our taxpayers are also consumers, we know they expect a
safe and secure food supply, and USDA is committed to continue to serve
in the critical role of ensuring the food we put on the table to feed
our families meets the strict safety standards we've established. By
having the best science and data, we will be able to make strong
strategic decisions that will transcend generations.
And, last but certainly not least, we must preserve the land--and
we must relentlessly pursue clean air and water. Stewardship is not
optional for farmers, producers and ranchers. American agricultural
bounty comes directly from all the resources used to produce food and
fiber. Today, that land and those resources sustain more than 320
million Americans and countless millions more around the globe. My
father's words still ring in my ears, ``Son, if you take care of the
land, it will take care of you. Owned or rented, we're all stewards,
and our responsibility is to leave it better than we found it.''
Without proper care, our resources could be squandered. Science and
hard work will help us find the best ways to produce our crops, be
mindful of our use of inputs, preserve the soil, keep our air and water
clean, and allow us to live in a better place than we found when we
started. Rather than clearing another acre of land, let's first seek
out ways to produce more with what we already have. If we live by these
principles, we can preserve our wetlands, our watersheds, our forests,
our prairies and our ecosystems for generations to come.
the president's 2018 budget
I am here today to present to you the Administration's budget for
the Department. The President's Budget for 2018 for USDA programs
within this Subcommittee is about $135 billion, of which approximately
$122 billion is mandatory funding. The majority of these funds support
crop insurance, nutrition assistance programs, farm commodity and trade
programs and a number of conservation programs. For discretionary
programs of interest to this Subcommittee, our budget proposes a net
budget authority of about $13 billion, approximately $5 billion below
the 2017 annualized continuing resolution. The Budget includes
mandatory funds to fully support estimated participation levels for
Child Nutrition programs and discretionary funds to fully serve the
expected participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children. It includes the funding needed to
meet our responsibility for providing inspection services to the
Nation's meat and poultry establishments.
As access to credit remains a significant issue for producers, the
Budget supports a loan level of approximately $7 billion to support
farm ownership and operating loans for about 42,000 producers. Recent
demand has led to full utilization of the program level for farm
operating loans for fiscal year 2016, with record loan levels at $6.3
billion. To facilitate exports to buyers in countries that may not have
access to adequate commercial credit, the Budget includes a program
level of $5.5 billion for CCC Export Guarantee Programs to provide
guarantees. As research is critical to fostering innovation needed to
increase production, the Budget proposes $2.5 billion for high priority
agricultural research, including about $350 million for the Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative and $64 million to conduct the Census of
Agriculture. The Budget also includes a total of $810 million to
protect agricultural resources from pest and disease.
USDA will continue to assist rural communities with resources to
promote economic development and revitalization, job growth and
infrastructure improvements. These investments include $3 billion, an
increase of $800 million, for the Community Facilities direct loan
program to provide funding for critical rural infrastructure. We are
also proposing an increase of about $162 million to establish a new
grant account for the purpose of supporting economic infrastructure
development across Rural America. Funding will support activities aimed
at improving the quality of life in rural areas, such as broadband
deployment in remote rural areas.
I have learned that USDA's annual appropriations is very complex. I
would like to work with you, as well as the authorizing committees, to
make USDA a more nimble and effective organization. Looking forward, I
am sure there are many ways we can make USDA programs work better for
the constituents we serve. Particularly as Congress works toward
developing the next Farm Bill, I am prepared to work with Members and
our stakeholders to seek solutions to our common challenges, while
remaining accountable to the people.
As I recently informed the House Agriculture Committee, I am
confident in the future of rural America and see opportunities for us
to continue to strengthen this outlook and create opportunities for
rural America. I look forward to working with this Subcommittee to
fulfill the President's goals and our key responsibilities for the long
term benefit of producers and all Americans.
I will be glad to answer questions you may have at this time.
USDA POLITICAL NOMINATIONS
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Any comments from Dr. Johansson or Mr. Young before we
proceed?
All right. Thank you very much for those opening comments.
And one thing I always start out with. I did not today, so I am
going to say it right now, and that is that good farm policy
benefits every single American every single day with the
highest quality lowest cost food supply in the history of the
world. That is what our farmers do for us every single day. And
so as we are crafting farm policy, we have to remember. It
makes a difference. It benefits every single American every
single day.
You mentioned the agreement with China. I want to commend
you on that as well as Lighthizer and Wilbur Ross. I think that
will help our cattle producers and I appreciate very much your
diligence and hard work on it. That is the example of the kind
of work we need to see happen in trade for our farmers. We
start out at a disadvantage right away because a dollar is so
strong in terms of competing in those foreign markets. So,
thank you for the China agreement and hopefully there will be
more of that.
Starting out with the appointments, there are 15 Senate
confirmed positions for USDA, but so far you are the only one
to be nominated. Now you have got--you mentioned Anne, but I
guess can you provide us with any insight as to when we can
expect more of these nominations to start being made so that we
can take into the confirmation process and get you more help
over there? For example, FSA Administrator, FSA State Executive
Director. You know, when are we going to see more of these
nominations made so we can get to work on getting them
confirmed and putting them to work?
Secretary Perdue. Senator, I was hoping you could help me
with that.
Senator Hoeven. Well, I will if----
Secretary Perdue. Obviously you know that I spent almost my
first 100 days after being nominated here walking the halls of
the Senate and visiting with colleagues. And this process took
far too long. It is taking far too long with the Under
Secretary positions that we have submitted to the White House.
Those have been passed along for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) vetting as well as the Office of Government
Ethics. There does not seem to be a lot of urgency in those
areas to get people cleared where you all can continue to have
your vetting process as well and the confirmation hearing.
So anything you all can do to encourage our Office of
Government Ethics as well as our FBI to expedite those. We have
submitted some--I think some very capable names that you all
will be proud to confirm and I would love to have them on board
as quickly as possible. When this Administration took office on
January 20th and I am being told that some of these will not be
confirmed until after the August recess, so, you know, almost 9
months later, that is very troubling to me. I think it is a
very difficult way to have a transition when you think that
almost 9 months later we get the people in place to lead these
agencies.
That having been said, I want to tell you, this whole
committee, and Congress as a whole, there are some dedicated
career employees over there, two of which are sitting next to
me that have been excellent in their operations there. I rely
on their advice and counsel and I frankly do not know what we
would have done without them. So the USDA is blessed to have a
whole cadre of USDA employees, career employees, who work very,
very hard dedicated to agriculture and our producers in
general.
So, while we need this leadership in place, we would like
to get them as quickly as possible. I hope you can impress upon
any influence in your sphere of influence you may have over the
Office of Government Ethics and the FBI to move these names
along so we can get them to you to be confirmed.
CROP INSURANCE
Senator Hoeven. It is moving too slowly getting these
appointments in place and I think we all need to do everything
we can to help expedite it.
Crop insurance has become the number one risk management
tool for our producers. I mean, it is just vitally important.
Crop insurance has been reduced in terms of the support, $12
billion, between the 2008 Farm Bill and the last time the
Administration took action to take funding out of crop
insurance support, which was in 2011, so that is a $12 billion
reduction in the support for crop insurance which is, again, as
I said, has now become our farmer's number one risk management
tool, particularly as you look at a drought year, low commodity
prices. It is vitally important.
In the last Farm Bill, we put specifically in statute that
the Administration cannot take money out of the Farm Bill. That
was a very important provision. And I am going to work very
hard to make sure it gets in the next Farm Bill because they
have got to be able to count on it. And so I would just like
you to talk for a minute about your commitment to crop
insurance. Do you agree that it is a vitally important risk
management tool for our producers and that it needs to be there
to help them?
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully, I
have already expressed my belief in crop insurance and I am
happy to do so again. I do think it is a very appropriate part
of the farm safety net. I think what you all did in 2014 with
the Farm Bill, moving away from direct payments into a robust
Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC)
payment scheme primarily with crop insurance is certainly more
palatable to the American public, the American taxpayer, where
producers actually are purchasing insurance with the help of
the Federal government as well for those times where they need
it.
Agriculture is an extremely risky provision and prospect
and it amazes me that we have enough producers who are willing
to put that degree of equity every spring in the ground hoping
for a good crop. Farmers or ranchers are the best optimists I
know and year in and year out they are looking forward to a
better year. We need the crop insurance and I trust that this
committee as well as those committees on the House side will
see that we are able to right size our crop insurance budget
where it is meaningful.
As I said to Senator Tester, I think every producer in the
country would rather have a good crop at a fair price rather
than have to call on crop insurance. Unfortunately, all over
the country that is not possible each and every year. And I
think this program, based on the geographical differences and
weather, is the appropriate program to move forward as a part
of the safety net for agricultural production for the food
security of the American public.
Senator Hoeven. I think the two real keys in the Farm Bill
are going to be making sure that crop insurance support is
there combined with the countercyclical ARC and PLC that work
in the way intended. And as you say, that is exactly how we
work with our farmers and to make sure that they can
consistently produce that food supply that benefits everybody
every day.
And like I say, not only highest quality, lowest cost, but
also that is the most cost-effective way to approach farm
policy from the Federal government's perspective because when
you do not need that help or support, then it does not cost
anything which is why I started out making the point in a Farm
Bill that was scored as saving $23 billion, the way it works
actually over the next ten years it would save more than $100
billion. And I think it is very important that people do not
lose track that that is how it works and that farmers are doing
their part in helping with debt and deficit as well as good
farm policy and a favorable balance of trade.
I will turn at this point to Senator Merkley.
OVERSIGHT REQUESTS FROM THE MINORITY
Senator Merkley. Mr. Secretary, a number of news reports
have discussed the Administration's directive to Federal
agencies not to respond to oversight requests from the
minority. This is obviously concerning because the Executive
Branch works for all of America and this subcommittee certainly
has a very positive bipartisan history. Will you continue to
respond to written inquiries and requests from the majority and
the minority, no matter who originated the request?
Secretary Perdue. Absolutely, Senator. I mentioned the fact
that that proposal, that suggestion, I do not think it was
necessarily directed to the minority. I think the edict was
that it must come from the chair. And that, irrespective of
which party is in place. But I feel like you are duly elected
and if you have got questions regarding the accountability of
the Department of Agriculture, I feel an obligation to respond
and I plan to do so.
NATIONAL BIOENGINEERED FOOD DISCLOSURE STANDARD
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Most appreciated.
Last year Congress passed the national bioengineered food
disclosure standard. This is not a standard I liked. I did not
think the quick response code would work for consumers, but
nevertheless, a study is supposed to be completed by July 29th
and the standard is supposed to be implemented by the following
summer in 2018. Will the study be on time and will
implementation be on time?
Secretary Perdue. It is my absolute commitment that the
study and the rollout of that will be on time. And, Senator, I
would recommend you get your grandchildren to help you with
that QR code app on your phone.
USDA'S REORGAINZATION
Senator Merkley. That is what it will take for many
Americans, and that is assuming folks actually have a smart
phone to be able to scan it and have the time to look at
individual products, which they will not have in our busy
society. But nonetheless, so as you know, I would love to see
it right on the label so that folks do not have to go through
all that fancy technology and websites.
But continuing, you have announced the reorganization and
you invited public comments on the reorganization due tomorrow,
June 14th. So it caught many of us off guard when you appointed
or filled the position of Assistant to the Secretary for RD
before even the comment period was completed. And why? Why not,
if you open up a comment period, why not wait until you get the
comments before you proceed?
Secretary Perdue. I would be happy to respond to the
question, Senator. I think technically we informed the members
of Congress on May 11th, which was our statutory responsibility
to do and we waited the 30 days from May 11th, which had
expired by a couple of days. The Federal Register was a few
days late, later than that, and that is the 30 day period. But
nonetheless, whether it is in time or after time, we plan to
take those comments. We actually, at USDA, I hear press
reports, about 600 comments. I have seen some of those pages of
lists of people. They were not individual comments, but I think
600 different people had--or groups, mostly Rural Housing
Coalition--had signed on to that.
We actually received 26 comments at the USDA, only 7 of
which had to do with Rural Development. So I hope that--I am an
accountability kind of guy, Senator, and I hope that you will
hold me accountable on this. If you do not think that we are
making progress in Rural Development by the time the Farm Bill
comes up, I would welcome you all to direct us to create the
nomenclature for an Under Secretary of Rural Development. And I
can assure you, whatever you want to call it, we are going to
do best for Rural Development America.
Senator Merkley. Well, I will just note that Senator
Stabenow and I sent you a letter supporting the creation of a
new Trade Under Secretary, but opposing the elimination of the
RD Under Secretary. And the fact that the announcement was made
before the comment period ended made us feel that probably our
comments had not been read or taken into account in making the
decision, that it was predetermined.
Secretary Perdue. Well, that was not intended in any way,
Senator, and I hope that you do not take offense at that. That
is one of the reasons I spoke with you and Senator Stabenow
prior to making that announcement informing you of my plans and
I certainly would have expected any kind of problem or any kind
of issue to have been addressed when we spoke personally.
And I apologize if you feel like--because, again, we took
the date of May 11th, when we informed the Congress of those
changes, for the 30 days to have expired. And once again, we
are going to take your consideration, Senator Stabenow's
consideration, and the public in consideration. But I state
once again, hold us accountable. If I do not make you proud of
Rural Development and what we do over the next year, I will be
happy to have another Under Secretary directed by the Farm
Bill.
Senator Merkley. I thank you much.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Cochran.
USDA'S RESEARCH BUDGET
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our
distinguished panel to talk about the Department's budget for
the next fiscal year. We have got a growing demand for food and
need for Federal government research dollars provided to help
make sure that we are doing the best things for the crops and
that we have thoughtful programs backed up by research from
experts throughout many of the college and university systems,
but also Federal government agencies.
So I am asking you if you think that the amount of money
provided for the Department's research budget is going to be
adequate to sustain a level of research to make sure that
farmers get the benefit of those efforts.
Secretary Perdue. Well, Senator, you know that you and I
were just at the Delta Council at the Stoneville Research
Facility, which in my opinion is one of the best examples of
the collaboration between our land grant universities--in this
case, Mississippi State--and our Agriculture Research Service
ARS at the USDA. It was a seamless operation and I do not think
those people even knew, whether they had a Mississippi State
shirt on, extension, or (ARS), the way they were working
together collaboratively on that.
I think, again, you know that I am a member of the
Executive Branch. You have acknowledged that I did not have
much input in the formulation of this budget. I would admit to
you today that I think research is one of those areas where we
may have missed the mark and I believe that we can work toward
rightsizing the budget because research is really the basis of
our agricultural productivity today.
I have stated publicly and privately, been quoted publicly
and privately, that I believe if American manufacturing had the
same level of basic research, applied research, and had a
delivery system like the Extension Service, we would not be
talking about the demise of American manufacturing today. That
is how strongly I believe in research in our land grants and
research in our ARS. So I hope that we can appropriately find
the money to fund them to continue.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Tester, you want to go again or you
all done?
Senator Tester. No, I have got questions now.
Senator Hoeven. You had that opening statement. I did not
know if you had anything left.
Senator Tester. I do not know if it is good.
Senator Hoeven. All right. Senator Tester.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You asked
for the opening statement. I could not resist.
Look, I want to thank you for being here and I am not going
to go into the crop insurance stuff. I think the chairman has
dealt with that appropriately and you and I both know that
there is not a farmer alive that would not rather get their
check from the grain elevator or the livestock market than they
would from the Federal government.
Secretary Perdue. Sure.
Senator Tester. And I also will tell you that in the case
of insurance, I do not know anybody that has made money off of
crop insurance.
Secretary Perdue. That is right.
Senator Tester. There have been a few that make some money
off of hail insurance, but nothing off of crop insurance, okay,
because it is really pretty basic.
So I want to talk about the Rural Development. The ranking
member talked about it a little bit. It is a cut of 20 percent.
And this program is a program that, at least to my perspective,
is overutilized, not underutilized. And I know you said watch
and see what happens, but the problem with cutting 20 percent
out of this program is I have got a list of about a dozen water
systems that my staff just got me five minutes before this
hearing that you are not going to see the negative effects
until long after you and I are both out of these positions.
And so what is the thought there? I mean, because it is
pretty basic stuff for rural development and rural America. And
you know, I do not think it is any different in Georgia than it
is in Montana or North Dakota or Oregon. Rural America is
drying up. And if we do this, the infrastructure is not there,
we have got problems. Could you address that a little bit?
Secretary Perdue. Certainly. I address it really by
acknowledging that rural development has addressed some very
serious needs. I like the fact that many times these are skin
in the game programs where local needs are met with Federal
help in order to accomplish----
Senator Tester. Yeah. That is correct.
Secretary Perdue. Things that are really good. I like that
kind of leverage that we can get through Federal expenditures
by ensuring that either local money, Federal or state money, or
private money are involved in these projects.
I would say, to the President's defense, that the day I was
sworn in, he convened a farmer, rancher, forester, and producer
roundtable and signed an Executive Order regarding rural
prosperity, an interagency task force to deal with rural
prosperity. I think, again, as we right size this budget, you
all know that you are going to get a last stamp on this and the
degree that you all believe that we are doing good. My comment
about holding us accountable, Senator, is hold me accountable
for the resources you give me.
Senator Tester. I know.
Secretary Perdue. I am a farmer at heart. I am going to
make it go as far as you do----
Senator Tester. I know.
Secretary Perdue Just like you do, so.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Senator Tester. And, Mr. Secretary, I would just tell you
that, and it is just this way. You follow the money. I mean,
words are one thing. And I am not saying you. I am talking
about getting folks together and talking is good. We talk a lot
of stuff in this Senate, but if the money is not there, the
Research and Development R&D is just--I hate to say this, but
it is not going to happen. And this is not at you. What I am
saying though is as Secretary of Agriculture, you are going to
have a big role in what this committee does, believe it or not.
If you come in and say, just like you said to Senator
Cochran, if you come in and say, ``You know what? R&D is not
where it needs to be.'' That is going to hold a lot of weight
with this. And, by the way, R&D is not where it needs to be and
you are right. And I would just tell you sawflies. We never had
that when I was growing up. Vomitoxin never had that 5 years
ago. And it is for a number of reasons, because we are raising
corn now in Montana instead of high quality wheat. Rust,
blights, all this stuff.
And by the way, so--and I do not know if they have got
vomitoxin down in Georgia, but I am going to tell you
something. Do you know what they do in Montana? They pull the
combine in at harvest time. They cut out the corners. They take
it to the elevator. If it has got vomitoxin, they set the field
on fire.
We need some (R&D) money. And, by the way, as long as we
are on that, organic has been the fastest going. And I know the
chairman of the Agriculture committee hates organic, but the
truth is that organic is the fastest growing part of the farm
industry for the last 25 years. Let us put a little money in
there to make sure that those guys are at least getting a fair
shake. Okay?
Secretary Perdue. Fair enough.
Senator Tester. Good enough.
Secretary Perdue. I do not disagree.
Senator Tester. You are good. I would just tell you that--a
couple of things. This is really, really Montana centric,
eastern Montana centric. We have got a little Agriculture
rancher cattle research station, a range research lab called
Fort Keogh in Miles City, Montana. Now, I am going to tell you
something. In my life, ranchers have never been anybody at the
trough as far as I am concerned. They have got some advantages
on public land grazing and things like that, but they have
never been anybody that has come in and said, ``We need this
subsidy. We need this support. We need this.''
We have got this little laboratory that helps ranchers
figure out how to maximize their ability for cattle on range.
And it is proven. It has been around since 1924 and it has been
proven benefits to the ranchers I think throughout the country,
but I can tell you absolutely unequivocally in the arid areas
of this country. And it is set to close down, I believe. And I
would just ask you why would we be doing that? I mean, we have
got more cattle than we have got people in Montana. And I think
that might be a good thing.
Secretary Perdue. Is that a rhetorical question?
Senator Tester. No. Why would we be closing this down when,
quite frankly, it is one of the tools out there I think we get
an incredible bang for the buck.
Secretary Perdue. Yeah. I think I have expressed my favor
and my enthusiasm for research and development in Agriculture
production and in various components of that. And I think you
will, if you have invited me to be an advisor to this committee
over appropriations, and I think you will be happy with the
results.
Senator Tester. Well, I think you are. I do not want to
speak for the chairman, but your input on this budget is
critical. And it came down from the President and I will shut
up. But the priorities, I gather, are not your priorities in
this budget. They were somebody else's. And I think there is a
lot of people that serve in the United States Senate and
Congress that do not understand production agriculture. They do
not understand the challenges in rural America.
I voted for you because I think you do. And if your voice
is not made loud and clear throughout this process about what
is important, whether it is rural development or Agriculture
research or safety nets for farmers, then we are going to end
up with a bill that is not going to meet the needs of rural
America. I will just tell you that. That is how important you
are.
Secretary Perdue. I do not think you will find a stronger
advocate for those things that you and I agree on, Senator.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Congratulations and best wishes to you as the chairman of this
subcommittee and I would repay the compliment to the Ranking
Member of the cooperation he and I exhibited over the last
couple of years when I was in your stead.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you.
DISASTER PROGRAMS
Senator Moran. Thank you for coming to Kansas City early in
your tenure and it was a joy to join you in Stoneville and
Cleveland and Mississippi over the weekend. Thanks for your
advocacy for agriculture certainly in rural America and I look
forward to making certain that you are an advocate for rural
America and for agriculture in the urban and suburban areas of
our country which desperately need, as was indicated by the
senator from Montana, they need to know about what we do and
how it affects them as well. So congratulations and best wishes
to you in your new position. I look forward to working with
you.
I want to highlight--first of all, I want to thank Mr.
Young. In your absence before you were confirmed, he was the
acting Secretary. He responded forthwith to concerns that I had
about fires in Kansas. We had a number of counties who were
significantly devastated by wildfires, Clark County in
particular. Nearly all of the county was burned. There was--I
think the number is 700,000 acres in Kansas were burned by
wildfires. Ironically, sadly, two weeks later the rains come
and I guess the hope is that----
Secretary Perdue. And snow.
Senator Moran. The snow came. The good news is that you saw
green begin to appear in places that were black just a few days
before. It will take a long time, decades, perhaps generations,
for a recovery to occur.
There were three areas that I wanted to highlight for you
in regard to response, the Federal government's response to
those fires. First of all, we have had some staffing issues in
FSA offices where the workload increased dramatically. And
recently, there has been approval for two additional positions
at the FSA county office in Clark County and we are pleased
with that, anxious for those positions to be filled, and
appreciate the restructuring in order to meet the current
demands for FSA services.
Kind of three areas of concern. The Emergency Conservation
Program. This generally is a way in which ranchers can be
compensated for loss of fencing. And we had a fire previously
in the adjoining county, Barber County, the so-called Anderson
Creek Fire. It took a year for ranchers to actually be
compensated for the loss of their fence. It was a year before
the payments began. And here is a problem with the program that
you would--I would welcome your help. There is no advanced
payment for that disaster. You get your fence rebuilt and then
you submit the bill.
Here is something that strikes me as nearly impossible to
handle is when you lose your cattle, you have lost your
collateral. And how do you go to the bank and borrow money to
build a fence when you have little or no collateral to backup
that loan? And so this program in my view needs to be changed
with your help in which it is like other disaster payments. It
is a payment that occurs at the time of the disaster, the money
then can be used to rebuild, in this case, the fence.
We were able, with the help of Mr. Young, to get the
commitment of USDA that the payments could occur over a period
of time in stages. So you could fix part of your fence and
submit the bill, and that is a step in the right direction. It
is an improvement and we appreciate the flexibility that was
demonstrated in that response, but the program does not work in
a way it should for a disaster. And so I would encourage you to
work with me and others to see if we cannot alter the way that
program works.
The second part, and I think we have been assured, at
least, there is flexibility in regard to the specifications of
the kind of fence. Kansas is also an oil and gas producing
state, and so we have oilfield pipe. It is a way you can build
a fence and it is much cheaper than buying new fencing. And
many ranchers would take that option and we believe we have the
approval of USDA to allow that to happen. We have received
those assurances, but what I need from you is if there are
issues that come up, we need your common sense, your Georgia
background to say, ``This is not about the actual
specifications. This is about whether you are building a good
fence.''
And I do not know a single rancher in Kansas who wants to
build a fence that will not last generations. That is the kind
of fence that was destroyed in the fire, was fence that had
been there for 70, 80, 100 years. So I need your cooperation as
those issues arise to step in and help us make certain that
common sense prevails.
And then finally, payment limitations under the Livestock
Indemnity Program. This is where you might actually get
compensated for your loss of cattle. And, again, we think the
Kansas Livestock Association estimates that there is between
4,000 and 8,000 head of cattle that died in this fire. The
payment limitation is such that it is per organization, per
business organization, farm organization. And I think farmers
over time have figured out how to organize their farming
operation as a result of the laws related to payment
limitations.
Ranchers have never thought about this. And so almost
without exception every one of our livestock producers is
limited by the payment limitation. And we need to make certain
that there is a way in which brothers and fathers and sons and
daughters who have nor organized their ranching operation in a
way to satisfy payment limitations issues are not harmed.
$125,000 payment limitation does not go very far with the loss
of up to 8,000 cattle.
So those are three areas I wanted to highlight for you.
Some of what I am saying is complimentary. The other is a
forewarning that we will be knocking at your door asking for
your assistance, guidance, direction, and leadership in making
certain that a terrible situation is handled as best we can
with common sense and compassion.
Secretary Perdue. Well, I hope that I would demonstrate to
you and to the producers that are affected not only in Kansas,
but across the country, common sense and compassion. Those are
two virtues that I value very much. And I think, again, I will
take your easiest one first and then address the other two.
The fencing is just--was a silly kind of thing and I think
that can be easily determined. The payment limitations on the
Livestock Indemnity Program, I am not sure if those are
statutory in the Farm Bill or if there is any flexibility
there. I will get the answer to that question regarding that. I
do understand certainly the business organization structure
that you have talked about and many of the production
agricultures have taken that step and your producers could do
that easily.
I think it would be a matter of how we determine what those
limitations are in light of the fact that those are not legal
separations. So we will--I will be happy to talk with you about
what a real solution is on that.
Certainly the reimbursement on the fencing on the Emergency
Conservation Program (ECP), on those kind of things from a
reimbursement standpoint, we know that fencing is very
expensive. And you are right. Sometimes when you are wiped out
you do not really have cash or collateral to go borrow to
create that. So I will explore that as well. I appreciate
Acting Secretary Young in giving the flexibility.
And what I will commit to you, this USDA will implement all
the flexibility in these kinds of programs and these sort of
disaster places that we have under the statute. And if we do
not feel like they are optimal from a statutory perspective we
will inform you of that and ask you to correct that in the next
Farm Bill.
Senator Moran. And I commit to you that--I thank you for
your flexibility and I commit to you that I will work with you
to accomplish those goals.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. I think the limitation on the Livestock
Indemnity, I think that may be statutory. I am not sure, but I
think it may be. Senator----
Senator Moran. Do not take the options away from the
Secretary in case he reaches a different conclusion.
Senator Hoeven. Well, I will try to help you out however I
can.
Senator Udall.
STAFFING REDUCTIONS
Senator Udall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Secretary Perdue, for being here today. I appreciated sitting
down to visit with you last week. I enjoyed hearing your
perspective on the wildfire funding challenge the Forest
Service is facing and look forward to working with you through
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to address that and
other issues important to the Forest Service.
Shifting over now to cuts in staff at USDA, making a living
in rural America gets harder and harder each year. The safety
nets USDA offers are often integral to the success of small
farms and ranches. The proposed staffing cuts and the
President's fiscal year 2018 budget eliminates 5,200 positions.
As I read it, the majority of the staffing cuts are in the
field, not in D.C. These cuts will make it extremely difficult,
if not impossible, for rural and frontier communities to
successfully access USDA's programs at the Farm Service Agency,
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Rural
Development.
How can we work together to avoid these cuts and support
good customer service for USDA services across rural America
where they need these agents the most?
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, Senator. I think our challenge
and our opportunity, as Senator Tester has said is to do more
with less, not less with less. And that is really what I commit
to you today is that we have got to find the right sized budget
to make sure that we do the job. I am an outcome kind of person
and believe in metrics of accountability, and we want to be
judged by that, but we do have to have the resources to do
that.
So, whether it is 5,200 people or what is the right size, I
think you may have heard the fact or I may have expressed to
you that day when we met that as Governor of Georgia for 8
years, I had not voluntarily, but of eight budgets presented to
the General Assembly, five had less money than the year before.
Those are those glorious high economic times of 2003 to 2011. I
did not necessarily choose to have that, but we were a balanced
budget state and managed to that.
So I am going to take what you all, as this appropriation
committee, recommend and with consultation we will help you all
determine where we can give a little and where we need some and
work toward making sure that those front line workers, which
are the most important in any organization, are not the ones
that are cut, certainly in those customer facing situations.
Frankly, one of the reasons that I wanted to combine NRCS
and FSA was to have a critical mass of people in the office. So
many of these offices only had two people and if one was on
vacation and one had a sick child or was sick, then nobody was
there. So with a critical mass, I think, and everybody helping
the customer, focused on the customer and their needs,
irrespective of what they are, we can do better. So I am with
you and we look forward to having a budget that will adequately
address the issues that you are concerned about.
BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Senator Udall. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I understand you
are here to defend the President's budget and I do not believe
there is much support for the USDA budget request on this
committee, especially the cuts to Rural Development,
conservation programs, and research. In particular, I am
extremely disheartened by the cuts to programs that enhance our
water security. The Administration's budget proposal zeroes out
funding for watersheds, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program,
Water Bank Program, Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program,
Emergency Watershed Protection Program, and conservation
security.
New Mexico is a water constrained state, as many of our
western states are, and climate change is exacerbating the
challenge faster than anywhere else across the nation.
According to the last Water Use Census by the State of New
Mexico, 78 percent plus of our water is used in agriculture.
The state needs more investment in the programs slated to be
cut by the proposed budget in order to make our agriculture
producers more efficient while addressing New Mexico's water
shortages.
If this committee provides funds for Rural Development,
conservation programs, and research, which we expect to do,
will you commit to working with me and other members of this
committee to implement these programs in New Mexico as Congress
intended notwithstanding the President's budget request?
Secretary Perdue. Senator, in New Mexico and the other 49
states as well.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
service and look forward to visiting with you as we work
through this process.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Baldwin.
DAIRY PRICING WITH CANADA
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perdue, welcome. We had a chance to discuss a
number of issues that--challenges, frankly, that face Wisconsin
dairy farmers prior to your confirmation and actually even
subsequent to your confirmation. While there were an array of
issues that we discussed, I raised, I think, heightened
concerns about the changes that our neighbors to the north,
Canada, have made in their dairy pricing practices that are
disrupting trading between our two countries. They are blocking
access for U.S. product into Canada.
This has had a major impact, as I have shared with you, on
Wisconsin for the past year and has literally threatened the
livelihoods of dozens of Wisconsin farmers. When the President
was in Wisconsin recently, he promised that he would convince
Canada to change their dairy pricing program. And now that you
have had a chance to look into this matter as Secretary and
have spoken to your Canadian counterparts, I am very, very
eager to hear what the plan is to help Wisconsin dairy farmers
suffering from this unfair pricing scheme that Canada has
adopted?
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, Senator. We unashamedly
addressed this with Minister MacAulay, my counterpart in
Canada, Monday--a week ago in Toronto. We were there and we had
the beginning of bilateral discussions, but dairy was at the
forefront of that. We indicated that we believe the Class 7
designation that Canada had just installed was unfair and it
had created a glut on the world market that we were not
prepared to accept.
I told him and have told everyone that it is not our
intention to get involved in Canadian supply management. They
have got a different dairy program than we do. That is their
prerogative. It was not included in Canada, but it is also not
fair for them to create another class of milk that allows their
producers to overprice on a--to overproduce on a quota system
and then blend the surplus milk off to below world prices on
the world market. That affects not only the U.S., but other
dairy exporting nations as well.
That point is very clear out there. I think, again, these
are exactly the kind of points with Canada and with sugar in
Mexico that the President has talked about renegotiating
National America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). And I can assure
you from our perspective, those will be at the forefront of the
issues that we discuss regarding NAFTA renegotiations.
Senator Baldwin. Well, Mr. Secretary, it sounds like you
pursued the issue pointing out exactly what I would hope. What
did you hear in response and what is our plan? Because the
farmers that I represent need solutions and they need them
really fast.
Secretary Perdue. Well, one of the things we have heard and
the Canadians have tried to put a Band-aid on this by offering
contracts to those 75 Wisconsin dairy farmers that had lost
their contract. We consider that a Band-aid approach, not a
solution approach, to that and we pressed them on that. But you
have to remember, Senator, that these negotiations, this was
our first date and it was--you know, we were not even holding
hands yet.
So we look forward to very candid discussions and it was my
responsibility to lay out the concerns I had. We did that on
dairy. We did that on some of the wheat grading issues that we
have in the Northern Plains regarding our wheat being graded as
feed grade wheat going in there as well, and then as the wine,
where in some of their provinces they have U.S. wine back
behind a cage where the Canadian wine is out where the
consumers can get it. So there were several issues, but dairy
was at the forefront of that.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Senator Baldwin. And I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, and
just urge you to continue to be very strenuous on this issue
because it is so important to the farmers that you mentioned.
I hope to get to a quick second question, which is the USDA
Rural Development funding in the budget. Last year USDA Rural
Development awarded $556 million for more than 8,700 projects
in Wisconsin rural communities. And while I hear the
Administration talk about helping rural communities being a
shared goal, the budget that we have just seen suggests
otherwise. And I am troubled by the elimination of water and
wastewater treatment funding for our rural areas and
communities. The elimination of funds that help with distance
learning and telemedicine are vital in my state. And the
zeroing out of broadband grants.
Wisconsin communities need this funding. For example, the
Village of Viola received $3.4 million from a USDA program that
the budget cuts would--to replace--that the budget now cut to
replace outdated water service lines that leaked 30 percent of
the water they carried and exposed residents to contaminated
water.
So I am hoping, and I would like to hear from, if you would
reconsider the decision to cut rural infrastructure funding and
work with us to include really robust funding for those vital
programs.
Secretary Perdue. Senator, we have had a great discussion
before you were able to join us about that and this committee
has had my commitment that we are going to take the Rural
Development funds that this committee recommends as well as the
Congress recommends and use them as far as they will go as what
Rural Development has been known for. I have a strong
commitment to that and I think when we get the budget right
sized you will see some efforts that way.
SUGAR INDUSTRY
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned sugar
agreement. I would ask will you work with U.S. sugar producers
to close any loopholes that threaten injury to our domestic
sugar farmers.
Secretary Perdue. I absolutely would, Senator, although I
would disagree with the loophole comment that producers have
latched onto. The agreement is the agreement. I think the
agreement really needs enforcement. I think Secretary Wilbur
Ross has negotiated a powerful agreement on behalf of U.S.
sugar producers, both beet and cane, and I am very pleased with
the agreement that he has had. The loophole referred to, I
guess, deals with the polarity over additional sugar which the
USDA gets to set. We are going to be very mindful of our sugar
industry here, both in your area with sugar beets as well as
the cane producers, and make sure that we do not harm our U.S.
sugar industry.
AGRICULTURE RISK COVERAGE PILOT PROGRAM
Senator Hoeven. We are appreciative of Secretary Ross'
efforts and appreciative of your efforts and we know that now
it is enforcement by USDA. And that is very important and look
forward to working with you on it.
Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC), we had included in the
fiscal year 2017 Omnibus a pilot program on (ARC) that gives
FSA more flexibility because sometimes there is not enough
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NAS) data and then
you look at the Risk Management Agency (RMA) data, but we are
getting in some cases inconsistent determinations on contiguous
counties that could, I think, be addressed simply by giving FSA
some flexibility. And so we included funding and legislation in
the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus that allows you to set up a pilot
program this year to check that out. And we think that
something could translate into the Farm Bill.
So I would ask that you and your folks work to set that up
and see what we can do to see if we can use that as a pilot to
make an improvement in ARC for the Farm Bill next year.
Secretary Perdue. I think that is necessary and we welcome
the flexibility in that. Senator, as you know, out in Big Sky
country, you all got some counties the size of Connecticut and
there can be rain on one side and not on the other and
different areas there and obviously you are closer. So we look
forward to maybe negotiating and calculating a more regional
approach to how we would do that. When you have a producer on
one side of the county and the other part of the county is 50
miles away, you are certainly closer to that neighbor across
the county line than you are that way and the differential in
payment is very hard to justify sometimes.
So we are looking for a better way to do that. And I hope
with consultation with you all we will be able to figure out a
better way for the Farm Bill going forward rather than just a
pilot project to understand how we can address those concerns.
RURAL ELECTRIC AND BROADBAND PROGRAMS
Senator Hoeven. I appreciate that and that is why it is
good to have a farmer at the head of USDA because you
understand that. You have been asked about Rural Development a
number of times. I would ask support for the Rural Electric
Cooperative Program and for Rural Broadband. So any thoughts
you have on those two?
Secretary Perdue. Amen and amen.
Senator Hoeven. That is the right answer.
Secretary Perdue. I think we are going to be looking both
at our rural electric utilities as well as our independent
telephone systems. Rural broadband is something that Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, Ajit Pai, and I have
talked about. It is a high priority. We know that it is no
longer a luxury. It is really a requirement for the twenty-
first century. Our farmers are conducting precision
agriculture. They need connectivity. Our kids need connectivity
to stay in these rural towns because when they go to visit
their city cousins and they play all these games on their
phones and they want to do that at home and we want them to and
enjoy a great wholesome life on the farm.
Senator Hoeven. Well, with your grandkids, you know how
that goes.
Secretary Perdue. Absolutely.
SCHOOL MEALS
Senator Hoeven. So school meals, done a lot of work with
the school nutritionists. Great group. I mean, there is
something like 8,000 of them in the National Association they
have been in. And I just--it is such a great group, a fun
group. They are out there every day providing nutritious meals
into schools across the country.
We need to make sure that they have flexibility and that we
have common sense in the school lunch and breakfast programs so
that they can do what they do every day to help and empower
them. And that means giving them the necessary flexibility to
serve not only healthy, nutritious meals, but meals that the
school kids will eat, and then also to make their school
budgets.
And, of course, you will have a lot of influence in how
this is administered and I would just ask for your support for
those concepts that I just laid out.
Secretary Perdue. I could not agree more. I am one of those
people who trust our school nutrition professionals, probably
more than anyone, to understand what it takes to feed a school
kid a nutritious and a palatable meal. And I think the
regulatory burden we have placed on them has been very, very
difficult from a budget standpoint and from a regulatory
accountability standpoint.
So we are going to convene a large group of them and let
them guide the policy regarding school nutrition. And I think
that they can teach all of us how they can get the job done
that we want, healthy, nutritious, but palatable school lunches
while our kids are there.
Senator Hoeven. No, that is it. Absolutely.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary.
We are dashing about between different committee meetings
today. There is so much going on.
Secretary Perdue. I understand.
MCGOVERN-DOLE PROGRAM
Senator Merkley. I wanted to ask you about the McGovern-
Dole Program.
Secretary Perdue. Right.
Senator Merkley. It is the world's premier school feeding
program, about 24 countries we operate in, feeding 2 million
school children a year. Often that one meal is the only meal
they get and it increases school attendance dramatically. In
the Somali region, it went from about 60 percent to about 100
percent attendance because of that school meal.
And the budget proposes eliminating the McGovern-Dole
Program. Do you think the McGovern-Dole Program works and does
eliminating this program align with your motto of do right and
feed everyone?
Secretary Perdue. Senator, I would say that I have agreed
with Congress in their allocation of commodities, U.S. grown
commodities for both our Food for Peace, our P.L. 480 program,
as well as the McGovern-Dole that enables these children in
foreign countries at schools to get nutrition. And I would
trust you all to, again, look at that very closely in the
budget. I think we have addressed some issues. I have admitted
certainly on research and development, on rural development, on
crop insurance, and I think on this area where I think the
budget can benefit from some guidance.
FOOD FOR PEACE PROGRAM
Senator Merkley. Thank you. And I will just skip over Food
for Peace then since that was going to be my next question. And
as I understand it, you are trusting the wisdom of the
committee to find the right answer on that particular issue.
Secretary Perdue. Right.
Senator Hoeven. It is a pretty good answer.
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM
Senator Merkley. That is a great answer. We love that. Can
we apply that same philosophy to the Single-Family Housing
Direct Loan Program?
Secretary Perdue. Yes. I think again we may do direct
loans. We also may increase our guaranteed loan policy
regarding using underwriters in the community that know people.
So I think you will see--I do not see the housing program
diminished. I do not know whether it will be totally direct or
more guaranteed program where we can leverage the Federal
dollar in order to get more private sector money in there, but
I do not expect the housing program to be diminished and I am
hoping these 600 people or how many signed this or allowed
their names to be used on this National Rural Housing Coalition
that was mentioned by the press as 600 comments, will see at
the end of the day that we mean well by them.
WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM
Senator Merkley. How about with the elimination in the
budget, the proposed elimination, of the Water and Waste
Disposal Program? Another topic for the wisdom of the
committee?
Secretary Perdue. Yes, sir. I think we discussed that maybe
where you had to step out, but certainly water issues. Water is
life and we understand that.
Senator Merkley. I tell you, I hold a town hall in every
county every year and before the town hall I meet with the
local city commissioners, county commissioners and so forth.
And there is hardly 1 of my 36 counties that does not raise a
water issue because of the challenge in rural Oregon of having
the funding to modernize or replace aging infrastructure or
build new infrastructure for the opportunity to expand. So I
think that is a very important thing.
Secretary Perdue. I think one of the things that may have
been underappreciated was the delivery system that USDA has
through its Rural Development Program, over 400 outlets, to
understand that. I know in Georgia we use the Community
Development Block Grant very wisely in that. We use the water
money through our Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority,
but nonetheless, many of those communities still relied on the
USDA for some of those grants and loans as well.
The other thing I have not mentioned yet, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member, is that the loan programs at USDA are run very
wisely from a financial integrity perspective. I was very
pleased with the default rate, better than commercial in many
ways. And it demonstrates that we have had good wise decisions
made out in the Rural Development Program.
CONSERVATION PLANS
Senator Merkley. So I am just about out of time, but in the
last 40 seconds, the Natural Resources Conservation Service is
cut by $260 million, but that would profoundly affect the
number of conservation plans it can put into place by the USDA.
Should we sustain the funding for that program and keep farmers
able to participate in this program?
Secretary Perdue. Certainly. You are aware obviously of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Programs (EQIP) and how well
that in fact it has been oversubscribed every year over those
kind of things. As I indicated earlier, I think farmers are our
best stewards of the land. If we give them some technical
guidance and some incentive money to help them do the right
thing on their farms, I think that is a great investment.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Cochran.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it was a
pleasure to have you in Mississippi last week. The timing was
perfect. You were the keynote speaker for our 82nd annual
meeting of the Delta Council, rich in tradition, tremendous
influence for good and improvement of standard of life,
standard of living, agriculture activities. During the trip I
know you had the opportunity to see firsthand USDA'S impressive
research activities, Agriculture Research Service Regional
Office. It is headquartered in Stoneville, Mississippi and it
covers the lower Mississippi River Valley.
Given the growing demand for food and the need to double
U.S. agriculture production by the year 2050, how important is
it for Congress to invest in agriculture? Should we be
providing funding for USDA research activities above the
President's budget if we know that those funds are going to be
used for good purposes?
Secretary Perdue. Senator, I want to tell you
unequivocally, I have not gotten over the fact that you moved
that regional office from Athens, Georgia to Stoneville,
Mississippi.
Senator Cochran. Maybe our timing was a little off.
Secretary Perdue. I indicated earlier it was.
Senator Hoeven. Powerful appropriations chairman.
Secretary Perdue. It was a very impressive facility. And
once again, the seamless collaboration I experienced there, I
think is the foundation of the productivity of American
agriculture. I think we need more, not less and wherever we see
collaboration like that, I think it needs to be rewarded. The
portfolio that was included there from your research in
aquaculture, catfish production, and to cotton to corn to
insecticides to pesticides to cover crops, it was very, very
impressive.
I think the American public, if they could each one, one by
one, visit the Stoneville facility would say, ``We need to do
more of this, not less.'' So I do think--I am not being--I am
not pandering this morning when I say that I honestly believe
that is the essence of American productivity today. It has gone
on, whether it is Senator Tester's research in grazing in his
area or other places that is really the foundation of our
American productivity. And I think as we see other nations
ascending, we are wise not to reduce that, but to enhance that.
Senator Cochran. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
BRAZILIAN BEEF
Senator Hoeven. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank you, Mr. Secretary when Senator Baldwin was bringing up
her dairy issues for your work there and also on wheat grading
because it does not make any sense to raise the best wheat in
the world and it gets graded as feed going north. So I
appreciate that.
The USDA last August lifted a ban on Brazilian meat. I did
not like that, had a difference of discussion with your
predecessor about that. It previously was banned because of
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and quite frankly, USDA chose to
open that market up again.
In March, as you well know, investigators in Brazil shed
light on a scandal involving meat packing plants paying off
inspectors, selling expired meat, meat that was treated with
acid mixed with good meat, sold to the marketplace. The
European Union and China banned Brazil. I should not say
banned. They halted the imports. The United States did not. We
do not have country of origin labeling in this country. We had
a USDA seal and what happens when we bring in tainted meat from
somewhere else, it gets stamped with that seal unless it is
rejected, but this was not.
And being a country, and this is not to brag. This is
fact--that raises the best meat in the world. And I know that
because I eat a lot of it. It is ridiculous that we are
allowing in tainted meat and really raising heck with our
markets and, quite frankly, not doing right by the consumers or
the producers.
So I know you were just new to the slot. I mean, you were
just freshly minted, so to speak, in this position. Wouldn't it
have been wise to just kind of hit the pause button on this
stuff and say, ``Look, until we get to the bottom of this and
find out what is really going on, we are going to halt that
import for a while?''
Secretary Perdue. Well, Senator, I think my Food Safety
Inspection Service (FSIS) people have assured me that the
plants you referred to in Brazil were none of those exporting
and we did go to a 100 percent inspection. You probably are
aware that these programs are guided by the World Trade
Organization (WTO) and bilateral trade agreements that make it
rather difficult to do that, although, as you know, we have
been the victims of that, getting back into China after 14
years over one Canadian case of Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE).
Senator Tester. Yeah. That is right.
Secretary Perdue. Also, avian influenza in China. When you
have it in one small area that is confined, then our whole
nation gets out of there. But I do not think we can preach fair
and free trade if we do not practice that. And I hear your
concerns. I had concerns as well until I talked to our chief of
our Food Safety and Inspection Service that assured me that we
were going 100 percent and that I think we have programs in
place that once that meat comes in here it is not allowed to be
re-exported with a USDA stamp.
Senator Tester. So you are confident that it is indeed 100
percent, the re-inspections that are taking place?
Secretary Perdue. I have to rely on my people. FSIS has a
great reputation, as you know, worldwide, and I am relying on
them to do what they tell me they are doing.
Senator Tester. Okay. And I would just tell you that when
it comes to food, it is pretty important. I mean, I am telling
you. And if we are putting bad stuff in our bodies from some
other countries, I do not know why that cannot be that is not
free trade. That is putting crap in our bodies and it is really
impacting our consumers and our producers. And so I know you
know that. I just want to say I think in this particular case,
especially with the past history with Brazil, I think a more
measured approach would have probably been better.
Secretary Perdue. I understand. I think--I want to
reiterate that we take food safety as zero tolerance.
CHAIR BEEF TRADE DEAL
Senator Tester. Okay. Good. First of all, congratulations
on the China beef deal. I think to open up a market to 1.3
billion people is no small effort. And you talked about some of
the reasons that it was not there before, and I appreciate your
great work as well as the others that you have already
mentioned.
One of the things that I read in the agreement was
traceability. It is a big deal. Evidently the Chinese born,
raised, slaughtered in the U.S. could have been imported from
Canada or Mexico, but subsequently raised and slaughtered in
the U.S. These are reasonably stringent audit trail
requirements. And do you think you can meet those?
Secretary Perdue. I do believe. We had great consultation
with the beef industry, from producers to packers. Actually,
the traceability has to do with maybe one of your previous
questions. China wanted to make sure they were not importing
Mexican or Canadian beef in that. They wanted U.S. beef.
Senator Tester. Got you.
Secretary Perdue. Our producers and packers said, yes, it
is probably going to be a little more expensive. It is going to
be a little more onerous.
Senator Tester. But they can do it.
Secretary Perdue. But we are willing to do it.
Senator Tester. So a few years ago we were on the cusp of
having country of origin labeling. And one of the things the
packers said they could not do is they could not trace that
product and keep that audit trail separate. I thought it was
baloney then and this kind of proves baloney now. Do you have
any comments on that?
Secretary Perdue. I think it is hamburger, Senator.
Senator Tester. Okay. Mixed beef. But the truth is that we
were told that it just flat could not be done and now we are
told it can be done, which I believe--I mean, I have dealt
personally with enough audit trails that we can audit trail
anything.
Secretary Perdue. Right.
Senator Tester. And show you what cow it came out of in the
end.
Secretary Perdue. I think it has to do with 1.3 hungry
mouths.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Secretary Perdue. 1.3 billion hungry mouths.
Senator Tester. All right. Well, thank you very much and
hopefully we can use what we have learned in this agreement,
which I think is a good one, to expand to others and even
domestic productions.
Secretary Perdue. And I think, once again, we are not done
here. I think when we demonstrate what we can do and the
quality of U.S. beef coming in, I am absolutely convinced when
those Chinese get a hold of U.S. beef, they are going to want
more. They are going to trust it.
Senator Tester. There is no doubt about it and that is why
we should be extremely proud of our U.S. producers and not let
that tainted--potentially tainted stuff from Brazil come in.
Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. He circled all the way around to the front
end there, didn't he? But that is a legitimate concern,
absolutely.
Senator Moran.
MCGOVERN-DOLE PROGRAM
Senator Moran. Chairman, thank you very much. Senator
Merkley, in your absence, I congratulated Senator Hoeven for
this chairmanship and thanked you for the previous service. You
were kind in your comments to me and I wanted to make sure that
you knew I was reciprocating not just out of necessity, but out
of genuine gratitude for the way we worked together.
Mr. Secretary, in regard to Senator Merkley, he talked
about a couple of our most important food programs, Food for
Peace and McGovern-Dole. I will not pile on too much more, but
I hold those programs in high regard, believe that we have a
moral opportunity to help feed the world. I believe it is
advantageous to American producers to do so, so there is also
that benefit. I have encouraged USDA and USAID to increase its
use of grains, particularly Kansas wheat, in its programs and
would reiterate that issue with you.
What I wanted to raise is a budget issue. You indicate
that--your budget indicates, the Administration's budget
indicates that McGovern-Dole is not being effectively
implemented and lacks adequate oversight by USDA and then
zeroes out McGovern-Dole funding.
I do not know whether there is an issue with
administration, but if there is, that is your responsibility to
figure out and address. I assume you would agree with me that
it is better to fix the problems with oversight and effective
implementation. That is not a reason to eliminate the program.
It is a reason to fix the problems, if there are any,
associated with the program. That make sense to you?
Secretary Perdue. It does make sense. You may be aware that
we do have some question and investigation going into one of
the areas of where this program was utilized, but I think that
is the oversight responsibility of the USDA and we take that
very seriously. I have asked the probing questions about how is
this administered, are we making sure. I think we are dealing
with maybe a couple of rogue agents who have used the--
misappropriated the resources there and we are on it.
FOREIGN TRADE PROGRAMS
Senator Moran. Very good. In Kansas, we call it the Dole-
McGovern Food Program. A lot of conversation about beef to
China. Again, thank you for that effort. It is a couple of
things that I wanted to raise in regard to trade.
My understanding is you have been active in your
conversations, advocacy in regard to trade within the
Administration. Mexico and Canada are important customers of
Kansans in agriculture. We are an export state not only in
agriculture, but in what we manufacture. One of the things the
budget does is zero the funding for Market Access Program and
the Foreign Market Development Program, again at a time in
which agriculture commodity prices are what they are.
Sometimes in Kansas and in the country we have been able to
get by in tough times with low prices when we have significant
production, see if you can produce your way to a level of
revenue that allows you to survive, but that is not the case
today in Kansas and many places in the country. And so we need
every market we can acquire. We need to acquire new ones. We
need to maintain what we have. And I encourage you. I thank you
for your advocacy for Mexico and Canada and others.
Again, I would suggest to you that this budget ought to
include the funding that it normally includes, but particularly
at this time in regard to the Market Access Program (MAP) and
to the Foreign Market Development Program. And perhaps this is
one that goes in Senator Merkley's list of the wisdom of the
committee. But I would--if you want to respond to that, you are
welcome to.
Secretary Perdue. I would respond. I have used skin in the
game before here and I like the leverage that financial
collaboration can bring. This is one program that has
collaboration with the commodity groups. They are investing
sometimes one to one or two to one over these programs. And I
think one group told me seven to one for their programs over
the Market Access Program.
So, once again, my commitment to the producers of America,
if they grow it, we will sell it and we need all the--we need
an Under Secretary for Trade, but we need all these market
programs that can help us persuade people around the world to
buy it.
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Senator Moran. Let me turn to conservation, similar kind of
circumstances. Conservation Technical Assistance is reduced by
almost $100 million in the Administration's budget. That
technical assistance is hugely important in voluntary
conservation. I think that is the focus. You mentioned the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) earlier, the
opportunity for landowners, farmers, and ranchers to
voluntarily enter into programs and conduct their farming and
ranching operations in ways that enhance the environmental
quality of the land, air, and water is a direction that I think
is important for us to continue to pursue.
The budget also eliminates the Conservation Stewardship
Program, CSP, and the Regional Conservation Partnership
Program. When it comes time for Farm Bill reauthorization, will
you advocate for the elimination of those programs or is this
just a request in the Administration, by the Administration,
for no money?
Secretary Perdue. I think the heart of the farmer is for
conservation stewardship and many times they want to do, but
they do not know exactly how to do. And that is what these
technical helpers do with the NRCS. I think, again, aligning
them with FSA will make them even more productive in addressing
the needs programmatically of the farmers who come in. So I
think you will find a--once again, a strong advocate for
conservation programs here in this Secretary.
RURAL BROADBAND PROGRAM
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, would you rule me out of order
if I go one more question? Thank you very much.
Let me--you mentioned Ajit Pai and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). And I wanted to highlight a
conversation I have had with your predecessor and folks at USDA
for a long period of time. A number of years ago, three or
four, the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, made a
decision in regard to how our rural electric--I am sorry--our
rural telephone companies could be reimbursed from the
Universal Service Fund.
What I have tried to get to occur over a long period of
time is a conversation between the FCC and Rural Utilities
Services (RUS). And really what I was looking for is for RUS to
make its needs known to the FCC. I think the FCC was operating
in its vacuum. And the consequence was the decisions made in
the FCC order reduced the financial viability of many of our
rural telephone companies. And that financial ability was
reduced in a way that would make it problematic, if not
impossible, for the rural telephone company to repay their RUS
loan.
So it is one of those things that can drive you crazy if
you let it, which is an agency making a decision over here
without knowing about perhaps the unintended consequences to
another agency. And the portfolio at RUS is a significant
amount of money and I would encourage you to make sure that
your RUS administrator, when you have one, is an advocate for
the circumstances that allow those phone companies to be able
to repay their obligations to RUS. It is not a problem that
Congress or the American taxpayer want to have as a result of
lack of revenue from an FCC decision.
I have Ajit Pai, Commissioner Pai, Chairman Pai is a
Kansan. I know him well. I am pleased to know that you are
working with him and I think this is an area in which the
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development in particular, but
the FCC can work hand in hand, use the fact that Ajit is from
Parsons, Kansas, a small Kansas community, to your advantage
and make sure that good things happen in rural America by
cooperating and advocating on behalf of the folks that we
represent.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, Senator.
Interestingly enough, Anne Hazlett and I were just talking
yesterday about this very issue of rural broadband and using
our rural utilities, both independent telephone companies and
co-ops and rural electric co-ops for broadband. I was very
pleased and frankly pleasantly surprised with the Chairman of
FCC's interest in rural broadband. I think you will find a
different policy there regarding our rural utility services and
we hope to explore that to the fullest.
Senator Moran. The way you answered that question suggests
that I was somewhat critical of Ajit Pai. His parents would not
like to hear that from me and that was my intention at all.
Secretary Perdue. Oh, I----
Senator Moran. We are delighted to have Ajit Pai as the
Chairman of the FCC.
Secretary Perdue. If I answered that way, I did not mean
that. I am very impressed and very pleased with his interest in
rural broadband.
Senator Moran. No, I knew you were. I just wanted to make
sure his parents knew I was. And it is important that the
Universal Service Fund and RUS, those are compatible. They each
serve a mission. RUS is important beyond the Universal Service
Fund. We need USDA to advocate in that manner. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Ajit Pai is a very impressive
individual. I will add to that. He has been very responsive and
very impressive.
I guess I would turn to Ranking Member. Any final comments
before we wrap?
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING
Senator Merkley. Well, I just want to follow up about
Senator Tester's comment about country of origin labeling. I
would like to live in a nation where if I want to choose to buy
American grown beef or pork at the store that I can see it
labeled and I can buy it. And so I am very disturbed that we
were not able to work out a system to enable us to keep that
country of origin labeling. And I hope that the experience
regarding the export of American beef to China will give us
some practices that we might be able to go back and fix that
and restore that opportunity to all Americans who want to
support our own local ranchers.
Secretary Perdue. I think you are aware, Senator, that was
a WTO adjudication and we simply had to comply. And I think
again from a statutorily perspective, if Congress wants to
address that, I stand by ready to implement.
Senator Merkley. Well, there was an adjudication based on
the fact that our meat packers could not find a way to
basically do it at the same cost and therefore not to create a
trade barrier. But maybe what the lesson we are going to learn
with China, maybe we can find that method and apply it.
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Secretary, again, I want to thank you
for being here. I would just check to see if you have any final
comments or from Dr. Johansson or Mr. Young before close.
Anything else that you want to put of record?
Secretary Perdue. I have got one final comment and I would
offer them if they would like to speak at all. Hearing none.
You all have been very kind in expressing your confidence
and I want you to know that I take that very seriously. And I
am an outcome based kind of guy willing to be held accountable.
If you see us--you asked, Senator Merkley, earlier about
inquiries and oversight.
If you see things that you disagree with, obviously I
expect us to have a discussion about that or provide reasons
for decisions that are made. But it has been a very friendly
conversation and I respect your role in that. Having been in
the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch, I fully
understand our system of government and I want you all to know
I have got confidence in the wisdom of the committee.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and we very much
look forward to working with you.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Hoeven. For members of the subcommittee, any
questions that you would like to submit for the hearing record
should be turned in to subcommittee staff within one week,
which is Tuesday, June 20th. We would appreciate it then if we
could have responses back from USDA within four weeks of that
time for any written questions.
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. On August 12, 2016, the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) released a joint statement of principles (Federal
Register; Vol. 81: no. 156) on industrial hemp research and production
as established under section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014
(Public Law 113-79). In this joint statement, the Federal agencies
state that ``institutions of higher education and other participants
authorized to carry out agricultural pilot programs under section 7606
may be able to participate in USDA research or other programs to the
extent otherwise eligible for participation in those programs.'' What
has the Department done beyond issuing this joint statement to
disseminate information and work with stakeholders on Federal funding
opportunities for which industrial hemp pilot program participants may
be eligible?
Answer. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
responds regularly to industry groups and university requests for
information on NIFA programs that could support research and
development to help commercialize industrial hemp as a crop. Industrial
hemp is one among many crops that can be used to produce an array of
value-added plant products, and as such, can be supported by NIFA
programs.
horsesoring
Question. On July 26, 2016, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service at USDA proposed a rule entitled, ``Horse Protection: Licensing
of Designated Qualified Persons and Other Amendments'' (Federal
Register; Vol. 81: no. 143). Although the comment period for this
proposed regulation closed on October 26, 2016, no final regulation has
been issued. This proposed rule seeks to implement legislative
proposals that have not been considered or adopted by the Congress and
would have devastating impacts on the walking horse industry in
Kentucky. It is my understanding that APHIS is following the directives
from Congress included in the fiscal year 2016 and 2017 Appropriations
Acts by communicating with stakeholders in the walking horse industry
and working to bring consistency and objectivity to the inspection
methodology in a way that protects horses. Will the Department, through
APHIS, continue to work with stakeholders and equine veterinarians to
ensure that objective inspections are implemented and that more
consistency is brought to the inspection protocols and methodology?
Secondly, with respect to the proposed rule, will you work with
stakeholders to ensure that any final regulation does not exceed the
powers granted to the Department by Congress under the Horse Protection
Act?
Answer. Yes, we will continue to work with stakeholders and equine
veterinarians to ensure inspection protocols and the methodology used
are more consistent. If we decide to pursue final rulemaking, we will
thoroughly consider the input provided by stakeholders in response to
the proposed rule to ensure that the powers granted do not exceed what
was provided under the Horse Protection Act.
Question. The President's Budget also includes a legislative
proposal to eliminate Regional Conservation Partnership Program--which
is a new, comprehensive and flexible program... that uses partnerships
to stretch and multiply conservation investments and reach conservation
goals on a regional or watershed scale. The National Resource
Conservation Service in New Mexico--partnering with the New Mexico
Conservation Districts--have competed and secured critical funding to
revitalize three projects in New Mexico the Canadian River, North
Central New Mexico and, an issue of personal interest to me, Acequia
Revitalization. These partnerships are bringing new farmers into the
conservation program and reducing overhead costs for USDA. And we need
to protect and improve this program, not eliminate it.
If this Committee provides funds for RCPP, will you commit to
working with me to implement these programs in New Mexico as Congress
intended, notwithstanding the President's budget request to eliminate
the program?''
Answer. If Congress provides funds for the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP), we will commit to implementing programs as
Congress intended in New Mexico and other States.
Question. Secretary Perdue, I am very concerned that the Rural
Development program is being cut in this proposed budget, to the
detriment of people in New Mexico. Over the past decade, New Mexico has
received $1.7 billion dollars in Rural Development loans and grants.
These loans and grants build water systems, provide housing, install
renewable energy and connect rural areas with broadband. And much of
this assistance is not just in rural areas, but frontier areas as well.
New Mexico has some that are the most economically distressed in the
country.
What is your vision for revitalizing rural America? And how do you
think that can be done with these drastic budget cuts proposed in the
President's Budget--in particular to programs like Rural Development?
Answer. The increased emphasis on Rural Development at USDA will
help in providing to Rural America the tools necessary to improve its
economy and to remedy some of the economic difficulties facing rural
communities. Rural America has serious needs and this Administration
recognizes the need for action, which will be discussed through the
Agriculture and Rural Prosperity Task Force. The Task Force will focus
its efforts on Rural Development activities, including access to
broadband, community infrastructure, community mental and physical
health, workforce training and veterans' employment, agricultural
research, regulatory reform, improved access to capital, and increased
local control of decisionmaking.
Question. The President's budget cuts $193 billion dollars from the
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program over the next decade--a 25
percent cut--including shifting $116 billion dollars of that to funding
requirement to states. For states like New Mexico with a budget crisis,
it would be impossible for them to maintain that safety net. In
addition more than one out of every five New Mexicans counts on the
food stamps to assure they don't go to bed hungry. New Mexico has the
third highest percentage of recipients in the nation after D.C. and
Mississippi. This change would abandon the national commitment to
provide low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities with
a basic diet regardless of where they live. Instead, states' ability to
contribute to the cost of SNAP could drive the level of benefits
available to poor households in that state. This is a radical departure
from SNAP's basic design--which has been proven to reduce hunger and
poverty.
Secretary, do agree that making sure Americans are not going hungry
should be a core tenant of our Federal social safety net?
Answer. Yes, I agree making sure Americans are not going hungry is
key to our Federal social safety net. That is why, our motto at the
USDA is to ``Do right and feed everyone.'' However, I also believe we
have the responsibility to ensure that the program operates with
efficiency and effectiveness and delivers on that purpose. The package
of proposals in the fiscal year 2018 President's Budget will help
target SNAP benefits to the neediest households while ensuring able-
bodied adults are expected to work.
Question. Do you believe transferring this responsibility to the
states is a not financially sustainable?
Answer. I am willing to work with Congress on meeting the needs of
program participants in a fiscally responsible manner, while supporting
State flexibilities.
Question. Will you commit to working with Congress to assure that
sufficient funding is provided at the Federal level for food stamps?
Answer. Yes. I look forward to working with Congress as we go
forward in budget proceedings, to assure sufficient funding is provided
to appropriately and adequately serve program participants.
Question. Secretary Perdue--Yesterday Secretary Zinke announced his
interim 45-day review of the Bears Ears National Monument. That review
states that:
``In consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the
Secretary of the Interior recommends that the existing boundary
of the Bears Ears National Monument be modified to be
consistent with the intent of the [Antiquities] Act.''
Simply put, you and Secretary Zinke recommend removing protections
for Bears Ears.
The Forest Service is under your jurisdiction. What was your role
in this recommendation?
Answer. USDA personnel worked in conjunction with the Department of
Interior (DOI) to develop information necessary to make the
recommendation provided to the Administration.
Question. How did Secretary Zinke consult with you? And why were
you not a co-signatory on this document--which includes recommendations
about hundreds of thousands of acres of Forest Service lands?
Answer. The USDA Forest Service provided input and was in contact
with DOI counterparts throughout the Monument review process. The
Administration designated the DOI as the lead Department in the
Monument review. That said, the Secretary of the Interior was the
appropriate signatory of the recommendation document.
Question. Have you ever visited the Forest Service lands in
question?
Answer. No, I have never visited the lands in question as the
Secretary of Agriculture. However, the Forest Service personnel have a
deep understanding and working knowledge of the lands in question and
have established a comprehensive analysis commensurate with the
recommendations made by the Department.
Question. Have you or your senior staff consulted with the tribal
communities impacted by these lands in this report?
Answer. Forest Service officials participated in the scheduled
listening sessions across the country as well as the Bears Ears
National Monument specific meeting with Interior Secretary Zinke and
the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition.
Question. How do you plan to maintain the existing co-management of
Federal lands?
Answer. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have
experience at co-management of Federal lands in other parts of the
country. The framework for the management of this particular site would
be through the establishment of a Monument Management Plan.
Question. Finally, do you believe the President has the legal
authority under the Antiquities Act, FLPMA and NFMA to rescind national
monument protections?
Answer. I feel that the Administration's position on the statutory
authorities and scope and scale of decisionmaking within those
authorities is best provided by the lead Department of the review.
Question. The 502 and 504 programs have financed the construction
and repair, as well as ensured the affordability of millions of homes
for low and moderate income rural Americans across the country. It does
this by offering homeowners access to high quality loans who often have
little to no other options for mortgage financing.
Given the importance of 502 and 504 lending in addressing
underserved, rural populations, why has the President proposed to
completely defund them?
Answer. Keeping in line with the Administration's priority to
reduce the Federal deficit and create a balanced budget, USDA had to
make some tough funding decisions. USDA looks forward to working with
the Subcommittee more to ensure that the unique needs of rural
communities are met. If it is determined that USDA should continue to
administer this program, I will work to ensure that we do so in the
most effective and efficient manner possible.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
bioenergy program for advanced biofuels
Question. The forest products industry is a vital part of the Maine
economy. Wood pellet manufacturers in Maine, however, continue to have
concerns with an interim rule that the Department has issued for the
Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels. Wood pellets, recognized by
USDA as ``advanced biofuels,'' represent a very efficient end use for
material that is otherwise a waste byproduct. I am told that this
program is being implemented in a way that severely disadvantages solid
based advanced biofuels, including wood pellets used in heating
applications. USDA has imposed deep discounts on the payments to solid
biofuel producers and an overall payment cap on companies in this
sector, which starkly contrasts with the payments being made to liquid
advanced biofuel producers used in the transportation sector. It seems
that this program should be implemented in a way that is fuel and
technology neutral. Will you work to bring fairness and equity to the
administration of this program for all producers of qualified advanced
biofuels?
Answer. Creating and expanding economic opportunities in rural
America is a primary concern for me as Secretary. As a result of the
elevation of the Rural Development mission area to report directly to
me and through the work of the Agriculture and Rural Prosperity Task
Force of which I am the Chair, I expect that USDA to further create
opportunities. In our review of the Department's energy-related
programs, we will assess the issue you identified above to determine
whether a more fair approach to delivering the program is needed.
rural development
Question. I am concerned that the President's budget request
proposes to eliminate several programs run through the Department of
Agriculture's Rural Development agency that assist rural communities in
maintaining and improving critical municipal water infrastructure. This
includes the Rural Utilities Service's (RUS) Rural Water Circuit Rider
Program, which provides technical assistance to rural water systems
that are experiencing operation, financial, and/or managerial issues,
and is widely used in my home state of Maine. The President's budget
also proposes to eliminate the RUS's Water and Waste Disposal Program,
which has been used to provide financing for rural communities to
establish, expand, or modernize water treatment and waste disposal
facilities. What do you view as the proper role for the Federal
government in assisting small rural communities with water
infrastructure requirements to comply with Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water requirements? Can you describe current efforts by the
Department to make sure water infrastructure assistance in rural areas
is adequate?
Answer. The Federal Government plays a very critical role by
providing technical support and financing so that rural communities may
have safe drinking water and adequate water disposal facilities. Rural
communities can be served by private sector financing or other Federal
investments in rural water infrastructure, such as the Environmental
Protection Agency's State Revolving Funds. USDA looks forward to
working with the Subcommittee more to ensure that the unique needs of
rural communities are met. If it is determined that USDA should
continue to administer this program and funding is provided, I will
administer the program and ensure that it is run in the most effective
and efficient manner possible.
Question. USDA Rural Development's rural housing programs, such as
the multi-family subsidized housing program, single-family home loans,
remodeling funds, and rental assistance, have been vital in my state.
In Aroostook County, Maine's northernmost region, a flood in 2008 left
some families homeless and in need of Federal assistance. The
President's budget request includes $1.35 billion for multi-family
housing program rental assistance payments to fund all contract
renewals as well as $20 million for the multi-family housing voucher
program, while proposing to eliminate programs such as the multi-family
housing direct loan program and the multi-family housing preservation
and revitalization programs. Given the overall funding requested for
these programs, what steps is the Department taking to ensure rural
families that rely on Federal housing assistance can continue to do so?
Answer. Rural Development (RD) will continue to leverage the
funding that is provided to ensure that low-income families receive the
support they need. The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget includes
funding for the Multifamily Guaranteed program, which can be used to
rehabilitate aging multifamily housing properties and maintain low rent
prices for tenants. RD continues to promote public-private partnerships
to further assist rural America and stimulate the economy.
Additionally, we recently launched a pilot program to incentivize non-
profit organizations to acquire the multifamily housing properties to
continue providing affordable housing in the rural areas.
land-grant university research
Question. The land-grant university system helps ensure integration
of experiment station science with the educational missions of
universities. Matching Federal funds with state funds increases
capacity and strengthens the long-term commitment of states to research
and development. Local input from advisory and constituency groups
informs decisionmaking on research programs. In Maine, research is
focused on the natural resource areas that have long been the backbone
of Maine's economy agriculture and food, forestry and wood products,
marine fisheries and aquaculture, wildlife, and tourism. This research
uses cutting-edge tools to address current challenges, including fuel
innovation, pest-management and disease treatment, value-added
products, and nutrition improvements. I have heard concerns, however,
regarding a backlog of deferred maintenance at land-grant university
facilities. Infrastructure improvements would help modernize research
facilities and increase competitiveness. Do you see a role for the
Department to partner with land-grant universities to help address
these infrastructure needs?
Answer. Yes, currently we provide support to the 1890 land-grant
institutions for the acquisition and improvement of agricultural and
food sciences facilities and equipment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
research funding
Question. As you mentioned in your testimony, growing global food
demand will mean that we have to double food production by 2050, or
just one working lifetime. America has historically been the
breadbasket of the world and American producers stand ready to meet
this challenge. One of the key reasons that American producers have
filled this role is that we have lead the world in Agricultural
research and innovation. Much of this innovation has been borne out of
research performed at the USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) or
at leading institutions of higher education through the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
Unfortunately, USDA's fiscal year 2018 budget seems to take a step
back is supporting research by calling for cuts to NIFA and ARS
including a proposal to close 17 ARS research stations.
Do you stand by the proposed cuts to research funding included in
your budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget was finalized before my arrival
at USDA, but I agree that research is the basis of our agricultural
productivity today. I look forward to working together to right-size
USDA's research budget to ensure American producers remain the most
competitive around the globe.
Question. How do you plan to ensure that American producers can
meet the opportunity of growing food demand (while using the same
amount of land and less resources) with a diminished role of USDA
research?
Answer. Ensuring that American producers can meet the opportunity
of growing food demand will require that we partner with the private
sector and land-grant universities. Additionally, I look forward to
working with the Subcommittee to ensure our research agencies have the
resources necessary to improve U.S. agricultural productivity and are
equipped with the expertise to address future opportunities and
challenges for producers and consumers around the world.
Question. Can you describe how you prioritized funding for research
programs in your budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget was finalized before my arrival
at USDA, but I will work to ensure research programs maximize benefits
to producers, train the next generation of scientists and others to
enter the agricultural workforce, and promote nutritious and safe food
for all Americans. USDA's research agencies are continuously evaluating
the progress of their research portfolios and shifting limited
resources around as necessary to ensure their efforts are meeting the
needs of US producers and consumers.
fsa staffing
Question. The budget requests calls for a 9 percent cut in Farm
Service Agency staffing. This would obviously require substantial
consolidation and closure of certain offices.
How will you ensure consistent and accessible service for farmers
and ranchers if these cuts are instituted?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget does not call for
FSA office closures or consolidations. I will continue to work to
identify how best to allocate our financial resources and ensure that
the FSA continues to provide efficient service to America's farmers and
ranchers.
Question. How would an FSA consolidation plan be constructed to
ensure geographic fairness?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget does not call for
FSA office closures or consolidations. FSA, RMA and NRCS were realigned
to a new mission area for Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC). As
part of this reorganization, FSA, RMA and NRCS are exploring ways to
improve customer service and increase collaboration.
I will continue to work to identify how best to allocate our
financial resources, and insure that the FSA continues to provide
efficient service to America's farmers and ranchers.
Question. What functions of FSA would you prioritize in a
consolidation plan?
Answer. FSA, NRCS and RMA, now part of the new FPAC mission area,
are conducting a rigorous review to look for opportunities for
collaboration, improved administrative efficiencies, and improved
program implementation. Improving customer service, increasing
administrative efficiencies, and providing a simplified one-stop shop
for America's farmers, ranchers and foresters continues to be a top
priority of the Department.
foreign market development programs
Question. In May, you announced a reorganization plan that, among
other changes, calls for the creation of an Undersecretary for Trade
and Foreign Agricultural Affairs. The creation of this position was
required by the 2014 Farm Bill and your announcement stated that the
mission of this office will be to coordinate all trade functions to
address trade barriers facing U.S. exports. Agricultural exports have
been one of the strongest sectors of American trade as these products
have run a positive trade balance since the 1960's with exports nearly
tripling since 2000.
As we all know, the farm economy is in the midst of challenging
times. Increased export opportunities have the potential to help
alleviate the pressure put on family farmers by opening up new markets.
What role do you foresee the Under Secretary for Trade performing
in upcoming trade agreement negotiations such as NAFTA renegotiation?
Answer. The Under Secretary for Trade will bring new energy and
support to our interagency relationships as we work closely with the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce
in the NAFTA renegotiation.
Question. What assurances can you give the American farmer that the
export gains made by agriculture won't be lost in these negotiations?
Answer. I share your views on the importance of agricultural trade
with Mexico and Canada to the overall U.S economy. USDA will work
closely with others in the Administration to preserve the existing
benefits to agricultural markets that we have created through NAFTA. At
the same time, there is plenty of room for U.S. agriculture to benefit
from renegotiating NAFTA. It is one of our earliest trade agreements
and trade policy has evolved considerably since NAFTA entered into
force.
Question. Programs like the Market Access Program (MAP) and the
Foreign Market Development Program have a proven track record of
success. Can you describe how elimination of trade promotion programs
will help to advance American agricultural trade?
Answer. The Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market
Development Program (FMD) have been important tools in the effort to
export U.S. agriculture's production. These programs leverage Federal
dollars through public private partnerships and maximize collaboration
with producer groups. However, eliminating funding for MAP and FMD will
not end these types of trade promotion activities; rather, it means the
private sector entities will need to fully fund those activities. In
addition, USDA will continue trade promotion functions that are
inherently governmental, including leading trade missions and using the
overseas network of USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service to connect U.S.
exporters with foreign buyers.
crop insurance
Question. We all know the challenges facing American farmers with
the low global commodity price environment. Many Missouri farm families
are struggling to make ends meet with input costs often exceeding sale
prices. We ask these farmers to continue producing a safe, affordable,
and abundant food supply while having to deal with Mother Nature and
the ever present threat of drought, flooding, pests, and disease.
Congress made significant changes to the farm safety net in the 2014
Farm Bill and one of the programs that many farmers have told me is
essential to their survival is the Crop Insurance Program. Your budget
request proposes a nearly 36 percent cut ($28.6 billion over 10 years)
to the crop insurance program.
In your opinion, if your proposed crop insurance cuts were enacted,
would family farmers in Missouri still have an effective safety net
when disaster strikes?
Answer. USDA would continue to provide an effective strong safety
net for family farmers in Missouri as well as other U.S. family
farmers. Federal crop insurance would continue to provide coverage to
protect against natural perils and low prices.
Question. How do you see these cuts going forward, especially as it
relates to our discussions on drafting the new Farm Bill?
Answer. I believe that crop insurance is an area where we will work
with the Authorizing Committees as they draft the new Farm Bill.
food for peace
Question. The Food for Peace programs is one our nation's premier
international food assistance programs. It is a great example of a
program that advances our foreign policy and humanitarian policy goals
while enjoying robust support from domestic industry.
Do you see a role for USDA to play in addressing world hunger?
Answer. Yes, I believe that USDA has a role to play in addressing
world hunger. As I stated during the hearing, I will work with the
resources provided by Congress. If funding for Food for Peace is
provided, I will work diligently to administer them in the most
effective and efficient manner possible.
rural utility service water programs
Question. Your budget proposes eliminating Rural Utility Service
Water and Waste Disposal loans and grants as well as a number of
technical assistance programs. Many of the smallest communities in
Missouri rely on these programs for guidance, assistance, and financial
help to ensure clean drinking water and safe waste water disposal for
their citizens.
Where should these small communities turn for assistance with water
system management if the USDA no longer offers rural focused programs?
Answer. Rural communities can be served by private sector financing
or other Federal investments in rural water infrastructure, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency's State Revolving Funds. However, as I
stated during the hearing, if these programs are funded, I will work
diligently to administer them in the most effective and efficient
manner possible.
Question. Do you believe that the water programs offered by EPA and
other agency effectively incorporate the unique characteristics and
needs of rural communities?
Answer. The water programs offered by EPA and other agencies
complement the water programs offered by USDA to meet the needs of
rural communities. You have my commitment that if the program is
funded, I will work to administer it in the most effective and
efficient manner possible.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
food aid
Question. Could you please explain to what extent the procurement
and shipment of Title II commodities today compares with similar
operations over the past several decades, especially in reference to
the time necessary for commodities to reach food insecure populations
once the need for assistance is recognized?
Answer. USDA has worked closely with USAID on the provision of
Title II food aid abroad, which has evolved from the distribution of
surplus U.S. in-kind commodities to, in recent decades, mainly
distributing U.S. commodities purchased on the open market. To move
U.S. commodities to intended recipients overseas takes an average of
three to 6 months. Section 202(e) of the Food for Peace Act, as amended
by The Agricultural Act of 2014 (i.e. the 2014 Farm Bill), authorizes
additional enhancement of Title II in-kind programs through local and
regional procurement and other interventions where appropriate to reach
more beneficiaries in a timely manner or fill gaps until U.S.
commodities arrive. With this additional authority, more beneficiaries
can be reached in a more timely manner.
Question. What problems or delays exist today that create problems
in providing food assistance in a timely manner, and identify if
remedies to such problems require a policy, regulatory, or statutory
response.
Answer. Global hunger and food crises often occur in difficult and
remote locations. We face many obstacles to improve the speed and cost-
effectiveness of aid delivery, ranging from political challenges, such
as working in countries in conflict, to technical challenges. Sending
U.S. commodities tends to be higher cost and is slower than other
options. In some cases, the U.S. flagged fleet cannot provide the
service necessary to deliver food to required locations. In fiscal year
2017, USAID received no U.S. flag vessel bids for over 253,620 metric
tons of Title II commodities and U.S.-flag regular direct services do
not exist to most of our destination ports. As a result, we typically
pay substantially more per metric ton for U.S.-flag vessels as compared
to shipping commodities on foreign--flag vessels, which reduces our
ability to address ongoing and unanticipated global food needs. To
address the requirement of shipping commodities on U.S.-flagged vessels
as compared to other vessels, a policy, regulatory, and statutory
response would be needed.
Question. What lessons can be learned from the U.S. private
sector's ability to move commodities internationally that can be
applied to food aid shipments? What changes would be required to allow
food aid agencies, including our many NGO partners and international
organizations like the World Food Programme, the ability to employ
those same efficiencies in the pursuit of saving lives?
Answer. The private sector continues to innovate and find new ways
to cost-effectively address the rise in demand for shipping products,
including through new technologies to better track and ensure the
security of shipments, and is looking increasingly to apply its methods
to development and humanitarian contexts. Leveraging its expertise--in
logistics, transport, and other arenas--and working collaboratively
with private sector leaders are critical to generating new ideas and
solutions in tackling global hunger. We will continue to explore ways
to work more closely with the private sector so that we can better
serve populations in need.
rural broadband
Question. The FCC and USDA play important, complementary roles in
promoting rural broadband infrastructure deployment and consumer use of
such services. We have heard in the past that the FCC and USDA programs
aren't always coordinated well in terms of how changes to one affect
the other. How does USDA work with the FCC and others to ensure a
consistent, stable set of policies that will promote and sustain
investments, and protect the integrity of the USDA portfolio?
Answer. USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the FCC are
currently working to closely coordinate outreach efforts to better
assist rural areas in providing high-speed broadband access.
Discussions have progressed on development of joint outreach materials
that explain how programs can be interrelated, and how available
funding options may be leveraged. Both the USDA and the FCC offer
programs to improve Internet availability and adoption in unserved and
under-served areas.
USDA co-chairs the Broadband Interagency Working Group (BIWG) along
with the Department of Commerce. The BIWG partners with over 25 Federal
agencies to improve coordination across programs, reduce regulatory
barriers to broadband deployment, and collect and share information
with communities about available Federal resources for broadband
deployment. Through the BIWG and separately, RUS will continue to work
closely with the FCC in developing joint outreach events focused on
providing high-speed broadband access to America's rural areas.
single family housing direct loans
Question. Is there a commensurate increase elsewhere in the Federal
budget to make up for the elimination of the single family housing
direct loan program?
Answer. Yes, as part of the fiscal year 2018 President's Budget,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requested
$160 million for the Mutual Mortgage Housing Insurance Fund, a $30
million increase from fiscal year 2017, which also provides financing
to individuals and families that cannot participate in the conventional
market. Very low- and low-income families may obtain funding through
that program, as well as the USDA Single Family Housing Guaranteed
Program.
Question. Since many families in this program cannot obtain
commercial credit, where can they go to obtain the assistance they
need?
Answer. As noted above, programs exist within the Department of
Housing and Urban Development that may be of assistance, in addition to
the USDA Single Family Housing Guaranteed Program.
water and waste disposal program
Question. The budget states that rural communities can access
private sector financing or State Revolving Funds to meet their
financing needs. What evidence exists indicating that these sources
would be sufficient to meet rural community needs, and would not result
in overly high user rates?
Answer. EPA's State Revolving Fund is the key Federal program for
water infrastructure financing and can provide low-cost assistance to
communities in need. Moreover, the absence of the USDA program could
stimulate infrastructure lending from rural lenders, because there is
no prohibition on rural communities to seek out private sector lending
for the municipal needs.
conservation
Question. If the USDA budget request for Conservation Operations
were to be enacted, how many fewer conservation plans will be put into
place by USDA?
Answer. Currently we do not anticipate that fewer conservation
plans will be put into place by USDA if the budget request for
Conservation Operations were to be enacted.
Question. What effect would a cut of this size to conservation
operations, and the resulting reduction in conservation plans, have on
the participation of other USDA programs which require conservation
plans to participate?
Answer. Currently we do not anticipate that fewer conservation
plans will be put into place by USDA if the budget request for
Conservation Operations were to be enacted.
farm service agency
Question. The budget proposes to reduce FSA by nearly $76 million,
assumes a reduction of 973 staff years, and cuts Farm Operating direct
loans by $226 million. Will this budget request allow USDA to
adequately serve our farmers and ranchers?
Answer. Yes, this budget request will allow USDA to adequately
serve our farmers and ranchers. I will identify how best to allocate
our financial resources and ensure that the FSA continues to provide
efficient service to America's farmers and ranchers.
Question. What impact will these reductions have on the ability of
the Department to service existing loans?
Answer. I do not anticipate any change to the servicing of existing
loans.
snap
Question. The budget includes several legislative proposals that
would dramatically change the program. What impact the proposed
legislative changes to SNAP will have on the program and participation
in it?
Answer. The table below reflects how the proposed legislation will
impact SNAP.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
2018 Budget
SNAP Budget Proposal Impact ($ Participation Impact
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the link between LIHEAP -$647 No impact
receipt and HCSUA.
Standardizing HCSUA across States -507 No impact
at 80th percentile of low-income
households' utility costs.
Restrict categorical eligibility -1,514 8 percent of
to HHs receiving cash TANF. participants lose
eligibility
Limit ABAWD waivers to counties -1,806 3 percent of
with unemployment rate exceeding participants lose
10 percent averaged over 12 eligibility
months.
Cap benefits at 6-person max -163 No impact
allotment.
Eliminate minimum benefit......... 255 3.6 percent of
participants lose
eligibility
Impose a State match formula to 0 No impact
share SNAP benefit costs.
Reduction in Savings due to 255 No impact
Interactive Impacts of Proposals.
Implementation of Authorization -252 No Impact
Fees for SNAP Retailers.
Other Proposals (State Dept., HHS) -6 No Impact
Total Impact (fiscal year -4,895 ....................
2018).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What impact will these changes have on low-income
Americans who rely on these benefits?
Answer. These legislative changes will strengthen program integrity
and move people to work, making it more accountable to the American
taxpayers, while targeting services to those most in need.
conservation
Question. I have a letter from Western farmers, ranchers,
sportsmen, and conservation organization that are all deeply concerned
about the proposed budget cuts to conservation programs. Why does the
budget propose to cut the Regional Conservation Partnership Program
when these efforts are really helping agriculture producers and others
on and off farm conservation needs and stabilize the Colorado River
basin?
Answer. The proposal to eliminate the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP) is part of a larger effort to better target
USDA conservation funding. Since the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program already
provides a substantial portion of the funding and authority for the
existing RCPP, many of the existing activities, including those in the
Colorado River basin, will continue.
Question. How do you plan to ensure that the 2018 Farm Bill
contains adequate funding and new tools to expand USDA's efforts to
enhance drought resiliency and water conservation?
Answer. I plan to work with the Agriculture Authorizing Committees
as they draft the 2018 Farm Bill to ensure that drought resiliency and
water conservation are addressed to meet the needs of America's
farmers.
sudden oak death
Question. Sudden Oak Death is a disease that is very concerning to
me and many Oregonians. I understand that APHIS' work on this disease
is funded through its Specialty Crop Pest line, which is proposed to be
cut by over $18 million. Will you commit to us that APHIS will, at a
minimum, maintain its efforts in combatting this devastating disease?
Answer. I recognize the concerns about this serious disease and
will bear them in mind as we prioritize many pest and disease threats
to agricultural production.
Question. What assurances can you provide to this Subcommittee that
the proposed cuts to APHIS in the budget will not threaten U.S.
agriculture with damaging incursions of new foreign pests and diseases?
Answer. Yes, I assure you that APHIS will continue to protect
agricultural health and defend America's animal and plant resources
from foreign agricultural pests and disease incursions.
rural economic infrastructure grant program
Question. Would the new Rural Economic Infrastructure Grant Program
proposed in the budget have any new authorities?
Answer. The Rural Economic Infrastructure Grant program proposed in
the fiscal year 2018 President's budget does not have any new
authorities. The authorities requested are the same as the grants that
have been combined in this account.
Question. Will you maintain all of the current authorities in the
four existing grant programs, and ensure a minimum funding level for
each one?
Answer. The request would maintain all the existing authorities for
the four grant programs that are combined in the account but would not
establish a minimum funding level for each one. This account will
provide the Administration with flexibility on delivering the programs
in the areas that will provide the best opportunities. The Department
will work with communities across the country to ensure the funding is
used for projects that will make the biggest impact in these
communities.
Question. It appears that the set-aside for Appalachia included in
this proposal is the only such set-aside in the budget. Why?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget eliminated the Appalachian
Regional Authority; however, the budget provided the Department with
funding to continue work in this area of the country. With such a set-
aside, USDA will be able to address a variety of critical needs in the
Appalachia area.
elimination of the rural business service
Question. Is there any evidence that private commercial market will
step in and provide credit and similar rates and terms to ones provided
through Rural Business Service programs? Have they done so in the past?
Answer. We expect the private commercial market to continue to
provide credit in rural America though other existing Federal loan
guarantee programs provided by the Farm Service Agency and the Small
Business Administration.
horse protection act (hpa)/animal welfare act (awa) transparency
Question. Mr. Perdue, at the beginning of February, APHIS abruptly
removed from its website thousands of pages of searchable inspection
reports, annual reports, and other documents regarding enforcement of
the Horse Protection Act and the Animal Welfare Act. Public access to
this data ensures accountability for the agency's enforcement of these
laws and acts as deterrence against violations.
It is essential that the public be able to see which dog dealers,
horse trainers, laboratories, roadside zoos, and other regulated
entities have been cited for subjecting animals in their care to abuse
or otherwise failing to meet basic welfare standards. Responsible
actors in the regulated communities want to be able to point to their
clean records that help them establish public trust. When will the
agency restore these vital records and resume posting them in a timely
way on a searchable database with names and cities identified?
Answer. I understand your concerns about the removal of records
from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Web site.
The removal of the search tool was part of a comprehensive review of
documents APHIS initiated in early February 2017, after a year-long
process, as it strives to balance a commitment to transparency with
rules protecting personal information. To date, APHIS has restored all
the content it removed, in its original redacted form, with the
exception of inspection reports involving individuals or homestead
businesses. Roughly two-thirds of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
inspection reports involve individuals or homestead businesses. APHIS
is diligently exploring options for promoting transparency involving
inspection activities that center on individuals and homestead
businesses while working to protect personal information, which is of
greatest concern for these types of licensees.
horse soring
Question. The last Administration proposed an important rule to
update Horse Protection Act regulations to end the practice of horse
soring--inflicting pain on the hooves and legs of Tennessee Walking
Horses and related breeds to force them to perform an artificial high-
stepping gait. The rule was designed to fix serious weaknesses in
USDA's oversight of this law enacted almost 50 years ago. This rule had
overwhelming, bipartisan Congressional support from 42 Senators and 182
Representatives who sent letters to USDA, along with more than 100,000
public comments submitted in support.
Mr. Perdue, will you commit to reviewing this broadly supported
proposed rule, and inform us promptly about your intentions regarding
final publication?
Answer. We are currently reviewing the input provided by
stakeholders before deciding on the appropriate next step, which could
include finalizing the rulemaking. Once a decision has been made, we
will inform the Congress.
Question. Please provide, for the last 5 years, the number of
highly qualified applications received for each competitive NIFA
program, the total amount of funding applied for, and the number, and
amount, of grants which were approved.
Answer. NIFA is in the process of collecting and analyzing the
program data for all competitive programs. Because of the voluminous
number of program proposals over the last 5 years, (almost 19,000), and
because these pre-award proposal and ranking data exists in many
disparate data formats over these years, a report on all competitive
programs is not available at this time. This information will be
provided as soon as the analysis is completed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
climate change
Question. Agriculture contributes many positive benefits to our
nation and the world, but it is also responsible for a significant
amount of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, gases such as
nitrous oxide and methane are a major byproduct of farming and are far
more damaging than carbon dioxide.
What is USDA doing to combat this climate threat while also
providing the resources that farmers need to continue farming, remain
profitable, and adapt to climate change?
Answer. The Department is working to improve the way we help
farmers and ranchers manage the risks they face, whether related to
weather and pests or financial uncertainty. As we move forward, we will
be looking for pragmatic and solution-oriented approaches. In addition,
I will work to ensure that we manage programs and make decisions based
upon best available data and sound science that support our farmers,
ranchers, and forest owners and managers.
Question. USDA's Climate Hubs have become a model for connecting
researchers and producers in order to enhance the ability of farmers
and ranchers to adopt practices that will help them to plan for changes
in climate, as well as a provide coordination across multiple
government agencies and research being conducted through universities.
Will the Department be continuing this important work in fiscal
year 2018 under the Budget request submitted to Congress?
Answer. Yes, I will continue to support the work of the Climate
Hubs. The continuation of this work will allow the Hubs to focus on
practical and pragmatic approaches to address risks such as drought,
wildfire, pests and disease pressures on crops and livestock, and other
threats that are sensitive to the climate.
groundwater recharge
Question. Title II programs are essential for many producers across
the country, and California is no different. Over the last several
years, California has faced a historic drought, but over this last
winter we received an enormous amount of precipitation that led to
massive mudslides, flooding, and several disaster declarations. With
rivers and creeks at the levels they are, many producers are hoping to
use the excess water for groundwater recharge.
It is my understanding that NRCS does not currently consider
groundwater recharge as meeting a ``resource concern'', thus making
projects that seek to use funding from programs such as EQIP ineligible
if they list groundwater recharge in their application.
Why does NRCS not consider groundwater recharge to be a resource
concern?
Answer. Groundwater recharge is not a resource concern, but is a
means to help prevent the depletion of an aquifer water resource by
adding water to it. The resource concern is that an aquifer is being
depleted at a rate faster than it is being recharged, so aquifer
depletion is identified as the resource concern.
Question. Will you direct NRCS to take another look at their
position in light of the water situation currently facing many
California farmers?
Answer. NRCS will continue to assist producers throughout the
Nation through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to
implement practices that address water conservation and mitigate the
effects of the drought.
Question. What statutory changes or congressional action would NRCS
need in order to provide greater flexibility to regional, state, and
local actors who seek to use USDA programs to assist with groundwater
recharge?
Answer. NRCS has flexibility within the current program authorities
to assist producers to address resource concerns.
antibiotic use on farms
Question. I have long advocated for reducing the use of antibiotics
in agriculture, as it is well-documented that the overuse of
antibiotics leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I am encouraged
that the FDA has now fully implemented Guidance for Industry #213, but
we can do more to ensure that the judicious use standard is followed.
Funding the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System and
continuing collaboration between USDA and the FDA are both key pieces
in our efforts to combat the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and
data is key to informing our policy actions. We must also increase the
number of trained veterinarians who can assist producers to prevent and
treat animals when they need it.
How will USDA be improving their collection of on-farm data?
Answer. USDA conducts the National Animal Health Monitoring System
(NAHMS), which conducts national studies on the health and health
management of United States domestic livestock and poultry populations.
In fiscal year 2017, NAHMS conducted surveys on antimicrobial use and
stewardship practices in cattle feedlots and swine operations.
Additionally, NAHMS launched the 2017 Beef Cow-calf study, a component
of which will survey producers regarding antimicrobial use and collect
biological samples to evaluate resistance patterns among foodborne
pathogens. The data collected from these surveys will help assess
antimicrobial stewardship practices on farms, which can help inform and
guide stewardship and judicious use efforts by USDA and other partners
in both the public and private sectors.
Question. What is USDA doing to work with producers and
veterinarians to decrease the risk that the overuse of antibiotics on
farms pose?
Answer. APHIS conducts surveys in cattle feedlots and swine
production to characterize antibiotic use and to monitor resistant
organisms of importance to animal health and public health. I will have
the agency provide you with additional details for the record.
We are conducting these surveys as part of the National Animal
Health Monitoring System, and will undertake additional studies to help
define appropriate and judicious use of antibiotics for veterinarians.
Additionally, we have also launched a pilot in the National Animal
Health Laboratory Network with State partners to examine resistance
patterns in samples submitted from sick animals. This information will
help the veterinary practitioner with antibiotic choices.
Question. How is USDA working to educate veterinarians on the most
up to date guidance on antibiotic use? How many veterinarians are being
reached through training modules?
Answer. I will have the agency provide you with additional details
for the record.
APHIS' National Veterinary Accreditation Program (NVAP) is designed
to provide accredited veterinarians with the information they need to
ensure the health of the Nation's livestock and protect public health
and well-being. This program currently reaches 66,000 accredited
veterinarians. We introduced an NVAP module titled, ``Use of
Antibiotics in Animals'' in 2012 in online, classroom, and printed
training material formats. Since then, it has played a key role in our
antimicrobial resistance global education and outreach efforts and has
been completed more than 21,900 times by accredited veterinarians. At
the meeting of the Group of Seven (G7) in Germany in 2015, this module
was cited as one of only two ``Best Practices of Combating
Antimicrobial Resistance'' from North America. More recently, a module
was created in close collaboration with FDA's Center for Veterinary
Medicine to provide guidance on FDA regulations that went into effect
in January 2017.
Question. How is USDA working to increase the number of
veterinarians who are available in rural areas?
Answer. In fiscal year 2017, USDA has two competitive grant
programs dedicated to increasing the number of veterinarians in
veterinary shortage situations. The Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment
Program helps qualified veterinarians offset a significant portion of
the debt incurred in pursuit of their veterinary medicine degrees in
return for their service in certain high-priority veterinary shortage
situations. The Veterinary Services Grant Program makes grants
available on a competitive basis to qualified entities to develop,
implement, and sustain veterinary services through education, training,
recruitment, placement, and retention of veterinarians, veterinary
technicians, and students of veterinary medicine and veterinary
technology. Grants are also made to establish or expand veterinary
practices in rural areas.
food safety
Question. I was encouraged by the advances made by the previous
administration to improve food safety standards and address concerning
antimicrobial resistance trends. It is my profound hope that you will
continue rather than abandon Secretary Vilsack's important efforts on
this critical public safety issue.
Under your leadership, how will the Department be continuing on
this progress?
Answer. We will continue to work with Federal partners at the Food
and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
to further strengthen the twenty-year-old National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS). For example, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service will continue to strengthen the NARMS program by
applying whole genome sequence analysis to NARMS bacterial isolates.
Question. Specifically, will the Antimicrobial Resistance
initiative continue, will whole genome sequencing advancements be
funded and utilized, and will laboratory analysis upgrades continue to
be prioritized?
Answer. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been an area of focus
during the past two decades as USDA plays a dual role in protecting
animal agriculture and public health. Recognizing AMR as a potential
and serious threat, USDA continues, as funds allow, to adopt laboratory
technological advancements, including whole genome sequencing that will
meet the agency's goal of enhanced public health protection.
Question. When will the Department issue final rules for beef and
pork pathogen standards?
Answer. USDA is committed to continue to serve in the critical role
of ensuring the food we put on the table to feed our families meets
strict safety standards. By having the best science and data, we will
be able to make strong strategic decisions that will benefit all
Americans. I do not know now when we will be able to issue those rules.
agricultural workers
Question. As you know, many farmers rely on immigrant labor for
their operations. Indeed, immigrant labor is essential to the
productivity of millions of acres of agricultural land across
California and the nation. Without these workers, not only would local
economies suffer, but crops would rot in fields and on trees, and food
prices would rise.
This is simply unacceptable, and I'd like to know if you have
communicated the negative impacts that immigration enforcement actions
and reckless rhetoric could have on the agricultural economy and rural
communities.
Have you communicated these concerns to the Secretary of Homeland
Security?
Answer. I have shared with my colleagues in the Cabinet and with
the President the need for a solution to agricultural labor demands
that is reliable, considers year-round solutions, is secure, and legal.
Question. Have you communicated these concerns to the Attorney
General?
Answer. I have shared with my colleagues in the Cabinet, including
the Attorney General, the need for a solution to agricultural labor
demands that is reliable, considers year-round solutions, is secure,
and legal.
Question. Have you communicated these concerns to the President?
Answer. I have shared with the President the need for a solution to
agricultural labor demands that is reliable, considers year-round
solutions, is secure, and legal.
Question. I also hear every day from constituents who rely on a
seasonal workforce and are afraid that the workers simply will not show
up this year when they are needed due to the actions this
Administration is taking.
Again, what assurances can you provide that you are doing all you
can to advocate for these farmers, ranchers, producers, agricultural
workers, and their families when it comes to the seasonal workforce
they rely on?
Answer. I am a strong advocate for farmers, ranchers, producers,
agricultural works and their families. It is my intention to work with
the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security and Congress to
design a program that meets the needs of American agriculture.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy
consistent enforcement of organic standards
Question. I consider the passage of the Organic Foods Production
Act one of my greatest accomplishments in my Senate tenure. Many said
it was a niche industry that would not amount to much. Today it is
nearly a $50 billion market in the United States, with strong growth
year after year. But that growth is dependent on consumer confidence in
the USDA organic seal and the strict standards it represents. Unequal
enforcement of Federal organic standards has long been a problem. This
was highlighted recently in two Washington Post stories about poor
enforcement of the dairy pasture rule and imports of fraudulent organic
grain.
Your budget justification says the National Organic Program will
continue to effectively administer its compliance and enforcement
program, even with a nearly $1 million budget cut and corresponding
staffing cuts. How can you effectively enforce these standards if you
reduce the Program's already limited staff, do not fill vacant
positions, and cut funding by over 10 percent? In the face of recent
troubling fraud cases and rapid industry growth shouldn't we be
increasing USDA enforcement efforts?
Answer. A top priority of mine and the Agricultural Marketing
Service's (AMS) National Organic Program is ensuring compliance to
protect certified organic farms and businesses. None of the budget and
staffing cuts proposed in the President's budget would impact oversight
of accredited organic certifiers or the compliance and enforcement
mission. AMS has a number of investigations and initiatives underway to
strengthen the enforcement of organic imports and to protect organic
integrity across complex supply chains. The program will continue to
prioritize compliance and enforcement under the proposed President's
budget.
rural development
Question. This budget would devastate rural communities with the
elimination of vital programs that support rural economic opportunity
and security across the country. In Vermont, we value investing in
agriculture, rural businesses, and infrastructure. We see the direct
impacts on our families, businesses, and towns. I am concerned by your
proposal to reduce Rural Development spending by 30 percent and cut
staffing levels by 925 staff across the country. I am also concerned by
the proposed reorganization of USDA-RD and elimination of the
Undersecretary position.
Our states are waiting for the release of important fiscal year
2017 Rural Development funds from USDA headquarters. Due to so much
demand in Vermont for water and waste water projects this year, we have
several Vermont towns waiting for the release of national funds for
their projects. The construction season is short in Northern New
England. They are worried that excessive delay by your Department is
going to cost them more money in escalating project costs and
compressed project schedules.
Can these small towns expect these national funds to be released
soon, because they cannot afford any further delay?
Answer. Yes, this funding will be released soon and I understand
that these small towns cannot afford delays.
supplemental nutrition assistance program
Question. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
provides essential help in the form of food assistance to individuals
and families across the country. The recent declines in SNAP
participation mirror the improving economy, showing that the program is
working as intended. As better paying jobs are more available, families
are able to move off of SNAP.
Unfortunately, this budget proposes a massive cut to SNAP that
would result in a $193 billion or 25 percent cut to the program. Your
budget submission includes a number of legislative changes to SNAP that
this administration recommends, many on the basis of creating ``a
single, consistent policy nationwide.''
One of the proposals you submitted is to eliminate the connection
between SNAP and LIHEAP, a way that Vermont currently ensures that
those in poverty are able to receive SNAP benefits. In fact, many
Vermonters live in housing situations where they cannot claim their
utility bill because utilities are built into the cost of their rent.
This is typical for seniors in my state. The state is able to help
those eligible for LIHEAP claim the deduction and therefore receive the
benefits they should receive, even though the cost of their utilities
is paid through their rent.
Shouldn't states have the ability to simplify eligibility for
programs like SNAP so they can better administer these programs?
Answer. We are open to working with Congress on improving the
eligibility practices for SNAP to meet the needs of participants in a
cost-effective manner.
Question. Why does USDA want to penalize beneficiaries who happen
to pay for the high cost of utilities through their rent?
Answer. The proposal to eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Heating/Cooling Standard Utility
Allowance (HCSUA) link eliminates the automatic receipt of the HCSUA
when a household receives LIHEAP benefits. This would target the
receipt of the HCSUA for those with actual heating and/or cooling
expenses and would create a single, consistent policy nationwide.
Question. How does limiting benefits to six household members
ensure SNAP works better?
Answer. This proposal provides for a program cost containment
strategy by capping household benefits at the six person maximum
allotment, reducing benefits and Federal costs for large households.
The estimated savings to the program is $1.8 billion over a 10 year
period.
international aid
Question. You have said that you are a ``facts-based, data driven
decision maker.'' However, this budget does not appear to be based on
facts. If it was, it would not completely eliminate programs like the
McGovern-Dole global school meals program or other international aid
programs like Food for Peace, that embody the very best of America's
values.
Saving these programs means supporting American farmers and saving
lives. It is as simple as that and America is not made safer by failing
to feed the hungry. With these USDA programs, we are able to transform
people's lives. We give youth and communities a future.
Do you believe that USDA's work on stabilization, food aid, and
development in Africa, and around the globe, is fundamental to our
national security?
Answer. Yes, I do believe USDA's work is fundamental to our
national security. We know that where hunger persists, instability
often grows. Investing in these critical programs can promote stability
and ensure that people have the opportunity to lead healthy, productive
lives. As I stated during the hearings, I will work with the resources
provided by Congress.
Question. Do you believe that our country's collective moral
convictions make fighting hunger the right thing to do? And that the
benefits we receive as a nation from reducing global food insecurity
also make it the smart thing to do?
Answer. Yes, investing in the most cost-effective and efficient
humanitarian programs helps ensure that people have the opportunity to
lead stable, healthy, and productive lives while being sensitive to
U.S. taxpayers. I look forward to working with this Subcommittee to
achieve these goals. If these programs are funded, I will work
diligently to administer them in the most effective and efficient
manner possible.
response to letters from democrats in congress
Question. During your confirmation process, you assured the Senate
Agriculture Committee Ranking Member that you would ``reply promptly to
any reasonable request for information'' and that you would ``respond
to her requests for data and technical assistance in drafting
legislation.'' Yet the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has
issued an opinion in which it opines that the executive is not
obligated to respond to requests from members of Congress. Dozens of
requests from Senate Democrats have gone unanswered across the
administration, including several from Ranking Member Stabenow to your
Department.
Do you commit to respond promptly and completely to congressional
inquiries, whether those requests come from Republicans or Democrats?
Answer. It is important to me that the Department responds promptly
to inquiries from not only Congress, but also its other constituents.
We have been working diligently to accelerate the process for drafting
such responses. I will continue to work with the USDA team to address
inquiries received from USDA partners and constituents in a timely
manner.
elimination of rural development programs
Question. Given your strong statements about rural jobs and
supporting rural economies, this budget makes astounding cuts to
programs that do those exact things. Although much of the country has
seen recovery from the financial crisis, rural America and rural
economies still lag behind. Now is not the time to be eliminating these
programs.
A major issue facing Vermont and most of rural America is the lack
of adequate infrastructure necessary for our rural communities to
compete in the global economy. Specific to USDA's water and wastewater
loans and grants, this funding is a lifeline to small rural communities
and in my view the Water and Environmental Programs are complementary
to the EPA's State Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Loan Funds,
rather than duplicative. Virtually every community in the country with
inadequate drinking water has a population of 3,300 or less. In Vermont
we have a total of 1,377 active public water systems, 97 percent of
these systems are in small communities, and the state has identified
some $154 million in wastewater infrastructure needs and $510.8 million
in drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. This is
a huge amount for a state our size and without USDA's water and
wastewater programs, many of our small communities would lack access to
clean water.
Through just the Rural Utilities Service Water and Environmental
Programs, Vermont is facing a backlog of some $33.5 million and
nationwide USDA is facing a backlog of 995 applications, seeking a
total of $2.5 billion in USDA funding for water and wastewater
infrastructure. Where do you propose these communities turn to if these
critical programs are eliminated as this budget proposes?
Answer. EPA's State Revolving Fund is the key Federal program for
water infrastructure financing and can provide low-cost assistance to
communities in need. In addition, I would note that the USDA guaranteed
program has enabled private sector financing to support water and waste
disposal projects in these communities. USDA believes that private
financing would continue to be a source of funding for such projects.
If funding is provided for the program, we will work diligently to
administer it in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
Question. The administration claims that the Value-Added Producer
Grants are ``duplicative and overlap with similar business development
programs operated by other Federal Agencies.'' There is no other
program that fills this unique role to help our agricultural producers
grow their businesses by turning raw commodities into value-added
products. These grants help to expand marketing opportunities and
develop new uses for existing products, and grow jobs in rural
communities. How do you justify this elimination?
Answer. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee more to
ensure that the unique needs of rural communities are met. If it is
determined that USDA should continue to administer this program and
funding is provided, I will work to ensure that we do so in the most
effective and efficient manner.
usda service centers
Question. You have mentioned several times that you will work every
day to prioritize customer service. But I am concerned that this budget
could result in the loss of one-third of USDA Service Center employees,
nearly 10,000 jobs. This would mean longer wait times for farmers, and
if local offices are closed, farmers would have to drive potentially
hundreds of miles out of their away for help. At a time when the farm
economy is struggling for the third year in a row, we should not be
making it harder for our farmers and local businesses to seek
assistance with farm programs, conservation, and rural development
assistance. While discussing staffing at Service Centers when you
testified before the House Appropriations Committee, you said that
``the staffing level is something I've not been able to get to yet.''
Have you been able to get to that issue yet and get to an
understanding for how this budget proposal would affect staffing at
field offices, which are the first point of contact for farmers who
enroll in conservation and farm programs? Do you believe that these
USDA front line staff can be reduced by 30 percent without an impact on
service delivery?
Answer. The Administration is in the process of taking a closer
look at the proper role and size of Federal Government. My
reorganization announcements earlier this year focused on the goals of
improved service delivery to agricultural producers, addressing the
needs of rural America, and addressing agricultural issues while
providing a simplified one-stop shop for USDA's primary customers, the
men and women farming, ranching and foresting across America. I will
continue to work to identify how best to allocate resources to serve
our rural communities, and manage and implement efficiently delivered
services while fulfilling the core mission of USDA.
staffing levels
Question. I am concerned that our USDA workforce needs are not
being met at our USDA Service Centers in Vermont due to limits placed
on hiring. This is exacerbating problems with vacant positions for the
Natural Resources Conservation Program and the Farm Service Agency and
in the end it is having a negative effect on the services farmers.
How do you plan to prioritize hiring needs at USDA service centers
to ensure that you are fulfilling our nation's commitment to our
farmers and rural businesses?
Answer. The Administration is in the process of taking a closer
look at the proper role and size of Federal Government. My
reorganization announcements earlier this year impart the goals of
improved service delivery to agricultural producers, addressing the
needs of rural America, and addressing agricultural issues while
providing a simplified one-stop shop for USDA's primary customers, the
men and women farming, ranching and foresting across America. I will
continue to work to identify how best to allocate resources to serve
our rural communities, and manage and implement efficiently delivered
services while fulfilling the core mission of USDA.
Question. Can you submit to the Subcommittee a list of vacancies
for each USDA agency, broken out by state so we know exactly how this
limits placed on hiring are impacting your department and our local
county and state offices?
Answer. At this time that information is not available. The
Department is reviewing the staffing needs throughout all agencies.
nrcs salary cap
Question. You have expressed that the administration is seeking to
deliver programs more efficiently across the board and that reductions
in staff and operating costs should not impact program delivery. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is currently able to
deploy its salary and expense budget without working within an imposed
cap for the salary account. This provides NRCS with the flexibility to
make ongoing strategic decisions in how to most efficiently deliver its
program in response to changing needs and changing resources, without
being constrained by an inflexible cap salary or in effect, on the
number of employees or FTE's at any given time. Taking away this
flexibility, I fear, would make the NRCS less efficient.
Will you continue to allow NRCS flexibility in allocating dollars
within its salary and expense account, with no salary cap, in order to
achieve efficiency while addressing changing needs and resources? Or do
you intend to take away this flexibility by imposing an arbitrary cap
on salary expenditures by NRCS?
Answer. Currently, there is no salary cap proposed for NRCS.
farm production and conservation reorganization
Question. You have been clear about your intent to reorganize the
USDA and place both the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) under a new Farm Production and
Conservation mission area. While there may be some efficiencies
achieved in doing so, there is also a danger that delivery of programs
to farmers may be hindered if the reorganizations disrupts long
established channels of communication with farmers, or tasks some USDA
offices with programs that they may not be well constituted to handle.
For example, overseeing NRCS contracts depends on a constant field
presence and deep technical knowledge of conservation practices, while
overseeing FSA contracts requires more knowledge of finance and
business practices but less hands-on field work.
Will your proposed reorganization provide for FSA to continue
delivering the loan and risk management programs that have been in
their jurisdiction and keep NRCS responsible for writing and fulfilling
the contracts for conservation practices? Do you agree that to have FSA
oversee contracts for conservation practices or to have NRCS begin to
process farm loans and risk management programs would erode overall
program delivery?
Answer. The vision for the proposed reorganization of FSA, NRCS,
and RMA under a common mission area will be to have these agencies
continue to deliver their programs, more efficiently and with enhanced
customer service.
investments in organic research
Question. We have a huge shortage of organic commodities grown in
this country.
I believe that with more investments in research we could help our
farmers to meet these growing market demands rather than relying on
imports, yet this budget would slash research, especially for
sustainable agriculture. Why?
Answer. With the understanding that research provides the
foundation for increasing agricultural productivity, the budget
provides an emphasis on basic research and efforts to support the
transfer of research and development products to industry to promote
the Nation's economic growth through innovation.
Question. With respect to fraudulent imports of organic grain, will
your new Trade Undersecretary be focused on organic imports and
identifying corrective actions? How will you ensure that we are not
losing opportunities for American farmers?
Answer. Yes, the USDA Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign
Agricultural Affairs (Trade) will be focused on unfair trading
practices, including the improper labeling of organic imports by our
trading partners. The organic sector has been a great opportunity for
U.S. agricultural producers and USDA's Under Secretary for Trade will
work closely with the USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs to ensure a level playing field for U.S. producers in the
organic and other sectors.
If it is determined that USDA should continue to administer this
program and funding is provided, USDA will work to ensure that we do so
in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
trade with cuba
Question. During your confirmation, in response to questions about
expanding markets to support our farmers you stated that, ``I think we
would love to have Cuba as a customer in many things.'' You went on to
say that, ``American agriculture has a wonderful opportunity. That is a
country that is hungry,'' and, ``I think we have the product they need
and they would like the product. I think the real issue I heard with
Cuba was the financing part . . . and I would support the efforts if
we could get private financing.''
Has anything changed since then? Do you stand by those statements?
If not, why not?
Answer. I still stand by my statements and I continue to believe
that American farmers produce the highest quality, best valued, food
products in the world.
Question. How do you anticipate the President's Trump's recent
announcement to restore restrictions on our engagement with Cuba will
impact American farmers who are eager to access this market?
Answer. Cuba represents a tremendous opportunity for American
agricultural exports. However, in order to capitalize on that
opportunity legislation is needed to eliminate the statutory
prohibition against a U.S. person providing financing terms for the
sale of agricultural commodities or products to Cuba.
under secretary for rural development
Question. I am concerned that the reorganization of the Department,
including the decision to eliminate the position of Under Secretary of
Rural Development, minimizes the significance of this program, despite
reports about the proposed elevation of its responsibilities to the
Secretary's office. The Under Secretary has formally overseen a $216
billion portfolio, 12 programs and 47 state offices that serve rural
Americans on a wide range of vital issues from telecommunications to
housing. It is commendable that you have an interest in direct
oversight of these programs, I however, remain concerned about the
feasibility of implementing programs with such size and scope that
serve our most vulnerable rural Americans.
How will the Department ensure that the mission of the Rural
Development programs, and the economic challenges facing family farmers
and rural communities, will not be overlooked without an Under
Secretary position?
Answer. I have made the determination that establishing an
Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development is the most effective
way to elevate the issues of rural America directly to me. This
position will report directly to me and with this decision rural
America will have a seat at the main table and have walk-in privileges.
The increased emphasis on Rural Development at USDA is in recognition
of the economic difficulties facing rural communities, which have
lagged behind other parts of the country in prosperity.
Question. How will the Department ensure that high-quality
technical assistance and customer service will remain available to
states and grantees without the position of an Under Secretary to
oversee Rural Development?
Answer. It is my commitment to this Subcommittee to be accountable
to rural communities. The Department will continue to maintain the same
level of customer service and care provided in the past. Rural
Development staff has run these loan and grant programs wisely and I am
very proud of them. The change will not affect the functions of the
mission area; it will enhance the delivery of the programs and customer
service.
usda rural rental housing loan program
Question. Throughout the country, thousands of properties
participating in the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loan Program are
approaching their 40-year terms, resulting in maturing mortgages that
will no longer guarantee rent subsidies, threatening many low-income
tenant households with drastic rent increases. In my home state of
Vermont, there are 79 active Section 515 properties containing 1,842
units that will expire within the next 10 years. Meanwhile, the
statewide vacancy rate rests at one percent, making every unit assuring
affordability even more critical to our housing stock.
As these mortgages mature and communities face the challenge of
investing in aging housing stock, the budget proposed by President
Trump eliminates the Section 515 Program, which makes loans to property
owners to provide and maintain affordable rental housing for very low-,
low-, and moderate-income families, elderly persons, and persons with
disabilities. One in every four very low-income renter households in
nonmetropolitan areas is cost-burdened, inadequately housed, or do not
receive Federal housing assistance.
What investments is the Department prepared to make to address
maturing mortgages in the immediate future, and over the next several
years?
Answer. The Department, through the Rural Housing Service, will
continue to refine its Rental Assistance Tool. Through this tool, which
provides analysis on which properties are expected to naturally mature
and when, the agency can be proactive to assist both the property
managers and its residents to maintain quality housing at a low cost.
Question. What resources is the Department currently dedicating to
address the immediate needs?
Answer. The Rural Housing Service (RHS) has three main strategies
to ensure safe and affordable housing is available to very low- and
low-income rural residents. Currently, RHS provides loans to properties
within its portfolio through Section 515 Rural Rental Housing and the
Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization Demonstration Program,
which has several methods to rehabilitate, refinance, and re-amortize
loans to maintain both the quality and affordability of these
properties. Additionally, RHS recently launched a pilot program to
study effective means to transfer Section 515 properties exiting the
program, due to mortgage maturity, to qualified non-profit
organizations.
Question. Will the Department be including funding requests in
future budgets to address this issue?
Answer. In line with the Administration's goal to reduce the
Federal deficit and create a balanced budget, tough funding decisions
must be made. I will propose a budget that funds our most necessary and
high-performing programs. I look forward to working with the
Subcommittee more to ensure that the unique needs of rural communities
are met.
Question. What resources is the Department prepared to commit to
ensuring that rental housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income
families, elderly persons, and persons with disabilities is accessible
in the nation's most rural communities?
Answer. The RHS has several programs that work to provide safe and
affordable rental housing options to very low-, low-, and moderate-
income families, as well as elderly persons and persons with
disabilities. Additionally, we have proposed to fund Section 521 Rental
Assistance at its full level, as well as the Voucher Program for
properties that prepay or default, to ensure that those who need
assistance receive it.
section 502 direct and guaranteed homeownership loans and section 504
home repair and rehabilitation loans
Question. The 502 program offers a unique opportunity to advance
the economic development of rural areas, which have higher poverty
rates and higher rates of unemployment when compared to big cities and
suburbs. Unlike other lending programs, the 502 program ensures that
mortgage payments are subsidized to not more than 24 percent of a
borrower's adjusted income--allowing this program to reach a portion of
the population whose income is often too low to obtain credit
elsewhere. In recent years, the percentage of applications to the
Section 502 Direct and Guaranteed Homeownership Loan Program from very
low-income borrows in my home state of Vermont has topped 40 percent,
signaling a strong need for Rural Development's programming to remain
available to borrowers with limited financial capacity.
The 504 Home Repair and Rehabilitation Program upholds a key
mission of the USDA, to create prosperity for these families that
fosters self-sustaining, repopulating, and economically thriving rural
communities. The Administration's budget proposes to eliminate these
programs, which according to the USDA may guarantee an estimated
159,959 guaranteed home loans in 2017, including home purchases and the
refinancing of existing Rural Housing Service (RHS) loans.
With this evidence, why is the President's budget proposing to
eliminate the Section 502 and Section 504 programs that directly grant,
loan and guarantee funds for low-income homeowners when available
capital is so limited?
Answer. In keeping in line with the Administration's priority to
reduce the Federal deficit and create a balanced budget, USDA had to
make some tough funding decisions. USDA looks forward to working with
the Subcommittee to ensure that the unique needs of rural communities
are met. If it is determined that USDA should continue to administer
this program, I will work to ensure that we do so in the most effective
and efficient manner possible.
Question. Vermont is one of many states that continues to see a
rise in its senior population with limited earnings. The President's
budget proposes to eliminate the Section 504 grants to very-low-income
applicants 62 years or older unable to afford a 1 percent loan, what
resources will remain available to ensure seniors' housing health and
safety is not at risk?
Answer. RHS has several programs that assist elderly and disabled
persons. Approximately 60 percent of Section 515 Rural Rental
properties are for elderly and disabled persons, and residents living
in those facilities can also qualify for rental assistance.
Additionally, the Community Facilities program can provide funding for
the construction or rehabilitation of nursing homes and assisted living
facilities. Additionally, the Rural Economic Infrastructure Grant
program proposed in the fiscal year 2018 President's budget included
low income housing repair grants as one of the four combined
authorities requested in that account. This account will provide the
Administration with flexibility on delivering the programs in the areas
that will provide the best opportunities.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Hoeven. And with that, again, thank you, and we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., Tuesday, June 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the chair.]