[Senate Hearing 116-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:38 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. John Hoeven (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Hoeven, Moran, Hyde-Smith, Merkley,
Tester, Udall, Leahy, and Baldwin.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY PERDUE, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DR. ROBERT JOHANSSON, CHIEF ECONOMIST
ERICA NAVARRO, BUDGET OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN HOEVEN
Senator Hoeven. We will call the hearing to order. Mr.
Secretary, thank you so much for joining us this morning. We
truly appreciate it. Dr. Johansson, thank you for being here as
well, and also Mrs. Navarro. Thank you. We appreciate all three
of you being here. The purpose today's hearing is to discuss
the Department of Agriculture's fiscal year 2021 budget.
The Department of Agriculture is responsible for programs
that range from production of agriculture and trade promotion
to food, safety, and conservation. It also oversees economic
development in rural communities and provides nutrition
assistance. Thank you for your leadership, Secretary Perdue, at
the Department. We truly appreciate it. We appreciate the
relationship we have and your commitment to our Nation's
farmers and ranchers. Thank you also to Dr. Johansson and Mrs.
Navarro as well, as I said.
Congress and the Administration have been working to help
our producers overcome the many challenges that they currently
face from trade uncertainty to severe weather events. I believe
it important progress has been made with the passage of recent
trade agreements and the additional disaster assistance funding
this committee has provided. However, farm country is still
facing difficult times and we must maintain our strong support
for rural America.
The proposed reductions in this budget would directly
impact the small rural communities many of us call home.
Production agriculture is the cornerstone of our rural
economies and we cannot weaken the farm safety net because it
is very important for our farmers and ranchers, again, as you
know, Mr. Secretary. And it is particularly important when we
have low commodity prices, as we do now, and in many parts of
the country, very bad unseen weather conditions.
Producers not only in my home State but other parts of the
country rely on the Department's tools and resources to
maintain their livelihoods during these challenging times.
While I support some of the proposals included in the
President's budget, I am deeply concerned with the proposed
cuts to rural development, foreign food aid, and the Ag
research programs. We cannot eliminate these important
programs.
As I have said before, the burden of balancing the Federal
budget cannot be placed on the backs of farmers, rural
communities, and food aid recipients. In our fiscal year 2020
Appropriation bill, this subcommittee made great strides
towards modernizing infrastructure in rural America, increasing
funding for Ag research programs, and enhancing wildlife and
past disease prevention and response efforts.
And I look forward to hearing an update on the Department's
plan for the implementation these priorities. Now is the time
to be investing in the future of Ag in rural America. And
obviously, I look forward to working not only with our Ranking
Member Senator Merkley, but other members of this committee to
identify priorities and make the most effective and efficient
decisions on behalf of American taxpayers.
Also, I want to emphasize again the importance of our crop
insurance as the number one risk management tool for our
farmers. And we are very committed to crop insurance. So Mr.
Secretary, I look forward to discussing these and other
important issues with you.
Senator Merkley will join us shortly and can provide his
opening statement at that point. However, before we proceed to
testimony, I would ask if any of the other members have an
opening statement they would like to make before we go to your
testimony.
[No response.]
Senator Hoeven. Okay, hearing none, again thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here and for your work on behalf of our
farmers and ranchers. And I like to start every meeting I have
on agriculture and end it by making the simple and true point
that every single American benefits every single day from what
our farmers and ranchers do which is produce the highest
quality, lowest cost food supply in history of the world. So
with that, Mr. Secretary.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY PERDUE
Secretary Perdue. And I will agree with you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. And for
your other members, certainly in these days. There are a lot of
other things going on and I appreciate your taking the time to
be here and hear our report and honestly answer your questions
as we go forward. But I think this year, we are glad to have
2019 in the books and in the rearview mirror. From a farming
perspective, it was obviously very challenging. But I think
what you saw happen was the safety net that you and members of
Congress had provided along with the ad hoc disaster programs
really helped farmers to survive another year in that way, and
I am very proud of our folks for the way they have delivered
not only implementing the Farm Bill provisions, another Market
Facilitation Program (MFP), as well as an ad hoc disaster
program.
Our team on the ground I think are really giving real
meaning to the most customer focused service there in the
Federal Government. So we are really proud of them and I think
we did an overall good job, in fulfilling that commitment to
delivering those programs to your constituents that you all
appropriate in that way.
The standard disaster program, administered the indemnity
type of programs that you provided about $690 million in
assistance, while you provided another $4.5 million in ad hoc
disaster assistance for 2018 and 2019 losses and you certainly
know what happened in the beet areas and your areas and the
sugar beet areas there as well over just getting frozen and
couldn't even get them out at all. But then at the President's
direction, the $16 billion in the market facilitation program
which is on top of the $12 billion from 2018.
We are always concerned about the next year but farmers are
optimists. They are resilient. That is what it takes to put
that seed in the ground every spring. And I think while this
year holds its challenges of where we are from lower working
capital, farmers are optimist and I was surprised the other day
to see the Purdue economic report that the optimism is kind of
all-time high for farmers, which was very interesting. We may
have a chart about that but it was encouraging to me. Obviously
this was prior to the corona outbreak. I think the last numbers
were in January, early February, but they are again doing what
they have always done.
So it is 2020, a new decade, and I think gives us reason
for new optimism, in particularly in light of the new trade
demand that we believe we will see through the trade deals that
have been consummated in that way. And I appreciate the
President using the leverage of his office to secure these
deals. The Phase 1 agreement with China, with hard, enforceable
numbers there, is going to be exciting.
We are beginning to monitor that as we go forward even in
light of the issue with the virus outbreak worldwide. United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) giving certainly again
with our nearest trading partners, Canada and Mexico. The $7
billion in Japan and a lot of other singles and doubles as
Ambassador Lighthizer likes to say. So while we have the
markets abroad, here at home the 15 billion gallons of
conventional ethanol blended in there will be a good thing,
with 15 billion gallons assured. And I think again, what we try
to do with the access for customers over this E15 is again the
higher blends infrastructure incentive program and grants to
expand retail and wholesale renewable fuel infrastructure.
And again, we are working in helping to move people from
dependency and employment and training programs as well. And
all in all, I think ReConnect is important to broadband. We
have done, I think, an admirable job in deploying the money
that you all entrusted to us and provided $751 million in
grants for 83 projects, 431,000 Americans for the ReConnect
Broadband Program. And you mentioned the fact that we are
beginning to tell the success of the American story.
We hear a lot of people complaining about what farmers get
but I asked Dr. Johansson here to my right to really calculate
what the difference is over what our families and consumers in
America pay for their food versus developed Western European
countries, and he only chose France. When you extrapolate it
among the number of Americans families there, it is $830
billion more disposable income that American families have
versus Western European families. And there are, again,
wholesome, affordable, high-quality food there.
So I know while these have been productive years and a lot
of anxiety still there, but the optimism is there. And I want
to fully answer your questions about the budget as it concerns
the Appropriations as you all appropriators talk about the
things that you are concerned about there and we will be happy
to answer any questions.
But I think that we are going to do everything we can and
so we have to implement the programs and the resources that you
give us to make sure that we have a good safe food supply going
into the future. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify this morning. I would be happy to answer any questions
at any time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sonny Perdue
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, it is
a privilege to appear before you today to provide an overview of the
Department's proposed budget for fiscal year 2021. Joining me today are
Robert Johansson, the USDA's Chief Economist, and Erica Navarro, USDA's
Budget Officer.
Since we last met, USDA has worked diligently to implement the 2018
Farm Bill. Among our milestones, I committed to you last year we would
offer the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) Program, a significant new risk
management tool, in June of 2019, and we followed through.
Implementation of conservation programs by the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is on track
as well, including FSA's 54th Conservation Reserve Program general
sign-up, which opened in December--another commitment kept. We
established the U.S. Domestic Hemp Production Program in advance of the
2020 planting season and adapted several existing programs to this
promising commodity not widely cultivated since 1937.
USDA has continued to work toward becoming the most effective, most
efficient, and most customer-focused Department in the Federal
government. USDA worked to create rural economic opportunities and
improve the quality of life for rural Americans. Rural Development
invested in new and improved high-speed e-Connectivity and electricity
for 7 million residents and improved water and wastewater
infrastructure for nearly 3 million rural customers. USDA also launched
an initiative to provide comprehensive and timely support to veterans
interested in opportunities in agriculture, agribusiness, and in rural
America.
USDA made strides to reduce trade barriers and ensure farmers,
ranchers, and food manufacturers and workers can fairly compete against
anyone in overseas markets. Examples of our accomplishments include
securing full access for beef to Argentina and Japan, restoring market
access for poultry and poultry products to China, improving access for
wheat to Brazil, and guaranteeing rice access to the Korean market. In
our effort to promote U.S. products around the world, USDA led six
trade missions that enabled more than 170 U.S. companies and
organizations to engage in 3,200 one-on-one meetings with foreign
buyers. Our trade missions and 22 endorsed trade shows generated nearly
$3 billion in projected export sales, while our export financing
programs supported another $2 billion in exports in 2019. President
Donald Trump, meanwhile, laid the foundation for a stronger farm
economy through trade accomplishments like the Phase 1 Deal with China,
USMCA, and trade agreement with Japan, which USDA will look to build
upon in 2020.
As we served out our motto to ``Do Right and Feed Everyone,'' USDA
finalized a rule that will encourage more American to enter, re-enter,
and remain in the workforce, helping individuals and families start on
a path to a better life, The Trump Administration has produced the
longest economic expansion in U.S. history, with an unemployment rate
of 3.6 percent over 6 million job openings. All individuals deserve the
dignity of work and the lasting transformation it provides to achieve
their own American dream. Congress asked us in the 2018 Farm Bill to
focus on case management and promote the long-term success and self-
sufficiency of SNAP recipients and just last week, we introduced a
proposed rule that will strengthen the way states serve our customers
through Employment and Training programs. We believe that human
connection, not just a monthly SNAP benefit, has the power to change
people's lives.
USDA plowed ahead with IT modernization initiatives to improve
customer experience. Customers can now discover our national treasures
on Recreation.gov or save time and paperwork associated with disaster
assistance, farm programs, and H2A applications on Farmers.gov, all
using our interactive tools in the palm of their hand. USDA also
developed dashboards across eight Mission Areas and seven
administrative functions, which provide employees with sophisticated
data analytics to improve internal decisionmaking and maximize the
impact of customer-facing programs. USDA will continue innovating
across the enterprise to achieve faster, easier, and friendlier
programs, with a special focus on areas of greatest potential impact on
customer service, like expanded payment options for farm programs,
automated AGI threshold compliance, and digital acreage reporting. In
addition to supporting our customers digitally, USDA has also taken
steps to ensure that our offices are staffed with employees that have
the expertise that our farmers, ranchers, and rural residents need. I
know Members who serve on this Committee and beyond share my goal to
ensure USDA is adequately staffed to deliver efficient and effective
service for our farmers, ranchers and rural communities. Even as USDA
strives for innovation, automation, and business process re-
engineering--customers will always count most on our people. For the
fifth consecutive year, attrition at USDA outpaced hiring in fiscal
year 2019. Our agencies hired 5,002 permanent employees, while 6,954
employees left USDA, most of whom were field based. Already in fiscal
year 2020, USDA faces a deficit of hiring to attrition of nearly 600
employees. The pace of attrition places an extraordinary demand on a
Federal hiring process that is encumbered with hundreds of pages of
requirements that frustrate qualified candidates and hiring managers
alike. To help overcome this mounting challenge, USDA was granted
temporary direct hire authority from the Office of Personnel Management
for field and front-line positions in FSA, NRCS, Forest Service, Rural
Development (RD), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS),
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) and the Economic Research Service (ERS). We are
holding continued discussions within the Administration on solutions to
address this challenge. We look forward to communicating with Congress
further when those discussions are completed.
2021 president's budget
The President's Budget recognizes the overriding need to reduce the
Federal deficit, and USDA shares in the responsibility of controlling
Federal spending. There are proposals in the budget for USDA that will
produce real savings in both mandatory and discretionary spending. The
Budget includes proposals to cut programs that achieved their goals or
do not work, eliminate wasteful or duplicative spending, streamline
government operations, and limit spending to achieve deficit reduction
goals. The President's 2021 Budget lays out a vision for a Federal
government that is efficient, effective, and accountable.
USDA's total budget authority request pending before this
Subcommittee proposes a total of $146.1 billion in 2021, compared to
$147.1 billion in 2020. The discretionary appropriation request for
this Subcommittee is $18.1 billion, which is lower than the $21.7
billion under the 2020 enacted levels.
For 2021, we will continue to prioritize customer service every day
for our customers--the American taxpayers. We will strive to conduct
the people's business efficiently, effectively, and with the utmost
integrity. We will promote the ability of America's agricultural sector
to produce and sell the food and fiber that feeds and clothes the world
and to reap the earned reward of their labor. By promoting American
agricultural products, we will work to remove obstacles and give
farmers, ranchers, foresters, and producers every opportunity to
prosper and thrive. Through our programs and working closely with our
customers, we will facilitate rural prosperity through the expansion of
rural business opportunities and improved infrastructure. We will also
work to preserve the land. USDA will continue to ensure that all
Americans have access to a safe and secure food supply.
become the best managed department in the federal government
As USDA continues to proficiently deliver our programs, the fiscal
year 2021 President's Budget supports new and continuing investments in
IT modernization to improve customer service and streamline and
modernize rural and farm program and service delivery. In addition, the
Budget continues support for the business functions of the FPAC Mission
Area by streamlining service delivery between FSA, NRCS, and RMA to
improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. To maximize the
effectiveness of these customer-focused improvements, the Department
must modernize its own back-office technology capabilities. The Budget
includes an increase of $31.5 million to begin the transition to a
modernized enterprise network in fiscal year 2021.
In the National Capital Region (NCR), the Department is proceeding
with the OneNeighborhood initiative to better utilize office space in
the Washington, DC Headquarters Complex. The Budget requests $153
million for the initiative to increase the occupancy capacity through
life and health safety upgrades; space reconfigurations; and the
replacement of outdated building systems. The efforts will allow the
Department to reduce its lease costs in the NCR that amount to
approximately $40 million annually.
USDA is implementing the Continuous Diagnostics Mitigation program
as required by the Department of Homeland Security. The Budget includes
$49 million to enhance cybersecurity capabilities for safety and
security of government data and the network. The Budget provides $8.5
million to develop and implement a budget spending and execution system
that integrates with the financial system to allow the Department
better stewardship of resources. Additionally, $2.5 million will
support the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 and
enterprise risk management development to provide an organizational
view of risks and allow the Department to gauge which risk are directly
aligned to achieving strategic goals and objectives resulting in the
highest probability of impacting USDA's mission.
create conditions so agricultural operations can prosper, fulfilling
their mission to feed, fuel, and clothe the world
Over the past year, USDA responded to circumstances that tested the
resilience of American farmers with initiatives to facilitate economic
conditions in which they can prosper. With the help of crop insurance,
natural disaster assistance programs, and short-term trade mitigation
programs, many producers are managing the stresses of these difficult
times and are indicating increased optimism, particularly with
expectations that trade partnerships will strengthen in the near
future. As we implement the 2018 Farm Bill we will work toward
achieving the primary goal of farm programs: to help farmers and
ranchers manage risks and continue producing food, fiber, and fuel in
good years as well as bad. The Budget provides $4.6 billion for
commodity program payments to maintain an effective farm safety net.
Commodity programs are critical components of the farm safety net,
serving to provide risk management and financial tools to farmers and
ranchers. Approximately 1.7 million farms are enrolled in the
Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs,
which are helping cushion the financial strain felt by producers due to
continued low prices for many commodities.
In addition to mandatory funding provided by the 2018 Farm Bill,
the President's Budget provides resources to help agricultural
operations fulfill their mission to feed, fuel, and clothe the world.
The Budget provides $8.8 billion for the Federal crop insurance
program, enough to provide crop insurance coverage for more than $100
billion in crop value. Crop insurance provides farmers and ranchers a
means to effectively manage their risk through difficult periods. The
Budget includes $79 million to fully support the estimated $8.9 billion
demand for farm loans that provide access to credit to about 35,000
farmers and ranchers to finance operating expenses, refinance debt or
acquire a farm. It provides $1.036 billion for the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service to protect agriculture from pests and
diseases, address sanitary (animal) and phytosanitary (plant) trade
concerns, and enforce animal care legislation. For agricultural
research and extension activities, the Budget includes a total of $3.3
billion, including $600 million for competitive grants through the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. The Budget includes a total
of $135 million for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF)
including operational and maintenance activities and funding to
transition and expand the Agricultural Research Service and the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service research and diagnostic programs at
NBAF.
expand foreign markets and promote u.s. products around the world
USDA is committed to helping U.S. farmers and ranchers identify and
access new export markets and expanding trade opportunities. It is
critical that USDA work with the American food and agriculture
community to ensure farmers, ranchers, and food manufacturers and
workers can fairly compete against anyone in overseas markets. To
support this mission, the Budget includes $200 million to reduce trade
barriers that disadvantage U.S. agricultural exports and to open new
markets for U.S. farm products. Within this amount, funding is also
requested to preserve or expand trade valued at $8 billion through
resolution of foreign market access issues. 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.
facilitate rural prosperity and economic development
When rural Americans have increased access to infrastructure
services, rural communities can make even greater economic
contributions with healthy families and prosperous businesses. Economic
and social science research informs decision-makers on current trends
in rural America and gaps in existing markets, which USDA then uses to
meet the needs of rural American businesses and citizens. USDA
leverages funds and stimulates public-private partnerships to build
rural infrastructure including: broadband, community facilities,
healthcare services and facilities, and safe and affordable housing to
help underserved communities become thriving communities.
In addition to $690 million in program level for the
telecommunication infrastructure program which supports communities
with population of under 5,000, the Budget provides $250 million in
budget authority to support broadband loans, grants and loan/grant
combinations that will provide high speed broadband services to
communities with population under 20,000. It also provides $30 million
in budget authority for broadband grants to rural Americans who
currently do not receive any broadband service.
The President's Budget supports $5.5 billion in loans for rural
electric improvements, benefiting over 5 million rural residents
annually by expanding the use of smart grid technologies and other
security and resiliency improvements. The Budget requests $1.3 billion
in direct loans and $614 million in grants to improve and expand the
water and waste disposal facilities in rural America. The Budget
supports $2.5 billion in Community Facilities Direct Loans and $500
million in Community Facilities Guaranteed Loans for investment in
critical community infrastructure, such as healthcare, safety, and
educational facilities. The Budget also provides $24 billion for the
Single-Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program to enable approximately
160,000 families to enjoy homeownership and $230 million in multi-
family guaranteed loans to support the development of more than 8,000
units for very low-, low-, and moderate-income rural residents. The
Budget supports $1.5 billion in program level in business and industry
loan guarantees, which is expected to assist 433 businesses support
nearly 11,000 jobs and diversify the rural economy.
Providing additional biofuels infrastructure across rural America
will help improve the distribution of higher blends of ethanol and
biodiesel and increase the domestic consumption of agricultural
commodities. In support of this initiative, the Budget includes $100
million to support grants and incentives to promote domestic ethanol
and biodiesel infrastructure and consumption.
provide all americans access to a safe, nutritious, and secure food
supply
USDA's nutrition assistance programs help ensure food security by
providing access to a nutritious diet with an emphasis on those
individuals facing need due to unemployment, recession, disaster, age,
or disability. These programs also work to promote well-being by
providing assistance to help ensure access to a diet consistent with
the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Budget includes mandatory
funds to support estimated participation levels under current law,
including $68.3 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP), $25 billion for Child Nutrition Programs, and $5.5
billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC). Participation in these nutrition
assistance programs is expected to continue declining with sustained
economic growth that enables families to work toward self-sufficiency.
The Budget includes nearly $1.1 billion to fully fund the costs
necessary to support over 8,700 FSIS personnel who ensure the safety of
the Nation's meat, poultry, and egg products at over 6,400 processing,
slaughter, and import establishments. The U.S. has one of the safest
food supplies on the planet. Over the last decade, USDA has modernized
inspection systems to align with 21st century technology and to prevent
the hazards that we cannot see--the invisible pathogens and microbes
that cause foodborne illness. USDA is committed to using the best
science and technology available to protect the American food supply
and ensure the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products.
program reforms
The 2021 President's Budget includes legislative proposals to
reform programs to gain efficiencies, while contributing to deficit
reduction efforts. This includes several legislative proposals that
were included in the fiscal year 2020 Budget to better target commodity
conservation assistance and crop insurance that would generate savings
of $42.1 billion over 10 years compared to current baseline spending.
In addition, the Budget proposes to delink the Section 32 program from
customs receipts and replace the receipt funding with direct mandatory
appropriations. This proposal funds all of the current Section 32
nutrition programs and provides stable funding for surplus commodity
donations. The Budget's proposals will ensure stable historical levels
of funding for all the nutrition programs that have traditionally
benefited from these activities while also increasing transparency,
improving operational efficiency, generating savings of $5.1 billion
over 10 years.
The Budget also supports a foundational principle that those who
need assistance have access to wholesome and healthy foods. The Budget
includes an approach to nutrition assistance that combines the use of
traditional SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer cards with a USDA Harvest
Box that contains 100-percent American grown products. States would
have the ability to provide choice to their recipients, including
innovative approaches for the inclusion of fresh products. The Budget
also includes proposals to reserve benefits for those most in need,
promote efficiency in State operations, and strengthen program
integrity. The Budget includes SNAP proposals that have the potential
to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse by limiting opportunities for
benefits to be misused or trafficked, along with funding for improved
Federal monitoring and oversight and enhanced data matching. Combined,
these reforms to nutrition assistance programs maintain the
Administration's commitment to ensuring Americans in need of assistance
have access to a nutritious diet while reducing the cost to taxpayers
by approximately $182 billion over 10 years.
conclusion
In the face of a growing national debt, the President has offered a
fiscally responsible budget that no longer puts off the tough decisions
to future generations. At USDA, we will do our part to improve customer
service while reducing our economic and regulatory impact. Before I
conclude, I want to thank our dedicated employees, without whom our
service to rural America would not be possible. In 2019, we asked more
of our people than perhaps at any other point: implementation of a new
Farm Bill, execution of two Support Packages for Farmers,
implementation of a supplemental disaster assistance program and its
subsequent revisions, all in addition to their normal operations. It is
a privilege to lead OneUSDA, while we strive to ``Do Right and Feed
Everyone.''
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I would be
happy to answer any questions at this time.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Did you have any
opening comments either from Dr. Johansson or Mrs. Navarro.
Okay, with that then I turn to our Ranking Member for opening
statement and then we will go to questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
apologize for being late. It is related in a way in that the
Senators briefing on the challenge with coronavirus was very
intense. Many, many concerns about our response here in the
United States and of course so many events happened yesterday
and are continuing to happen today as our society adjusts.
I will just to give you all a sense of the root of it. Here
in America, we have tested about five people per million and in
Korea they have tested about 3,800 people per million. So they
are tracking community transfer in a very aggressive and
extensive way while we are just kind of getting off the ground
here. And it is related to certainly that the FDA is part of
the portfolio and I am sure there will be a lot more discussion
of that. But again, my apologies.
Shifting directly to the affairs at hand, Mr. Secretary a
budget as it is often said, is a statement of values and I am
disturbed by some of the values present in this budget. This
budget says that the Administration doesn't have much affection
for economic development in rural America because it slashes
the programs to support that development, including the direct
single-family housing loans, and multi-family housing loans,
and low-income housing repair loans, the economic impact
initiative grants, the real business development grants just to
name a few.
And I have heard a tremendous amount of feedback from my
community saying, what is going on with that. And this budget
suggests that the Administration has an affection for hunger,
devastating food assistance that fights hunger in multiple ways
including proposals to decimate Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), eliminate the commodity supplemental
food program, eliminate the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer
(EBT), zero out their national food assistance programs. This
budget says agricultural research isn't that important. But I
can tell you, with a very diverse agricultural base in Oregon,
agricultural research is absolutely essential with new threats
of all kinds all the time.
So I hope we will have a robust discussion of these items
and more. I hear from many folks in Oregon who are concerned
that nominees for the resource advisory committees have been
waiting for your approval, Mr. Secretary. I would love to have
you review those nominations so the committees can plan to
distribute funds to rural areas that desperately need it. Thank
you.
MARKET FACILITATION PROGRAM
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Senator Merkley. Alright, we
will go to 5 minute rounds of questioning. Mr. Secretary, the
MFP has been really important the last 2 years and I want to
thank you for your support on it, your hard work on it. Of
course, thank the Administration, the President, and it really
has been vital to keeping our producers in the game for both of
the last 2 years.
So I guess my questions are, you know, given the
coronavirus, given the impact it has on the trade agreements, I
am going to ask you what your thoughts are in terms of another
round of MFP, which I feel may be needed. Given, you know, as
we track events here, we are working on getting the disaster
assistance out and we will talk about that.
But if there is another MFP, as you know we funded through
this committee, do you have the resources--are you going to
need additional resources to do that based on where you are in
terms of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) program and so
forth?
Secretary Perdue. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. To answer
that we would have to really know the timing there and really
look at our cash flow within CCC in order to do that. You all
were gracious enough last year to replenish that in the normal
course of events, which we had calculated the first launch we
could handle and you all came through with the funding that
allowed us to do that. I am on the record right now of advising
farmers not to expect a 2020 MFP.
The basis for that is, again, irrespective of coronavirus,
which we don't know exactly the long-term impact of that, but
what we know right now is the MFP program was a trade
disruption program, not a price support mechanism. That is one
of the challenges we had earlier to persuade people. It was
about what damages they lost in trade not in price support,
both when the talks broke down for China, the President called
and said we need to do it again in 2019.
His tweet a few weeks ago, I think, got people excited but
it was prefaced by that word if, which is a contingency, if
trade is not available, I think the President is prepared to
recommend that again. And if it is needed, we will do that. We
would hope that the trade does materialize as the enforceable
numbers with the Phase 1 another.
Again, the coronavirus is very dynamic. But if the trade
doesn't materialize, we are prepared to look at that again. We
are hoping for the best. The good news is I think China in the
technical aspects is doing what it needs to do to prepare to
fulfill their commitment once this epidemic of coronavirus
subsides.
DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Senator Hoeven. The other thing I want to ask you about is
now we worked on the disaster assistance and you recently
announced the details on the drought, excess moisture, and on
the sugar program. I want to thank you for those. I want to
thank you for working on them with us.
We deeply appreciate it, very important to our producers.
But now we have got the quality loss piece. And as you know, I
put forward the SURE, Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments
Program, as a model to use. I think that would work well. Where
are we in terms of advancing on getting the quality loss
adjustment out under the disaster assistance?
Secretary Perdue. As you might imagine, Mr. Chairman, the
quality loss is a little more complicated, a little difficult
to enforce. It is not about something you can measure
necessarily. It is very specific to each farmer and each
individual crop. We are trying right now to have discussions
about what is the best way to proceed forward.
We have your recommendations of the secure program. We
haven't had this in a while, haven't utilized I think for over
10 years, and it will be a new rule. So we are currently
putting those together. We will consult with different groups
and commodity groups in affected regions about quality loss and
what should be included in that in order to get the best
opportunity to meet the needs of people who have suffered
because of the weather quality losses.
Senator Hoeven. Yes, and as you know, we are trying to keep
it moving and I appreciate that you are too, and I recognize
that is challenging with all the things you have had to do, but
important for our producers too--not only in terms of helping
reduce uncertainty but with cash flow and to get them
transitioned from last year to the next year. So very important
that we keep advancing it. And of course that leads into my
next question which is staff vacancies.
STAFF VACANCIES
And you and I have talked about this, but I want to make
sure that we are providing you, and I think we are providing,
you with help, funding, and flexibility, whatever you need. But
I know it is a challenge getting staffing so we want to help
you with that and I would like update in terms of where you are
at and what is helpful.
Secretary Perdue. Sure. I think the funding that you all
provided in a 2020 budget is adequate for that. We are doing--
we certainly had plenty of funding for NRCS. As I mentioned to
you in your inquiry, it has been very frustrating to me to hire
Federal people in these offices going through the formal
network. The onboarding process has been extended.
You don't have people in today's economy that are going to
wait 100, 120, 140, and 160 days to be offered a job in that
regard. We have been given, from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) some direct hiring authority which we are
aggressively utilizing in these offices, particularly on farm
loan officers, which is needed very badly.
We are making progress on that. I think the funding that
you give is going to be adequate. It is a matter of having the
processes in place to utilize those funds as quickly as
possible. We are making progress. I can tell you it is all
hands on deck from all of our mission areas to make sure we
implement the best recruiting tools that we can in order to get
the best people in place.
Senator Hoeven. And again, if your folks will work with our
great crew, we will try to help continue to intervene with OPM
because I recognize it is a challenge. I mean, I agree with
you, but we want to help you there and will continue to weigh
in with OPM as you give us ideas on how you can help advance
that process.
Secretary Perdue. I would welcome that and we could really
use the help from this committee in order to persuade the
administration at OPM that this is needed here.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Merkley.
SCHOOL MEALS
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to turn to the potential of schools being closed and the impact
on school meals since so many children depend on the breakfast
and the lunches. I believe you have a waiver program that you
have already given several waivers. Is it anticipated that we
will go essentially to the summer EBT model or the schools or
the community will set up alternative feeding sites for
children to be fed? There is confusion about this.
Secretary Perdue. It would be similar to a summer feeding
program, although the waiver, Senator, is for the non-
congregate or the congregate waiver. Obviously, with social
distancing being the reason they are out of school, you don't
want them to congregate. So what that means is they can get
their foods, they can come by and pick up or have delivered
their food rather than having to gather, like a summer feeding
program, in one location in that way. That is automatically as
you said.
We told all the States that while our lawyers tell us that
we have to be asked, we told the States the answer would be yes
when they asked.
Senator Merkley. Some of the non-congregate settings are
actually congregate settings so they are going to be asking for
more clarification on that. There was non-school settings where
people have gathered to get food in this program. So I will
follow up with your team in that regard. Turning to the
broadband, you mentioned that $751 million has been dispersed.
BROADBAND
The funds you have for the program are now $1.5 billion. So
that is half the funds. There is also a lot of feedback from
the first round of ReConnect and I wanted to ask if you have
had a chance to look at the recommendations that have come from
the Oregon delegation on how we might modify this so more
communities could participate more easily.
Secretary Perdue. I am not familiar with those
recommendations. We would welcome them. But we actually
modified the second tranche and those applications are closing
I think the 16th of this month in order--my understanding was
there was $1.1 billion that was left unappropriated in that way
from the second and third round, and we are including that in
the these applications here now. We expect both of them to be
oversubscribed as the first round was.
But I have not been exposed to those recommendations of how
we can make the program more beneficial, but I can tell you the
anecdotal evidence and the responses we have got has been
overwhelmingly positive in the places where those programs have
been in place.
WILDFIRE AND HURRICANE INDEMNITY PROGRAM PLUS
Senator Merkley. I will follow up with your team on that
because we had a lot of feedback from our rural communities
that it is complex. The Broadband is connected to a variety of
technologies for sure and the rules regarding the program. I
wanted to turn to WHIP+, Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity
Program Plus. The plus program, has it been set up yet? Is it
ready for applications?
Secretary Perdue. It already has been implemented and I
think the Title I type crops were, as of last September, were
eligible to come in. Some of the unusual non-standard crops are
being issued in block grants in that way. And then as the
latest language own the quality and drought and excessive
moisture, those are available for applications now. One thing
that the chairman mentioned that we don't have the rule out for
is the quality degradation rules there, but the others are in
place.
Senator Merkley. Okay, the hazelnut producers in Oregon
have gotten very confusing direction on this. So that is
another piece we will try to sort out with your team.
Secretary Perdue. Let me mention something about them.
Obviously, it is a non-standard type of crop where they don't
have a history to come in. Many of the delays on some of those
is because they didn't have a profile or record of production
there.
So we try to work with producers individually to make sure
what their historical averages were and what the damages were
so we can calculate the right amount. And that is where the
hazelnut people are.
HEMP PRODUCTION
Senator Merkley. Okay. Well, that is helpful. I want to try
to connect the producers and their damage, to the program and
figure out how we can get that processed. I will close with
hemp. Hemp has many issues on how we adjust to the testing. We
have forged a series of recommendations from the Oregon
commerce, which I think is similar to the Kentucky commerce in
hemp regarding the flexibility on how many days out from
harvest do you test, what part of the stem do you test, and a
lot of these come down to questions on whether you go over the
0.3 standard or don't.
And millions of dollars of crop is out there. These are
very different crops from the 14 percent plus pure
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) so clearly there are hemp but there
has been a lot of concern that the design of the rules, they
are designed to make it very hard to farm hemp.
And I don't think that is the intent but we need to work
with your team to get a little more flexibility because clearly
if there is 0.3 or 0.4, it is still clearly hemp not cannabis,
if you will, recreational cannabis.
Secretary Perdue. Certainly true. I think while we fought
for a little more flexibility of widening those standards, I
believe statutorily the law was constrained in that 0.3. You
may know also in the regulations that we had some pushback from
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that really didn't
like the whole program to begin with and from a lab testing and
others. We made a few modifications as we were able to under
the legal statutes and interim final rule.
This is a new, unusual crop as you understand, and we will
be very open to ongoing comments as we go forward about what
those other flexibilities and make sure that we make it as
available as possible for people who want to grow hemp in that
regard. But our hands were constrained many times by the
interagency process of other people weighing in.
Senator Merkley. And it isn't so much to statutory concern
on the 0.3 as it is the rules of exactly how you test because--
but we will work with you. I think it is very clear this is
hemp not marijuana. We need to make that clear to the DEA
community. And thank you.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, Secretary Perdue, thank you
for appearing today. I have shared Senator Merkley's concerns
regarding the Department's hemp rule. It is a crop and I urge
you to continue working with us to get it get it right. But I
am worried about some of the priorities in the budget proposal.
FARM-TO-SCHOOL INSTITUTE
And I think I know you well enough to wonder how you want
to support some of the farm bankruptcies are continuing, your
State, my State, all over the country. Climate crisis is
looming. Rural communities, and I live in one of them, struggle
to survive. But I don't see help for these farmers or our rural
communities. The one bright spot in your budget request is your
desire to award grants of up to $500,000 to support farm to
school programs. I applaud you for that. I was pleased to see
USDA recently awarded two grants of $100,000 each to support
two regional farm-to-school institute.
But the last two Appropriations bills have directed the
USDA to use at least $150,000 to support entities such as a
farm to school institute that strengthens the ability of
schools to provide this nutrition education. Your Department
claims has the statutory limit of $100,000 but there really
isn't because among other things, you awarded a $1.8 million
cooperative agreement focused on producer training.
So my question is simple, under what authority, statutory
authority did USDA award the 2019 cooperative agreement and why
does the statutory cap apply to support the farm-to-school
institute but not to that cooperative agreement?
Secretary Perdue. Senator, what was the cooperative
agreement that you mentioned? I didn't quite understand what
that was.
Senator Leahy. That was $1.8 million cooperative agreement
focused on producer training. That was done in 2019.
Secretary Perdue. I am not sure I could answer your
question. I will get those answers back. Obviously, we thought
the farm to school program was going well. I visited one in
Senator Baldwin's district and we thought it was a great
program. It is going well across there. We felt like the
$100,000 per unit was good. I can't answer the cooperative
program on the other, the comparison.
[The information follows:]
Section 18(g)(3)(C) of the National School Lunch Act limits the
amount of a Farm to School grant to $100,000. The directive to use at
least $150,000 of Farm to School Grant funds to support regional farm
to school institutes did not change the underlying statutory limit for
Farm to School Grants. The cooperative agreement with the National
Center for Appropriate Technology to create producer training materials
is not a Farm to School Grant where the recipient organization directs
and completes a project independently. Instead it is a collaborative
project between USDA and the recipient organization to carry out an
activity that USDA cannot complete independently. The cooperative
agreement contains terms and conditions that clearly outline USDA's
significant involvement in the development and implementation of the
producer training. It's also worth noting that the cooperative
agreement was not funded out of the farm to school program funds
generally used to support grants, but rather the funds provided for
farm to school program administrative activities.
Senator Leahy. We are going to work with your staff. I
would like a very clear answer on this because we were told it
is $100,000 on the farm to school statutory limit. It is not,
it is $150,000, and that is why I was wondering what the
statutory limit on the cooperative?
Secretary Perdue. Well, you have educated me this morning
because I think I was told the same thing, that it is $100,000.
Senator Leahy. Well, that is true and maybe you and I could
chat.
Secretary Perdue. Sure.
SCHOOL MEALS
Senator Leahy. Coronavirus has already caused two school
closures in my State of Vermont. Nationally it could affect
millions of low-income students who rely on school meals. I
like what you said about the flexibility USDA has taken.
What statutory changes would you need to ensure low-income
students the necessary nutrition assistance either, through an
electronic benefits card or off-site consumption meal
distribution, what can we do?
Secretary Perdue. I think on the low-income schools, I
think we have the flexibility that we need, that is why we have
indicated to all the States that as they request waivers, they
can assume it will be granted in the non-congregate environment
way. The challenge is we cannot direct or determine how school
systems are going to implement that to get food to kids.
Senator Leahy. But they want flexibility from you. For
example, do you have the authority to compensate farmers who
get market loss from closures of schools or farmer markets, and
if they then donate their excess products to a food bank or
school feeding program.
Secretary Perdue. I am not sure. I am not aware of any
program like that we would have the flexibility.
Senator Leahy. Make sure you and your office look at that,
and if there is something we need, we will try to get you
authority because I am always struck by what a school bus
driver told me. He goes from a very affluent area in Vermont,
Woodstock area, to the surrounding areas, which is far, far
less affluent. In the affluent areas, you almost see the
parents, okay kids, you got to go to school, push them out the
door.
The poorer areas, the kids have been standing out there for
half an hour. They are going to get there first and second,
probably the only meals of the day, so they are on time. And I
know you have a concern about that because chairman, you and I
have discussed this too, the hungry child doesn't learn. And
that is not a Republican or Democratic idea. I have raised a
couple points. We will work with your staff.
Secretary Perdue. Well, we would welcome that and any other
ideas that you may have about how we can implement that and
really in order to get to these kids when their schools are
closed, how we can get them those meals. Thank you, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Moran.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY STAFFING
Senator Moran. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank
you and nice to see you. You mentioned something that was
highlighted for me yesterday although I am hearing it way too
frequently, and that is the lack of staffing at Farm Service
Agency (FSA) offices.
And yesterday the Farm Bureau I was in, this was a topic of
their conversation with me and concern, and part of it has been
described to me as the number of hours that anyone can be on a
computer at a particular time or much computer spaces available
nationwide, at times just require our farmers to sit and wait.
But the larger issue is just the inability or unwillingness of
the Department to fill spaces with qualified staff.
And apparently the issue exists in which if you are a
temporary employee, which USDA utilizes a lot in our FSA
offices, that temporary time doesn't qualify you for that
period to be included if you become a permanent employee.
So you mentioned this in your comments and I wanted to
offer my assistance in any way that I can to see that the
positions that need to be filled are filled, and that the
computer system is available for a longer period of time than
apparently I understand it to be.
Secretary Perdue. Well, I want to assure you, Senator, it
is not an unwillingness. And if you want to get us out there
and help us out here to recruit people to FSA, we are willing
to put them on. I think the really torturous process of Federal
onboarding in this day and almost low unemployment is a real
challenge in order to get people to wait to be offered an on-
boarded and Federal job, and doing all the things we have to do
for Federal regulation.
RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE (RUS) RECONNECT PROGRAM THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Senator Moran. I heard the chairman say his willingness to
help in that regard if, I don't know if it was the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) or OPM, one or both, please
consider me an ally. I have also learned that broadband
providers that are structured as partnerships are prohibited
from applying for RUS ReConnect program that on the surface
doesn't make sense to me and I welcome somebody from the
Department or are RUS explaining that to me. If it is something
that we need to change in the law or you need to change the
rules, which I think is more the case--I don't think this is
statutory, I think this is administrative.
Secretary Perdue. Sounds like it would be an administrative
rule. I am not exactly sure that the partnership is being
excluded. But that doesn't sound right to me either. We need
more--we have used both telephone, local telephone coops,
Electric Membership Cooperatives (EMCs), the big providers,
sometimes municipalities and counties have been there. So I am
not sure what the partnership prohibition is, but we will get
back with you.
[The information follows:]
Traditionally, RUS has not allowed general partnerships to be
eligible applicants for any of the programs as these types of
partnerships are easily dissolved. We do encourage public/private
partnerships, but one of the entities must take the role of fiscal
agent to submit the application. We will continue to evaluate these
types of relationships and will address this further as USDA develops
the ReConnect Program regulation.
Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I understand if
this is the only program in which partnerships don't qualify at
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and I think the same may be true
at Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in regard to
broadband deployment. You and I had a brief conversation before
the hearing began. I would reiterate the importance of a free
trade agreement (FTA) with the United Kingdom.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID
You expressed the same sentiments and we both agree that if
we can pull the United Kingdom away from the European rules and
regulations and regard their policies in regard to food safety,
food standards that we have a lot to benefit in our beef and
dairy pork and poultry industry in Kansas.
So I again offer my help in any way that I can assist you
in that regard. International food aid, I wanted to raise a
topic. I believe we ought to increase purchases, and I have had
this conversation with you in the past, of commodities to put
into international food and feeding programs as an opportunity
to help feed a hungry world. Seven famines ongoing. Lots--I
showed you, I don't know maybe a year and a half ago, a pile,
and a photograph of a pile of grain outside an elevator and yet
people are starving around the globe.
One of the things I now know is that we are not tapping
into the bill Emerson humanitarian trust which has $281 million
in it. My understanding is that it requires a request from the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to
do so. That is your fund. They have to request it. I had a
conversation earlier this week in a hearing with Administrator
Green and he was going to pursue that concept.
So I am giving you forewarning for telling that. There is
an issue that we may be able to do more as we try to address
world hunger. And in my final opportunity, I actually have a
question which I would have would appreciate an answer. We have
an ongoing issue in the Quivira Wildlife Refuge in Kansas.
Senior water right holders are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, junior water right holders are irrigation farmers.
This is Kansas law and the priority of first in time, first in
right.
CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
The Farm Bill gave USDA, the 2018 Farm Bill gave USDA
authority to allow dry land farming on land enrolled in CREP,
in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. It was not
utilized and that is an important component as we try to work
out an agreement between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
farmer irrigators in that region to be able to create a
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), and not
necessarily just go to grassland, but to move in the direction
of dry land farming.
We would reduce the consumption of water, obviously, but I
would ask you to take a look at this issue and I would welcome
your assistance. I was disappointed FSA chose not to implement
that program in the 2018 language, and I need some help in
getting them to take a look at that.
Secretary Perdue. Senator, is it a matter that we chose not
to or we haven't gotten to that part yet.
Senator Moran. Well, my understanding is you chose not to
implement that provision in the Farm Bill as compared--we are
still waiting but maybe if you find out that you are still
waiting, I would feel better about that and we can speed up the
process.
Secretary Perdue. Right. I know we prioritize many of
those. That may be one of the things we have not been able to
get to, but we will figure that out. And if it has been the
fact we chose not to, I will give you the reason for what that
decision was.
[The information follows:]
The purpose of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is to assist
producers to conserve and improve the soil, water, and wildlife
resources of the land. Allowing land enrolled in CRP, including through
the Kansas CREP, to continue to be farmed and not devoted to permanent
vegetative cover would be inconsistent with the intent and purpose of
the program.
Senator Moran. Thank you. I appreciate it. Appreciate you.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you for being here today, Secretary Perdue and your team. You
have done some good things as the Secretary of Agriculture.
Some that come to mind are the Broadband ReConnect Program,
even though we have got a lot further ways to go and got to
walk before you can run, Farm to School Program, I appreciate
and a special thank you for the WHIP+ Program. Those farmers
were tough, tough shape. They are still in tough shape, but
that WHIP+ Program helped out a bunch.
CATTLE PRICES
I want to talk first of all about live cattle prices. As
you well know, Montana raises about 2.5 million head of cattle
a year. It is a big deal. In Montana, live cattle prices on
January 23rd was $126.90, yesterday they were $120. Feeder
cattle, same date, $148.52, seven weeks later $125.25. Cash
cattle prices, $124 January 23rd, yesterday, $110. The
processor, the choice cut out weekly average price was $214.78.
It bottomed out at $204.50. Yesterday was $207.64, a 3 percent
drop.
What I am telling you is the feeders and the livestock
producers are taken 15, 20 percent cuts in their prices and the
packers are seeing a 3 percent drop. If price of crude oil
drops, you go to the pumping, you see the pump price drops. It
hasn't dropped much at all and we have seen significant drops.
Now, that puts a real bind on feeders and folks that are
cow-calf operators. But in the end, is there something that we
can do to rework these cattle prices so that--I just think the
producers are getting gouged in this whole situation and the
consumer isn't receiving the prices they deserve either.
Secretary Perdue. Senator, I am just as frustrated as you
are about this. In fact, it became very evident last Labor Day
with a Holcomb Fire there on the drop in live cattle prices and
the rise in the wholesale Box Beef prices, and we called in all
the major processors there and told them we were beginning an
investigation to see what some of those causes were.
That investigation is ongoing and I would love to have some
solutions. If you have ideas--and this is very concerning to
me, the delta that we are seeing between the prices you
describe are historically high and I would love to have some
tools to operate.
Senator Tester. We will come forth with some ideas. The
problem is that what is going to involve is more Government
regulation and nobody wants that.
Secretary Perdue. That is right.
Senator Tester. But the bottom line is when you got people
that are--look I honestly think, I just talked to a feeder this
morning. He has been doing a generational feeder. He says, I am
on the cusp of going broke. And bottom line is the reason they
are on the cusp of going broke is because the pie isn't being
cut fairly at all. And we need to work on that.
CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM
I just said, maybe this is a better question for Dr.
Johansson, but there is a very significant cut in crop
insurance. I think chairman talked about it in his opening
remarks. Can you give me a reason why that is happening? I
mean, you know production agriculture. I mean, there is a lot
of people in these secretary jobs that don't understand what
they are doing. I think you do and that is particularly
concerning.
Secretary Perdue. Senator, I can give you the reason, I
think, and obviously this is not a recent thing. OMB has had
some issues with crop insurance for a while. Your chairman has
been Governor. I have been Governor. We have submitted budgets
to the general assembly, our legislators before, and cut
programs that we knew they would restore while we put our
priorities on other things. And I think you will see some of
that going on as well.
Senator Hoeven. Well, you can rest assured that that one is
not going to get cut.
Senator Tester. I would just tell you that it would be
great to get some of those guys in those windowless rooms. They
probably have never stepped foot on a piece of farmland, that
work in OMB. Come on out. I will invite them to my place. They
could pick some rock and they can find out that, you know, it
ain't a bowl of cherries out there all the time.
Secretary Perdue. You and I both agree that the Crop
Insurance Program is the best safety net program and really it
has really come into its own. And you won't get any
disagreement from me.
FARMERS STRESS NETWORK
Senator Tester. I didn't think so. So in your opening
remarks, you talked about farmers being optimistic and
resilient. And you are right. Typically that is the way farmers
are but we are seeing foreclosures go up in agriculture. I just
read an article just earlier this week on dairy farmers that
are committing suicide in record rates.
It is not good in farm country. It is not good. Prices
aren't good. Folks are getting taken advantage of by packers.
It is an isolated population anyway. A lot of times there is
not a lot of folks out there that can help them. And for that
reason, Senator Grassley and I introduced a bill that dealt
with mental health and agriculture, and it involves FSA
officers and public service announcements. It is not going to
fix the problem, but it is another bullet in the holster to be
able to.
I guess my question is, most of the time you would think
this is a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issue
or an Indian Health Service (HIS) issue or a health issue, but
I do think agriculture plays a role in this because you are
dealing with farmers every day, and your people who by the way
who are really, really good people--those FSA people you got
are the best.
And I just want to say, what is your view on the mental
health situation amongst agriculture producers, and do you
think you play any role in being a solution to the problem? And
if you do, what would that role be?
Secretary Perdue. The answer to your last question is, yes.
The role was is really difficult to ascertain that way, other
than you have seen the relationship between our local offices
and the farmers whom they serve. It is a family and they, I
think from an encouragement standpoint--economic stress over a
period of time, and I think it is mostly featured on working
capital as it decreases and you don't know whether you are
going to pay out, you don't know whether you are going to be
able to borrow money to go again.
That weighs on you in a very tough way, I think, from the
standpoint. And what our local offices do as far as serving
people and helping them, they can only do so much. We got this
farmer stress network. We what we are trying to communicate the
farmers is it is okay to talk to somebody.
That is the main, you know, the main thing, and we are
there to listen in that way. But it is really challenging of
how we can change that curve other than profitability, other
than solving the question, the problems you have already talked
about.
TRADE CONCERNS
Senator Tester. I will just say, I look forward to working
with you. I think we have got some ideas. You know, this is not
breaking news. I have some real frustrations with what the
President has done on trade. I think it is a man-made problem.
We can either agree or disagree on that.
I don't expect you to but the bottom line is that we have
got a crisis in rural America right now. We are going to have
to dig up some things we have done in the past to help them.
Otherwise, we are going to lose our production agriculture, and
that is a National Security issue.
Secretary Perdue. No question. We look forward to working
with you.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
thank you for being here today and for your excellent
leadership at USDA. Whether it has been China's unfair tariffs,
natural disasters, or so many challenges, you have had a lot on
your plate for the last couple of years and I really admire the
way you have handled this.
The manner in which your Department has implemented the
Market Facilitation Program in response to unjustified foreign
tariffs and the Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program, the
WHIP program, in response to the recent natural disasters has
helped keep America on its feet when it comes to agriculture. I
would also like to take a minute to commend your staff for
their level of responsiveness on Congressional inquiries. They
are always just a phone call or a text away in meeting the
needs of rural America.
For your Assistant Secretary of Congressional Relations,
Ken Barbic, his Chief of Staff Evan Lee, and Senior Advisor
Dudley Hoskins, who I have known for many years, and so many
others are very available to us and I appreciate that very
much.
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR LIVESTOCK, HONEYBEES, AND FARM-RAISED FISH
PROGRAM
But today I would like to draw your attention to a few
issues of a concern in Mississippi right now. The Emergency
Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish
Program (ELAP), as you know, provides emergency assistance to
producers who are ineligible for your typical crop insurance or
your commodity programs or other USDA disaster assistance
programs. Mississippi is the number one producing State in the
Nation for catfish.
Our catfish farmers are having a serious problems with
cormorants. It is not uncommon for a large flock to make a home
on a catfish farm and wipe out the entire stock of fish. The
cormorants cause the domestic catfish industry roughly $30
million in damages each year. I have witnessed this many times
as the Commissioner of Agriculture. Currently, catfish farmers
are not eligible for death losses due to bird predation or
disease under the existing USDA ELAP regulations.
However, the explanatory Statement accompanying the further
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 directs the Farm
Service Agency to update its regulations to address these needs
within 180 days of its enactment. And since this is a serious
problem that we have dealt with for a long time and they are
not eligible for the normal conveniences and programs that
would assist them, will you work with FSA to ensure the ELAP
regulations are modified in a manner to support catfish
producers by bird predation and disease?
Secretary Perdue. I will make sure we are really working
with the right program. ELAP, I think is more what I think of
in drought for feed and water. Our Livestock Indemnity Program
sounds like it may be the more appropriate regulation or
program there to deal with the issue that you talked about.
And I think one of the things that we may want to think
about is some cost sharing, if there are other solutions such
as nets and other kinds of things that can protect these
farmers from predation they are getting from the cormorants
there. But I believe it would be the livestock indemnity
program, but we would be happy to work with your staff in
trying to determine what is the best solution.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay, because the definition of
livestock, you know, we would have to include catfish there
some way. I would certainly ask that, you know, we get together
on that to help with that if that is the best program and to
identify that solution. Another thing is Okhissa Lake land
transfer.
LAND TRANSFER
The Section 8631 of the 2018 Farm Bill authorized the
transfer of 150 acres on the Homochitto National Forest to the
Scenic Rivers Development Alliance for the purpose of rural
economic development in Southwest Mississippi should you
determine it to be the public interest. I firmly believe it is
in the public interest and that this plan will bring tremendous
economic benefits to this rural part of Mississippi if and when
the transfer is finalized.
The local interest are working hard to fulfill their
obligations and the U.S. Forest Service has worked diligently
to carry out its responsibilities. Of course, there are steps
that still need to be made in order to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act, the NEPA.
And although I recognize the Forest Service is funded
through the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, I wanted to
use this opportunity today to share how important this land
transfer is to my constituents and reiterate our appreciation
for your continued efforts in this project. Everyone down there
is really excited about this project and we have some fantastic
plans underway. But I just wanted to make you are aware that
this is really important to us.
Secretary Perdue. We will take a look at this. This is
another issue that I am sort of frustrated about. It is one of
those bubble wrap things that we have wrapped around all these
summer land exchanges, particular when it is directed in a
statute there.
We just don't move fast enough. I have talked with our
Forest Service people about how we can be more accommodating.
Obviously, we have to make sure the NEPA rules and all those
things apply, the values and that way but I am not sure when
that was--I am not sure what year that was, but I am always
frustrated at how slowly we move in those land exchanges, but
we will get you an answer over the prospect of when that can be
completed.
[The information follows:]
Several steps including the timber cruise and official land survey
have been completed. NEPA and National Historic Preservation Act
compliance is expected to be completed in Spring 2020, followed by the
land appraisal. Conveyance is anticipated for Fall/Winter 2020.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very, very much.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Udall.
POLYFLUORINATED ALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS) CONTAMINATION
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for your very hard work for the Nation's farmers.
You know, Mr. Secretary, last year at this same hearing we
discussed the troubling impact of PFAS contamination on dairies
in my home State of New Mexico. I asked to help ensure that
programs just like the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program and the
Livestock Indemnity Program be used to their fullest extent for
assistance. I believe you are committed to that assistance and
acknowledge that the Government had a responsibility to help.
Instead, the USDA has ended up revising its Dairy Indemnity
Payment Program to put an end date on the assistance. My
colleagues and I use the Appropriations bill to include report
language urging you to purchase and remove contaminated cows
from the market rather than paying for prolonged monthly
production indemnities.
We also sent you a letter on February 7th urging this same
outcome. As a comparison, USDA has already paid over $20
billion to compensate farmers for the impacts of trade disputes
with China and other nations. These dairy farmers with PFAS
contamination face ruin as a result of pollution from Federal
Government facilities. Can I get your commitment to resolve
this situation without further delay?
Secretary Perdue. Senator, it is my understanding that is
exactly--we have been moving along fairly progressively
certainly with the one area that I am familiar within your
State and I think we are very, very quickly. We had to get
permission, certainly, from FDA, over the residue levels of
PFAS there where it could determine what we could do with the
cattle there. But I think that is exactly what we are doing. I
will get you a resolution date on that.
[The information follows:]
We are trying to find a buyer for these cows.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you. This has, as you know,
been going on for too long and incurring a great deal of
unnecessary stress and strain. I had a question on
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). We have
traditional Hispanic communities in New Mexico known as land
grants that have existed since the Spanish colonial days dating
back 400 years.
Many of these also have irrigation ditches dating back to
that time and they are called . These communities and farming
practices are a treasured part of our traditional culture and
agriculture in New Mexico, and I have worked for years to make
sure these entities are eligible for the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program.
I made sure that the 2014 Farm Bill allowed USDA to enter
into alternative agreements with them yet we have heard from
our stakeholders at there is still not clear confirmation from
USDA regarding the eligibility of acequias in the EQIP rules.
Mr. Secretary, can you commit that USDA will give New
Mexico land grants and acequias clear guidance soon so they can
successfully access EQIP funds?
Secretary Perdue. I am disturbed that it hadn't been done
already at your direction and I will assure you that we will
get that done.
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE PROGRAMS
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much. We look forward
to working with you on that. We also are very proud of our
green chilies. We have, as you know, an incredible product in
New Mexico. People have been growing this.
Our official State question is red or green, whether you
are for green chili or red chili, and these chili growers,
along with other specialty crops, have benefited from the
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program and the National Organic
Program.
And so I want to go on record and express my concerns that
the Agricultural Marketing Service is facing a 20 percent cut.
The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is flat in your proposed
budget, but the National Organic Program is cut by 33 percent.
So I hope we can do better there. My question to you is
this, however the final levels come out, however they come out,
will you help us to ensure that New Mexico Chile growers can
benefit to the maximum extent possible?
Secretary Perdue. We will do that. Your Secretary of
Agriculture, Mr. Witte, is make sure that I understood the
power of green Chile.
Senator Udall. Yeah, that is it. Well, thank you. Thank
you. And then finally, I have a question for the record on the
SNAP program. And as you know, that is a very important one for
New Mexico, and we will submit that one for the record. Thank
you so much for your hard work again, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Baldwin.
DAIRY FARMING
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Secretary Perdue, in July of
2019, President Trump visited the State of Wisconsin and said
to our farmers that they were, ``over the hump.'' I want to
share with you the story of Paul Adams from Oliva, Wisconsin.
Paul is an organic dairy farmer and last week he had to close
his dairy farm. He sold off his herd of more than 600 cows.
The farm had been in his family for 148 years. His daughter
Becky had planned to take over the farm from him one day, but
that day will never come and if Mr. Adams were sitting here
right now today, I would like to hear what you would say to
him.
Secretary Perdue. I would say I am sorry. And obviously, we
all know the dairy farming has been under duress. What you all
did in the 2018 Farm Bill was a big help. The 2014 Farm Bill
did not perform, regarding dairies, as we had hope. And the
long-term losses that were incurred--but what you all did in
the Dairy Margin Coverage Program in the 2018 Farm Bill, I am
disappointed that this family was not able to benefit enough
there to survive.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. I want to follow up in terms of
the funding of some of those programs that we did get into the
2018 Farm Bill because in Wisconsin we have lost 2,060 dairy
farms since President Trump took office. This year, my State
continues to lead the Nation in farm bankruptcies and President
Trump was wrong when he said our farmers were, ``over the
hump.'' They are not and this Administration needs to do better
for family farmers in Wisconsin.
EXTENSION SERVICE
Here is some actions I would like to see happen. First,
USDA can take action right now to ensure that there are local
extension experts who can help farmers navigate their financial
options and figure out how to keep farming if that is what they
want and ultimately to help them better secure their financial
future, whether they are keeping or selling the farm. Second,
the President's budget eliminated funding for the dairy
business innovation, an initiative that was included in the
2018 Farm Bill.
I want President Trump to reverse that budget cut and work
with me to increase funding for this very important initiative
which supports dairy product innovation so that our farmers can
modernize their plants and develop new value added dairy
products and reach new markets. Third, farmers first grant
funding provides mental health resources for farmers and
agricultural workers facing severe stress during these
difficult times. Last year this committee provided $10 million
to respond to these challenges.
USDA needs to take action and get this funding to the
farmers who need it. And this year, the President has proposed
a $2 million cut in his fiscal year 2021 budget to this
program.
And I am calling for the President to reverse that budget
cut and work with me to restore funding. Can you commit to
taking these actions on behalf of family farmers in Wisconsin
with me?
Secretary Perdue. Senator, we are going to commit to do
everything we can. We believe that $10 million has been
dispersed in that way, in that area. You know that we provide
capacity grants through NIFA on extension services, but the
extension officers are operated by the State in that way,
usually through the land grant universities.
But many of them have programs over the mental health
issues in that way as well. I thought we had identified
Wisconsin as one of those centers of excellence also in the
dairy program to help in that way. We will work with you.
Senator Baldwin. The funding has been totally eliminated in
the 2021 budget proposed by the President. We need to restore
this funding going into the future. I will have an additional
question for the record relating to hardwood issues and trade
aid that I will send to you as soon as I can. Thank you.
RURAL INNOVATION STRONGER ECONOMY GRANT PROGRAM
Senator Hoeven. A few more questions for you, Mr.
Secretary. Rural Innovation Stronger Economy Grant Program was
authorized in 2018 Farm Bill and we funded it $20 million--or
$5 million in the 2020 budget. So with the funding we provided,
when will the program be stood up?
Secretary Perdue. We are hopeful we can begin very quickly.
You are aware that I toured one of these types of innovative
farms in your State, the grand farm there that envisions right
in line with what our Ag innovation summit and our Ag
innovation program wanted to do with expanding the horizons
there from technology, precision agriculture, and others. So I
don't know, I would think probably certainly later this spring
we should have that money designated and awarded.
BROADBAND
Senator Hoeven. Good. And we appreciate you coming out.
They are off to a great start. It is going to be a fantastic
partnership. Also on the broadband ReConnect pilot, I mean the
project is a huge project and very important in connecting all
the rural America.
I guess one question I have is, what efforts are you taking
to prevent overbuilding of the already existing facilities by
assuring that awards aren't given to areas where broadband
services are already offered or to areas where a Federal or
State broadband award has already been made? So kind of that
duplication thing.
Secretary Perdue. Sure. Your statutory language is very
clear in that regard and that is one of the reasons that we
have an extensive application process. We go around and check
that service so we are not overbuilding but these are in
unserved, underserved areas.
The flexibility you all gave in the last appropriation
though also helped. What we were finding was a census block was
determined to be served if there were one or two houses in a
census tract and the rest of them weren't.
And so the flexibility of the 10 percent helped in that
way, but we are actually auditing and ground checking to make
sure we are not overbuilding as it has happened in the past.
BEEF TRADE
Senator Hoeven. That comment right there shows you know of
what you speak because that is exactly right. There is a
difference between a house two men covered and having coverage.
And so that is very important. I want to associate myself with
the comments that Senator Tester made on beef. I am very
concerned about the concentration in the industry, concerned
about transparency in pricing.
I appreciate your comments. I have talked to Greg. I know
he is working on it. We need to get some help for our producers
out there, no question about it. And so I am glad you are
working on it and if there are ways that we can help you in
that, we need to do it.
Brazilian beef. Obviously, our producers are concerned
about Brazilian beef coming in and want to know that you are
inspecting. Are you going to expect 100 percent of the beef
imports or how are you making sure that this is properly
handled?
Secretary Perdue. We audited several of those. As you know,
we operate on an equivalency. We suspended their ability to
import in the United States for over 2 years, and our chief of
Federal service, inspection service went down and determined
the equivalency was there. But we still have stepped up
inspections here over beef coming in and will continue that
until they have earned the right to be totally back on a normal
inspection cycle.
CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
Senator Hoeven. We included funding for chronic wasting
disease, including $5 million for State Departments of Wildlife
and State Departments of Agriculture. Have you figured out how
you are going to disperse that out?
Secretary Perdue. I think that is going really through the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS and
Agricultural Research Services (ARS), and I don't know
specifically where they are in that award, but I can get back
with you. As you know, that is another frustrating issue and
probably over half the States in the country with chronic
wasting disease and working with State wildlife agencies as
well.
[The information follows:]
APHIS is organizing a Summit in early May to bring together the
wildlife and farmed cervid stakeholders, and to identify objectives
that will be used to determine the distribution of funding among these
stakeholders. The Agency is currently planning to host the summit in
Ft. Collins, Colorado from May 5 to May 9, and is working on a
contingency plan to host the meeting virtually should travel
restrictions remain in place at that time.
Following the Summit, APHIS will provide $3.225 million to States
through cooperative agreements. The remaining funding will support the
Summit and other agency costs, including agency coordination and
indemnity costs.
Additionally, ARS received an increase of $1 million in fiscal year
2020 for chronic wasting disease (CWD). The National Animal Disease
Center in Ames, Iowa is expanding its CWD research program to 1)
support the development of a control program based on the genetic
selection of CWD resistant deer and elk and 2) the development of
sensitive antemortem diagnostic tests that can be deployable for use by
State diagnostic laboratories.
TRIBAL STUDENTS PROGRAM
Senator Hoeven. Right. Senator Tester brought up the crop
insurance. And again, I will sort of associate myself with his
comments. That is our number one risk management tool. We are
going to fund that. Hemp, I thank the ranking member brought
that up. There is a new program for Indian Affairs and this we
are very interested and supportive of this tribal students
program.
Can you give me an update in terms of where you are? It is
a--we provided $5 million in funding under the new beginnings
for tribal students program for fiscal 2020. South Dakota
State, for example, has a program. Do you have an update on
that one?
Secretary Perdue. Say again, which program now?
Senator Hoeven. It is the new beginnings for tribal
students, Native Americans. It is a cooperative program with
the universities and Native Americans--land grant universities.
Secretary Perdue. Yes. My understanding is we are moving
along with those capacity grants and the 1,890 scholarships as
well. I think that program is right in there with those and we
have notified those schools of the scholarship offerings and
they will be available for the fall.
FOOD FOR PEACE PROGRAMS
Senator Hoeven. The Food for Peace programs. Again, we are
going to fund those. Do you have comments on the budget
regarding this?
Secretary Perdue. No. We visited with Director Beasley of
the program when we were in Rome and he told me we met with the
people there and the FA about the need for that and helping to
really--in the conflict where people are migrating and food
insecurity, we believe that it is a good program that really
serves people that are in a tough situation from a hunger
perspective.
GOODFELLOW BUILDING
Senator Hoeven. Last question I have is on your Goodfellow
Building in St. Louis. Timeline for the move, plans for the
move, and so forth.
Secretary Perdue. Yes, we have gotten progress over more
space of where we are going to move in a way and get people out
of there as quickly. The good news was in the safety analysis
we did, requested by some of the employees, we found no
evidence of any kind of harmful substances or any problem that
they had with employees, but it is evident we need to be out.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Alright. Senator Merkley.
HEMP PRODUCTION RULE
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want to return
to the hemp issue. It was potentially $1 billion crop in my
State and therefore it is of great tension. And in fact, if it
hit that and it depended on the drawing and the processing, it
would have been the largest agricultural crop in the State of
Oregon last year.
The under the interim production rule. A couple pieces.
Your Department has said they would delay enforcement over the
disposal portion of the rule and requirement of using DEA labs
because there weren't labs. That was one of the comments that I
had forwarded back to you.
Secretary Perdue. That is right. Those are the two things
that we were----
Senator Merkley. And that the USDA is going through a two-
year process of evaluating the information on the interim rule
to develop a final plan. Is it appropriate to refer to this
interim rule as a draft plan given the evolving changes in the
evaluation?
Secretary Perdue. I would think you would. The problem is
that on an interim final rule, our lawyers explained to me,
once it is set, unless there are minor changes and that, you
can't change it until you go to the notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Where we are, I would functionally say it is a draft plan.
This is a very unique crop, as you know. We were learning as we
were going and we tried to nail it as best as we could. We had
some pushback, as I indicated, in other agencies and I would
think your characterization of a draft is a good one.
Senator Merkley. This goes to a question about the States
that are under the 2014 hemp pilots because the language was
that they could be under the pilot until 1 year after the
Secretary establishes a plan. And whether you interpret that as
a draft plan or a final plan affects the 2021 growing season.
The 2020 growing season, I think everyone agrees, can be
under the hemp pilot, 2014 hemp pilot, but it would be very
helpful to the States of Kentucky, Oregon, North Colorado,
Vermont, about 10 States that are still hoping to operate in
the 2021 growing season under the 2014 rules so we can work out
these issues I was raising, the 15 days, the how much of it
exactly, what part of the plant you test, whether or not you
count a molecule that is being counted as THC that isn't quite
THC.
There are a series of things that could turn 0.3 and 0.4,
and have people destroying very valuable crops that are clearly
hemp crops. And so I wanted to work with you to see if we could
get those States an additional growing season as we work out
the details around this.
Secretary Perdue. Senator, my preference would be to
resolve the issues from our Federal rule, if we can, by that
2021 growing season, certainly for the Oregon's and the
Kentucky's who have had experience in this crop. If we cannot,
I will be absolutely, as flexible as the law allows, in order
to perpetuate the 2021 under the State rules of 2014 in that
area if we can't resolve the main issues that the States that
had those 2014 laws resolved.
Senator Merkley. That would be very helpful. Thank you. The
vast amount of the production is happening in a few States
right now that is part of the reason that it is so crazy right
now is it is a very expensive to plant crop and not knowing
exactly how these things are going to be nailed down, is
affecting a lot of uncertainty of whether people should invest
in drying sheds, drying processes, processing facility, so on
and so forth. Without those, the crop molds in the field, if
you will.
Secretary Perdue. Right. Well, we have asked our
undersecretary and marked a regulatory program to continue to
look at things that we feel like we can do under the guise of
the interim final rule to match up with where the States were
in their 2014 rules in order to reconcile any differences and
resolve those. Our goal was to have really all the States under
the Federal umbrella, but we understand why some States chose
not to.
SNAP-RULE CHANGES
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am going
to just close with my concerns on some of the SNAP rule
changes. I know one is on hold because it is under--being
adjudicated by the courts on categorical eligibility, but
essentially this says if you qualified for a school lunch
program, Medicaid, and so forth, you don't automatically
qualify for SNAP. It is very hard for single parents with
children to go to five different places to apply to five
different programs.
We often talk about efficiency in Government programs.
Having to apply separately for every program, the complexity of
that is just extremely difficult on ordinary families and
especially with chaotic work schedules, etc. And so I am hoping
that that strategy will change and not just because it is in
the courts, but because it would make sense to have the
efficiency of categorical eligibility. It affects 3 million
people, a lot of mothers, a lot of mothers with children, and I
am hoping we can get that worked out regardless of the court's
decision. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate you
being here and answering all of the questions put forward by
the committee. And for members of the committee, any questions
that you want to submit for the hearing record should be turned
into subcommittee staff within one week, which is Thursday,
March 19th, and we would appreciate if we could have responses
back from USDA within four weeks of that time, if that is
workable.
Question Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
federal crop insurance enterprise units
Question. The issue of establishing separate enterprise units for
crops under the Federal crop insurance program has emerged in several
regions of the country. In North Dakota, producers have single
enterprise units covering both Spring Wheat and Durum. However, these
are two different crops with different loss ratios and growing
histories. Combining them into one enterprise unit can adversely affect
the production history of one crop over another, which in turn lowers a
producer's insurance guarantee and any indemnity that may occur.
What is the status of RMA's efforts to review and develop separate
enterprise units for Spring Wheat and Durum?
Answer. USDA is planning to implement changes to allow separate
enterprise units for Spring and Durum wheat. The Risk Management Agency
(RMA) plans to have this change implemented as early as the 2022 crop
year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
crop protection and pest management activities
Question. Mr. Secretary, at last year's hearing I cautioned against
the Administration's proposed elimination of the Integrated Pest
Management Program, as well as the Minor Crops Pest Management Program
(commonly known as IR-4). You agreed with me on the importance of these
initiatives, and I was pleased that this year the Administration is not
proposing to cut these critical programs. Thank you for your support.
Just last month, the University of Maine's Cooperative Extension
Potato Integrated Pest Management program was awarded more than
$550,000 to further research that will improve breeding and quality for
potatoes in the Northeast. As one of four universities to receive this
Federal grant, UMaine aims to develop new varieties of stress-tolerant,
disease- and insect-resistant, visually attractive potatoes to enhance
marketing opportunities, farm sustainability, and profits for large and
small farms alike.
UMaine has a proven record of successfully converting research
dollars into tangible results. For example, in 2016, UMaine partnered
with the Maine Potato Board to develop the Caribou Russet variety--
named after my hometown--which has become renowned for its high-quality
and has boosted Maine's industry.
Mr. Secretary, will you commit to continuing the Department's
investment in crop protection and pest management activities, which
fortify our farms and help prevent massive agricultural and economic
losses?
Answer. USDA remains committed to investing in the development and
implementation of new ways to address complex pest management issues.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) continues to
administer and provide leadership for a broad portfolio of Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) programs. In addition, funding for grantees
engaging in crop protection and pest management activities is also
available through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI),
the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, the Emergency Citrus Disease
Research and Extension Program, the Organic Agriculture Research and
Extension Initiative, the Crop Protection and Pest Management Program,
and through Hatch and Smith-Lever Capacity Programs.
trade mitigation programs
Question. Mr. Secretary, I sent you a letter last week outlining
the plight of small- and medium-sized apple growers in my state who are
facing challenging times due in part to recent domestic and
international trade disruptions. I appreciate the prompt Answer you
provided earlier this week.
In previous correspondence on this issue from last fall, you
highlighted the fact that USDA had awarded $10 million to the
Washington Apple Commission through the Agricultural Trade Promotion
Program (ATP). While I appreciate that this funding could help to
stabilize the domestic market by promoting exports of western U.S.
apples rather than sending them to eastern U.S. markets, I have noticed
a worrisome trend in how the USDA has been administering trade aid
relief.
Maine apple growers--including the ninth-generation family that has
been growing apples at Ricker Hill Orchard in Turner since 1803--have
told me that these payments have benefitted large agri-businesses and
did not provide direct assistance to the smaller growers in the
Northeast. I have heard similar concerns from Maine blueberry growers,
who were deemed ineligible for USDA's Market Facilitation Program
funding despite the inclusion of tree nuts, cherries, grapes,
cranberries, and ginseng in the program.
How will the USDA ensure that small- and medium-sized agriculture
operations such as those run by Maine apple and blueberry growers have
the support, they need to weather the trade instability--especially in
light of such significant payments to massive agricultural
corporations?
Answer. USDA's trade mitigation programs were developed to assist
all U.S. farmers and ranchers who were unfairly targeted by trade
retaliation, irrespective of operation size.
origin of livestock rule
Question. Organic farming is on the rise in my state. According to
USDA's 2017 Ag Census, the total organic product sales for Maine
reached $60 million that year, which is a considerable jump from only
$37 million in 2012. Despite the success of Maine's organic sector, I
continue to hear from farmers across Maine about how important it is
for USDA to finalize its Origin of Livestock Rule, as the current
loophole creates disadvantages for smaller organic producers. Just this
week, an organic dairy farmer from Bo Lait Farm in Washington, Maine,
raised this issue with me. Last summer, I visited Rainbow Valley Farm
in Sidney, Maine, and saw firsthand how much care and time is required
to raise organic-certified animals.
I successfully advocated for bill language in the fiscal year 2020
Agriculture Appropriations bill that directed USDA to finalize the
Origin of Livestock Rule within 180 days of passage, which would fall
around mid-June of this year. The comment period closed over 3 months
ago, and the overwhelmingly majority of comments received were in
support of the proposed rule. I understand that this rule has not yet
been sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review, which
could hinder USDA's ability to meet the congressionally mandated
deadline.
Can you provide me with a status update on the Origin of Livestock
rule and whether you expect it to be finalized by the deadline set by
Congress?
Answer. The Origin of Livestock rulemaking continues to be a
regulatory priority. USDA recognizes that Congress was expecting a
final rule by June 2020, and last fall, the program was confident it
could meet Congress' deadline for that rule. However, as the final rule
was drafted, specific legal questions and complexities became clearer.
While there is broad support for a rule, the topic involves a complex
set of policy variables. USDA needs to address the legal concerns in a
way that will truly address the underlying need and organic industry
participant goals. Given these factors, the program is currently
evaluating the best path forward, and is not able to commit to a
specific timeline.
food insecurity
Question. Another issue I would like to raise today is food
insecurity. Maine is one of the most food insecure states in the
country--nearly 14 percent of Maine households are food insecure, a
rate far higher than the national average of 11.7 percent. This
includes one in five children in Maine and 16 percent of Maine seniors
who are at risk of going hungry.
Progress is being made, but as these statistics demonstrate, hunger
is not going away--in Maine or across the country.
Yet, the Administration's proposed budget includes major
restructuring of the SNAP, or the food snap program, which amounts to
billions of dollars of cuts over the next 10 years. It also proposes
significant reforms to the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, which
served early 25 million lunches and over 14 million breakfasts to Maine
students last year.
How will the Department provide all Americans access to a safe,
nutritious, and secure food supply, when USDA's nutrition assistance
programs are proposed for budget cuts and harmful regulatory changes?
Answer. The President's budget request for USDA fully funds the
major nutrition assistance programs to meet projected need in fiscal
year 2021. However, it also includes proposals for Congress's
consideration to improve program operations and effectiveness in line
with our goals to improve customer service, promote strong integrity
for taxpayer funds, and maximize the power of these programs to help
participants achieve better futures. Similarly, USDA has used its
regulatory authority to improve and strengthen the Federal nutrition
programs in these areas.
The great majority of potential budget savings is related to the
America's Harvest Box proposal, which would convert a portion of
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits into a box of
nutritious foods. This bold proposal harnesses USDA's purchasing power
and America's agricultural abundance to ensure that all SNAP recipients
receive the nutritious food they need cost-effectively. It is
specifically designed to reduce cost without reducing the amount of
food that participants receive.
The proposals related to child nutrition programs are designed to
strengthen the school meals verification process to achieve lower rates
of improper payments and make adjustments to Community Eligibility for
free school meals to better target benefits to students in need. They
would also expand Farm-to-School grant limits and streamline
programming so States can expand their reach, scope, and impact. By
improving efficiency and integrity, and increasing public confidence,
these kinds of changes help protect the role of nutrition assistance in
providing Americans a safe, nutritious, and secure food supply.
reconnect
Question. Secretary Perdue, USDA's Rural ReConnect program has
played an important role in expanding broadband access in rural areas
and upgrading our digital infrastructure. I am delighted that USDA
recently announced nearly $10 million in grants to expand broadband
access in several communities in my state--Arrowsic, Monhegan
Plantation, Roque Bluffs, and Biddeford--which will make a real
difference to those who live there.
Often, however, small towns struggle with the complexity of the
Federal grant application processes. One town told me they have had
their applications disqualified because they did not include
information in the grant request they were unaware the Department
required. In another instance, a small town nearly lost a grant it had
been awarded because paperwork that needed to be signed and returned
quickly was sent to the town over the holidays. What unites the stories
I have heard is the simple fact that small, rural communities often
don't have the staffing and resources to manage complex grant
applications without assistance.
Have you considered providing greater assistance to communities
like these, to ensure that they don't miss out on broadband grant
opportunities due to technicalities?
Answer. Yes, the agency is exploring options for providing
additional technical assistance directly to prospective applicants.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
reconnect
Question. Secretary Perdue, I appreciate the work that RUS is
undertaking, through the ReConnect program, to expand broadband in
rural areas, as well as your commitment to continue to look for
opportunities to improve it.
One issue I've heard is that some providers still can't take
advantage of the change RUS made to enable subsidiaries to apply for
funding because a brand new subsidiary, for example, would not hold the
necessary authorizations to access public rights-of-way to deploy
broadband.
Would you commit to work with stakeholders on further options to
enable more providers to apply for the program, while still ensuring
that this valuable funding is protected?
Answer. Yes, additional flexibilities were added to our last
funding announcement in order to enable subsidiaries of existing
service providers to apply for funding. We understand many providers
require facilities and/or services from a subsidiary to ensure their
project gets completed, and we will work with our stakeholders to
ensure all qualified providers are able to access the funding available
through our ReConnect Program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
center for veterinary biologics
Question. USDA's Center for Veterinary Biologics plays a vital role
in ensuring that veterinarians and producers have a reliable supply of
safe and effective vaccines to prevent animal disease. It has been
difficult for CVB to maintain enough staff to keep pace with demands.
Are there hurdles to filling these roles through the Federal hiring
process?
Answer. Yes, there are hurdles to filling positions and maintaining
staff at the Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB). It can be difficult
for the Federal government to compete with the biologics industry for
qualified candidates. The industry's salaries and additional benefits
often significantly exceed what the Federal government can offer for
the same level of position. In addition, we face challenges in hiring
future veterinary medical officers, as we are not able to offer
applicants positions until they graduate and meet the required
education level. With flexibilities in job offerings, we could offer
positions contingent upon graduation and a 1 year service commitment.
Question. What avenues are open to USDA for granting direct hiring
authority to fill these needed roles?
Answer. The Office of Personnel Management has granted USDA direct
hire authority for the Veterinary Medical Officer position and various
other STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields employed
by the Center for Veterinary Biologics. We have used this authority,
along with other special hiring authorities such as those available for
veterans and individuals with disabilities, to the extent possible to
fill vacancies at the Center for Veterinary Biologics.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Kennedy
jbs brazilian meat company
Question. Wesley and Joesley Batista, owners of the Brazilian meat
giant JBS, have been found guilty of a major criminal conspiracy. And
their illegal activities have clearly funded JBS's significant ag
acquisitions in the US.
Does this concern you?
Answer. Yes, this is a matter of concern for USDA. The department's
component agencies who have business dealings with JBS and its
affiliates reviewed their financial assistance and contract awards to
determine what impacts this information will have on USDA's business
dealings with JBS et al.
Those JBS entities in the US received very large amounts of USDA
supplemental aid in the last year. We looked into USDA's financial
assistance and contracts with JBS and its affiliates and considered if
suspension or debarment actions are warranted.
From 2010 to present, USDA has awarded $225 million in contracts
and $2.9 million in financial assistance. No financial assistance
awards have been made since 2017. Contracts for fiscal year 2019 and
fiscal year 2020 are $220 million.
Question. In light of all this, why hasn't USDA considered
suspension and debarment of JBS entities?
Answer. USDA component agencies reviewed their interactions with
JBS and its affiliates to determine if suspension or debarment is
warranted and determined that no action is required at this time. The
awards were already closed out and no new contracts or awards are
currently open with the company or its affiliates.
Question. I know you said in a House hearing that other agencies
like DOJ were possibly looking into JBS Issues, but doesn't USDA have
an independent responsibility related to suspension and debarment under
its programs?
Answer. Yes, USDA does have a responsibility related to suspension
and debarment. USDA agencies looked into their interactions with JBS
and its affiliates and determined that no further action is required
because all awards were made in the past and have been closest out.
national finance center
Question. Given your 2019 letter to the Appropriations Committee
regarding the transition of the NRC to the GSA,
What is your plan for the future of the National Finance Center?
Answer. Although the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
continues to collaborate with the General Services Administration (GSA)
concerning its development of a Federal-wide NewPay Software as a
Service (SaaS) solution, no substantive planning for transitioning the
National Finance Center's (NFC) payroll systems services and supporting
staff has occurred since USDA's April 24, 2019 letter to the
Appropriations Committee. OCFO continues to operate NFC with the
mission of providing robust payroll, time and attendance, benefits
administration, and human resources services to its customer agencies
across the Federal workspace. We will continue to have collaborative
discussions with GSA and keep Congress apprised should additional
progress be made.
newpay
Question. There are serious transparency concerns surrounding the
NewPay program at GSA, especially these costs. Given these concerns,
what role do you think the National Finance Center should have in the
implementation of NewPay?
Answer. NFC representatives, along with representatives from the
other Federal Shared Service Providers (SSPs), continue to work with
GSA as the OMB-designated Quality Services Management Office for
Civilian Human Resources (HR) Transaction Services. NFC's role in the
NewPay implementation is limited due to the lack of funding. However,
as the largest civilian payroll provider; NFC's experience should be
leveraged and considered for system development, modernization, and
policy planning efforts that may ultimately impact payroll servicing
for Federal agency customers.
Question. Should the National Finance Center sever a project
management role in NewPay?
Answer. NFC continues to provide its expertise as requested to the
GSA NewPay team to evaluate data and comment on policy matters that
will impact the design and configuration of the New Pay SaaS
application. NFC does not currently have the resources (people or
financially) to serve in a project management role.
reconnect
Question. What is being done to ensure that the dollars meant to
facilitate reliable Internet in rural America are being fully utilized?
Answer. The successful implementation of our ReConnect Program is a
priority for the agency. We have devoted significant staff and
financial resources in order to stand up the program and ensure its
success. In our first round of funding the agency awarded over $700
million in funds which will help to expand broadband service throughout
33 states and territories. Under our second funding window, the agency
received 172 applications requesting over $1.2 billion in funds. We are
currently in the process of reviewing all submitted applications and
expect to obligate over $700 million in funds under our second funding
round by the end of September. Once entities are approved for an award,
they are required to provide annual maps to USDA showing the areas
where broadband service has been extended to serve residents and
businesses, as well as quarterly reports with information on the number
of residents, businesses and critical community facilities that are
subscribing to their service. USDA staff will also be making regular
visits out to awardees to monitor construction and ensure funds are
being used for the purposes for which it was intended.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Tester
boxed beef and fed cattle price spread investigation
Question. In our discussion at the hearing, you mentioned that it
would be helpful to have some tools to address the disparity in beef
pricing between producers and packers.
What specific tools can Congress give the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to address this issue?
Answer. Very soon, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will
release a Boxed Beef and Fed Cattle Price Spread Investigation Report
on its ongoing boxed beef and fed cattle price spread investigation. In
that report, USDA will provide a number of considerations on possible
tools that could be helpful including changes to the Livestock
Mandatory Reporting Program, risk management solutions, and small
processor and cooperative opportunities. Such tools could allow USDA to
better identify, analyze, and address disparities in beef pricing
between producers and packers that occur over time. The full report
will be found here: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
CattleandBeefPriceMarginReport.pdf. It is important that any proposals
aimed at addressing these complex issues receive careful consideration
and thorough vetting given their potential to affect everyone whose
livelihood depends on the sale of cattle, beef, or related products.
made in the usa labeling
Question. U.S. cattlemen raise some of the best beef in the world,
and farmers, and ranchers, workers, and consumers benefit from labeling
transparency on the origin of their food.
What steps in the U.S. Department of Agriculture taking to
standardize the definition of ``Made in the USA,'' and enable consumers
to make an informed decision about their food?
Answer. The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) has concluded
that its current labeling policy, which permits meat and poultry
products that were derived from animals that may have been born, raised
and slaughtered in another country but processed in the United States
to be labeled as ``Product of USA,'' may be causing confusion in the
marketplace, particularly with respect to certain imported meat
products. Therefore, FSIS has decided to initiate rulemaking to define
the conditions under which the labeling of meat products would be
permitted to bear voluntary statements that indicate that the product
is of U.S. origin, such as ``Product of USA'' or ``Made in the USA.''
FSIS intends to propose that such labeling be limited to meat products
derived from livestock that were slaughtered and processed in the
United States.
feral swine
Question. Feral pigs are a proven threat, costing billions of
dollars each year in damages and control efforts, and Montana is at a
crossroads, with sightings as close as twenty miles across the Canadian
border. Feral hog invasion would be bad for tourism, public health,
agriculture, and the environment.
What steps is the U.S. Department of Agriculture taking to prevent
feral hog invasion in states that do not have an existing feral hog
presence?
Answer. USDA serves as the lead Federal agency in a cooperative
effort with other Federal, State, tribal, and local entities that share
a common interest in addressing feral swine. The USDA's National Feral
Swine Damage Management Program (NFSP) uses an integrated approach to
suppress feral swine populations and reduce damage and, where possible,
eliminate feral swine to avoid future risks and damages. We have
established operational activities in 37 States where animals have been
identified. However, the program actively works with all 50 States to
maintain awareness of possible feral swine incursions and approaches to
have them removed if feral swine are introduced to a new State.
In cooperation with landowners, USDA was able to conduct feral
swine activities on approximately 200 million acres in fiscal year
2020. USDA is focusing efforts to eliminate feral swine in States where
the populations are still small enough that eradication is feasible.
This strategy allows us to remove feral swine before large populations
are established and/or cross into bordering States.
NFSP maintains funding specifically targeted at supporting
responses, confirming suspected sightings, or actual removals in States
without existing feral swine presence. For example, in fiscal year 2020
USDA supported several actions in Montana to determine if feral swine
had entered the State. The program also reevaluates the allocation of
resources annually to ensure we are addressing the highest priority
areas.
veterans nutrition assistance
Question. Veteran hunger is a pervasive problem across the
country--a quarter of U.S. veterans are food insecure, and more than a
million rely on Federal nutrition assistance. SNAP is a powerful tool
to combat veteran hunger, and especially in light of the COVID-19
public health crisis, it is more important than ever that our veterans
do not fall through the cracks. As such, please provide background on
the following questions:
What measures can be used to access veteran participation in SNAP?
Answer. The Census Bureau's American Community Survey includes both
reported veteran status and SNAP participation. The annual survey can
be used to track both the number and proportion of veterans who receive
SNAP, as well as the share of SNAP participants that are veterans.
Question. What Federal tools can be used to partner with state SNAP
agencies to increase veteran enrollment in the program and to eliminate
barriers to their participation?
Answer. State agencies administering SNAP have the option to
conduct activities to inform low-income households, including veterans,
about the availability, eligibility requirements, and application
procedures for SNAP. SNAP outreach can also correct myths and
misperceptions about SNAP and enable potentially eligible people,
including veterans, to make an informed decision about whether or not
to apply for the program. States often work with community
organizations and advocacy groups as partners in their outreach
efforts--this can include organizations that advocate and support
veterans. As with all SNAP administrative costs, States are reimbursed
for 50 percent of the cost of conducting these types of allowable
activities. State agencies are encouraged to submit outreach plans to
the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in order to better target their
activities and ensure that the State Agency can be reimbursed. In
fiscal year 2020, 46 States have approved outreach plans.
Question. In light of COVID-19, what can the U.S. Department of
Agriculture do to ensure that veterans have access to nutrition
assistance?
Answer. USDA is working with States to ensure that all eligible
people, including veterans, have access to nutrition assistance in
light of COVID-19. USDA intends to use all available program
flexibilities and contingencies to serve our program participants
across our 15 nutrition programs. To ensure states have the
flexibilities they need to protect the health of participants, the Food
Nutrition Service (FNS) has approved roughly 3,000 program
flexibilities across our 15 nutrition programs. Specifically, Sec. 2302
of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act allows USDA to approve
certain adjustments of SNAP program procedures when a public health
emergency is declared and a State issues an emergency or disaster
declaration based on a COVID-19 outbreak. These adjustments are limited
to issuance methods and application and reporting requirements under
the Food and Nutrition Act and must be consistent with what is
practicable in each affected area. USDA has been working with States to
approve requested adjustments consistent with these requirements to
provide administrative relief for States and benefit SNAP clients
during a pandemic that requires State agencies to deliver SNAP with
minimal face-to-face contact with clients and reduces local office
capacity. We stand ready to provide technical assistance to States as
they seek to maintain operations and serve clients during the current
Public Health Emergency and will continue working diligently to provide
all appropriate flexibilities as States submit requests.
Question. What options are available to veterans who are home-bound
or need to remain at home due to high risk factors for COVID-19?
Answer. The information is provided for the record.
1. USDA has taken unprecedented steps to expand the online purchasing
pilot in addition to providing other proven methods that allow
a SNAP participant to get food from SNAP authorized retailers
in light of the social distancing recommendations related to
COVID-19. Importantly, to ensure protection of participant
benefits and protect the vulnerable from potential fraud and
theft of benefits, SNAP participants should never give
retailers their EBT card number and PIN over the phone and
delivery fees and other associated charges may not be paid for
with SNAP benefits. To protect both the SNAP participants and
the integrity of the program, FNS worked with State Agencies to
find options that fit within these parameters, such as: Place
an order online or over the phone and picking it up at the
store. If the store has wireless point-of-sale for check out,
veterans can complete the transaction from their car or without
going into the store. If the store does not have wireless/
mobile point-of-sale for check out, veterans can complete the
sale in lane but this would minimize the time spent in the
store to pick-up and payment.
2. Place an order online or over the phone and having the order
delivered to your delivery address. If the store has wireless
point-of-sale for check out, veterans can complete the
transaction at the point of delivery.
3. Place an order online or over the phone and designating a person to
pick the order up at the store using the EBT card. The payment
and pick-up transaction can be completed in the store, or if
the store has wireless/mobile point-of-sale for check out the
designee would be able to complete the transaction from their
car or without going into the store.
4. Purchase food online. This method originated with a pilot program
in five States--New York, Washington, Oregon, Alabama, and
Iowa--through the online purchasing pilot (OPP). Since March,
USDA has expedited the opportunity for States and stores to
support online purchasing and delivery and as of mid-August, 43
States are serving more than 90 percent of SNAP participants
via this option.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
snap able bodied adults rule
Question. I understand that the Administration has recently said
they still plan on implementing the so-called ``able bodied adults''
rule that limits SNAP accessibility and will not be offering additional
waiver opportunities for states.
Are you willing to reconsider that position, and at least delay
this policy change, if the coronavirus situation and the economic
situation continue to get worse between now and April 1st?
Answer. The core premise and intent of this rule is to ensure that
SNAP does all it can to help participants engage in work and training
to achieve a brighter future, as prescribed by law. Under USDA's rule,
States retain their statutory flexibility to waive the time limit in
areas of high unemployment and to exempt a percentage of their caseload
through the use of discretionary exemptions. USDA does not believe
delaying the rule is necessary given the flexibility provided in the
rule for States to apply for waivers in areas of high unemployment.
public health emergency nutrition assistance
Question. What specific action does USDA plan to take to ensure
that important nutrition programs like SNAP are easily accessible to
those who need it during this public health emergency?
Answer. USDA intends to use all available program flexibilities and
contingencies to serve our program participants across our 15 nutrition
programs. To ensure states have the flexibilities they need to protect
the health of participants, the Food Nutrition Service (FNS) has
approved roughly 3,000 program flexibilities across our 15 nutrition
programs. Specifically, Sec. 2302 of the Families First Coronavirus
Response Act allows USDA to approve certain adjustments of SNAP program
procedures when a public health emergency is declared and State issues
an emergency or disaster declaration based on a COVID-19 outbreak.
These adjustments are limited to issuance methods and application and
reporting requirements under the Food and Nutrition Act and must be
consistent with what is practicable in each affected area. USDA has
been working with States to approve requested adjustments consistent
with these requirements to provide administrative relief for States and
benefit SNAP clients during a pandemic that requires State agencies to
deliver SNAP with minimal face-to-face contact with clients and reduces
local office capacity. We stand ready to provide technical assistance
to States as they seek to maintain operations and serve clients during
the current Public Health Emergency and will continue working
diligently to provide all appropriate flexibilities as States submit
requests.
snap expansion
Question. Are you willing to work with Congress on future options
to avoid limits and expand SNAP should the coronavirus and other
factors cause a serious, longer term economic downturn?
Answer. USDA stands ready to provide technical assistance to
Congress upon request.
child nutrition program lunch shaming
Question. This committee included direction for USDA to provide
specific guidance on this issue in our last funding bill.
What has USDA done to provide guidance to school lunch providers to
discourage children from being publicly shamed?
Answer. USDA endeavors to provide flexibility and strategies school
officials can use to design an effective local policy. USDA has
consistently discouraged the tactics referred to as ``lunch shaming''
in media reports, such as denying children meals or using hand stamps,
stickers, or other methods to identify children with unpaid meal
charges. USDA requires school districts to develop a policy addressing
situations where children participating in the school meal programs at
the reduced price or paid rate do not have money at the time of the
meal service. Instituting and clearly communicating a local policy
prevents confusion for families, ensures a consistent approach, and
gives school officials leverage to address the issue. In an effort to
provide high-quality customer service, USDA has developed numerous
resources to support schools, including policy guidance, webinars,
handbooks, trainings, and checklists. These resources are available on
our unpaid meal charges webpage: https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/
unpaid-meal-charges. USDA encourages schools to ensure eligible
children are certified for free or reduced price meals, to allow
families to add money to their children's accounts online, and to
communicate about meal debt directly to parents and guardians.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
origin of livestock final rule
Question. Success of the growing organic sector continues to rely
on certification standards that are transparent, consistently applied,
and enforced. I continue to be concerned that inconsistencies in
enforcement and interpretation of organic regulations, particularly
those involving the organic dairy sector, threaten to undermine
consumer trust and the level playing field the organic label was
intended to create. To address one of the most glaring enforcement
inequities for organic dairy, the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill
directed USDA to, not later than 180 days after its enactment, issue a
final rule based on the proposed ``Origin of Livestock'' rule
originally issued in 2015. The report accompanying the bill also
directed USDA to eliminate any enforcement inconsistencies for organic
dairy production more broadly and prioritize training of certification
staff.
Will USDA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) meet the
June 17, 2020 deadline set forth in Public Law 116-94? If finalizing
this rule will be delayed, please provide a detailed account of why,
and a timeline for when it will be finalized.
Answer. The Origin of Livestock rulemaking continues to be a
regulatory priority. USDA recognizes that Congress was expecting a
final rule by June 2020, and last fall, the program was confident it
could meet Congress' deadline for that rule. However, as the final rule
was drafted, specific legal questions and complexities became clearer.
While there is broad support for a rule, the topic involves a complex
set of policy variables. USDA needs to address the legal concerns in a
way that will truly address the underlying need and organic industry
participant goals. Given these factors, the program is currently
evaluating the best path forward, and is not able to commit to a
specific timeline.
organic dairy sector rick based enforcement
Question. What other actions have you taken to improve risk-based
enforcement in the organic dairy sector and bring possible violators
into compliance? Please provide an update to the Committee on all
enforcement actions taken in 2019 and 2020 on organic dairy operations
or accredited certifying agents, as well as any steps taken to improve
the training for certifiers and staff.
Answer. USDA is continuing our ongoing actions to assist organic
dairy farmers. In 2018, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
initiated a Dairy Compliance Project to better assess industry
compliance with the USDA organic regulations, particularly with respect
to the pasture standard. This initiative was expanded in 2019, with
unannounced, on-the-ground visits in 13 states by Federal auditors to
assess both certifier and operation compliance. All AMS visits
conducted for the Dairy Compliance Project were unannounced. A risk-
based approach was used to select the participants; factors included
size, previous compliance history, and farm characteristics such as
herd size.
The 2019 visits confirmed that all the targeted dairies
demonstrated at least 120 days of grazing and all cows received at
least 30 percent dry matter intake from pasture during the season.
Several correctable issues were identified, requiring action from both
certifiers and operations. Multiple certifiers have received
noncompliances as a result of dairy surveillance visits or
investigations since the Dairy Compliance Project began.
Based on findings from the Dairy Compliance project, the National
Organic Program launched a Dairy Compliance Course in the Organic
Integrity Learning Center in October 2019. The course provides an
overview of the USDA organic livestock standards, with a special focus
on dairy operations. Key audiences include certifiers, inspectors, and
reviewers who assess organic dairies for compliance with the USDA
organic regulations, as well as organic livestock and dairy operations
interested in gaining a better understanding of the Federal
requirements.
In January 2020, the National Organic Program conducted face-to-
face training with almost 200 certifier staff and inspectors; the
training included a special segment on the Dairy Compliance Program. In
March 2020, National Organic Program livestock specialists conducted
both classroom and field training with California Department of Food
and Agriculture staff, and certifier representatives and inspections to
review livestock requirements. This trip included unannounced
inspections to initiate the 2020 Dairy Compliance Project.
This Spring and Summer, the National Organic Program will engage in
multiple desk audits of dairy operations across the country, and is
applying new technology tools, such as aerial mapping services to
assess ground conditions against records provided by the certifiers.
Protecting the integrity of the organic seal and protecting organic
operations that are playing by the rules is an important priority for
USDA.
agricultural innovation center demonstration proglram
Question. The Agricultural Innovation Center (AIC) Demonstration
Program, first authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill and reauthorized in the
2018 Farm Bill, is a small but important initiative to help
agricultural producers expand their markets and diversify their
products. Some states, including Vermont, have compounded the positive
impact of AICs by creating their own programs to support agricultural
innovation in concert with the AICs. These states are best positioned
to quickly deploy AICs following several years of the program lacking
any funding. This is especially important as Congress provided funding
for the program in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, but USDA has still
awarded no projects using those funds. To ensure the program is stood
up quickly following this delay, in providing $3 million for the
program, the report accompanying the fiscal year 2020 appropriations
bill for USDA specified funding for states ``authorized to host, and
that have previously hosted, a USDA Agriculture Innovation Center and
where the State continues to demonstrate support and provide non-
Federal grant funding to producers developing, producing, and marketing
value-added agricultural and food products.''
What states have hosted Agricultural Innovation Centers since the
program's authorization in the 2002 Farm Bill?
Answer. States receiving funding under the Agricultural Innovation
Center program are: Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota and Pennsylvania.
Question. In finally rolling out fiscal year 2018, 2019, and 2020
funding for the program, what steps has USDA taken to prioritize states
that have previously hosted AICs?
Answer. The Agricultural Innovation Center program is a competitive
grant opportunity that Rural Development communicates through the
publication of an annual funding notice. While the program is not
restricted to past award recipients, the scoring criteria will support
applicants with existing capacity to carry out program objectives. Over
60 percent of the possible points that can be awarded are accounted for
by an applicant's unique ability to deliver services, track record in
achieving value-added successes, qualifications of key personnel, local
support and future support. Applicants with experience and capacity in
providing technical and business development assistance to agricultural
producers seeking to engage in the marketing or the production of
value-added products will be well positioned to submit competitive
proposals.
expanded food and nutrition ecuation program
Question. The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP)
continues to be a critical component of the Cooperative Extension
System. Though services provided through the program have demonstrated
positive and durable nutrition and food security outcomes for all
demographics, limited funding has focused the program solely on
pregnant women and parents of children through age 19 in food insecure
households. To help land grant universities and partners to build on
this work, the report accompanying the fiscal year 2020 appropriations
bill for USDA directed the Secretary to establish a pilot program to
evaluate expanding the program beyond the program's current target
populations, to include the elderly and low-income households with
children of any age.
What specific steps has USDA taken to develop this pilot program?
Answer. USDA appreciates the Committee's recognition of the
importance of EFNEP to low-income households. Food resource management
and diet quality/physical activity have been required core teaching
areas of the program since 2011. Program monitoring data has been
collected annually, ever since. Through its family focus, EFNEP reaches
youth, children, and adult caregivers responsible for feeding children,
including seniors responsible for feeding their grandchildren and other
young family members. Program has discussed several potential pilots
with senior leadership. Clarification is needed for operationalizing
this competitive component within capacity grant funded grants. USDA is
seeking clarification from Department staff for procedural guidance for
the outlined pilot. USDA welcomes the opportunity to explore ways to
expand its audience to support the nutritional health and well-being of
low-income populations.
In fiscal year 2019, EFNEP's low-income audience included 88,456
adults reached directly, and 253,824 family members reached indirectly;
and 323,762 youth. Adult participants were 83 percent female and 17
percent male; 28 percent were 29 or younger; 31 percent were 30-39
years; 19 percent were 40-49 years; 10 percent were 50-59 years; 9
percent were 60+ years, and 3 percent did not report age.
Youth participants were 50 percent female and 50 percent male; 10
percent were pre-Kindergarten--Kindergarten; 27 percent were 1-2 grade;
45 percent were 3-5 grade; 13 percent were 6-8 grade; and 7 percent
were 9-12 grade.
Annual data consistently shows that more than 90 percent of adult
EFNEP participants report improved behaviors following program
involvement.
conservation reserve program
Question. I have serious concerns with USDA's implementation of the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and the impact for
Vermont. Section 2209 of the 2018 Farm Bill directed USDA to revise the
section of the Code of Federal Regulations for the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) to allow for CRP eligibility on land where State or local
conservation requirements are not more stringent than the practice
standards required by CREP. Unfortunately, the interim final rule for
CRP issued on December 9, 2019, requires an arbitrary 25 percent
reduction in annual CRP rental payments for land that is subject to
State ``resource conserving or environmental protection measures or
practices'' of any kind, regardless of whether those State requirements
are consistent with and not contradictory to the purposes of the
program. Although I do not believe this payment reduction will apply to
Vermont because the state's Required Agricultural Practices for
pastures, hay fields, and other perennial cropland fields do not
require any alternative ``resource conserving or environmental
protection measures,'' the payment reduction outlined in the interim
final rule could significantly reduce the program's effectiveness and
provide a disincentive for states to enact their own minimum
conservation standards.
Based on what calculations or other factors did you determine that
25 percent was the appropriate rate at which to reduce payments?
Answer. The 25 percent reduction to the annual rental payment for
the land subject to the Vermont Required Agricultural Practices rule is
consistent with the amount used historically under the CRP.
Question. What guidance has USDA issued to FSA state offices
regarding the application of this provision?
Answer. On December 9, 2019, USDA issued national procedure to the
Farm Service Agency (FSA) State Offices stating land where Tribal,
State or other local laws, ordinances, or other regulations require any
resources conserving or environmental protection measures or practices
is ineligible for enrollment in CRP. There is an exception for land
enrolled in CRP under an approved CREP agreement that was in effect on
December 20, 2018, when:
--The CRP contract is in the final year,
--The scheduled expiration date of the current contract is before the
effective starting date of the new contract, and
--There is a 25 percent reduction to the annual rental payment that
would otherwise be paid for such land were no such laws,
ordinances, or regulations in effect.
Question. Which states or tribes has FSA determined to be subject
to the 25 percent rate reduction?
Answer. FSA applied the 25 percent reduction to Minnesota and
Vermont. The laws within Minnesota and Vermont require resource
conserving or environmental protection measures or practices on certain
land within the State.
Question. Has FSA or another USDA office conducted an analysis of
the resource conserving or environmental protection laws, ordinances,
or other regulations in all states? If not, does it have plans to? If
not, why not?
Answer. In May through June 2018, USDA reviewed multiple State/
local requirements regarding activities and conservation measures that
are required/prohibited on land within the State. Starting in 2020, the
State Farm Service Agency Offices will be conducting an annual review
of Tribal, State, and local laws and ordinances.
Question. With regard to determining land subject to the 25 percent
rate reduction, what is FSA's definition of ``resource conserving or
environmental protection measures or practices''?
Answer. The applicable Tribal, State, or other local laws,
ordinances, or other regulations that require the resource conserving
or environmental protection measures or practices are utilized for
purposes of the CRP policy because each Tribal, State, or other local
law, ordinance, or regulation is different regarding the resource
concern and protection measure or practice required, such as vegetation
buffers, structural practices, management practices, other alternative
practices, or combinations thereof.
Question. Based on its existing eligibility determinations, what
cost savings does FSA expect to achieve in applying the 25 percent rate
reduction?
Answer. The intent of the 25 percent reduction is to account for
the resource concern (water quality) already being addressed. The 25
percent reduction would save an estimated $31 per acre.
reconnect
Question. In Vermont, a broadband provider (VTel) won Rural
Utilities Service funding from the American Relief and Recovery Act by
promising to deliver wireless broadband to much of the state.
Unfortunately, the service has not lived up to expectations, and many
rural parts of Vermont both lack adequate service and are now
prohibited from applying to the RUS for funding, including the
ReConnect Program.
What is the process in place for new ReConnect applicants to
challenge the service levels provided by existing awardees if they are
not delivering adequate speeds? In particular, what is the timing of
such challenges and how are challenges integrated into the grant
application and review process?
Answer. If a ReConnect applicant believes that a certain area
should be eligible for funding--even if the area is already served by
an existing Rural Utilities Service (RUS) borrower--the applicant
should include information in their application detailing why the area
should be eligible for funding. Such information could include speed
tests or other documentation showing that the RUS borrower is not
providing service at the level required by their award. RUS will then
review the information when they review the ReConnect application and
make a determination before an award decision is made.
Question. Will you work with Congress to ensure that future
ReConnect funding rounds will not exclude states like Vermont, where,
despite USDA's maps, there are large areas that are unserved and should
be eligible to apply for funding?
Answer. Yes, USDA will continue to work with Congress to ensure
that areas with insufficient broadband service are able to apply for
funding through our ReConnect Program.
agriculture quarantine inspection
Question. The Senate Appropriations Committee has expressed concern
that the restructured commercial aircraft fees for the APHIS AQI
Program may not be equitable for small aircraft. Canada is one of
Vermont's closest and strongest partners in trade, commerce, travel and
tourism. As such, small commuter-type flights originating in Canada and
arriving in Burlington are foundational to our seasonal economies.
What consideration has the Department, as directed by the
Committee, given to comments submitted through the rulemaking process
about the impact of these fees on small aircraft?
Answer. The Animal Plant Health Inspection Service' (APHIS) current
Agriculture Quarantine Inspection (AQI) user fee rate regulations
exempt passenger aircraft with 64 or fewer seats from the commercial
aircraft fee if they are not carrying certain items and cargo that pose
an agricultural risk and which do not offer meal service other than
beverages and prepackaged snacks that contain agricultural risks from
the commercial aircraft fee. In fiscal year 2017, USDA received two
comments related to the AQI user fee for commercial aircraft in
response to the Secretary of Agriculture's notice for Identifying
Regulatory Reform Initiatives in the Federal Register (82 FR 32649--
32650). The comments suggested expanding the current exemption to
flights with 80 seats or fewer or eliminating the commercial aircraft
fee altogether.
APHIS conducted a pathway analysis in fiscal year 2019 to evaluate
the potential phytosanitary risk posed by commercial aircraft with 64
or fewer seats versus the risk posed by commercial aircraft with 65 or
more seats. The pathway analysis compared the number of flights, number
of flight routes, flight origins (country and airport), and flight
destinations (state and airport) for commercial aircraft with 64 seats
or fewer versus commercial aircraft with 65 or more seats. APHIS's
pathway analysis determined that the number of seats present in an
aircraft is not relevant to the phytosanitary risk posed by the
aircraft and found no difference in the pest introduction risk posed by
commercial aircraft with 64 or fewer seats versus commercial aircraft
with 65 or more seats.
Based on the results of the pathway analysis, APHIS has determined
that it will not expand the current exemption from the AQI fee for
commercial aircraft nor eliminate the commercial aircraft fee. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) Agriculture Specialists, with support from
APHIS, inspect all commercial aircraft, regardless of seat number, to
detect pests and, if necessary, mitigate the risks posed by the
presence of quarantine significant pests. Accordingly, CBP incurs costs
related to the aircraft that meet the requirements of the exemption.
Expanding the exemption to 80 seats or eliminating it for passenger
aircraft would significantly increase the number of arriving planes
that would be exempt but still require inspection, increasing the
unrecovered costs.
Question. The Department has not yet provided regulatory relief to
these small aircraft under the AQI program. Why? What specific
considerations has the Department given to establishing an equitable
fee scale for small aircraft?
Answer. While commercial aircraft with 64 or fewer seats have fewer
arrivals and fewer routes than commercial aircraft with 65 or more
seats, they arrive from countries all around the world. These smaller
commercial aircraft are capable of accessing smaller airports and more
remote airports both as points of origin, and final destinations. This
geographic range means that commercial aircraft with 64 or fewer seats
have a similar, if not identical, potential for harboring quarantine
significant pests to commercial aircraft with 65 or more seats.
APHIS has reviewed the comments regarding AQI user fees made to the
Secretary of Agriculture's notice for Identifying Regulatory Reform
Initiatives and determined that it will not expand the current
exemption. APHIS is further evaluating ways to ensure that the AQI user
fees and fee structure accurately reflect the costs incurred based upon
level of effort, assess fees fairly and accurately to the various user
classes, and achieve full cost recovery so that APHIS and CBP can
continue to carry out their joint agricultural safeguarding mission.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Hoeven. And again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for
your work on behalf of farmers and ranchers. I am going to
close with what I said at the outset. Thank you to our farmers
and ranchers for producing the highest quality, lowest cost
food supply in the world. With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., Thursday, March 12, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]