[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY
The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room 124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tammy Baldwin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Baldwin, Leahy, Tester, Heinrich,
Merkley, Hoeven, Collins, Moran, Hyde-Smith, and Braun.
opening statement of senator tammy baldwin
Senator Baldwin. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone
to our second budget hearing of this subcommittee for fiscal
year 2022. Secretary Vilsack, welcome back. This is not your
first time before this subcommittee, and we are glad to have
you here today. I also want to welcome Mr. Rapp. Thank you for
being here.
The Department of Agriculture is often referred to as the
people's Department. The activities of the Department are vast
and affect every American each day, from important nutrition
programs to programs that support rural America. I want to
ensure that you have the resources you need to continue this
vital work.
The total budget request for USDA includes significant
increases across the board. Total budget authority is $23
billion, which is an increase of almost $3 billion. And I am
pleased that the budget focuses on addressing climate change
and finding ways to coordinate these climate activities across
the Department. I look forward to discussing these initiatives
and how the subcommittee can play a role in this critical
issue. Our farmers and ranchers are the most productive in the
world, and I am pleased that the budget continues to invest in
programs that support them. Rural Development (RD) includes
significant increases from broadband to housing to water and
wastewater infrastructure.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the digital divide in
rural America. These areas of the country must have reliable
and fast Internet service, and I look forward to hearing how
the Department will continue to invest in broadband
infrastructure. One issue I know that is important to both of
us, Secretary Vilsack, is ensuring that the staff at the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have the resources they
need to do their jobs. I know hiring has been an area of
difficulty within the Department, and I am pleased to see
increases for many agencies to hire additional staff. This is
something that we will be looking at closely as we draft our
bill this year. I was pleased to see the Department withdraw
the very harmful Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP), broad-based categorical eligibility rule this week.
This rule would have removed millions from the SNAP
program, including thousands of low-income Wisconsinites. Thank
you, Secretary Vilsack, for protecting these vulnerable
citizens. I would be remiss if I didn't highlight one
disappointing aspect of this budget. The funding for the Dairy
Business Initiative is expanded to include other agricultural
sectors. I worked hard to get this program authorized in the
Farm Bill and funded through this subcommittee. This initiative
has been a lifeline for Wisconsin dairy farmers who continue to
struggle.
I hope we can continue to work together to advance this
important work and find ways to include other farm sectors
without compromising the vital work this program has provided
for the dairy industry. Again, thank you for being here this
morning. I look forward to your testimony. And now I will turn
the time over to Ranking Member Hoeven for any statement he may
have.
statement of senator john hoeven
Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Chairman Baldwin. Welcome back.
Secretary, good to see you again. Appreciate your work on
behalf of our farmers and ranchers, and obviously many
important programs.
And, you know, it is amazing. As you know well, with your
background as Governor and 8 years as Secretary of Agriculture
and now Secretary of Ag again, and working in the industry, it
is amazing. It is such a big, diverse farm and ranch country
that we have with so many different types of products we
produce, food, fuel, and fiber, that, you know, there is always
a challenge out there, right? I mean, we fight our way through
bad weather and, you know, the trade negotiations and low
commodity prices and then we get to the point where we are
selling some product globally and prices are better, and you
know parts of the country like my State and out West we have
got just incredible droughts.
There are just always challenges. But, you know, it is so
important because our farmers and ranchers provide the highest
quality, lowest cost food supply, as well as fuel and fiber to
this Nation and the world. And we have the benefit of all these
small businesses across the whole country, and farms and
ranches, and they are sophisticated and ours are the best in
the world. But we have got this amazing network that employs
directly or indirectly something like 16 million people, and we
can never take that for granted.
As you look across other industry sectors, you see
incredible concentration and how hard it is for a lot of small
businesses to stay in business. So we really do have a calling
there for those of us that work in agriculture to support that
great network of men and women in farming and ranching that do
so much for us every single day. Every American benefits every
day from the highest quality, lowest cost food supply they
produce. And so when we are talking farm policy, we are talking
about good farm policy. We are talking about something that
benefits every American every day.
And I appreciate your work, and I know very well that you
understand that. And so it is good to have you here to talk
about, you know, things that we need to do on their behalf. In
recent years and prior and up into the pandemic, USDA has
provided $124 billion in assistance, but there is about $60
billion of that, that remains unobligated today.
And so we should talk about that today. And I have to be
right up front and tell you that I am very concerned about the
Administration's $6 billion overall--excuse me, I am used to
saying billion, $6 trillion overall budget proposal and $3
trillion tax proposal. And a lot of those tax increases would
be very adverse for farm and ranch country. So for at least a
lot of the proposals out there, okay. And so I am very
concerned about those things as well. That being said, I know
you are an advocate for the farmer and rancher, and I
appreciate that and look forward to our discussion today. Thank
you for being here.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. Now we will
turn to the testimony of Secretary Vilsack. Thank you so much.
summary statement of hon. tom vilsack
Mr. Vilsack. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Senator Hoeven, and members of this committee. You know,
normally when we come to a budget hearing, we talk about
numbers. As the Chairwoman indicated, this is a budget of
roughly $23, almost $24 billion with an increase that is
primarily a result of increases in research, rural development
grants, and personnel costs and a rescission--not taking a
rescission on the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC).
But I would like to shift your attention for just a few
minutes on the five significant challenges and big ideas that
we are currently grappling with at the Department, and I think
American agriculture and rural America continue to grapple
with. First of all is the challenge of what we can do with the
Department to fully take advantage of the opportunity that
climate change presents.
While we often talk about the challenges that climate
provides to American agriculture, I think there are tremendous
opportunities for American agriculture to expand income
production for farmers, ranchers, and producers if we do this
right. And I am excited about that opportunity. And that is one
of the reasons why this budget does contain a number of
priority areas that are focused on climate, everything from
climate hubs to increased research to a civilian climate corps
and the like. The second big challenge, obviously, is an equity
challenge. We obviously are dealing with a circumstance where
gaps have grown between socially disadvantaged producers and
other producers in this country, and also gaps that have grown
in terms of communities. We know that there are areas of
persistent poverty in this country.
Roughly 380 counties in this country and all parts of the
country represented by the Senators on this committee have seen
persistent poverty, where poverty rates have exceeded 20
percent for a significant percentage of population for over 30
years. And the challenge of this Department is to try to begin
to close the gap by addressing the inequities that have
existed. That is why you will see efforts in our rural
development area of strike force and why we are looking at ways
in which we can increase, for example, resources to
historically black colleges and other minority serving
institutions.
Another big challenge is an Economic Research Service (ERS)
study came out recently that indicated that 89.9 percent of
farms in the country today--excuse me, 89.6 percent of the
farms in the country do not generate the majority of their
income. When you have nearly 90 percent of farms not generating
the majority of income for those who work the farms, I think it
suggests the need for us at the Department to look for more
markets, better markets, and newer markets. And we are really
focused on that initiative in the Department. It is one of the
reasons why we were focusing on expanding processing capacity
while we are dealing with the issue of consolidation and its
impact on prices, and why we are looking for more open and
transparency in our markets.
That is why we are investing in local and regional food
systems and why we are looking at ways in which we can continue
to promote exports. Certainly good news today that appears--a
negotiated 5-year hiatus on the Airbus and Boeing set of
tariffs, which will certainly be good news for American
agriculture. We will continue to work with the United States
Trade Representative (USTR) and continue to look for
opportunities to expand more new and better markets. Then there
is the issue of food insecurity.
We often talk about food insecurity in this country, as we
should, when 43 million Americans are currently receiving
supplemental nutrition assistance. But we need to also talk
about nutrition insecurity. The fact is that 70 percent of
adults in this country are overweight, 60 percent of us have at
least one chronic disease, most of which is tied to diet. Forty
percent of us have two or more chronic diseases. And we have a
disproportionate number of our young people who are grappling
with the same kind of challenges and will take those challenges
into adulthood where they may not be as productive as they
potentially could be. So as we focus on fully funding WIC, as
we look at ways in which we can expand summer Electronic
Benefit Transfer (EBT) programs, we also need to make sure that
they incorporate a nutrition element in those programs.
And the final challenge we face, and I appreciate the chair
raising this issue, is the issue of staffing. We were
confronted with a Department that had seen significant
reductions in staff across the board. I will tell you that I
think notwithstanding the fact that there may be concerns about
the allocation of resources and the obligation of resources,
some folks at USDA are working two and in some cases three jobs
because of cuts. And so we have made an effort to accelerate
staffing.
And in this budget, obviously increases and requests
additional assistance from this committee and from the Congress
to be able to adequately staff so we can do the work that you
all want us to do, and in doing so, improve the morale. When I
left the Department in 2017, the Department of Agriculture was
rated by one of the Nation's business magazines, it was Fortune
or Forbes, as the 263rd best place in the country to work. And
that was not just the Government entities that was all places
to work. We were proud of that.
We were in the top 10 of best places to work in the Federal
Government for large agencies. Today, we are not. We are
probably next to last in terms of morale. So we have some work
to do. And I think increasing staff will be--go a long way, as
well as dealing with appropriate telework policies and a return
to work policy that makes sense given the new normal that we
now face following the pandemic, may go a long way to improving
morale.
So I look forward to talking about these challenges and
these opportunities, Madam Chair and members of this committee,
and look forward to the questions that you might have today.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas J. Vilsack
Thank you, Chair Baldwin, Ranking Member Hoeven, and members of
this Subcommittee, for inviting me here today to discuss the
Administration's priorities for the Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and to provide you an overview of the President's fiscal year (FY) 2022
budget for USDA.
Under the President's leadership, America is getting back on track.
We have begun to turn the tide on the pandemic. Our economy is growing
and creating jobs. Students are getting back into classrooms. For all
the progress we've already made, we cannot simply return to the way
things were before the pandemic and economic downturn. We must seize
this moment to reimagine and rebuild a new American economy that
invests in the promise and potential of every American and makes it
easier for families to break into and stay in the middle class. In
rural America--which holds a special claim to USDA's mission--we must
build back better, stronger, and more resilient and equitably than ever
before.
The Budget details the President's proposals to advance that agenda
this year. It includes the two historic plans the President has already
put forward--the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan--and
reinvests in education, research, public health, and other foundations
of our country's strength. It proposes historic investments to spur new
job creation and opportunities in rural America; helps restore
America's advantage in agriculture; leverages all of USDA's expertise
to address climate change; and supports a stronger nutrition safety
net.
The President's Budget for 2022 for USDA programs within this
Subcommittee is $192 billion, of which approximately $168 billion is
mandatory funding and $23.2 billion is net discretionary funding. Its
gives USDA a new set of tools, and builds on our existing capabilities,
to address the urgent challenges of our time--containing the pandemic,
responding to the nutrition insecurity crisis, investing in research,
rebuilding the rural economy, strengthening and building markets for
farmers and producers, and addressing the impacts of climate change.
This is not a list of things we would like to do--it is a plan for what
we need to do to get USDA back on track and to help the U.S. outcompete
the rest of the world.
supporting nutrition for the nation
The pandemic underscored how critical USDA's nutrition assistance
programs are for millions of American families. At the peak last
December, nearly one in seven households and more than one in six
households with children reported they did not have enough to eat, with
disproportionate impacts on communities of color. Fortunately, the
collective efforts of Congress and the Administration--including
measures enacted in the American Rescue Plan--have delivered help to
struggling Americans and yielded meaningful reductions in food hardship
since December. But even the latest reports tell us that about one in
eight American households with children are still struggling with food
hardship. It is not enough to return to where we were; as we build back
better, we must tackle not only food insecurity, but also nutrition
insecurity.
USDA's core nutrition programs are the most far-reaching, powerful
tools available to ensure that all Americans, regardless of race,
ethnicity, or background, have access to healthy, affordable food.
Building on these programs, the Budget makes strategic investments to
ensure those in need can access nutrition programs that are run
efficiently and effectively; to advance nutrition security through
education and evidence-based interventions; and to support the purchase
of nutritious and local foods. I want to highlight just a few other key
priorities.
We know that WIC drives better health for infants and more
nutritious diets for children, and it is a key tool to address
disparities in maternal and child health outcomes. The Budget requests
$6.7 billion for WIC to serve an estimated 6.4 million moms, infants,
and young children in fiscal year 22, continuing the bipartisan
commitment to full funding. It also extends the temporary increase in
WIC Cash Value Benefits, which provide benefits to WIC participants to
buy fruits and vegetables, increases funding for the WIC Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program, and bolsters the WIC Contingency Fund to
ensure that services continue even in unforeseen circumstances.
And the Budget reflects the bold $45 billion investment through
American Families Plan to provide direct nutrition support to children
and families. We proposed a permanent nationwide Summer EBT program to
provide food dollars to low-income families when school is out, a
proven approach to improve low-income children's food security and diet
quality; expanding access to healthy school meals in high needs
schools, with a focus on starting off strong in elementary schools,
establishing a healthy foods incentive pilot in schools, and
facilitating re- entry for formerly incarcerated individuals through
SNAP eligibility.
The Budget also invests in the vital functions of the Food and
Nutrition Service to deliver on this ambitious agenda. While Federal
funds managed by FNS have increased dramatically, as much as 70 percent
in recent years, staffing levels have decreased. The Budget proposes
significant investments in FNS to ensure the agency can provide
appropriate oversight and stewardship, pursue its crucial mission to
address food and nutrition security, and innovate and modernize to best
serve those in need.
supporting research
To advance USDA's priorities in a meaningful way, we must also
deepen our support for the science that underpins them. American
investment in research and development has fallen behind, a decision
that, left uncorrected, will impact the clothes we wear, food we eat,
and air we breathe.
That's why I am pleased that the President's Budget course-corrects
and positions the United States to be a leader in agricultural
research. This budget proposes an increase of over $700 million for a
total of $4.1 billion for USDA's research, education, and outreach
programs, an investment that will help USDA put science and data-driven
tools and technologies in the hands of farmers. Advancing agricultural
research will spur innovation and increase accessibility of climate-
smart agricultural tools. The Budget includes almost $2 billion to
research a wide range of critical problems facing American agriculture,
ranging from animal and crop protection and production, new product
development, environmental stewardship, food safety, and human
nutrition. This includes increasing the Agriculture Food Research
Initiative (AFRI) to $700 million, an increase of $265 million to
include broad emphasis throughout the AFRI program on climate-smart
agriculture and application of clean energy.
These investments complement what the President has called for as
part of the American Jobs Plan, which includes a $10 billion R&D
investment at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other
Minority Serving Institutions and $15 billion in creating up to 200
centers of excellence that serve as research incubators.
Finally, the Budget will also help USDA's research agencies rebuild
both capacity and credibility after years of staff losses. We are
setting big, bold research goals, and to meet those needs we must
ensure that our staff is supported, inspired, and reflective of diverse
communities across our country.
combating climate change
Tackling climate change at home and abroad is one of the greatest
challenges and opportunities of this century. This budget underscores
the Biden-Harris Administration's commitment to address the impacts of
climate change with a comprehensive approach that's inclusive of
science and on-the-ground investments. It seeks to repair the broken
link between our science and natural resource experts and our land and
agriculture management mission areas.
This budget puts USDA science agencies back in a leadership
position among global competitors, like China. Our investments in
climate research will put better tools, data and predictive
technologies into the hands of producers and forest managers as they
deal with hotter, drier, and more extreme weather.
Our investments to advance innovation and application of science-
based and data driven tools on the ground, will do the important
extension and advisory work alongside farmers, ranchers, producers and
foresters to support American agriculture and maintain our competitive
edge in the world markets. The NRCS force on the ground, for example,
has been hobbled and we need a conscious effort to rebuild.
The USDA approach to tackling the climate crisis will focus on
science driven technological climate science advancement, creating or
maintaining resilient landscapes on all lands, increasing the work at
our climate change hubs, and implementing innovative science and
evidence driven programs by investing over $914 million of new
discretionary investments in climate smart agriculture and forestry
activities, as well as $564 million of new investments for clean energy
activities across USDA. This funding will support effective land
management decisions and partnerships with local communities and Tribal
Nations to address climate adaptation, conservation, and ecological
resilience.
The budget also provides seed funding to fulfill the President's
promise to create an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Climate
(ARPA-C) that will support transformative solutions to address the
climate crisis. It will be initially created in DOE to build on the
experience and capabilities of ARPA-Energy (ARPA-E), but it will
coordinate programs to address adaptation, resilience, and mitigation
challenges with multiple agencies. We are requesting $95 million for
ARPA-C that will enable us to work with ARPA-C and support the critical
climate technologies that an ARPA approach could most rapidly provide
solutions.
These investments complement what the President has proposed as
part of the American Jobs Plan, which calls on Congress to invest $45
billion in the full range of solutions needed to achieve technology
breakthroughs that address the climate crisis and position America as
the global leader in clean energy technology and clean energy jobs, led
by renewable fuel, renewable energy, and a host of biobased products
grown and manufactured here in the United States by rural Americans.
rebuilding rural america
United States' prosperity and well-being are intrinsically tied to
rural America's ability to thrive in the new global economy. The
President's budget proposal enables USDA to closely examine the
systemic issues facing rural America and empower communities to take
the reins as they rebuild their economies, workforces, and
infrastructure.
Our rural communities share an impressive diversity and resilience,
and they face unique challenges that deserve unique solutions. When
well resourced, Rural Development provides support that is critical to
improving quality of life in rural America--whether it is through
increased access to broadband service, affordable housing in
underserved communities, or resilient wastewater infrastructure. USDA
is committed to taking a locally focused approach to addressing these
challenges because I know that when these communities have a seat at
the table, we have the best shot at achieving a long-lasting inclusive
prosperity.
To bring these outcomes into reality, the budget proposal increases
funding for Rural Development by $741 million, including an increase of
$446 million for electric and telecommunication programs, $15 million
for the Rural Housing Service, and more than $100 million for Rural
Development to increase its staff and technological capacity. It's
difficult to innovate when you are overextended, so these capacity-
building resources will be critical to better serving our rural
customers.
The budget increases USDA's investment in expanding rural broadband
service to put rural America on a long-term path to economic success.
The budget includes $700 million for ReConnect, an increase of $65
million over the 2021 enacted level, to provide flexible loans and
grants to deploy broadband to unserved areas. This investment also
builds on the $100 billion of funding proposed in the American Jobs
Plan, which aims to connect every American. COVID-19 has underscored
how critical access to broadband is to all Americans, and rural
Americans are more than 10 times likelier than urban residents to lack
access to quality broadband. The Administration's plan to connect
Americans is innovative, ambitious and creates a blueprint to carry
rural American into the future.
The President's budget proposes $717 million in investments for
Rural Water and Wastewater Grants and Loans, an increase of $100
million over the 2021 enacted level. That funding includes $25 million
for grants targeted to Colonias, Native Americans, and Alaska Native
Villages and $75 million for grants targeted to rural, poor
communities. Safe drinking water and sanitary waste disposal systems
are vital to achieving a high quality of life and are essential to
rural residents. The proposed increase would create good-paying jobs
and help thousands of communities across rural America gain access to
clean drinking water.
When I last served as the Secretary of Agriculture, USDA
implemented a public-private partnership initiative known as
``StrikeForce'' to provide targeted economic development resources to
rural counties with persistent poverty, including communities that are
economically dependent on energy resources. Through this effort, USDA
collaborated, leveraged, and increased investments to rural communities
through cooperation and partnerships with other Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and public and private entities. The StrikeForce
initiative was very successful, but with the experience of time we can
further improve on this critical program. With $32 million of proposed
funding in the fiscal year 2022 budget, USDA will build upon the
lessons learned from past efforts and scale a more holistic all of
government approach to improving economic mobility and community
development outcomes in rural, urban, and tribal areas alike. USDA is
committed to ensuring that communities have the tools and support to
identify, access, and effectively leverage Federal resources to rebuild
rural America.
The fiscal year 2022 budget lays out a plan for USDA to address
critical issues within the food supply chain, the impacts of climate
change, and the pressures on our public and private lands--each of
which will require the requested budget levels to address. As I stated
at the beginning of my testimony, the Budget is not a list of things we
would like to do, it is a list of things we must do. I look forward to
working with this Subcommittee and to answering any questions you may
have about our budget proposals.
FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET PRIORITIES
Senator Baldwin. Thank you for your testimony. I am going
to just start with the 30,000 foot question, Mr. Secretary, the
budget request for the Department of Agriculture is ambitious,
and I am pleased to see increases for many agencies that have
been stagnant for years, the budgets. You mentioned staffing.
Could you dig a little deeper and tell me what your priorities
are with these agency increases in the overall budget?
Mr. Vilsack. Madam Chair, I would start with Rural
Development. I mean, the reality is that we have several
customer facing mission areas and Rural Development is probably
one of the key ones. And if you don't have people on the ground
in these communities, in these States, knowing what is going
on, as Senator Hoeven indicated, we have a very vast country
with lots of different challenges in different parts of the
country. He may be dealing with drought.
And I think Senator Hyde-Smith is probably dealing with
floods. So you would be more than happy to give him some of the
water that you are currently dealing with, and he would be more
than happy to have it. And so Rural Development is key, and we
have a very large increase so that we can increase staffing on
the ground. Roughly 320 of the FTEs that we are requesting
would go into States to be able to manage the various programs
that we have. So that is one area in particular. You know, I
think it is important for us to continue to find ways in which
our folks at Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), who
are also customer facing, have adequate resources.
There is a lot of work we can and should and ought to be
doing on the ground, and there are no better problem solvers, I
don't believe, in all of Government than the folks, good folks
who work at NRCS. There just aren't enough of them. And if we
are really going to be serious about climate that would be an
area where I think you will see continued interest. I could go
through the entire organization, but I think you get the point.
DAIRY BUSINESS INNOVATION INITIATIVES
Senator Baldwin. Yes, indeed. I do want to speak in a
little more detail about the issue I raised in my opening
statement. Wisconsin has some of the Nation's top notch rural
entrepreneurs, that have wonderful ideas about how to grow
their businesses and contribute to economic resiliency in their
communities. And I have been proud to work in partnership with
the Center for Dairy Research and Wisconsin Cheese Makers
Association to support this key part of our State's economy
through the dairy business innovation initiatives. I was
surprised that the budget proposed opening the scope of this
initiative well beyond dairy.
The success of this approach, in my opinion, is precisely
that it helps experts and entrepreneurs in the same field to
connect and benefit from one another's know-how and then use
that to launch great new ideas. It is successful because of its
focus specifically on dairy.
So in my opinion, it is imperative that the dairy business
innovation initiatives remain robust and focused as they are on
dairy. Will you commit to continuing the success of the dairy
business innovation initiatives by preserving their focus on
their resources specifically to dairy?
Mr. Vilsack. Madam Chair, to a certain extent, I hope that
you understand and appreciate that what we have done is
actually a compliment to you and to the idea that you had for
the dairy industry, which is the $18.5 million that we have
currently obligated, there is still a bit more yet to be
obligated actually, has been a successful program, and so
successful that we think there are opportunities for other
aspects of agriculture to benefit from that approach.
I would say that we have resources in the build back better
effort at USDA that will provide additional resources that
could be made available to the dairy sector without necessarily
changing what we are proposing in the budget. In other words, I
think there are additional resources outside of the budget
through the American Rescue Plan and other programs that could
be made available as the dairy industry identifies additional
opportunities where resources could be available. So it is a
great idea and I think it should be, frankly, expanded. So that
is an unusual disagreement we might have.
Senator Baldwin. Well, I certainly take the compliment that
this is a very good approach. I would argue, again, it because
it is so focused. And we can hopefully replicate it in areas,
and I would ask you what other areas of agriculture and the
rural economy do you envision being a good fit for this
approach that we have used?
Mr. Vilsack. Well, literally any, any part of agriculture
that has waste product that could be converted. You know, part
of what I think is a response to climate or a response to rural
development is creating more revenue streams for farmers. And
one way to do that is by conversion of waste and biomass into a
variety, not just fuel and fiber, but also a variety of other
products.
And I think these kinds of innovation centers could give
rise to an enormous number of new products and new
manufacturing. And that is why the American Jobs Plan, which
contains resources as well for bio-based manufacturing, would
be a good idea as a complement to the innovation centers that
you put together.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Senator Hoeven.
WILDFIRE AND HURRICANE INDEMNITY PROGRAM
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Chairwoman Baldwin. Mr.
Secretary, thank you for announcing that you will get both the
quality loss adjustment out in the full amount, Wildfire and
Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) laws at the 90 percent
level. I appreciate that. I appreciate the work that you all
did with us on the funding to do that. And now--very important
for farmers and ranchers right now. Just ask your assurances
that they will be out soon, that you have your Farm Service
Agency (FSA) folks on the ground ready to go and get it
delivered.
Mr. Vilsack. They are ready to go, and Senator, we are
hopeful. There are several States that received specific State
allocations or resources under those programs, that if they
don't fully utilize those resources, then that money will
return and that could potentially get that WHIP+ number up to
closer to 95 percent.
Senator Hoeven. Good. That is good to hear. And again, I
thank you on that. I really appreciate it. The other request I
have for you is if we could get Acting Risk Management Agency
(RMA) Administrator Flournoy out to North Dakota, I would like
to have him take a look at the drought. And I think that would
be helpful for our farmers to get and ranchers to get a chance
to see him out on the ground, taking a look at things so they
know he is on top of it.
Mr. Vilsack. I will convey that message.
Senator Hoeven. Okay, thank you very much. On COVID relief,
I brought it up in my opening comments. As I said, a lot of
that has been unexpended, particularly out of the American
Recovery Act. Can you give me some overall estimates as to how,
you know, that is going to go out and where you are at in the
process?
Mr. Vilsack. Well, today, we are announcing somewhere
between $3 and $4 billion of additional announcements, the
biofuel industry, the dairy industry, contract growers or
organic producers, small meat processing capacity facilities,
and some other areas I am not getting off the top of my head
right now, but somewhere between $4 billion of assistance and
help is going out today.
We are going to have additional announcements. Senator, the
reason why it has taken a while is that there are literally 41
different groups of folks we are trying to help that weren't
helped adequately or completely during the initial stages of
COVID relief. So, for example, the biofuel industry didn't
receive any assistance despite the fact they got hit pretty
hard by both the trade issues and the pandemic.
The dairy industry working to mollify the impact of
purchasing cheese for the cheese box--for the box program,
created a distortion in the cheese market that created a
problem for some dairy producers in terms of adequacy of
pricing. So we are trying to basically identify those groups
that have not received help or received inadequate help and
trying to get resources out. So I think by the end of this
summer, you will see a multitude of announcements similar to
what we made today and similarly what we made over the last
couple of weeks as we roll out these programs.
And I think you will be satisfied that we are trying to
provide as much help as possible to as many people as possible.
Senator Hoeven. The biofuels industry is a good example. We
had included authorizing legislation in order to help them. As
you said, that hadn't happened yet. So you are designing that
program to show you working forward on that issue.
Mr. Vilsack. It happened. We announce it today.
Senator Hoeven. Yes, appreciate that. Cattle, we have got
to do more for our cattlemen. The concentration in the
processing end is too high. We need more pricing transparency,
more competition. Our cow, calf guys need some help here. And
that means both Department of Justice (DOJ) finishing up, you
know, their study on market concentration.
And I hope that you are interacting your best to do it. I
know you are a trained lawyer so you would know how to do that.
But we need some help there. And then, frankly, we need some
help, hopefully legislatively as well as through USDA. These
guys want more transparency. They want more competition. And
then, as you mentioned, the access to processing capacity, not
only making sure the supply chain is working in terms of the
existing industry but getting more of these options out there
for beef slaughter and other animal processing.
Mr. Vilsack. Our spring regulatory agenda did indicate our
desire to strengthen packers and stockyards to begin that
process, to draw bright lines and clear lines in terms of what
is appropriate and what is not. Certainly I agree with you in
terms of price discovery. And one way of getting price
discovery is by having more processing capacity and more
processing facilities getting more data and information. I
think you will see over the course of the summer that we have a
pretty unique approach to this that I think will result in
significant expansion of processing.
I think it will create, as you as a former Governor will
appreciate this--I think there are opportunities for us to
leverage the Federal resources with State economic development
resources to create a variety of processing options, utilizing
a unique partnership between Federal, State, and local
Government, the private sector and even the nonprofit sector
that is very interested in this. I think you are going to see a
lot of activity in this space in the next couple of months.
Senator Hoeven. Good. We look forward to working with you
on that. Thank you.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. I am pleased to
be joined by the full committee chairman, Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Senator. And thank you
for having this meeting. And Secretary Vilsack, it is a
pleasure to see you before the subcommittee. We worked closely
together for years between this committee and the other
committees--I serve on the Agriculture committee. I was glad to
see the Administration's budget for USDA reflects the
President's commitment to our rural communities, and obviously
that is something you and I have discussed many times over the
years. But these communities were really hurt badly during the
past year.
And it also further exposes the weaknesses and injustices
that our consolidated food supply chain has long contained. We
can do better. I was pleased when I heard our Governor announce
yesterday that, now that we have 80 percent vaccination in our
state, our State can now fully reopen. Ironically, it is 80.2
was the percent as of yesterday morning. For those--Vermont has
one area code, it is 802, and we have 80.2 for our vaccination.
But if I could be parochial a bit--it is something unusual in
the Appropriations or the Agriculture committee for members to
be parochial.
FARM-VIABILITY INITIATIVES
I have supported initiatives to improve farm viability. Our
experience in this support has proven very effective in
regional supply chains and generating jobs and increasing
business investment in rural communities, something we need.
Your announcement last week related to food chain resiliency
was very welcomed.
Recently, I sent a bicameral letter to the Department with
49 other members of Congress, including members of this
subcommittee, encouraging USDA to dedicate a portion of your
significant pandemic relief authority to this important work.
So let me welcome your thoughts on this request, and what role
can customized business technical assistance for producers play
in the President's build back better agenda?
Mr. Vilsack. As part of the build back better agenda that
we announced last week or two weeks ago, Senator, we included
aggregation and distribution section where we have provided
resources, part of which will create that kind of opportunity
for technical assistance. In addition, the American Rescue Plan
calls for additional opportunities, especially to connect
socially disadvantaged producers to more technical assistance.
This is an incredibly important component to building a
local and regional food system, is making sure that people have
access to information about Government programs that can be of
assistance. There are many ways in which the Department of
Agriculture can help local and regional producers. There are
microloan programs. There are food support, some of what we
will be doing, with the build back better effort is to be
supporting and investing in more food hubs, which will provide
for an aggregation of locally produced food.
We are also tying some of our procurement decisions into
providing assistance and help. Most recently, we announced an
emergency food buy, a portion of which is being directed to
small and mid-sized producers in local and regional food
distribution systems, as opposed to the large scale
distribution systems, as a way of diversifying where we do our
business. All of this is designed to provide support and help.
So technical assistance, critically important. Market
access, critically important. Access to capital, also
important.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. And coming from
Vermont, you know I am going to talk about the dairy economy
and producers. Not only in my State but throughout the
Northeast, we see milk prices stay very low, and feed, labor,
prime equipment, energy costs have all gone up. We are losing
farms at a number that we once thought unthinkable in our
state. I understand your Department is working on a number of
initiatives aimed at helping small and mid-sized dairy farmers.
Can you give me an update when producers in a State like
Vermont can expect this much needed relief?
Mr. Vilsack. Senator, today. As a matter of fact, we
announced today assistance for dairy farmers in three areas.
One, a dairy donation program that is designed to defray the
cost of donated milk. Oftentimes in disruptions, it is very
difficult for farmers to be able to donate because there is a
processing cost that would increase the loss that they would be
incurring. So this dairy donation program, we are eliminating a
lot of that loss element. Secondly, we have increased in
providing a supplemental margin coverage payment, several
hundred millions of dollars that will go out to small and mid-
sized dairy producers under that program.
And then third, as I explained to Senator Hoeven before you
came, we are in the process, or perhaps this was to Madam
Chair, we are creating a program to help reduce the
differential that occurred between Class I and Class III milk
pricing because of a disproportionate number of purchases of
cheese during the food box effort. That distorted the market,
and it caused a lot of harm to smaller producers. We are
putting resources in to reimburse those producers for some of
the loss that they incurred. And that was announced today.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Madam Chair, I appreciate it. I
just made a note to myself, in 20 some odd years asking
questions of cabinet members about when are you going to do
something, it is the first time I got today. So that is going
in my journal. Thank you very much.
Senator Hoeven. We were all a little startled, actually.
Senator Leahy. I accept it. Yes. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. It is amazing what scheduling a hearing can
do.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baldwin. Yes, I would have scheduled it two weeks
ago--two months ago had I known, right. Senator Moran.
SMALL MEAT PROCESSING FACILITIES
Senator Moran. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Secretary
Vilsack, welcome. A couple of things I have on my list to ask
you about, but there is something you said--the announcement. I
learned about this morning. One of the things I was--first of
all, a compliment, we worked hard to get biofuels included into
the relief and I appreciate you taking the effort to get that
accomplished. Secondly though, one of the things that I think
is missing from that package that I think is important, but you
mentioned it, and that is small meat processing facilities. I
have two pieces of legislation that I worked with Republicans
and Democrats to get enacted as part of the COVID relief. And
one is to have compensation for the overtime fees for the
Federal Inspectors as small plants--with the difficulty that we
had particularly occurring on in the meat processing
circumstance with COVID, a lot of people turned to that small
hometown locker plant, the few that still remain, to have a
side of meat processed.
And the problems that they were facing because of the
increased volume, because of the need for Federal Inspectors in
overtime, is hugely expensive to go beyond 40 hours. So this
legislation would have USDA compensate for that circumstance
out of those COVID relief funds. And secondly is a bill that is
called Ramp-Up with Congressman Peterson in the House. We
worked together to see if we could increase the size and scope
of grant access to dollars to help increase the size and get
yourself to a point, the meat packing plants to a point where
they would be licensed to sell beef across State lines--meat
products across State lines. And so I don't think that that is
included in your relief package.
When you mention small processing plants, the only thing we
have been able to find is perhaps Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP) assistance to those small processors, but I may be wrong,
and I would be happy to have you, or your team tell me what is
in there.
Mr. Vilsack. You are not wrong in terms of what was
announced today, Senator, but we do have in place a program
that will do, as you have asked be done, I think that you sent
a letter suggesting appropriate percentage reductions in the
fees. I think our plan is to basically follow the prescription
of that letter in allocating resources to small and very small
establishments based on the percentages outlined in your
letter. And I think if you look at our budget, what you will
find is our belief that the resources that have been provided
in the American Rescue Plan and COVID relief plans probably
don't fully fund that program for 5 years.
So I think our budget contains another $44 million that
would allow that program to be expanded not just for a year or
two, but for maybe up to 5 years of opportunity for those small
and mid-sized producers. So that may have--we may have already
announced that, but if we haven't announced it, we are going to
announce it very, very soon. So rest assured that is going to
take place. I should have taken a note on your second point----
Senator Moran. The second point was about grants,
assistance to get to the process we put in meat--greater
capacity and operating across State lines.
Mr. Vilsack. And that is also forthcoming. In fact, we are
going to make that announcement relatively soon. I will tell
you that there is one challenge with reference to that notion,
and that is these resources can be used to basically scale them
up to the point where they meet the Federal inspection
requirements in order for it--then they can enter into a
cooperative agreement with us to be able to sell across State
lines. The challenge is that we've got to maintain equivalency
in terms of inspection processes because otherwise we would
significantly impact our export markets.
Senator Moran. I share that view and understand the
importance of that.
Mr. Vilsack. But if it is not here yet, it is coming very
soon.
Senator Moran. Thank you. So I take the answers to my
questions as good news. Unlike Senator Leahy, who is the
chairman of the Appropriations committee who you said today, at
least tell me that it is in the works.
Mr. Vilsack. It is in the works, and I think you will see
it probably next month.
FSA AND NRCS STAFFING
Senator Moran. Okay. Mr. Secretary, thank you. Let me
highlight, you talked about the shortage of personnel at USDA,
and it has been an issue for a long time. I want to be helpful.
But Mr. Secretary, I would love to see your employees back to
work and the FSA officers. At the moment, it is pretty much you
have to make an appointment or by tele-connection. And is there
a plan to get FSA and NRCS offices up and fully staffed in
person?
Mr. Vilsack. Currently, the FSA offices are 75 percent
capacity.
Senator Moran. Seventy-five percent of employees?
Mr. Vilsack. Yes. And NRCS is a little bit less than that.
We are working on a return to work plan, Senator. Here is the
challenge. There are some people that are anxious to get back
and now have the authority and ability to get back, and to be
able to do so, if they are vaccinated obviously, without the
necessity of masks and so forth. If they haven't been
vaccinated, then they have to maintain social distancing and
they have to be masked under our policy.
Some of the challenges, obviously, if you have the social
distance, that creates an issue with reference to the size of
the office itself. But I want to assure you that the work is
getting done. And how do I know that? Because we have surveyed
this. We have actually tracked the Agricultural Risk Coverage
(ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) activities and so forth to
be able to determine whether or not we are on track relative to
pre-pandemic work when offices were fully staffed. And we are
exactly today where we were a year ago, 2 years ago, 3 years
ago at this time in terms of the work that is being done, which
is pretty phenomenal under the circumstances. So the challenge
is making sure that we are respectful of people who want to get
back to work and of the customers we serve, but also respectful
of the people that still have hesitancy about going back to
work.
So, and giving them sufficient time to make adjustments in
their personal life given the fact that they have had this new
normal for a year where they may have not had to have childcare
expense and so forth and so on. So we are trying to create
enough flexibility to be able to do the job and be able to be
respectful of concerns. But we are at 75 percent FSA offices, a
little bit less than that in our NCRS offices.
Senator Moran. Do you expect the normal to return? When you
say the new normal, are we never going to be back where the
employees are all in office?
Mr. Vilsack. Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that in FSA,
but I think there are options in some of the other mission
areas of USDA where we are actually surveying our workforce in
terms of telework and in terms of space requirements. We may be
able to substantially shrink the space requirements of USDA and
save money as a result and provide greater flexibility and
still get the work done. So I am not--I don't want to commit to
every mission area, but certainly we will have the people in
these offices necessary to get the work done for our farmers.
And they have done a terrific job under the circumstances.
Senator Baldwin. Senator Merkley.
WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. And I
am going to try to hit four topics in five minutes with your
help. Starting with the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Operations (WFPO). In the West, as you know, we are
facing enormous drought conditions and more and more common.
And one of the responses is to pipe our irrigation ditches. The
result of that is we get more water to the farms and the
agreements are set up, so it also returns more water to the
rivers during the winter.
Because we traditionally use the winter water to put into
reservoirs, we have created the opposite of the natural cycle,
when there is more water during the winter in the rivers, and
thus it creates problems for endangered species. This effort is
a way to help use water much more efficiently. And it is a
program where there is a huge backlog of irrigation districts
that need assistance in doing this piping. Are you familiar
with this program? And do you support investing more in this
program to help address the efficient use of water in the West?
Mr. Vilsack. Senator, is this the watershed in flood
prevention program?
Senator Merkley. Yes, it is.
Mr. Vilsack. It is $100 million in our budget.
Senator Merkley. Yes, $100 million in your budget. And that
is great. That is the increase that is in the American Jobs
Plan. In Oregon, we now have about $2.5 billion worth of
projects in the pipeline. And I just want to make sure you
understood how important this program is to water in the West.
Mr. Vilsack. Understood.
KLAMATH BASIN
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Speaking of drought, the
Klamath Basin, for the first time in 105 years, has no water
for irrigation for the ranchers or farmers. And so your team
has been very helpful in getting aid to the Klamath farmers,
and I just wanted to see if you could give us an update on
that.
Mr. Vilsack. It is $15 million designed to provide help and
assistance to farmers who are, in essence, being encouraged not
to plant and compensated, therefore. In addition, NRCS has
announced a $40 million effort across the Country, which could
potentially be used with drought mitigation, adaptation
strategies, and resources that will now be available through
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
PENDELTON RESEARCH STATION
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I really appreciate your team
doing everything possible because it is a massive economic
disaster, and it is an environmental disaster. There won't even
be enough water for a flushing flow down the river. Without
enough water in the river, we will have a big salmon die off,
will have a big bird die off because it is a key overflight
area for migrating birds. So in all fronts, that would be
helpful. Third, the Pendleton Agricultural Research Service
Station.
Mr. Vilsack. I can still hear you, Senator.
ARS CAPITAL INVESTIMENT STARATEGY
Senator Merkley. Okay. It is a flaw in the wiring here.
Well, speaking of capital investments that are needed, so here
we are with this Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center,
which is key to our dryland wheat farming and much going on
again as we face changing weather conditions. But it is
absolutely a place where we need more capital investment. Can
you give us an update on the ARS capital investment strategy?
Mr. Vilsack. We have been spending about a billion dollars
a year and trying to upgrade 90 facilities that ARS is
responsible for. Candidly, Senator, we do need the support and
help that is, I think, inherent in the American Jobs Plan that
would provide significantly greater resources than you can
provide in a single budget year to be able to address the
backlog. You know, I would like to be able to tell you that we
will get that backlog done within the existing budget. But
candidly, that wouldn't be a truthful statement or an honest
statement.
Senator Merkley. And can you ask your team to specifically
look at the needs of the Pendleton Research Station as part of
this process?
Mr. Vilsack. My team is behind me. They are taking notes,
Senator.
RURAL ENERGY SAVINGS PROGRAM
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you. Fourth, Rural Energy
Savings Program. This is a program that is low cost loans that
go to utilities that then can do low cost loans for energy
saving retrofits. The beauty of this is, it is lots of jobs in
rural areas and the products are virtually all made in America.
So it is jobs in rural areas. It is energy efficiency in rural
areas. It is unbilled service that utilities can provide.
During 2020, USDA approved about $104 million in loans for 11
of these energy efficiency programs.
The program is still growing as utilities become more
familiar with it. And I am happy to see that your budget funds
is at a $10 million increase. Just wanted to draw your
attention to it and ask you to keep in mind, because it is a
combination of smart energy policy and smart rural jobs.
Mr. Vilsack. Will do.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Record with seven seconds to
go. Thank you.
Senator Baldwin. Senator Collins.
POTATO BREEDING RESEARCH PROGRAM
Senator Collins. Thank you. Welcome back, Mr. Secretary. As
you are well aware, the potato industry is an essential part of
the agricultural sector in Maine, and is the economy in many
rural communities, particularly in the Northern part of our
State. I very much appreciate that the Department's budget
would continue the Integrated Pest Management Program, but I am
dismayed that it would eliminate the USDA's Potato Breeding
Research Program.
This program played a key role in the development of a new
potato variety called the Caribo Russet, named after my
hometown, I would note, that has boosted the Maine industry
with its high yields and it's resistance to disease. So I give
you this concrete example, because it is testament to the
success and the importance of the Potato Breeding Research
Program. The Department received an overall 9 percent increase
in its budget. So why is the Potato Breeding Research Program
targeted for elimination?
Mr. Vilsack. It is not necessarily targeted for elimination
in the sense that there is a significant increase in the
competitive grant programs that we have at USDA for research,
and would certainly, given the success of the of this research,
would encourage folks to be part of Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI), part of that competitive grant
process, or there is also a specialty crop research initiative
that it also could qualify for. So I think our sense is that we
want to begin to look for ways in which we support strong
research but try to blend into our competitive structure as
opposed to specifically earmarking specific research projects.
COVID ASSISTANCE
Senator Collins. Well, that is something we will continue
to work on in this subcommittee, I am sure. Mr. Secretary, last
year I urged USDA, obviously in the past Administration, to
include loggers in its COVID assistance programs. The
Department expanded the list of eligible recipients to include
Christmas tree growers, tobacco farmers, producers of
ornamental fish, but not those in the logging industry. So as a
result, I headed a bipartisan initiative and secured $200
million, specifically targeted for loggers, for harvesting and
hauling businesses in the December COVID bill.
I know that USDA announced this morning that this program
and others would be implemented in the next 60 days. But I
would point out that the program was signed into law on
December 27th so it has taken nearly 6 months just for loggers
to be told that it could take yet another 2 months before they
actually receive relief.
And given their losses during the pandemic, this is the
problem. Is there any way for the USDA to speed up the
implementation of this program so that it doesn't take another
60 days?
Mr. Vilsack. We will do it as quickly as we can within the
resources that we have and within the legalities that we have
to follow, Senator. I really appreciate the fact that you feel
that this has been delayed, but I think you have to look at all
of the other activities and work that we have had to do at
USDA.
And under the circumstances and given the staffing
reductions that we faced coming into this Administration, I
think our people have done a pretty good job of getting things
out. But I understand and appreciate your folks are suffering
and we will try to get that relief out. And I know the Chair is
also interested in this issue. She has probably talked to me
about it half a dozen times.
So we will make sure that we will do it as quickly as we
possibly can.
POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES
Senator Collins. Thank you for that commitment. The Chair
and I worked very closely to get this assistance included. The
third and final issue that I want to raise with you is, has to
do with Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) contamination, and I
know you care deeply about this issue. Over the past several
years, we have seen family farms in Maine affected by PFAS. In
2016, a dairy farmer in Arundel, Maine, discovered that the
milk produced on his farm contained some of the highest levels
ever reported for a PFAS contaminant. And so obviously he could
no longer sell his milk. It also contaminated a public water
supply as well.
In 2020, a dairy farm in Fairfield, being a whole different
section of the state, found PFAS levels in its milk were 153
times higher than Maine's standard for determining whether it
was fit for sale. So in both cases, this was the result of the
use of wastewater sludge spread as fertilizer on the farm. But
this truly was no fault of these farmers, which are
generational dairy farms. The USDA provides some support to
farmers who have been directed to remove their milk from the
commercial market through the dairy indemnity payment programs.
But what the farmers tell me is that this is not sufficient
to keep them in production, to keep them in business. So I
would ask that you take a look at this issue. As I said, I know
that PFAS is high on your priority list. This, too, is creating
real hardship for our dairy farmers in Maine, and for some of
our water supply as well.
Mr. Vilsack. Senator, this is an issue that not only
impacts Maine, but also can go--I can take you to New Mexico,
where there are some serious issues there as well. I think the
challenge for us is that in the past, we have been basically
providing indemnity for the milk that was impacted. I think
what we are looking at now is basically indemnifying the
farmers for the cows themselves. And I think that that is going
to provide more relief and the kind of relief that your dairy
producers are probably looking for. And we are working on that.
We are going to get that done relatively soon.
Senator Collins. That is really good to hear. Thank you.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator
Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is good to have
you back, Secretary Vilsack. Let's get to the important stuff
right off the bat. How are your grandkids?
Mr. Vilsack. They are good. We had a baptism and a first
communion over the weekend. So it was a good deal.
Senator Tester. I think it is important to remember why we
are here, right?
Mr. Vilsack. Absolutely. Thank you for asking.
CONSOLIDATION IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY
Senator Tester. Look, a conversation we have had in the
past deals around consolidation in the meat industry. Last
week, Grassley, Rounds, and myself dropped in a bill that
creates a special investigator act--a special investigator
under the Packers and Stockyards Act that would be housed in
the Department of Agriculture. They would have subpoena power
and they would be able to really put some teeth into, I think,
the Packers and Stockyards Act for price discovery and ensure
that there is transparency in the market. I am curious to know
what you think about that proposal.
Mr. Vilsack. Senator, I think it is a good proposal. I
think it is part of what needs to be done. Clearly, Packers and
Stockyards, the lines need to be very specifically strengthened
and drawn so that it is clear what is an undue preference,
clear what is unfair practice, what the scope of work ought to
be, and what competition standard we have to reach in order to
be able to have enforcement. I think that is part of it. I
think price discovery is important.
I also think, frankly, that we need more processing
capacity. And you and I talked about that, and I have talked to
Senator Moran earlier today about this. We are going to
continue we are going to come up with a very creative way to
significantly expand processing capacity in this country. So I
think a combination of all those things is very, very
important.
Senator Tester. I have some ideas on that, and I am going
to get to that in a second. JBS, as you know, was hacked. Paid
$11 million bucks to some people who want to try to destroy
this country and they will start with the food supply, which is
a pretty effective place to start, if you know the truth,
because of the consolidation in that. Can you just give us an
idea what you are doing around that with either Department of
Justice or--I am talking about the cyber-attack on JBS.
Mr. Vilsack. Right. Well, the first order of business, I
think, is to make sure that everyone in the food industry and
food business understands the steps that they need to take to
harden their systems. The Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States (CFIUS) has basically put forward a set of
standards or a set of guidance or requirements for hardened
systems. And we are going to convene food groups to essentially
make sure they understand and appreciate precisely what is
required. Secondly, we will be more than happy to cooperate
with any legal investigation. And I think there is also an
issue of this whole notion of cryptocurrency, which is outside
of my area of expertise, but one that I suspect that folks in
the Senate and the House need to be thinking very strongly
about.
Senator Tester. Well, I will tell you that concentration in
the food industry, and meat industry in particular in this
case, has been a big concern of mine. And now that cyber
criminals have figured this is a good way to screw up our
economy, you control food, you tend to control people that is a
problem. And I appreciate the fact--previously, you said you
are going to try to increase the small plants' ability to be
able to be players in the marketplace.
I just met, in fact, this last weekend with a person who is
trying to set up a packing plant in North Central Montana, and
access to capital is a problem everywhere. Have you thought
about potentially taking some of the funds that you have got
from the rescue plan or somewhere else? I am not telling you
where to go. You know, where they are at.
And potentially setting up a revolving loan fund with low
interest loans to be able to fund part of those? If Moran
already asked this question, I apologize.
Mr. Vilsack. The answer to your question is yes, Senator.
Senator Tester. Okay. And so, do you have a timeframe for
that?
Mr. Vilsack. Well, you know, I promised Senator Moran
action on his efforts and his question in July. But Senator,
actually the $60 million COVID relief money is going to come at
the end of June, the opportunities to help your small
producers. So I have moved up the timeline for you. And I think
your probably--yes, exactly.
Senator Tester. Don't let Moran take your time----
Mr. Vilsack. Well, I am sorry.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Vilsack. I just had to get that in. I think this
summer, we are going to begin the process of identifying how
much we think we can commit from resources that we have,
Senator. It is going to be a fairly significant amount. And I
think there are many, many creative structures that we will
look to.
INTERSTATE EQUIVALENCY
Senator Tester. Good. So let me ask you about another one.
State inspected plants, being able to sell across State lines.
Mr. Vilsack. There is a challenge. The challenge is
basically getting them to make sure that they have the
equivalency in terms of inspection. And the reason this is
important is because we don't want to basically create chaos in
the export market. If we have different levels of inspection
with product crossing State lines, then we may have difficulty
selling our beef and so forth overseas. So we want to help
folks get to a point where they are equivalent.
Senator Tester. So in a previous life, I processed beef as
an added value to the farm. And I can tell you that there is
more demand out there from these small processors than they can
fulfill right now. And if you combined a low interest revolving
fund, which I think the Department would end up making money on
by the way over the long haul, with figuring out a way to be
able to sell across State lines, I think, man, Katy bar the
door--there is going to be a lot of goods stuff happening.
Mr. Vilsack. There is a way to do it. I mean, right now
there is a way to do it. There are eight, I think eight States
that basically have that capacity based on a cooperative
agreement they have with the USDA. There is a way to get there.
But it has to be equivalent from an inspection standpoint.
Senator Tester. Last thing, if you could take for the
record, what do you think the potential costs for implementing
the Meat Packing Investigators Act and get back to me on that.
I would appreciate that.
Mr. Vilsack. Yes, I will have to get back to you because I
don't have the answer to that question.
[The information follows:]
To establish this new office and function within USDA's
Packers and Stockyards Division, we project a cost of $2.2
million for personnel and mission delivery support.
Senator Tester. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Tester. Senator Hyde-
Smith.
FLOODING DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Chair Baldwin and Ranking
Member Hoeven. And I certainly appreciate our guest being here
today. And have enjoyed working with you in the past and look
forward to continue working with you. As you mentioned, Mr.
Secretary, we have had tremendous flooding in Mississippi last
week, in Northern Mississippi. And in some areas, we got 20
inches of rain in a 24 hour period. Beautiful crops that have
just been destroyed, that were very, very promising to a lot of
Mississippi farmers.
And we had rivers and creeks and streams, of course, that
is--ceded their banks. We had dams that gave way. We had levees
that were breached. It was very unusual for Mississippi. But we
had--two rural water associations had to issue boil water
notices. And of course, Mississippi State Extension Service is
still evaluating the damages and it is going to take a while to
do that. But we can tell you it is tremendous.
And my phone obviously has been blowing up with people
saying, when can we get assistance for this? They are just
panicking right now because it is hundreds of thousands of
acres of prime crop land that either have got to be replanted
or it is just going to simply go unplanted this year in some
circumstances.
But are you committed to ensuring that USDA will be a
resource to Mississippi farmers and communities in recovering
from last week's catastrophic flood in a timely manner?
Mr. Vilsack. Yes. Given that, given the resources that we
have available, and I would say that there are some programs,
frankly, where there is a little bit of money, just a small
amount of money left, that is unobligated, which I think points
out a larger set of issues with reference to our programs to
help during difficulties. But yes, we will do what we can, both
through FSA disaster loan assistance, through NRCS with the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP) and debris
removal. And certainly Rural Development (RD) can be very
helpful to communities that are dealing with wastewater
challenges or community facilities that have been destroyed.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very much for that
commitment, because we have some eager and nervous farmers and
bankers. But there are a number of USDA programs across various
agencies that really do help rural communities and individuals
to better respond and better prepare to overcome the natural
disasters like the excessive flood that we just talked about.
But programs such as rural development community facilities
grants for better emergency shelters, and rural development
water and waste disposal loans and grants for rural water
system upgrades, and NRCS emergency watershed protection
program to address the debris removal, the repairs to roads,
culverts, and bridges, and the FSA loans for losses to crops,
trees, livestock and farmland--we are all familiar with a lot
of those programs that have been extremely helpful.
But would you just elaborate on some existing USDA programs
where funding might be available today that we can give
information to these farmers, that could provide some short
term relief right now?
Mr. Vilsack. Well, the programs that may potentially
provide that short term relief have very little money left
unobligated, and that is the challenge. It is only about $1.8
million in one of the programs I am thinking about right now
that is unobligated. And that is the challenge, Senator. You
have listed the programs that we have that would be available.
Obviously, it takes some time to get through a community
facility application process, although we will do whatever we
can to try to move that process as quickly as we can. I think
your question, and I wish I had a better answer, but I do think
it is a question that this committee needs to ask in a larger
context.
With a changing climate, we are seeing natural disasters
that have greater consequences than ones we have been used to,
where perhaps a program might have been easily available. The
drought circumstance, for example, we used to deal with
droughts that lasted for several months, maybe a year. But now
we are dealing with droughts lasting multiple years. And I
think we need to really think about the structure of our
programs and the flexibility of our programs to be able to
respond.
I wish I had a better answer. I will tell you, we will
challenge our staff to take a look and scour our programs, and
we will get back to you with whatever we think is feasible and
possible for as quick a relief as we can provide. But
unfortunately, some of these programs have been utilized
already during this year and there is very little money left.
[The information follows:]
The RD Rural Utilities Service (RUS) oversees the Emergency
Community Water Assistance Grant (ECWAG) program to help
eligible rural communities prepare or recover from an emergency
that threatens the availability of safe, reliable drinking
water. USDA also partners with and funds a variety of Technical
Assistance providers to support rural communities in planning
and recovery efforts, among them: the Circuit Rider Program,
the Rural Community Assistance Partnership, and the Extension
Disaster Education Network. Farm Service Agency (FSA) Emergency
loans help farmers and ranchers who have suffered a loss caused
by natural disasters that damaged their farming or ranching
operation. Emergency loan funds may be used to restore or
replace essential property, pay all or part of production costs
associated with the disaster year, pay essential family living
expenses, reorganize the farming operation, and refinance
certain debts. The county or counties where the farm is located
must be declared a disaster area by the President or designated
by the Secretary of Agriculture. For production loss loans,
applicants must demonstrate a 30 percent loss in a single
farming enterprise. Applicants may receive loans up to 100
percent of production or physical losses. FSA direct loan
borrowers located in designated disaster areas or contiguous
(adjoining) counties who are unable to make a scheduled loan
payment can request that FSA set-aside one payment. This frees
cash flow to allow the operation to continue. The payment that
is set-aside must be repaid prior to the final maturity of the
note. Any principal set-aside will continue to accrue interest
until it is repaid. The Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection Program--Recovery and
easements have funds currently allocated and anticipated to
Mississippi for specific projects.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you. That would be most helpful.
And I think I am out of time for my other question. Thank you
so much.
Senator Baldwin. Senator Heinrich.
CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
Senator Heinrich. Secretary, welcome. I have been deeply
concerned by the fact that recently a number of States have had
to work to address what appear to be Chronic Wasting Disease
(CWD) outbreaks or contaminations in the wild, resulting from
outbreaks originating in captive breeding facilities. So I want
to ask you what steps the Department is taking, one to prevent
this from reoccurring. And are you considering convening an
emergency meeting of the CWD Interagency Task Force?
Mr. Vilsack. Senator, I don't know the answer to the second
question. I would be happy to check on that. But I will tell
you that our budget does contain additional resources under the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) budget for
chronic wasting disease, and the research that is involved in
that, and the treatment that is involved. So it is an area that
we are aware, and it is an area that is specifically focused--a
specific focus of APHIS.
[The information follows:]
I have not decided to convene the emergency CWD taskforce
at this time. We are equally concerned with the spread of
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). For this reason, the fiscal year
2022 President's Budget requested an increase of $5 million
within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
to address this disease. With this funding, APHIS will research
the implication of climate change on the prevalence and
distribution of CWD, as well as provide funding to States to
further develop and implement CWD surveillance, testing,
management, and response. If the requested funding is provided,
USDA will work with appropriate stakeholders to implement the
expansion of APHIS CWD efforts.
NONISURED CROPDISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Senator Heinrich. I would urge you to consider convening
that task force because the potential impacts here are enormous
and could have literally permanent impacts on the ability and
the rates of hunting in communities where this has occurred. I
know you know a little bit, Secretary, about the acequias from
my colleagues. They are many centuries old irrigation
structures that serve as the primary method of irrigation in
many communities in New Mexico.
And they are really a central part of New Mexico's cultural
identity. So I want to thank you, first off for your work to
pause last year's policy change on that payment, which had
stopped covering drought claims on acequia irrigated lands.
While this temporary pause has provided some very much
needed relief to our farmers, especially given the current
drought, I think they need an assurance that FSA's
administration of the program is going to remain consistent
into the future. So moving forward, what is the Department
doing to ensure that drought impacts on acequia irrigated lands
remain an eligible loss for Nonisured Crop Disaster Assistance
Program (NAP) payments?
Mr. Vilsack. Senator, let me check on that. I think we have
made an effort to try to get that resolved, and it doesn't make
sense to get it resolved and then have it pop up again. So does
seem to make sense that it would be a consistent policy from
this point forward. But I want to double check and make sure
that I am offering you accurate information about that. I would
also point out that we continue to look for ways to provide
help and assistance with drought related issues. I mentioned
earlier, the EQIP program has announced a drought effort of
around $40 million that might be of some help.
[The information follows:]
The USDA recognizes that there are identified gaps in NAP
participation and program eligibility because of our current
policy relating to drought on irrigated lands. FSA is actively
exploring NAP program flexibility and enhancements to address
losses suffered by participants when it is reasonable for the
participant to anticipate irrigation availability. In our
effort to promote effective program development, FSA will
engage subject matter experts from the field in addition to
partner organizations as appropriate.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you for your attention to that. All
of these things are sort of interconnected. Obviously, you
heard from the Senator from Mississippi about the level of
impact from some of these extreme weather events that are
associated with climate change. I have quit using the word
drought. I now call it aridification because we are in such a
permanent change of precipitation in the State of New Mexico
that we are struggling with how to live with not just a little
less, but a lot less.
AGRICULTURAL RESILEINCE
So one of the things I have done is that recently I
partnered with Congressman Pingree in the House to introduce
the Agricultural Resilience Act. The bill would expand
voluntary USDA conservation programs, bolster some new and
existing States soil health programs like that Healthy Soils
Program in New Mexico, boost USDA climate research, and
invest--increase investments on farm renewable energy.
Do you think that these efforts would help our farmers meet
the goal of net zero emissions in agriculture while also
potentially helping them just become more resilient to the kind
of extreme weather events that we are seeing?
Mr. Vilsack. I do, Senator. And that is why we are
basically encouraging NRCS to focus its programs, its existing
programs, and any increases to those programs on the 45
practices that we know are climate smart to be able to enhance
and encourage. And I think part of the challenge, of course, is
that we want to make sure that farmers receive credit for the
work that they are doing and acknowledge that there is a
financial cost associated with these steps. And we want to be a
partner.
Senator Heinrich. And assume programs like EQIP that you
mentioned are really critical.
Mr. Vilsack. EQIP, Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP),
and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CERP). All of the
programs that we have are really designed in part and should be
designed to encourage climate smart agricultural practices and
soil health initiatives.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. Senator
Braun.
COMMODITY PRICES
Senator Braun. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I kind of come
from the farming community in the sense that I can still stay
involved with it when I go home on the weekends. And I know
that farmers in general are loving the fact that there is
profit back in the marketplace. Along with that concern,
though, is that input costs seem to mysteriously go up whenever
farmers commodity prices go up and the way they make their
income.
Are you concerned that within the Ag community, the farming
side of it, that we have got issues of too much concentration
within the supply side that farmers have to deal with? I mean,
now I know that just versus 15 years ago, it is two to three
times the cost on variable inputs to put out an acre of
soybeans and, or corn, heightens the risk of an already risky
enterprise.
So what is your viewpoint, like in many other sectors of
our economy, is it a problem or can we let that keep extending
itself into the future?
Mr. Vilsack. I had said earlier that nearly 90 percent of
our farms today don't generate the majority of farm income for
the farm families that operate them. And so I would say that
there are a number of reasons why that percentage is as high as
it is, which is disturbing to me. And it is something that I
think involves two things.
One, more new and better markets, but also taking a look at
ways in which input costs are reasonable, and that there is not
a concentration of too few people supplying those inputs. That
encourages then them to be able to charge significantly
resources. I would say also, and I think you and I have had
this conversation before, as we look at the patent laws,
especially on seed technology, for example, the question is
whether or not it is discouraging additional competition by
virtue of how much time we give in this day and age, of
enormous and rapid change.
We ought to be taking a look at those issues, I think, to
figure out ways in which we can moderate those increases so
that farmers have a chance of making more from their farm, so
we don't have 90 percent of our farms not making the majority
of income from farming.
Senator Braun. I don't think the phenomenon is limited to
agriculture. I think it is evident in big health care as well.
Fewer and fewer corporations seem to control the marketplaces,
especially hospitals. And the pharmacies got a little breadth
to it. But insurance companies, that doesn't seem to be getting
any better as well. I view doctors and nurses as being kind of
practitioners in an analogous way, other than farmers have just
a much riskier way of making ends meet to run their
enterprises.
So I think that is something we need to be aware of. And
rather than just observing that it is happening, be interested
in hearing some real solutions that we could put into place.
And I think it could be used in other sectors of our economy
that I think suffer from the same kind of trend over time.
Mr. Vilsack. Well, our focus certainly on the processing
side is to figure out more capacity and more competition. I
would say that we also have to change our thought process here
a little bit to suggest that it is not just about efficiency in
the market, it is also about resilience. And if you have too
much concentration, you may have a very efficient system, but
you may have a very--one that is not particularly resilient.
And I think we saw that during the pandemic.
BUDGET REQUEST INCREASE
Senator Braun. Total budget request is going up by what
percentage over the last year?
Mr. Vilsack. It is 14 percent. Fifty-six percent increase
in programing and the other 44 percent is basically not
rescinding, which we traditionally have done in the WIC
program, the WIC recissions.
Senator Braun. So the economy will struggle to grow by two
percent. And I am worried that in general, with higher
regulations and some of the things that we might be changing,
that we are really working closer to that 3 percent growth in
GDP. But when anything is going up by 14 percent relative to a
baseline of our general economy, where our revenues come from
to pay for anything, obviously we are borrowing a lot of money
to support any of the things that we try to do through this
place. How do we reconcile that in the long run without running
into some big crisis?
Mr. Vilsack. I would be interested in looking at the
numbers over since I left the job to where we are today,
because my guess is not much growth in the budget. So in a
sense, we are adjusting to the fact that for many years we
probably didn't receive a significant increase. In fact, we
probably saw a cut.
And that has reflected itself significantly, I think, in
the number of people working at USDA. And so when people say,
we want you to get things done immediately, well, that is
great. We will be happy to do it. But you've got to have people
to do it. And we saw a significant reduction in workforce to
the point, Senator, that we've got people working two or three
jobs at a time.
Senator Braun. You know, and I reflect that point of view
as well, especially since I am really concerned about
agriculture. But I note that in no other areas across our
Federal Government does it look like we are offsetting that
kind of extra-normal increase to maybe take care of a good need
within a certain part of it. And I think that comes home to
roost sooner or later. And we need to be honest about it.
Mr. Vilsack. Don't want to get in between myself and my
colleagues in the Senate, or the Cabinet. But look, I think,
here is what I would say. And just let's use one example, we
have had phenomenal research in the health area and phenomenal
increases in health research compared to the small amount of
research dollars that go into agriculture.
And the reality is that has to be addressed in some way. We
have got to invest more in our research and agriculture if we
are going to be able to adapt and mitigate to a changing
climate into all the issues we have talked about here. That is
why our budget includes additional resources and the
President's American Jobs Plan involves additional resources.
It is just one example.
Senator Braun. Thank you.
CLIMATE HUBS
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Braun. I am going to
start a second round. And Secretary Vilsack, I was encouraged
to see a real focus towards climate hubs in the President's
budget. I wonder if you can briefly describe how you envision
these climate hubs working across agencies, and how the
increased funding will provide more opportunities for American
farmers and forest landowners?
Mr. Vilsack. Well, there are a couple of ways in which
these--first of all, the hubs were established to do an
assessment of the State of play relative to climate and
agriculture and forestry, and then to begin the process of
identifying ways in which regions of the country could adapt
and mitigate to the consequences of a changing climate. I think
now what we have is the need for us to extend the knowledge and
information.
So what you will see is an opportunity for us to, from NRCS
for example, with a climate hub assistance, to take a look at
not just an individual State, but an individual region to come
up with a large scale strategy, if you will, for the region on
working lands, and to be able to finance adaptation projects
that have been identified by the hubs. On the research side, I
think the reality is we need more young people to be engaged in
all aspects of agriculture and food production.
But the climate hub resources for areas could potentially
sponsor fellowships to bring more researchers and more young
people into this process. And we obviously need more data. This
is going to be a very much a data driven response to a very
challenging circumstance. So to the extent the climate hubs
have additional resources, that means additional data
collection.
I mean, I remember being in a field in Iowa and looking at
a device that was in this field and it was essentially
monitoring on it, on a real time basis, the amount of oxygen,
CO2, etcetera. And that information becomes critically
important to the research that goes into how do we change
photosynthesis to a point where we are embracing more carbon--
how are we storing more carbon in the root systems? How are we
increasing soil health, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
CIVILIAN CLIMATE CORPS
Senator Baldwin. Right. Likewise, tell me a little bit more
about details on the Civilian Climate Corps proposed in the
budget and how they would interact with the hubs, and how you
see the harmony of the President's executive order dealing with
tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad.
Mr. Vilsack. Well, this is similar to the Civilian
Conservation Corps that we have already functioning at USDA.
And I think the Climate Corps gives us the capacity not only to
address the challenges in our forests, which the Civilian
Conservation Corps has been able to address, but to begin the
process of extending the workforce, extending the hands, if you
will, to assist and help not only in rural areas, but also in
urban centers as well.
We are seeing a lot of interest in urban agriculture. And
to the extent that we have got a Civilian Climate Corps, we can
embrace that Corps, if you will, in assisting an expansion of
urban agriculture, which is, I think, important in a number of
major cities. We are seeing an onset of that. So that is one
example of something that could be done. I think you are going
to--there is a need for education.
There is going to be an opportunity for us to talk about a
lot of different climate smart agricultural practices. And as
good as NRCS is, as good as our extension service is, these
young people could also work with conservation districts at the
local level to basically make sure that information was being
supplied to producers so that they knew exactly not only what
to do, but also where resources could be obtained to be able to
do them.
HIGH SPEED INTERNET
Senator Baldwin. Thank you for that. At the beginning of
the year, over 430,000 Wisconsinites, predominantly in rural
areas of Wisconsin, lacked access to high speed Internet.
Approximately 25 percent of Wisconsin's rural population still
lacks sufficient Internet access. I was this past weekend in a
rural part of Northern Wisconsin where there was very little
cell or broadband access. So how does the USDA's fiscal year
budget request address expanding broadband access to rural
America? And how are you coordinating with other agencies in
the Federal Government that play a role in broadband
deployment?
Mr. Vilsack. Roughly 64 percent of America has access. I
mean, you are going to see maps from some of the private sector
folks who tell you that there is a 90 percent coverage, but the
reality is about 64 percent of America has adequate access.
That means that a large part of America does not. We have two
real key efforts. Our traditional broadband program basically
provides additional resources to establish systems and our
reconnect program is really designed to provide assistance and
help to upgrade those systems so that they actually provide
real service as opposed to sort of service on paper.
We looked at the reconnect program and we knew that there
were some issues and some concerns with it. So in the third
round of funding from previous resources, we looked at ways in
which we could better use those resources to create better
speeds and to better coordinate with existing, other Government
programs from the Commerce Department and other programs.
So we have a significant increase in the budget for
reconnect and a slight increase for the traditional program.
Let me just simply say, with all due respect to this committee,
you are doing your best, but frankly, it will take many, many,
many years of you doing your best to actually get the job done.
I really think at some point in time, we as a country need to
fish or cut bait on this and actually put some serious, serious
resources behind this effort. You know, the American Jobs Plan
I think is an effort to do that. That is the kind of money we
are talking about.
And until we get to that kind of commitment, we are going
to--you are going to be asking this question of me for the next
4 years and people like me for the next fill in the blank
years. So, you know, we are doing our best within the budget
constraints that we have, but the reality is there is a need
for a significantly greater sum.
And we can't--I mean, the private sector is fine, but the
reality is they are just not going to do the job in these rural
remote areas because they can't make the business case. And
that is fair. That is absolutely fair. So that is why
Government has, I think, an oversized role to play in this
particular area. And if we don't, then we basically got two
classes of citizens here. And if I was a small business guy or
a farmer in those rural areas, you know, I wouldn't be very
happy about that.
Senator Baldwin. That is right. Thank you so much. Senator
Hoeven.
CARBON MARKETS
Senator Hoeven. Yes, Mr. Secretary, you are right about
that as far as making the business case, because you just can't
in some of those--it is kind of like roads. You know, you need
them everywhere. But obviously, the volume of traffic is vastly
different, creates different economics. So, I mean, you are
now--it is good. How do we on the Carbon Dioxide (C02) effort
make sure that it is farmer friendly, and we don't get any kind
of one size fits all or mandatory requirement?
Mr. Vilsack. Well, we are in the process of listening,
Senator. And many of the points you just raised, we have
identified the problems with the existing carbon markets.
Scale--you know, a farmer might be able to sequester 10 tons of
carbon or maybe 100 tons of carbon. But the reality is we are
talking about millions of tons. So a lot of these current
carbon markets really don't address the scale issue.
There are tremendous costs associated with the current
existing markets and the price that is paid doesn't justify the
hassle and the cost. So the individual markets that exist today
simply do not work for farmers. So if we are going to do
something, we really have to specifically design and structure
it for farmers and producers.
And I think we can do that if we allow aggregation, allow
folks to aggregate their activities. If we reduce the paperwork
and the hassle associated with participating. If we price it in
a way that actually makes sense economically for farmers to
participate. And if we structure it in a way that it is the
farmer that benefits at the end of the day in two ways, one,
being compensated for the carbon, but also, Senator, here is--I
think this is the most important aspect of this, that the
market is demanding.
The market wants to know where our food comes from, and
they want to know how sustainably produced it is. And there is
a premium associated with that. And it seems to me the farmers
should be the one that captures that premium. So you get the
credit and the premium.
Senator Hoeven. Well, and therein lies some of my concern
about, you know, not making this a mandatory program and also
making sure that we have the variety and flexibility that is
going to work. If I am a farmer in Iowa, I might grow corn and
soybeans and I don't have to till, and I might do that year in
and year out. If I am a farmer in Red River Valley in North
Dakota, I might have sugar beets or potatoes in that mix where
I have to till. A totally different ballgame for the rancher as
well, small grain farmer.
Again, back to that diversity in agriculture. And I know
you understand it, but for somebody who just wants a carbon
program, they might say, no, I just want the carbon sequestered
and everybody has to do it like this. And that would be a real
problem for agriculture.
Mr. Vilsack. It can't be one size fits all. It cannot be
mandatory. It has got to be voluntary. And it also has to
figure out a way of not rewarding latecomers at the expense of
those who are early adopters. All of these issues have to be
addressed.
Senator Hoeven. So that is right on. I mean, what you said
to me is right on, if we are going to accomplish our program.
Mr. Vilsack. That is what we are focusing on.
RURAL INNOVATION STRONGER ECONOMY
Senator Hoeven. The other thing I want to explore for just
a minute is the Research Training Initiative for Student
Enhancement program. You just announced that the application
process is opening for the Rural Innovation Stronger Economy
(RISE) program. This is about advancing precision Ag. This goes
back to your opening comments about research and development. I
am a huge fan of our land grant universities. The research and
development they are doing it. It has done so much for
agriculture.
This RISE program is really focused on the precision Ag. In
North Dakota, we have a project called Grant Farm and I would
dearly love for you to come see it. I think you would--I know
you are a fan of precision Ag. It is the kind of thing that I
think is remarkable. And so I would a, invite you to come, and
b, I would really encourage you with that RISE program, you
know, to keep that moving and get that funding out.
We funded it now for several years. We will continue to
fund it. But just your thoughts both on coming to Grant Farms,
keeping that RISE program moving, and anything else we can do
to help with precision Ag.
Mr. Vilsack. Well, happy to take a trip up to North Dakota
at some point in time, Senator. I did the last time I had this
job and happy to do it again.
Senator Hoeven. We appreciate it.
Mr. Vilsack. Which means that I am going to say yes to
Kansas and Mississippi.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Vilsack. I got that figured out. And on the RISE
program, you know, obviously we included it in our budget. We
will continue to include it in the budget. We see the benefit
to it. We will try to get those resources out quickly.
Senator Hoeven. Good. Thank you very much.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. Senator Moran.
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE
Senator Moran. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you should be
pleased that you are wanted, your company is wanted. And I
would remind you that you have already accepted my invitation
and we just need to fulfill that acceptance. Let me talk a
moment about National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
I think it is a fair statement to say that many farmers and
grain traders have lost confidence in the estimates from NASS,
and I certainly commend NASS. They have made a special effort
now to work with American Farm Bureau and others in the
agriculture community to modernize their data collection and
their evaluation efforts. We need to see, in my view, real
results from those discussions.
Your budget request is for an additional $10 million for
NASS, and I am certainly willing to advocate for those dollars
if you can convince me or confirm to me that the additional
spending will get us to a place in which the numbers are
considered to be accurate and meaningful.
Mr. Vilsack. Well, if it doesn't, then I am not doing my
job.
FOOD FOR PEACE PROGRAM
Senator Moran. It is a good answer. And I look forward to
having that conversation with you. Let me raise a couple of
food items. Food for Peace program has been an important one
for our country. The budget request, in my view, doesn't
reflect the priority of the importance of Food for Peace. This
is a discretionary increase in spending in this budget of $2.6
billion, but the proposal is to reduce the funding for what I
think is the Americans--America's flagship program for feeding
the world. Yet we know that there is a huge need for food
assistance around the world. So what is the rationale for that
reduction?
Mr. Vilsack. There has been a corresponding increase in
USAID's budget to be able to utilize those resources more
quickly in the face of emergencies. It is about speeding up the
ability to get help to people, and that is the reason for the
transfer.
Senator Moran. Well, Mr. Secretary, you know, that causes a
debate among those of us who are strong supporters for food
aid. I am one of those. I co-chair the Senate Hunger Caucus,
and I have always been supportive of trying to find ways to get
the aid there quickly and including local markets. But when we
reduce the amount of American produced agricultural commodities
that are utilized in food aid programs, we reduce the support
and in some ways just the pride that takes place in American
farmers providing food, the actual things we grow in the United
States.
So I, of course, will be advocating for the right--for a
right balance, which I look forward to working with you to
find. I know it takes both, but it is disappointing to me to
see the reduction in spending in Food for Peace. Let me raise
one more food topic, and I would use this as a--I think this is
probably more complicated than I know how to ask the question.
And I would reiterate my desire that you and I have an
opportunity to meet. We agreed to do that when you were in,
when we visited back at confirmation time. We have made that
request and we haven't heard a response. So if you could
encourage us to find--your team and my team to find a time for
us to get together in person and have a conversation.
BILL EMERSON HUMANITARIAN TRUST
I would raise when we do the bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust. It is underutilized as a tool in fighting global hunger.
It is jointly administered by you and USAID. It has about $281
million that could be used to purchase U.S. commodities to
supplement the Food for Peace program in emergency food
situations.
And it just, despite that unprecedented food crisis in
recent years, including four famines or near famines, the trust
has not been used to respond to an emergency since 2014. I have
been down this path with your predecessor and would like to go
down a path with you, with USAID and USDA in figuring out what
the perhaps technical challenges are in utilizing an important
fund of money that goes unutilized.
Mr. Vilsack. It is a fair request, Senator.
Senator Moran. Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you very much.
Thank you, Secretary.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Moran. Senator Hyde-
Smith.
MARKET TRANSPARENCY
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, I would just like to associate the comments, myself
with the comments of Senator Moran and Senator Tester on the
cow, calf protection transparency with the market. This has
been going on for so many years. I am delighted to be here to
see that we have a real opportunity for some correction here.
And I know I have been pretty vocal about this issue for a very
long time, but I am excited to see this.
And all we want is fairness. That is all we want. You
really can't produce a cattle herd without some cowboys, and
they are working very hard to be treated very unfairly for a
very long time. So thank you for your efforts in this and may
be coming out with a bill of some transparency for the cash
market that, you know, we can actually make the decisions based
on the real numbers and for addressing the issues that we have
had with the packers. I appreciate that.
THRIFTY FOOD PLAN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith. I am not
going to do a third round of questioning, but I am feeling
awfully badly that no one has asked Mr. Rapp a question. So I
just wanted to ask you whether you can give us any updates on
the reevaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan. That happens or is
mandated by 2022. It serves as the basis for calculating SNAP
benefits accurately, making sure they accurately reflect the
cost of healthy, nutritious food. And so can you update the
committee on where the Department is on that review? And when
can we expect this update to be public?
Mr. Rapp. I was going to pass that one to the Secretary.
Senator Baldwin. You may do that. I just don't want you to
feel left out.
Mr. Rapp. No, no, I am not feeling left out but thank you.
Senator Baldwin. Okay.
Mr. Vilsack. You know, this is the first time in 45 years
that this fundamental basis of the SNAP program has been
reviewed. And as you know, Madam Chair, this basically involves
taking a look at the average, an average American family of
four, basically trying to determine what that family today is,
from a caloric intake, is taking. And this is not what it
should be, it is what it is. What kind of capacity they have in
the grocery store to be able to shop the full grocery store and
what the cost would likely be if they did so.
I anticipate and expect that we will have some information
available this summer because we need to make sure that States
are aware of any adjustment that may take place by October 1st.
So I think you can expect us to come out with the results of
whatever that study is, and it is really complicated, and a lot
of data involved that needs to be churned, sometime this
summer, well in advance of that October 1st date.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you very much. So I want to thank
you, Secretary Vilsack and Mr. Rapp, for being here today. I
think we had a very good discussion, and I look forward to
working with you this year as we draft the fiscal year 2022
bill.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I would announce for the committee, questions for the
record are due by next Tuesday, June 15th. And with that, this
hearing is adjourned.
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
livestock and poultry producers
Question. As illustrated over this last year, our livestock and
poultry producers face serious challenges with the current structure of
the food supply and desperately need more investment to encourage the
development of new independent, local, and regional processing
facilities. There are simply too few options for our producers to turn
to, especially for federally inspected plants, and it is stifling rural
economic prosperity.
How does USDA plan to use the $44 million proposed in the budget to
support small meat producers?
Answer. Overtime and holiday inspection services for establishments
has a disproportionate financial impact on small and very small
establishments compared to large establishments who can more easily
absorb the extra charges due to their production volume. Food Safety
Inspection Service (FSIS) will use the funding to reduce the overtime
and holiday rate for small and very small establishments to help reduce
their financial costs and make them more competitive. FSIS can
temporarily reduce overtime and holiday rates with the $100 million
received through the American Rescue Plan. The $44 million would enable
FSIS to permanently offer a reduced rate to small and very small
establishments. This proposal would not only help small establishments
stay in business, but it also would help provide smaller farmers with
more options for their products and their ability to operate.
Question. Are there opportunities within USDA's existing programs
like the Local Food Promotion Program, the Value-Added Producer Grants,
or the Federal State Marketing Improvement Program to target funds to
support the resiliency of the food supply chain and enhance meat
processing capacity?
Answer. Yes, the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program
(FMLFPP) and Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP) can be
used to fund food resiliency and meat and poultry processing related
projects. The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) invested $1.2
million in five ongoing projects in five states and territories (CO,
NY, OH, PR, SD) since fiscal year 2018 focused on opening market
channels for meat and poultry producer and processing through FMLFPP's
Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP).
In addition, USDA is making available approximately $55.2 million
in grants through the Meat and Poultry Inspection Readiness Grant
(MPIRG). This program assists currently operational meat and poultry
slaughter and processing facilities in obtaining a Federal Grant of
Inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA); or the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA); or to operate as a State-inspected
facility that is compliant with FMIA or PPIA under a Cooperative
Interstate Shipment (CIS) program.
AMS also administers the Sheep Production and Marketing Grant
Program (SPMGP), which strengthens and enhances the production and
marketing of sheep and sheep products in the U.S. through improved
infrastructure, business, and resource development. In 2019, AMS
awarded a 5-year grant for $1.9 million to the National Sheep Industry
Improvement Center. Each year, the center budgets approximately
$300,000 to support projects that accomplish the purposes of the grant
program. This includes strengthening and enhancing the production and
marketing of sheep and sheep products in the U.S. through the
improvement of infrastructure, business, resource development, and the
development of innovative approaches to solve long term problems, among
other priorities.
The Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program helps agricultural
producers enter into value added activities related to the processing
and marketing of new products. The goals of this program are to
generate new products, to create and expand marketing opportunities,
and to increase producer income. Producer-owned enterprises that
support the resiliency of the food supply chain and enhance meat
processing capacity may be eligible VAPG projects.
These existing efforts are limited to the individual grant
programs' purposes and requirements. There may be other opportunities
to leverage these grant programs to support the needs related to food
system resiliency and meat processing.
veterinarian shortage
Question. This country, and USDA in particular, is experiencing a
veterinarian shortage. In fact, in 2020 approximately 18 percent of the
public health veterinarian positions at the Food Safety Inspection
Service (FSIS) were vacant. This is an alarming number. These positions
are critical to ensuring that our food is safe to consume and that the
animals are killed humanely. So, I was pleased to see additional
funding proposed in the budget to incentivize and retain veterinarians
in our food safety program. How will FSIS use the funds proposed in the
budget to fill the critical veterinarian shortages in rural America?
Answer. This funding will provide recruitment bonuses to entice
veterinarians to join FSIS and will provide varying retention bonuses
over their remaining career with FSIS. The recruitment and retention
incentives program should decrease vacancies, reduce in-plant Public
Health Veterinarian (PHV) turnover, improve employee morale, and free
up supervisors to perform other important functions instead of
continually interviewing and training new PHV employees.
This funding will allow FSIS to continue these programs and
maximize the number of participants in each program. The programs
include:
--Adel A. Malak Scholarship: which offers up to 15 veterinary
students $15,000/year during veterinary school with a
commitment to work for FSIS after graduation as a full time
Public Health Veterinarian for the same number of years for
which they received scholarship funds
--$20,000 recruitment bonus (paid over 4 years)
--Student Loan Repayment Program: Offers up to 30 of our current in-
plant veterinarians $10,000/year for 3 years ($30,000) towards
their student loan debt
--Group Retention Incentive for in-plant veterinarians: Offers in-
plant veterinarians varying retention bonuses over their career
with FSIS
In addition, work-life balance is a critical need for many
veterinarians and is often one of the obstacles we encounter in
maintaining adequate employee numbers. Many of these employees would
prefer workplace and schedule flexibility but end up having to work 12-
hour days based on plant production schedules.
Providing veterinarians with better workplace flexibilities and
balance would require a statutory change in how we address overtime
work hours within the agency. Currently by law, FSIS can only charge
establishments for overtime and holiday coverage when both the
establishment and FSIS inspector/veterinarian are in overtime status.
As a result, the same FSIS inspector/veterinarian must cover pay for
those overtime hours. FSIS wants to be able to offer flexibilities to
those employees who are interested in participating.
The law was written in 1948, an era when schedules were fixed, and
the Federal government did not have workplace flexibilities and
authorities such as alternative work schedules and maxiflex. The
Federal government strategically uses these flexibilities to recruit,
retain, and motivate the Federal workforce. Unfortunately, the Federal
Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg
Product Inspection Act as written, prevents FSIS from offering
workplace flexibilities to our in-plant personnel.
free meals for students
Question. I was pleased to see the Budget propose an expansion of
the community eligibility provision, which helps schools in low-income
areas provide free meals to all their students. As you know, only 70
percent of schools that are eligible to participate in community
eligibility currently do so, and hundreds of eligible schools in
Wisconsin do not currently participate.
How important is community eligibility in helping schools in low-
income communities?
Answer. School meals play a vital role in ensuring our most
vulnerable students have access to healthy, nutritious meals. The
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) allows schools in low-income
communities to serve free meals to all students without requiring their
families to complete individual applications, while appropriately
sharing costs between Federal and non-Federal sources. This innovative
approach allows schools to use information from other means tested
programs to determine the appropriate level of Federal funding, and
significantly reduces administrative burden for families and schools
while increasing program integrity.
Through CEP, more than 30,000 schools in high-poverty areas are
offering nutritious meals to students at no charge to the students.
Because all students receive meals at no charge, individual children at
CEP schools no longer face application barriers or have to worry about
the stigma associated with free or reduced-price status. In addition,
CEP eliminates unpaid school meal debt and provides support to families
who struggle to make ends meet but have incomes above the cut-off for
receiving free and reduced-price school meals. This has led to
increased participation in school breakfast and lunch programs, thereby
increasing kids' access to nutritious meals, which is linked to
improved academic achievement and health.
Question. If additional funding is not provided for this
initiative, can the department still make progress?
Answer. Our goal is to make certain that every single student has
access to safe, healthy, and nutritious foods, and through CEP we will
continue to work towards this goal. Specifically, CEP continues to be
an effective tool for increasing participation in school meal programs
with more than 30,000 schools offering free breakfast and lunch to all
students. As a result, nearly 15 million children have access to two
healthy meals at school each day. However, there is more work to do.
Currently, only 70 percent of eligible schools participate in CEP,
because some schools would receive reimbursement below the free meal
rate. Additional funding requested by the Administration would enable
USDA to expand free meals for children in the highest poverty districts
by reimbursing a higher percentage of meals at the free reimbursement
rate through CEP. CEP offers an important opportunity to respond to the
economic crisis created by COVID-19. Additional funding would amplify
the reach of CEP by providing free meals to an additional 9.3 million
children, with a particular focus on elementary schools so kids start
off on a healthy path from an early age.
strikeforce initiative
Question. Rural America has historically lagged behind urban
regions--in education attainment, poverty levels, and overall
wellbeing. And data shows that rural America has recovered from the
Great Recession at a slower pace than urban America, which also has
major implications for rural America's ability to recover from the
current economic slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. So, I was
happy to see new initiatives proposed in USDA's budget that try to
address this gap.
Can you provide additional details on how the Strikeforce
initiative proposed in the fiscal year 22 budget will target funding to
distressed communities?
Answer. This initiative will aim to increase coordination and
collaboration in rural America across USDA mission areas and other
Federal agencies. The program will have a focus on significant and
effective hands-on technical assistance, capacity building support, and
partnerships to leverage and provide additional resources and
expertise. It will focus efforts on specific vulnerable communities
that are economically distressed, persistently poor, and low-income.
Question. What agencies at USDA and other Departments play a role
in this initiative?
Answer. USDA is aligning Strikeforce design efforts within the
Department and with other Federal agencies for an all-of-government
approach to support communities more deeply by making it easier to
access Federal programs, provide hands-on technical assistance, and
planning support.
Question. There has been a growing number of vacancies at USDA,
especially at the county field offices. For example, Rural Development
has seen a decrease of 1,300 FTEs over the last 10 years. This is very
concerning to me as Wisconsin rural constituents rely on these local
offices to ensure they receive the support they need. So, I was pleased
to see that the budget proposes an additional $38 million to hire
additional Rural Development staff, a long overdue proposal.
What is the Department's plan to efficiently hire such a large
number of employees?
Answer. USDA is committed to using multiple hiring tools to ensure
that we hire additional Rural Development (RD) staff. For example, RD
is working to increase its hiring capacity in fiscal year 2021 and into
fiscal year 2022 through targeted hiring of Human Resource
professionals and through a support contract that would provide
additional capacity during the surge period. RD is also looking at all
hiring flexibilities that can be implemented to speed up the often-
lengthy process to bring new employees on board. These flexibilities
include direct hire authority for critical job series, open and
continuous announcements, and the use of special hiring authorities.
Question. What is your projected timeline for achieving this hiring
level?
Answer. RD's overall staffing levels in fiscal year 2021 are
increasing. We will continue these efforts through the end of this
fiscal year and into the beginning of 2022. At the same time, RD
anticipates it will take time to rebuild its staffing; especially while
retirements and other attrition occur. Attrition has been driven, in
part, because RD employees have been asked to take on a greater
workload as staffing was reduced in previous years. The RD budget
request provides for staffing increases as well as increased support
for the new staff, such as additional funding for training and travel
and for modernization of RD Information Technology systems to provide
greater customer service. Taken together, RD is making great strides in
getting ahead of attrition and building staffing throughout fiscal year
2022.
renewable eneregy
Question. In addition to the other climate-focused proposals, I was
excited to see several renewable energy proposals in the budget, given
the need to transition to a low-carbon future. In regard to the
electric loan modifications, will this initiative support both electric
cooperatives that own the coal-fired power plants as well as those that
buy electricity from plants owned by other entities?
Answer. The USDA Rural Utility Service (RUS) maintains a focus on
the impact to the rural consumer. RUS strives to ensure that the
benefits of its programs flow to consumers at the end of the line.
Owners of carbon intensive plants will likely have to address
stranded assets, the cost of replacement power, and potentially the
remediation of the power plant site. In the cooperative model, the
power purchasers are typically the cooperative owners of the power
supplier, and the consumers are the ultimate owners of the power
purchaser.
For utilities that do not have an ownership relationship and are
purchasers of power, they may incur replacement costs or energy
efficiency costs for decarbonization of the electric sector.
Should Congress enact the loan modification initiative, RD intends
to put those resources to work to help address borrower costs at any
level to ease the transition to a cleaner power grid.
cultivar research
Question. I have long been concerned that we are not investing
enough in research on publicly available, regionally adapted cultivars.
Plant breeding and the associated research is essential to meet the
challenges of producing crops for food and fiber. This mission is even
more indispensable as we face the rapid loss of genetic diversity and
the need for new cultivars suitable for a range of local climatic
conditions. How does this budget proposal help to expand farmer access
to regionally adapted seeds and breeds to help foster the
competitiveness of agriculture in all regions of the country?
Answer. This budget proposal would strengthen USDA Agricultural
Research Service's (ARS's) plant breeding capacity that, during the
last 5 years, publicly released over 500 new regionally adapted
cultivars and improved lines of over 100 different crops to farmers,
breeders, and researchers. For example, it will expand farmer access to
specialty, regionally adapted niche cultivars, such as ``Santee Gold''
and ``Scarlett'' rice, bred by ARS and collaborators for the
southeastern U. S. The proposal would enhance the capacity of ARS
sugarcane breeding to meet growers' needs in Louisiana, Texas, and
Florida for new public cultivars adapted to specific crop production
zones. It would strengthen ARS breeding projects focused on regionally
adapted public varieties for specialty crops such as potatoes,
vegetables, pecan, peach, citrus, blueberry, cranberry, and strawberry.
Specifically, it would enable the ARS strawberry breeding project that
has publicly released the fresh-fruit cultivars ``Flavorfest'',
``Keepsake'', and ``Cordial'' to breed more public cultivars with
excellent flavor, disease resistance, and post-harvest quality for
growers in the Mid-Atlantic and adjacent growing regions.
This budget proposal would increase the ability of ARS to respond
to the changing needs for public cultivars with improved nutritional
traits. For example, ARS increased the acreage of high oleic peanuts
from zero to nearly 100 percent in the southwest peanut growing region
in about 10 years. This has added significantly to the local economy in
Oklahoma and Texas and contributed germplasm that is also produced in
other peanut growing regions. ARS has also bred soybeans for better
digestibility by chickens and fish and released germplasm to breeders
across most U.S. soybean growing regions: but more breeding is needed
to generate finished, public cultivars suitable for farmers' fields.
This budget proposal would accelerate the completion of breeding those
soybean cultivars for field production.
Regionally adapted wheat, barley, and oat public cultivars are
developed and selected through the ARS Uniform Small Grains Nurseries
in collaboration with public and private breeders. For example,
nurseries were instrumental in breeding the spring barley
``Goldenhart'', with high grain beta glucan and high grain protein and
``Upspring'' a new hull-less winter food barley variety with high beta
glucan, protein and grain yield that takes advantage of the higher
yields and better water use characteristics of a fall planted cereal
crop in the Pacific Northwest. This proposal would expand the support
for these nurseries that are critical for providing U.S. small grains
growers access to these latest public cultivar releases.
This budget proposal would also strengthen the capacity of the USDA
ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) to deliver, free of charge
and restriction, a wide variety of genetically diverse, regionally
adapted germplasm (seeds and breeds) to farmers, plant breeders, and
researchers throughout the U.S. During the last 5 years, the NPGS has
distributed more than 1.2 million samples of new and heirloom public
cultivars from over 180 crops and over 13,700 species that help foster
the competitiveness of agriculture in all U.S. agricultural production
regions. The budget proposal will provide additional resources to
enable the NPGS to conserve and provide access to more regionally
adapted public germplasm which could be lost if not safeguarded in NPGS
genebanks.
infrastructure
Question. I am concerned that as infrastructure talks go forward,
agriculture has not been taken fully into consideration. For instance,
I know that NRCS has over a billion in projected needs expected for the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Program and more than a billion dollars
is needed for rehabilitating high hazard dams built by NRCS that are
now reaching the end of their design life. In addition, our land-grant
universities recently released a study that found there is a collective
total of nearly $11.5 billion in needed repairs and renovations at the
buildings and supporting facilities at schools of agriculture. We have
also discussed the digital divide in rural America and the need for
broadband in underserved areas. What do you want Congress and the
American people to know about the infrastructure needs within the
programs and mission areas of your department?
Answer. There are significant infrastructure needs that USDA helps
address. These include rural dams and watershed protection, university
lab and research facilities, rural water works, fire stations,
hospitals, and broadband.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has worked with local
groups to identify their infrastructure needs relative to the Watershed
and Flood Prevention Program (WFPO) and the Watershed Rehabilitation
Program (REHAB). The total needs documented to date include 26 States
that have 112 backlog projects with a need of $720,000 from WFPO. There
are 26 States with limited resource communities and historically
underserved communities where there is a severe need for watershed
infrastructure to protect communities from flooding and disasters and
to address major watershed issues. As we are in the midst of an
historic drought in the West, there are 7 States that have identified
34 projects with a need from WFPO to address new ag-water management
needs in western states. There are 38 States that have 1,159 high
hazard potential dams that are operated and maintained by local
sponsors. These structures have reached their design life and are
eligible for REHAB. The current backlog includes 164 dams in 30 states.
There is a need of $509 million to fully rehabilitate these 164 dams to
Federal and State design and safety criteria and performance standards.
These high hazard dams that have reached their service life and pose a
risk to life and property if not rehabilitated.
As is the case with any man-made structure, materials age and need
maintenance. Addressing repairs needed to many of these structures will
extend their performance period for decades to come. In many cases,
maintenance would mitigate public safety risks with the potential for
loss of life until additional resources are provided to help upgrade
dams through design and construction activities recognizing the
potential threat downstream that they present.
In addition, USDA has our own infrastructure needs. While the
fiscal year 2021 appropriations act provides funding to address the
highest priority Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
buildings and facilities projects, the USDA has other infrastructure
needs. Many of APHIS' facilities have specialized functions that
support various Federal, State, and local government programs,
stakeholders, and customers. Timely maintenance of these facilities
would ensure APHIS programs can be conducted at safe, secure,
sustainable, and high-performing facilities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
regional conservation partnership program
Question. Improved conservation program delivery is one of the keys
to realizing our shared goal of combatting climate change and
increasing ecosystem resilience. With that in mind, I would like to ask
you about the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). RCPP is
struggling to meet the goal of efficient, locally led conservation. The
2018 farm bill included important reforms to RCPP, some of which I have
written the Department numerous times on. The program needs significant
leadership from your office, the Under Secretary's office, and the
Chief's office.
What is the average timeframe from award announcement until funds
are available to and accessible by awardees? Please share that average
timeframe for: classic state/multistate projects, classic Critical
Conservation Area projects, alternative funding arrangement projects,
and noncompetitive renewals authorized by the 2018 farm bill. Please
note the fiscal years used to determine the average for each of those
types of awards.
Answer. Program and policy development for the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) was initiated soon after
passage of the 2018 Farm Bill. Software development to enable execution
of partnership agreements for RCPP Classic and Renewals was completed
in August 2020. Funding allocations to individual projects were
initiated in March 2021, at which point funds became available to
awardees with executed partnership agreements and any subordinate
supplemental agreements, which are used in RCPP to obligate technical
assistance funding.
Below is a table with key RCPP implementation dates. The
information is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding available
RCPP Component Award Announcement Partners Agreement (based on availability
Execution Available of project allocations)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2020 Renewals............ October 31, 2019 August 15, 2020 March 19, 2021
Fiscal Year 2019 Classic............. April 16, 2020 August 15, 2020 March 19, 2021
Fiscal Year 2020 Alternative Funding
Arrangements. September 17, 2020..... November 15, 2020...... March 19, 2021
Fiscal Year 2021 Renewals............ August 5, 2020 August 15, 2020 March 19, 2021
Fiscal Year 20/21 Classic............ April 26, 2021 May, 2021 May 27, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are you doing to ensure that program awardees can
access the RCPP funding within 6 months of award announcements? Will
USDA support more efficient RCPP accounting that reflects the way work
is delivered in the field, by reverting to classifying funding as
either ``financial assistance'' or ``technical assistance,'' without
further demarcations within the technical assistance category? How can
State Conservationists and their staff be more engaged in program
decisions so this program can be better implemented and utilized in the
field?
Answer. Starting with the fiscal year 2020 RCPP Classic award
announcement, funding became available to awardees as soon as they
could negotiate and execute a partnership agreement, and any
subordinate supplemental agreement(s) with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). In some cases, funding was available as
soon as a month after the award announcement.
As NRCS developed the new RCPP based on the 2018 Farm Bill
language, it created a transparent and flexible approach to technical
assistance. The amount of funding that NRCS retains for project
management and non-delegable responsibilities is 5 percent of the total
funding request for each project. Up to 7 percent of the total funding
request is available to partners for project management, producer
outreach, and other outcome-related activities. The remaining technical
assistance funding is used by NRCS to support implementation of
conservation activities with producers and landowners including
conservation planning, practice design, easement due diligence for
U.S.-held easements, among other activities. This implementation
technical assistance can be earned by partners who have the capability
and capacity to carry out these types of technical assistance
activities.
NRCS is ultimately responsible for the success of RCPP projects.
The technical assistance framework described above helps the agency
ensure that sufficient funding is available to work with producers and
landowners to implement conservation activities on private lands, while
ensuring that some funding is available to help partners successfully
manage the overall partnership.
State Conservationists and their staff are critical to the success
of RCPP. Several State Conservationists were members of the Farm Bill
Policy Review Team that played a key role in developing the framework
and structure of the 2018 Farm Bill RCPP. NRCS State Partners manage
and administer all RCPP projects, working directly with awardees. Now
that the bulk of RCPP policy and software development have been
completed, a focus group of eight State RCPP Coordinators is helping
take a holistic look at RCPP policy and processes to find areas for
streamlining and improvement. NRCS anticipates that action items
stemming from this focus group will be implemented starting in summer
2021.
disaster assistance programs
Question. With increased extreme weather events and temperatures
due to climate change, California and other states are facing increased
risks to many aspects of our agricultural economy. While traditional
disaster assistance programs can help producers, Congress has
supplemented many of these programs with ad-hoc assistance.
Can you please provide a breakdown of disaster assistance by
program and fiscal year, that each state has received, the number of
producers receiving aid in each state, and the remaining balances of
any supplemental disaster funding provided by Congress?
Answer. Please see the tables below for Farm Service Agency (FSA)
disaster assistance programs. The tables that follow present the
requested spending data for the 2017 Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity
Program (WHIP), Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+),
Quality Loss Adjustment Program (QLAP), Emergency Assistance for
Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-raised Fish (ELAP), Livestock Forage
Disaster Program (LFP), Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), Noninsured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), Tree Assistance Program (TAP),
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), and Emergency Forest Restoration
Program (EFRP). Remaining balances for WHIP+ and a subset of that,
QLAP, change daily and are expected to be exhausted soon as the
Administration intends to provide a third round of payments if
sufficient funds are available. The following information is provided
for the record.
2017 WHIP and Block Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Total
State Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract
State Name Code Payment Sum FY18 Payment Sum FY19 Payment Sum FY20 Payment Sum FY21 Payment SUM
Count Count Count Count Count
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA.......................... 1 ........ 0 265 (2,072,823) 7 (275,747) 0 0 272 (2,348,570)
ARIZONA.......................... 4 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ARKANSAS......................... 5 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CALIFORNIA....................... 6 ........ 0 632 (13,844,041) 29 (359,000) 0 0 661 (14,203,041)
COLORADO......................... 8 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DELAWARE......................... 10 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FLORIDA.......................... 12 95 (2,271,751) 6,733 (166,428,898 268 (5,368,335) 141 (879,995) 7,237 (14,203,041)
)
GEORGIA.......................... 13 110 (1,192,892) 5,540 (53,899,848) 958 (23,543,996) 1 (9,542) 6,609 (78,636,278)
GUAM............................. 14 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAWAII........................... 15 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ILLINOIS......................... 17 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INDIANA.......................... 18 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IOWA............................. 19 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KANSAS........................... 20 ........ 0 3 (5,849) 0 0 0 0 0 (5,849)
KENTUCKY......................... 21 ........ 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 28 0
LOUISIANA........................ 22 ........ 0 320 (3,677,553) 4 (3,294) 0 0 324 (3,680,847)
MAINE............................ 23 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MARYLAND......................... 24 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MICHIGAN......................... 26 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MINNESOTA........................ 27 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MISSISSIPPI...................... 28 ........ 0 254 (4,905,504) 34 (840,349) 1 (14,581) 289 (5,760,434)
MISSOURI......................... 29 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MONTANA.......................... 30 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NEBRASKA......................... 31 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NEW HAMPSHIRE.................... 33 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NEW JERSEY....................... 34 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NORTH CAROLINA................... 37 5 (31,592) 21 (183,966) 026 (1,474,413) 0 0 52 (1,689,971)
NORTH DAKOTA..................... 38 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NEW MEXICO....................... 35 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NEW YORK......................... 36 ........ 0 0 0 2 (1,045) 0 0 2 (1,045)
OHIO............................. 39 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OKLAHOMA......................... 40 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OREGON........................... 41 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PENNSYLVANIA..................... 42 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOUTH CAROLINA................... 45 4 (121,460) 50 (539,282) 174 (8,408,058) 0 0 299 (9,068,800)
SOUTH DAKOTA..................... 46 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TENNESSEE........................ 47 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TEXAS............................ 48 3 (14,390) 977 (7,451,972) 9 (125,000) 0 0 989 (7,591,362)
UTAH............................. 49 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VERMONT.......................... 50 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VIRGINIA......................... 51 ........ 0 0 0 2 (10,720) 0 0 2 (10,720)
VIRGIN ISLANDS................... 52 ........ 0 83 (993,570) 0 0 0 0 83 (993,570)
WASHINGTON....................... 53 ........ 0 16 (97,377) 0 0 0 0 16 (97,377)
WEST VIRGINIA.................... 54 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WISCONSIN........................ 55 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WYOMING.......................... 56 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NOTHERN.......................... 69 ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MARIANA..........................
ISLANDS..........................
NAT..............................
PUERTO RICO...................... 72 62 (963,793) 5,830 (193,191,003 56 (1,166,416) 2 (13,564) 5,950 (195,307,776)
)
==============================================================================================================================================================
Grand Total.................. ....... 279 (4,558,878) 20,724 (447,291,686 1,598 (41,576,373) 145 (917,682) 22,746 (494,344,619)
)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 WHIP Additional Block Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Total
State Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract
State Name Code Payment Sum FY18 Payment Sum FY19 Payment Sum FY20 Payment Sum FY21 Payment SUM
Count Count Count Count Count
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORIDA.......................... 12 1 343,221,217 0 0 0 0 1 3,377,172 2 346,598,388
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHIP+Funding
This table dose include State grants, which are shown in the Block Grant Summation table. This display includes On-Farm Storage, WHIP Milk Loss, Quality
Loss Adjustment Program (QLAP), and Peaches and Blueberries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY20 FY21 Total
Contract Contract Contract
State Name State Code Payment Sum FY20 Payment Sum FY21 Payment SUM
Count Count Count
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA.......................... 1 623 (13,961,317) 1,035 (9,499,134) 1,658 (23,460,452)
ARIZONA.......................... 4 ............ 0 4 (381,726) 4 (381,726)
ARKANSAS......................... 5 1,650 (35,325,045) 2,078 (17,527,551) 3,728 (52,852,596)
CALIFORNIA....................... 6 209 (8,472,697) 300 (7,683,894) 509 (16,156,501)
COLORADO......................... 8 26 (693,085) 1,543 (27,542,155) 1,569 (28,235,240)
DELAWARE......................... 10 77 (989,547) 320 (3,502,773) 397 (4,492,320)
FLORIDA.......................... 12 811 (16,461,262) 395 (4,854,070) 1,206 (21,315,332)
GEORGIA.......................... 13 4,712 (110,440,442) 895 (7328,146) 5,607 (117,768,588)
GUAM............................. 14 13 (50,163) 4 (11,148) 17 (61,311)
HAWAII........................... 15 139 (7,765,785) 50 (2,469,277) 189 (10,235,062)
IDAHO............................ 16 ............ 0 11 (181,580) 11 (181,580)
ILLINOIS......................... 17 6,942 (47,511,530) (18,324) (99,737,092) 25,266 (147,248,622)
INDIANA.......................... 18 4,400 (29,731,321) 11,277 (73,845,606) 15,677 (103,576,927)
IOWA............................. 19 2,651 (23,419,836) 18,347 (113,431,586) 20,988 (136,851,423)
KANSAS........................... 20 6,790 (36,980,117) 11,119 (61,944,712) 17,909 (98,924,829)
KENTUCKY......................... 21 1,969 (24,513,447) 3,067 (30,931,454) 5,036 (55,444,901)
LOUISIANA........................ 22 1,504 (26,321,693) 1,123 (13,430,072) 2,627 (40,661,765)
MAINE............................ 23 13 (289,190) 105 (2,416,173) 118 (2,705,363)
MARYLAND......................... 24 56 (1,024,166) 323 (3,579,885) 379 (4,604,051)
MICHIGAN......................... 26 814 (8,351,862) 2,863 (23,188,176) 3,677 (31,540,038)
MINNESOTA........................ 27 5,988 (76,742,236) 25,243 (246,627,903) 31,231 (323,370,138)
MISSISSIPPI...................... 28 645 (14,548,741) 1,535 (23,187,211) 2,180 (37,735,952)
MISSOURI......................... 29 3,715 (38,466,875) 13,546 (89,660,984) 17,261 (128,127,859)
MONTANA.......................... 30 569 (4,859,437) 1,126 (23,347,643) 1,695 (28,207,080)
NEBRASKA......................... 31 1,373 (14,705,517) 4,240 (31,339,673) 5,613 (46,045,190)
NEW HAMPSHIRE.................... 33 17 (321,612) 22 (323,228) 39 (644,840)
NEW JERSEY....................... 34 233 5,007,184 249 (2,767,275) 482 (7,774,458)
NORTH CAROLINA................... 37 7,110 (148,120,874) 3,624 (33,580,807) 10,734 (181,701,681)
NEW MEXICO....................... 35 ............ 0 235 (6,709,388) 235 (6,709,388)
NEW YORK......................... 36 64 (674,648) 390 (3,270,402) 454 (3,945,049)
OHIO............................. 39 2,863 (23,973,229) 6,866 (45,288,844) 9,729 (69,262,073)
OKLAHOMA......................... 40 2,202 (19,212,518) 7,645 (41,992,264) 9,847 (61,204,782)
OREGON........................... 41 64 (3,042,493) 46 (1,120,280) 110 (4,162,772)
PENNSYLVANIA..................... 42 507 (7,794,764) 836 (7,039,900) 1,343 (14,834,664)
SOUTH............................ 45 2,314 (33,610,325) 926 (6,025,799) 3,240 (39,636,124)
CAROLINA.........................
SOUTH DAKOTA..................... 46 2,651 (27,344,289) 7,770 (60,660,527) 10,421 (88,004,816)
TENNESSEE........................ 47 655 (8,315,718) 1,644 (12,702,384) 2,299 (21,018,102)
TEXAS............................ 48 6,667 (78,217,329) 30,871 (258,891,950) 37,538 (337,109,278)
UTAH............................. 49 61 (1,073,477) 144 (2,366,472) 205 (3,439,949)
VERMONT.......................... 50 1 (7,533) 178 (1,805,190) 179 (1,812,723)
VIRGINIA......................... 51 1,528 (17,53,560) 708 (4,613,192) 2,236 (22,176,752)
VIRGIN ISLANDS................... 52 ............ 0 0 0 0 0
WASHINGTON....................... 53 2 (94,476) 62 (249,940) 64 (344,416)
WEST VIRGINIA.................... 54 ............ 0 149 (529,487) 149 (529,487)
WISCONSIN........................ 55 817 (7,532,797) 3,132 (30,751,175) 3,949 (38,283,872)
WYOMING.......................... 56 3 (68,541) 84 (1,030,668) 87 (1,099,209)
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS NAT..... 69 5 (42,107) 2 (91,860) 7 (133,967)
PUERTO RICO...................... 72 ............ 0 0 0 0 0
======================================================================================================================
Grand Total.................. ............ 79,866 (1,006,456,659) 199,522 (1,618,929,878) 279,388 (2,625,386,537)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Block Grant Summation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY20 FY21 Total
State Contract Contract Contract
State Name Code Payment Sum FY20 Payment Sum FY21 Payment SUM
Count Count Count
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORIDA............................... 12 1 (392,988,010) 0 0 1 (392,988,010)
GEORGIA............................... 13 1 (350,255,573) 0 0 1 (350,255,573)
COLORADO.............................. 8 1 (69,188,485) 0 0 1 (69,188,485)
IDAHO................................. 16 1 (3,180,429) 0 0 1 (3,180,429)
MICHIGAN.............................. 26 1 (27,945,586) 0 0 1 (27,945,586)
MINNESOTA............................. 27 3 (181,545,175) 0 0 3 (181,545,175)
WYOMING............................... 56 1 (3,140,325) 0 0 1 (3,140,325)
ALABAMA............................... 1 ............ ................... 2 (25,765,169) 2 (25,765,169)
NORTH CAROLINA........................ 37 ............ ................... 1 (83,485,000) 1 (83,485,000)
=================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTAL....................... ....... 7 (1,028,243,583) 0 (109,250,169) 7 (1,127,493,752)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Funding (ELAP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 Grand Total Grand Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count of Count of Count of Count of Count of
Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments
Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA............................................. $20,473 3 $768 1 $12,238 5 ............ ............ $33,479 9
ARIZONA............................................. 914,604 32 1,110,985 24 989,067 36 45,183 7 3,059,839 99
ARKANSAS............................................ 756,576 16 1,379,379 160 412,897 18 81,306 4 2,630,158 198
CALIFORNIA.......................................... 5,256,583 190 7,096,158 191 4,583,756 158 1,139 1 16,937,636 540
COLORADO............................................ 848,490 146 127,050 13 515,103 95 ............ ............ 1,490,643 254
CONNECTICUT......................................... 61,491 2 93,548 2 ............ ............ ............ ............ 155,039 4
FLORIDA............................................. 6,125,430 251 13,758,879 222 8,117,440 187 51,092 5 28,052,841 665
GEORGIA............................................. 3,005,284 107 6,031,974 138 4,794,659 152 ............ ............ 13,831,917 397
HAWAII.............................................. 173,022 4 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 173,022 4
IDAHO............................................... 1,693,047 51 2,197,463 46 1,349,796 43 69,735 1 5,310,041 141
ILLINOIS............................................ 48,179 9 12,105 6 1,895 4 2,037 1 64,216 20
INDIANA............................................. 90,663 29 14,222 19 1,546 8 1,952 2 108,383 58
IOWA................................................ 625,393 118 648,389 50 407,627 15 19,166 3 1,700,575 186
KANSAS.............................................. 636,539 616 297,766 29 140,042 11 3,282 3 1,077,629 659
KENTUCKY............................................ 52,961 35 76,328 7 3,713 2 3,713 4 136,715 48
LOUISIANA........................................... 990,118 37 2,116,547 84 2,161,140 100 371,758 12 5,639,563 233
MAINE............................................... 61,288 9 81,663 8 49,848 17 ............ ............ 192,799 34
MASSACHUSETTS....................................... 326,165 8 1,773,801 6 839,504 9 ............ ............ 2,939,470 23
MICHIGAN............................................ 371,231 25 2,294,589 46 963,596 22 9,548 8 3,638,874 101
MINNESOTA........................................... 1,796,123 86 2,756,525 81 1,843,819 51 500,774 10 6,897,241 228
MISSISSIPPI......................................... 313,296 11 370,498 21 301,003 16 ............ ............ 984,797 48
MISSOURI............................................ 195,468 299 76,401 63 122,921 6 2,037 1 396,827 369
MONTANA............................................. 2,792,668 266 1,076,992 34 950,244 35 0 0 4,819,904 335
NEBRASKA............................................ 829,510 130 3,491,203 295 1,182,000 47 2,202 6 5,504,915 478
NEVADA.............................................. 106,047 5 18,513 6 45,200 9 ............ ............ 19,760 20
NEW HAMPSHIRE....................................... 3,018 5 4,078 7 3,114 6 30,766 2 40,976 20
NEW JERSEY.......................................... 166,544 4 209,933 7 346,064 8 ............ ............ 722,541 19
NEW MEXICO.......................................... 231,100 108 116,823 33 298,806 62 11,968 2 658,697 205
NEW YORK............................................ 414,066 28 544,476 45 251,899 21 3,352 2 1,213,793 96
NORTH CAROLINA...................................... 977,426 180 431,542 59 306,593 39 12,646 10 1,728,207 288
NORTH DAKOTA........................................ 1,603,137 54 3,448,154 143 3,195,831 32 0 0 8,247,122 229
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS............................ 7,099 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 7,099 1
OHIO................................................ 103,729 55 189,425 44 112,187 29 1,994 2 407,335 130
OKLAHOMA............................................ 163,160 17 1,343,327 269 210,924 11 15,764 34 1,733,175 331
OREGON.............................................. 1,606,217 205 3,572,522 320 1,501,417 81 ............ ............ 6,680,156 606
PENNSYLVANIA........................................ 464,558 32 779,412 33 429,120 36 41,514 19 1,714,604 120
RHODE ISLAND........................................ 2,592 5 3,228 5 1,375 4 ............ ............ 7,195 14
SOUTH CAROLINA...................................... 56,813 16 24,531 5 86,987 10 ............ ............ 168,331 31
SOUTH DAKOTA........................................ 1,695,769 155 4,083,839 683 2,152,111 82 45,610 5 7,977,329 925
TENNESSEE........................................... 18,378 6 64,612 5 8,192 6 23,284 4 114,466 21
TEXAS............................................... 2,236,199 175 3,396,285 189 2,373,595 123 114,575 18 8,120,654 505
UTAH................................................ 1,018,446 293 734,062 25 717,780 123 6,076 2 2,476,364 443
VERMONT............................................. 54,240 2 227,028 4 135,748 2 22,349 2 439,365 10
VIRGINIA............................................ 208,290 42 210,838 17 24,900 9 693 2 444,721 70
WASHINGTON.......................................... 423,088 25 2,206,640 151 1,112,275 44 ............ ............ 3,742,003 220
WEST VIRGINIA....................................... 142,211 190 150,182 174 164,385 219 6,139 17 462,917 600
WISCONSIN........................................... 490,496 104 437,358 75 217,813 24 6,352 4 1,152,019 207
WYOMING............................................. 465,383 57 2,553,168 89 1,511,547 69 ............ ............ 4,530,098 215
===========================================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTALS.................................... 23,480,655 3,493 42,034,468 3,183 25,526,467 1,435 1,329,286 176 92,370,876 8,287
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Livestock Forage Program Funding (LFP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 Grand Total Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count of Count of Count of Count of Count of
Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Disbursed Payments
Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA...................................... $373,255 125 $10,234,433 3,626 $176,351 127 ............ ............ $10,784,039 3,878
ARIZONA...................................... 11,057,639 2,563 5,069,871 2,607 12,646,256 4,017 3,117,964 153 31,891,730 9,340
ARKANSAS..................................... 8,550,535 1,820 ............ ............ 1,813,293 381 ............ ............ 10,363,828 2,183
CALIFORNIA................................... 1,248,977 377 2,955,897 544 10,819,269 1,152 9,067,239 927 24,091,382 3,000
COLORADO..................................... 28,877,699 3,496 545,418 50 39,155,740 4,869 71,816 18 68,650,673 8,433
CONNECTICUT.................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ 94,326 46 ............ ............ 94,326 46
FLORIDA...................................... ............ ............ 927,096 349 54,885 64 ............ ............ 981,981 413
GEORGIA...................................... 321,588 512 8,223,264 2,646 ............ ............ ............ ............ 8,544,882 3,158
HAWAII....................................... ............ ............ 3,174,450 225 3,488,841 287 142,688 37 6,805,979 549
IDAHO........................................ 632,033 133 377,677 75 2,688,626 247 ............ ............ 3,698,336 455
IOWA......................................... 5,250,895 1,726 ............ ............ 7,246,818 2,842 ............ ............ 12,497,713 4,568
KANSAS....................................... 63,653,174 18,122 ............ ............ 3,845,438 858 139,398 96 67,638,010 19,076
KENTUCKY..................................... ............ ............ 822,375 602 ............ ............ ............ ............ 822,375 602
LOUISIANA.................................... 3,768,182 998 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 3,768,182 998
MAINE........................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ 324,918 185 ............ ............ 324,918 185
MASSACHUSETTS................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ 267,651 224 ............ ............ 267,651 224
MINNESOTA.................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ 27,148 26 ............ ............ 27,148 26
MISSISSIPPI.................................. 121,481 8 ............ ............ 112,656 97 ............ ............ 134,137 105
MISSOURI..................................... 76,731,921 22,253 ............ ............ 16,816,486 4,588 ............ ............ 93,548,407 26,841
MONTANA...................................... 84,539 37 ............ ............ 6,750,530 1,024 539,048 41 7,428,117 1,102
NEBRASKA..................................... 22,658 19 ............ ............ 16,157,221 3,660 ............ ............ 16,179,879 3,679
NEVADA....................................... 2,073,919 241 1,612,827 125 11,854,822 687 3,302,264 121 181,843,832 1,174
NEW HAMPSHIRE................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ 80,898 41 ............ ............ 80,898 41
NEW MEXICO................................... 23,705,779 3,702 5,994,861 1,784 30,990,106 4,893 7,235,428 640 67,926,174 11,019
NORTH CAROLINA............................... ............ ............ 1,866 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ 1,866 1
NORTH DAKOTA................................. 7,032,355 1,891 ............ ............ 1,831,291 1,035 4,322,180 853 13,185,826 3,779
OKLAHOMA..................................... 125,555,423 21,259 8,793,826 1,826 41,936,998 8,754 825,411 214 177,111,658 32,053
OREGON....................................... 20,353,295 1,946 1,818,522 289 25,370,363 2,004 2,368,739 245 49,910,819 4,484
RHODE ISLAND................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ 44,879 29 ............ ............ 44,879 29
SOUTH CAROLINA............................... ............ ............ 4,727,254 1,481 6,048 7 ............ ............ 4,733,302 1,488
SOUTH DAKOTA................................. 1,085,866 695 ............ ............ 5,218,423 970 4,104,611 298 10,408,920 1,963
TENNESSEE.................................... ............ ............ 2,098,290 1,005 ............ ............ ............ ............ 2,098,290 1,005
TEXAS........................................ 86,306,617 24,769 56,946,138 20,269 67,919,675 18,768 11,130,361 3,104 222,302,791 66,910
UTAH......................................... 21,466,681 2,329 4,398,162 961 23,731,554 2,422 7,052,127 574 56,648,524 6,286
VIRGIN ISLANDS............................... ............ ............ ............ ............ 65,155 38 0 0 65,155 38
WASHINGTON................................... 335,718 198 176,954 122 1,844,734 263 ............ ............ 2,357,406 584
WYOMING...................................... 2,297,707 181 49,003 7 41,325,311 2,965 857,417 55 44,519,438 3,208
==================================================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTALS............................. 490,809,874 111,400 118,950,233 40,613 374,708,730 69,591 54,332,712 9,397 1,038,793,471 222,923
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Livestock Indemnity Program Funding (LIP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 Grand Total Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count of Count of Count of Count of Count of
Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments
Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA............................................. $61,901 25 $61,745 13 $59,105 17 $19,945 3 $202,696 58
ALASKA.............................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ $14,388 1 ............ ............ $14,388 1
ARKANSAS............................................ 242,340 62 856,845 110 150,045 49 1,674,027 533 2,923,257 754
CALIFORNIA.......................................... 241,337 10 463,439 42 832,479 18 ............ ............ 1,537,255 70
COLORADO............................................ 1,134,316 38 739,150 100 31,257 2 ............ ............ 1,904,723 140
FLORIDA............................................. 275,938 36 33,345 12 52,028 11 867 1 362,178 60
GEORGIA............................................. 1,069,043 84 69,917 11 65,243 13 ............ ............ 1,204,203 108
HAWAII.............................................. 394,347 6 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 394,347 6
IDAHO............................................... 165,081 17 548,352 75,875 6 ............ ............ ............ 789,308 73
ILLINOIS............................................ 5,921 5 63,817 19 3,533 3 1,481 3 74,752 30
INDIANA............................................. 25,228 7 444,046 13 1,300 2 ............ ............ 470,574 22
IOWA................................................ 1,097,832 154 1,172,146 175 187,299 30 8,593 9 2,465,861 368
KANSAS.............................................. 834,323 102 8,070,777 1,727 396,146 68 407,959 444 9,709,205 2,341
KENTUCKY............................................ 2,073,948 1,339 511,339 424 150,885 119 107,963 203 2,844,135 2,085
LOUISIANA........................................... 35,376 10 82,956 13 245,349 25 193,877 39 557,558 87
MAINE............................................... ............ ............ 6,552 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ 6,552 1
MARYLAND............................................ 1,145 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 1,145 1
MICHIGAN............................................ 20,248 5 70,853 14 ............ ............ ............ ............ 91,101 19
MINNESOTA........................................... 791,402 126 1,930,237 265 59,853 14 10,953 6 2,792,415 411
MISSISSIPPI......................................... 83,849 25 103,503 25 315,346 31 90,183 35 592,881 116
MISSOURI............................................ 99,935 43 580,905 226 103,961 47 331,610 350 1,116,411 666
MONTANA............................................. 12,171,588 1,226 3,874,208 553 354,013 56 4,018 4 16,404,827 1,839
NEBRASKA............................................ 1,276,525 240 27,171,087 3,717 70,421 29 157,806 74 28,675,839 4,060
NEVADA.............................................. 923 1 50,265 7 ............ ............ ............ ............ 51,188 8
NEW HAMPSHIRE....................................... 329 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 329 1
NEW MEXICO.......................................... 437,174 11 706,264 16 665,661 17 868 1 1,809,967 45
NEW YORK............................................ 28,217 6 ............ ............ 795 1 3,112 1 32,124 8
NORTH CAROLINA...................................... 1,880,040 200 328,084 51 28,986 15 46,388 6 2,283,498 272
NORTH DAKOTA........................................ 257,096 78 2,124,749 266 151,005 37 7,507 1 2,540,357 382
OHIO................................................ 43,991 37 223,497 54 43,149 15 154 1 310,791 107
OKLAHOMA............................................ 1,091,129 120 934,593 118 421,830 44 1,872,363 1,068 4,319,915 1,350
OREGON.............................................. 130,113 13 2,882,884 301 ............ ............ 0 0 3,012,997 314
PENNSYLVANIA........................................ 4,574 3 2,665 1 837 1 ............ ............ 8,076 5
RHODE ISLAND........................................ 4,599 2 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 4,599 2
SOUTH CAROLINA...................................... 64,620 14 16,999 8 15,995 10 ............ ............ 97,614 32
SOUTH DAKOTA........................................ 7,683,572 1,596 18,368,883 2,343 94,677 39 10,666 14 26,157,798 3,992
TENNESSEE........................................... 77,425 35 176,873 39 50,264 18 6,292 10 310,854 102
TEXAS............................................... 485,387 60 958,949 97 394,833 38 2,452,288 561 4,291,457 756
UTAH................................................ 218,870 24 535,880 79 43,456 1 ............ ............ 798,206 104
VERMONT............................................. ............ ............ 6,756 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ 6,756 1
VIRGINIA............................................ 45,304 36 43,749 29 38,110 13 6,025 8 133,188 86
WASHINGTON.......................................... 18,445 2 5,952,816 205 508,444 7 ............ ............ 6,479,705 214
WEST VIRGINIA....................................... 246,737 139 165,385 115 37,861 38 12,478 28 462,461 320
WISCONSIN........................................... 635,351 105 823,143 88 4,580 2 ............ ............ 1,463,074 195
WYOMING............................................. 582,360 71 2,577,239 191 238,431 48 2,154 2 3,400,184 312
===========================================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTALS.................................... 34,082,047 5,944 81,580,129 11,242 4,768,129 787 5,734,708 2,868 126,165,252 20,841
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program Funding (NAP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 Grand Total Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count of Count of Count of Count of Count of
Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments
Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
............ ............ $131 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ $131 1
ALABAMA............................................. $1,178,012 48 2,881,703 696 15,441 4 ............ ............ 4,075,156 748
ALASKA.............................................. 62,990 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 62,990 1
AMERICAN SAMOA...................................... 53,425 6 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 53,425 6
ARIZONA............................................. 291,923 67 ............ ............ 463,796 489 ............ ............ 755,719 556
ARKANSAS............................................ 172,204,774 4,869 3,486,125 74 7,393,158 1,885 688,666 2 28,772,723 6,830
CALIFORNIA.......................................... 2,453,000 189 1,457,555 51 1,977,511 142 32,875 5 5,920,941 387
COLORADO............................................ 17,329,738 1,465 8,296,343 212 16,493,959 1,560 ............ ............ 42,120,040 3,237
CONNECTICUT......................................... 423,570 17 194,092 21 50,698 10 ............ ............ 668,360 48
DELAWARE............................................ 143,255 3 ............ ............ ............ ............ 118,773 1 262,028 4
FLORIDA............................................. 7,726,639 169 12,414,840 166 2,483,692 78 ............ ............ 22,625,171 413
GEORGIA............................................. 3,056,071 96 6,320,773 984 1,128,074 38 256 1 10,505,174 1,119
GUAM................................................ 113,002 8 21,001 4 ............ ............ ............ ............ 134,003 12
HAWAII.............................................. 3,027,800 85 1,396,094 73 295,573 17 255,752 10 4,975,219 185
IDAHO............................................... 470,264 37 1,447,320 75 222,143 21 ............ ............ 2,139,727 133
ILLINOIS............................................ 143,467 6 406,110 12 287,904 11 ............ ............ 837,481 29
INDIANA............................................. 548,904 28 844,719 41 284,286 19 ............ ............ 1,677,909 88
IOWA................................................ 89,815 21 63,571 14 1,013,715 20 ............ ............ 1,167,101 55
KANSAS.............................................. 547,152 154 220,295 11 1,389,867 302 ............ ............ 2,157,314 467
KENTUCKY............................................ 704,902 64 489,377 60 348,568 47 746 2 1,543,593 173
LOUISIANA........................................... 508,665 63 122,955 3 ............ ............ ............ ............ 631,620 66
MAINE............................................... 190,947 6 8,400 1 54,312 7 ............ ............ 253,659 14
MARYLAND............................................ 44,850 4 575,579 5 85,478 3 ............ ............ 705,907 12
MASSACHUSETTS....................................... 922,095 55 174,868 23 304,294 27 ............ ............ 1,401,257 105
MICHIGAN............................................ 1,359,413 96 2,502,607 139 1,375,807 127 151 2 5,237,978 364
MINNESOTA........................................... 288,180 15 201,686 15 14,578 5 ............ ............ 504,444 35
MISSISSIPPI......................................... 3,163,937 60 1,733,484 24 189,763 13 38,326 3 5,125,510 100
MISSOURI............................................ 5,850,853 2,339 1,426,059 77 1,729,529 1,095 ............ ............ 8,996,441 3,511
MONTANA............................................. 2,262,097 221 7,324,435 203 4,637,024 560 ............ ............ 14,223,556 984
NEBRASKA............................................ 544,801 41 1,181,142 52 1,504,077 345 ............ ............ 3,230,020 438
NEVADA.............................................. 810,161 27 9,134 2 499,106 55 14,390 1 1,332,791 85
NEW HAMPSHIRE....................................... 189,854 15 312,250 19 166,409 24 ............ ............ 668,513 58
NEW JERSEY.......................................... 1,834,374 87 2,288,6668 84 1,512,770 81 ............ ............ 5,635,812 252
NEW MEXICO.......................................... 16,015,548 1,673 32,244,757 1,970 28,494,223 1,725 1,057,460 45 77,811,968 5,413
NEW YORK............................................ 3,249,687 129 2,415,884 136 1,421,352 76 39,475 5 7,126,398 346
NORTH CAROLINA...................................... 6,474,359 234 7,180,232 196 8,896,177 185 25,988 3 22,576756 618
NORTH DAKOTA........................................ 483,047 101 170,466 46 522,587 143 ............ ............ 1,206,100 290
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS............................ 23,466 9 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 23,466 9
OHIO................................................ 1,173,398 108 12,522,708 634 1,315,444 108 ............ ............ 15,011,50 850
OKLAHOMA............................................ 17,140,483 4,561 2,934,728 1,074 13,421,894 3,678 1,754,599 641 35,251,704 9,954
OREGON.............................................. 2,255,200 125 114,703 12 1,632,914 56 ............ ............ 4,002,817 194
PENNSYLVANIA........................................ 664,221 23 668,788 12 450,199 13 ............ ............ 1,783,208 48
PUERTO RICO......................................... 1,703,846 50 28,080 12 ............ ............ ............ ............ 1,731,926 63
RHODE ISLAND........................................ 288,750 13 358,369 11 8,819 3 ............ ............ 655,938 27
SOUTH CAROLINA...................................... 1,176,103 54 5,474,626 513 2,029,380 52 8,883 1 8,688,992 620
SOUTH DAKOTA........................................ 2,685,481 378 2,658,596 215 6,554,609 742 27,641 4 11,926,327 1,339
TENNESSEE........................................... 652,755 30 1,264,996 193 326,727 23 ............ ............ 2,244,478 246
TEXAS............................................... 25,197,200 6,678 5,755,493 1,113 8,160,065 1,856 106,146 9 39,218,904 9,656
UTAH................................................ 4,753,547 551 71,963 10 4,871,983 618 ............ ............ 9,697,493 1,179
VERMONT............................................. 19,664 3 24,704 4 14,257 5 740 1 59,365 13
VIRGINIA............................................ 1,528,304 81 3,324,158 514 4,661,789 371 174,989 5 9,689,240 971
WASHINGTON.......................................... 659,739 58 2,277,255 101 784,506 82 ............ ............ 3,721,500 241
WEST VIRGINIA....................................... 133,814 196 452,439 417 97,380 143 ............ ............ 683,633 756
WISCONSIN........................................... 2,603,281 73 3,181,946 113 1,869,682 64 423 1 7,655,332 251
WYOMING............................................. 439,007 59 70,287 22 9,640,089 850 3,613 1 10,152,996 932
===========================================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTALS.................................... 109,181,900 18,483 102,664,407 8,093 110,313,659 13,523 3,253,570 724 325,413,536 40,823
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tree Assistance Program Funding (TAP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2018 2019 2019 Total Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count of Count of Count of
Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments
Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARKANSAS.................... $5,841 2 ............ ............ $5,841 2
CALIFORNIA.................. 679,494 31 377,393 8 1,056,887 39
FLORIDA..................... 769,941 56 5,799 1 775,740 57
GEORGIA..................... 75,122 15 47,521 5 122,643 20
INDIANA..................... ............ ............ 692 1 692 1
MICHIGAN.................... 105,936 14 97,780 3 203,716 17
MISSISSIPPI................. 140 1 ............ ............ 140 1
MISSOURI.................... 641 1 ............ ............ 641 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE............... 8,212 1 ............ ............ 8,212 1
NEW JERSEY.................. 20,426 2 ............ ............ 20,426 2
NEW YORK.................... 23,086 4 ............ ............ 23,086 4
NORTH CAROLINA.............. 2,123,352 48 7,092 1 2,130,444 49
OHIO........................ 11,678 3 3,556 3 15,234 6
OREGON...................... 21,843 5 ............ ............ 21,843 5
PENNSYLVANIA................ 84,354 4 73,533 1 157887 5
RHODE ISLAND................ 513 1 ............ ............ 513 1
TENNESSEE................... 568,987 32 ............ ............ 568,987 32
TEXAS....................... 8,661 1 ............ ............ 8,661 1
VIRGINIA.................... 164,262 9 ............ ............ 164,262 9
WASHINGTON.................. 12,319 3 ............ ............ 12,319 3
WISCONSIN................... 1,637 2 ............ ............ 1,637 2
===================================================================================
GRAND TOTALS............ 4,686,445 235 613,366 23 5,399,811 258
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Conservation Program Funding (ECP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 Grand Total Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count of Count of Count of Count of Count of
Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments
Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA............................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ $1,836,906 1,007 $5,804 2 $1,842,710 1,009
ARKANSAS............................................ ............ ............ 77,682 31 36,459 4 ............ ............ 114,141 35
CALIFORNIA.......................................... 6,806 4 22,006 5 1,130,005 20 ............ ............ 1,158,817 29
FLORIDA............................................. 844,629 40 ............ ............ 6,060 1 ............ ............ 850,689 41
GEORGIA............................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ 112,372 43 ............ ............ 112,372 43
HAWAII.............................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ 31,500 6 ............ ............ 31,500 6
ILLINOIS............................................ ............ ............ 56,392 120 ............ ............ ............ ............ 56,392 120
IOWA................................................ ............ ............ 768,099 79 16,614 4 ............ ............ 784,713 83
KANSAS.............................................. ............ ............ 822,866 48 ............ ............ ............ ............ 822,866 48
KENTUCKY............................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ 10,122 4 ............ ............ 10,122 4
LOUISIANA........................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ 1,378,630 207 ............ ............ 1,378,630 207
MAINE............................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ 260,025 40 ............ ............ 260,025 40
MICHIGAN............................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ 1,060,099 131 ............ ............ 1,060,099 131
MISSISSIPPI......................................... ............ ............ 12,020 9 99,126 71 ............ ............ 111,146 80
MISSOURI............................................ ............ ............ 466,157 25 11,183 6 ............ ............ 477,340 31
NEBRASKA............................................ ............ ............ 268,799 26 ............ ............ ............ ............ 268,799 26
NEW HAMPSHIRE....................................... ............ ............ 76,494 50 ............ ............ ............ ............ 76,494 50
NORTH CAROLINA...................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ 57,992 5 ............ ............ 57,992 5
OHIO................................................ 315,955 38 4,542 1 4,942 6 ............ ............ 325,439 45
OKLAHOMA............................................ ............ ............ 673,078 131 853,761 69 ............ ............ 1,156,839 200
OREGON.............................................. 83,160 3 344,043 100 154,633 29 ............ ............ 581,836 132
PENNSYLVANIA........................................ 18,762 5 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 18,762 5
SOUTH CAROLINA...................................... ............ ............ 81,164 11 158,067 112 ............ ............ 239,231 123
SOUTH DAKOTA........................................ ............ ............ 74,018 16 ............ ............ ............ ............ 74,018 16
TENNESSEE........................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ 220,987 98 ............ ............ 220,987 98
TEXAS............................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ 80,243 21 ............ ............ 80,243 21
UTAH................................................ 12,528 1 245,523 7 ............ ............ ............ ............ 258,051 8
WASHINGTON.......................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ 1,574,386 43 ............ ............ 1,574,386 43
WISCONSIN........................................... 2,700 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 2,700 1
WYOMING............................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ 113,067 21 ............ ............ 113,067 21
===========================================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTALS.................................... 1,284,540 92 4,050,873 664 9,149,187 1,943 5,804 2 14,490,404 2,701
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Forest Restoration Program Funding (EFRP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 2020 2021 2021 Grand Total Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count of Count of Count of
Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments Payments
Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed Disbursed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA..................... $40,405 6 $99,390 9 $139,795 15
FLORIDA..................... 99,677 7 1,117,694 51 1,217,361 58
GEORGIA..................... 421,128 26 305,811 42 726,939 68
MISSISSIPPI................. 1,688 1 86,939 14 88,627 15
OREGON...................... 177,727 20 291,940 22 469,667 42
SOUTH CAROLINA.............. ............ ............ 64,417 6 64,417 6
===================================================================================
Grand Totals............ 740,615 60 1,966,191 144 2,706,806 204
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information below reflects the Farmers to Families Food
Box Program (FFFBP) in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021.
The FFFBP was designed and implemented as a temporary,
emergency relief effort to respond to severe market disruption
caused by a global pandemic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Fiscal Year/ State Vendors Quantity of Boxes Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2020................................... 390 155,550,828 $3,968,521,964
AK................................................. 2 82,136 $5,297,772
AL................................................. 3 880,478 $23,184,578
AR................................................. 1 45,733 $1,661,188
AZ................................................. 8 1,749,149 $50,857,061
CA................................................. 51 17,040,284 $685,173,210
CO................................................. 1 253,440 $662,323
CT................................................. 3 66,978 $1,823,545
DE................................................. 2 1,560,406 $54,416,640
FL................................................. 22 12,120,613 $458,371,738
GA................................................. 10 2,352,315 $75,043,926
HI................................................. 7 506,405 $12,810,917
IA................................................. 5 433,196 $12,684,821
ID................................................. 2 573,133 $22,045,550
IL................................................. 19 27,130,418 $389,671,661
IN................................................. 2 265,726 $28,601,805
KS................................................. 5 591,433 $14,124,206
KY................................................. 3 558,041 $27,776,827
LA................................................. 7 521,638 $38,141,111
MA................................................. 8 1,089,480 $33,814,964
MD................................................. 8 2,005,692 $58,073,956
ME................................................. 3 170,348 $4,785,454
MI................................................. 18 6,499,346 $197,843,419
MN................................................. 3 157,899 $6,055,503
MO................................................. 12 4,962,661 $154,013,096
MS................................................. 7 1,278,038 $37,774,742
MT................................................. 1 5,540 $109,099
NC................................................. 9 1,150,165 $24,507,089
NE................................................. 5 926,937 $25,052,551
NH................................................. 1 43,471 $91,289
NJ................................................. 9 2,536,182 $69,483,684
NY................................................. 22 3,796,344 $112,698,565
OH................................................. 7 2,509,769 $60,070,574
OK................................................. 11 5,488,767 $144,684,574
OR................................................. 6 2,380,270 $74,008,277
PA................................................. 38 6,537,793 $135,835,673
PR................................................. 5 3,374,487 $293,413,130
RI................................................. 2 41,321 $2,147,730
SC................................................. 5 635,643 $18,940,965
TN................................................. 2 441,405 $12,910,425
TX................................................. 13 35,601,160 $435,152,554
UT................................................. 1 50,855 $1,029,814
VA................................................. 9 2,292,693 $71,296,817
VT................................................. 5 575,669 $16,607,596
WA................................................. 17 3,222,184 $51,709,632
WI................................................. 10 1,045,187 $24,061,911
Fiscal Year 2021/State............................. 67 56,891,036 $1,902,300,571
AK................................................. 1 107,312 $11,267,760
AZ................................................. 2 1,578,865 $52,314,249
CA................................................. 9 11,565,853 $353,033,219
DE................................................. 1 451,324 $17,586,029
FL................................................. 7 6,117,061 $226,110,272
HI................................................. 2 201,079 $9,176,065
IA................................................. 1 503,500 $17,034,967
IL................................................. 1 7,028,224 $224,246,911
KS................................................. 2 1,628,709 $53,944,105
KY................................................. 1 530,832 $16,906,999
LA................................................. 2 1,124,101 $38,352,509
MA................................................. 1 1,600,000 $49,364,938
MD................................................. 4 1,609,201 $50,794,370
ME................................................. 1 125,127 $3,940,249
MI................................................. 3 5,311,776 $173,168,681
MN................................................. 1 496,897 $18,759,617
MO................................................. 1 729,198 $30,321,414
NJ................................................. 1 3,360,000 $100,959,632
NV................................................. 1 441,836 $13,794,120
NY................................................. 1 1,100,000 $42,920,769
OH................................................. 3 905,119 $31,200,844
OK................................................. 2 1,463,950 $50,221,014
OR................................................. 2 1,125,046 $39,303,818
PA................................................. 4 2,170,756 $90,587,089
TN................................................. 2 1,792,315 $59,318,406
TX................................................. 2 954,428 $34,160,658
VA................................................. 5 1,921,837 $61,839,263
WA................................................. 4 946,690 $31,672,608
============================================================
Grand Total.................................... 457 212,441,864 $5,870,822,536
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Can you also please provide any backlogs for programs
that assist with disaster recovery, such as the Emergency Watershed
Program, and the required funding to eliminate these backlogs?
Answer. The NRCS programs help mitigate the impacts of natural
disasters. For example, improving soil health lessens the severity of
drought, or mitigates against excessive rainfall events. However, only
one NRCS program has a specific purpose of offering recovery through
technical and financial assistance to address natural disasters, and
that is the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWPP). Through the
EWPP, NRCS works with eligible sponsors, entities with revenue
generating capacity and the power of eminent domain, to restore natural
resources and stabilize threats to life and property by installing
conservation practices to remediate damages caused by natural disaster.
Currently, the agency has a waitlist, or backlog, of $89 million in
projects across 14-States awaiting assistance to address critical
disaster recovery needs. However, with ongoing drought in the west,
along with a larger than normal wildfire season expected, the demand
will likely increase this year. In addition, 2021 marks the fastest we
have named a fifth tropical storm in the Atlantic Basin in history, and
the likelihood of demand for EWP assistance remains high as we move
into the heart of Hurricane Season.
Recent allocations to the agency in the amount of $275 million in
fiscal year 2022 will help to address the current backlog.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
meat packing investigator act
Question. Thank you for your support of the Meat Packing Special
Investigator Act (S. 2036). This bill will create an Office for the
Special Investigator for Competition Matters in the Packers and
Stockyards Division of AMS. This office will be headed by the Special
Investigator for Competition Matters and would have a team of
investigators devoted to investigating anticompetitive actions by meat
packers. They would also coordinate with FTC, DOJ, and DHS to secure
our nation's food supply. How much funding do you need to set up an
Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters in the
Packers and Stockyards division of AMS?
Answer. The USDA is focused on building new, more, fairer, and more
resilient markets for our farmers, ranchers, and producers. As we work
to strengthen the resiliency and security of supply chains, vigorous
enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act will be critically
important. If S. 2036 is enacted, it would expand and enhance our
enforcement efforts, as well as critical partnerships with other
Federal partners. It would also complement USDA's partnership with the
Department of Justice to allow farmers to report anticompetitive
practices at farmerfairness.gov
To establish this new office and function within the USDA's Packers
and Stockyards Division, we project a cost of $2.23 million for
personnel and mission delivery support. The information is provided for
the record.
[The information follows:]
Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salary & Benefits Non-Labor Costs
Staff (fiscal year 2021) (fiscal year 2021) Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Staff
--Director
--4-Attorney (Litigation)
--5-Analysts/Investigators $1,600,000 $625,000 $2,225,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
multifamily preservation and revitalization program
Question. Frontier communities are facing a USDA multifamily
preservation crisis, and I am concerned about the lack of funding to
address it in the Administration's budget. The MPR program has a years-
long backlog in applications in addition to significant needs for
effectively preserving units. What investment would be necessary to
fully address this backlog?
Answer. The Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization program
(MPR) is requested at $28 million annually, which funds about 35
properties per year ($800,000 per property) There is an existing
backlog of approximately 171 properties, which calculates out to $137
million. However, these properties could also apply for a
rehabilitation loans with the 515 direct loans or get assistance with
multifamily housing preservation grants. USDA could also use existing
515 BA to modify these loans. The first step in preserving these
properties is to provide the fiscal year 22 Budget requested amounts
for these programs.
rural housing and development
Question. USDA plays a critical role for housing and economic
development in rural places. How, as Secretary, will you work to ensure
the success of these programs? Where are there rooms for improvement in
the administration or authorization and design of housing and economic
development programs within USDA Rural Development?
Answer. We recognize and are fully committed to the critical role
that the USDA plays in housing and economic development in rural areas
through our suite of Rural Development programs. The past year has
highlighted the importance of our programs as well as the special
mission and relationship our agency and its staff have with the rural
areas and the people we serve. One way to ensure continued success is
more flexibility in our programs to increase their ability to reach a
broader and more diverse set of communities and community needs. As
part of this, we would like the MPR program funded within the Rural
Housing Insurance Fund, to facilitate restructuring post-credit reform
loans, and include Voucher funding within the Rental Assistance Grant
account, to facilitate synergy in funding flexibilities. These funding
structures are reflected in the fiscal year 22 Budget request.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
multifamily rental housing
Question. The Section 515 program allows USDA RD to make direct
loans to developers to finance affordable multifamily rental housing
for low and moderate income households, as well as the elderly and
people with disabilities. At the end of the mortgages, tenants lose
rental assistance through Section 542 vouchers, and the affordability
requirements associated with the Section 515 funding is likely to be
lost. Tens of thousands of units are in properties that are scheduled
to pay off their loans over the next decade. For small towns across
rural America, this has the potential to greatly worsen an existing
shortage of affordable housing.
How does the USDA plan to ensure that expiring Section 515 loans do
not exacerbate America's affordable housing crisis, especially in rural
areas where these properties may be the only source of affordable
housing?
Answer. USDA has a number of programs that can be used to
facilitate maintaining and preserving current 515 properties in the
program. USDA can issue subsequent 515 loan for rehabilitation or issue
a restructuring through the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization
Program (MPR) program. When all else fails, they have a low cost
voucher program to provide a tenant protection so that the tenant can
stay in the property once it is paid off. Providing the requested
funding for these programs in the fiscal year 2022 appropriations would
be a first step in ensuring the preservation of affordable housing in
rural America.
the emergency food assistance program fresh produce program
Question. Vermont's small and diversified farms are eager to
participate in the USDA's new TEFAP Fresh Produce program. However,
significant barriers still exist preventing small farms from supplying
TEFAP with fresh produce. The USDA's requirement that producers hold
GAP Certification bars the vast majority of Vermont farms from
participating in the program and, despite the local preference and an
in-state applicant, the new contract for Vermont was awarded to an out-
of-region vendor.
How will USDA expand access to the TEFAP fresh produce program for
small farms, including through broadening eligibility criteria to
recognize state-level GAP-equivalent certification?
Answer. The USDA used a 100 percent small business set aside to
ensure only small entities, as defined by the Small Business
Administration, participated in the TEFAP fresh produce program, and
will continue to do so. The USDA also broadened eligibility criteria by
accepting Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) benchmarked
certification program audits in addition to USDA audits. USDA believes
broadening the requirement to this industry standard provides
flexibility to producers while maintaining strict food safety
requirements for products that may be distributed to more vulnerable
populations, including young children, pregnant women, and the elderly.
Question. How can the USDA strengthen the local preference in the
TEFAP Fresh Produce program to ensure that small farms may participate
supply the program?
Answer. Boxes must contain a variety of vegetables and fruits,
including at least two locally grown fruit or vegetable items when
local produce is available. Locally or regionally produced is clearly
defined in the requirements as within the state or within 400 miles of
the delivery destination. Out-of-region vendors are expected to comply
with this requirement, and therefore must source local produce when it
is available in the state or region of the delivery destination.
Question. How will the USDA engage stakeholders from the
agriculture and charitable food sectors as it seeks to incorporate
local food produced on small farms into the nation's charitable food
system?
Answer. The USDA engages with stakeholders from both the
agriculture and charitable food sectors on a regular basis. An example
of this kind of engagement is the March 22, 2021, listening session on
USDA's purchase program with various stakeholders. This engagement and
subsequent feedback from both agriculture and charitable food sectors
resulted in the June 4, 2021, announcement of the establishment of a
cooperative agreement program with state and Tribal governments to
purchase food for charitable organizations from local and regional
producers. USDA will use this program to facilitate relationships
between local farmers, ranchers and producers, and charitable food
organizations.
conservation reserve enhancement program
Question. I continue to have serious concerns with the USDA's
implementation of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
and its impact in Vermont. Section 2209 of the 2018 Farm Bill directed
the 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 should apply to Vermont because the State's Required
Agricultural Practices (RAPs) 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, as well as the
requirement that Vermont landowners receive a waiver to participate in
CREP on a case-by-case basis, threatens to significantly reduce the
program's effectiveness and provide a disincentive for states like
Vermont to enact their own minimum conservation standards. Currently,
it is my understanding that Vermont is the only state in which a case-
by-case waiver is required, and I continue to hear reports from service
providers in Vermont that waivers can take several months to process if
they are even granted at all.
I appreciate your commitment to me, prior to your confirmation as
Secretary, that you would conduct a broad review of the way CRP and
CREP were managed under the previous administration and examine what
can be changed through administrative guidance and implementation, and
what may take a regulatory change. What is the status of that review?
Answer. The review is underway and making Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP) work for Vermont and for every state and
other entities who want to participate is a priority for USDA. The Farm
Service (FSA) is currently working to revise the regulation to remove
the requirement of the 25 percent reduction, as well as examining other
ways to improve the management of CREP.
The Section 2209 of the Farm Bill currently only applies to Vermont
and the Vermont CREP. Specifically, the Section 2209 provisions are
written such that they only apply to land already enrolled in the
Vermont CREP. Land enrolled in the Vermont CREP that is subject to the
Vermont state law is eligible to be re-enrolled in Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP); enrolled in CRP through any type of signup such as CREP,
General, continuous, etc., and there is no waiver required. Neither the
regulations nor the handbook procedures require a waiver for Vermont
CREP land. The applicable regulation citation for the provisions of
Section 2209 of the Farm bill is 1410.6I(4)(i).
The previous Secretary added a separate provision to the
regulations, not required by the Farm Bill, that provided the
opportunity for land in any State that is subject to a Tribal, State,
or other local laws, ordinances, or other regulations require any
resource conserving or environmental protection measures or practices
to be eligible to be enrolled in CRP, for any type of signup, but only
if the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) determines such land to be
otherwise eligible for CRP and appropriate for enrollment in CRP. This
provision requires a waiver because FSA has to determine if the land is
``... otherwise eligible for CRP and appropriate for enrollment in
CRP.'' The applicable regulation citation for this provision is
1410.6I(4)(ii). The five requests we have received from the Vermont
State Office all fall under the provisions of 1410.6I(4)(ii), not the
provisions of section 2209 of the Farm Bill. I am committed to working
with you to see what flexibilities we may have and how we can improve
the Federal partnership with the state of Vermont.
Question. As the USDA considers a broader remedy to this issue,
including elimination of the 25 percent payment reduction, is there a
reason that Vermont cannot be issued a statewide eligibility waiver for
projects, particularly given that the RAPs are applied and implemented
on a statewide basis?
Answer. Due to the complexity of each case and the differences
within each offer; such as cropping history, land designation, etc., it
is not possible to provide a statewide waiver.
farm and food business technical assistance
Question. During the hearing, I inquired about how USDA plans to
provide additional support for customized farm and food business
technical assistance using recent relief funding. This question
followed a bicameral letter sent by 50 Members of Congress on May 24
requesting that the USDA commit a significant portion of its
coronavirus relief funding to be used for this purpose. I appreciate
that your response mentioned several existing programs that have and
could be used for business technical assistance. As our letter
indicates, however, we believe it is important that a dedicated program
be established for this purpose since the current suite of programs do
not serve this need well.
Could you provide additional detail on how the Department can work
with the letter's signatories to fulfill this request for a standalone
farm and food business technical assistance program?
Answer. As part of USDA's Build Back Better Initiative, USDA
announced more than $4 billion will be directed towards improving the
nation's food system to ensure it is fair, competitive, distributed,
and resilient. An important aspect of this is a focus on Food
Production. USDA has committed to providing direct assistance, grants,
training, and technical assistance to growers and processors. Through
the Build Back Better Initiative, USDA will use a mix of loans, grants,
and innovative financing to make meaningful investments to build a food
system that is more resilient against shocks, delivers greater value to
growers and workers, and offers consumers an affordable selection of
healthy food produced and sourced locally and regionally by farmers and
processors from diverse backgrounds. USDA commits to working with the
letter's signatories as the specific programs are developed to deliver
this technical assistance. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/
2021/06/08/usda-invest-more-4-billion-strengthen-food-system
relief for dairy farmers
Question. I know you are well aware of the challenges our dairy
farmers continue to face, and I deeply appreciate your recent
announcement regarding forthcoming and much-needed relief for
producers. In addition to the need for direct assistance, I continue to
hear from Vermont's dairy men and women about the new Class I mover
that was implemented in 2019. Farmers across the country have lost over
$700 million in Class I skim milk revenue, with the largest loss coming
from the Northeast to the tune of over $140 million. The new mover
caused a reduction in the Class I milk price farmers received last year
when the previous administration intervened in cheese markets in a
manner that led to a widespread between the Class III and Class IV milk
prices, which determines the Class I mover.
What actions is the Department considering to account for these
losses?
Answer. The USDA is aware of the loss incurred by dairy farmers as
a result of the pandemic and changes to the Class I price formula. As
announced via press release on June 15th, 2021, the USDA will provide
additional pandemic payments targeted to dairy farmers that have
demonstrated losses not covered by previous pandemic assistance. At
this time, we are evaluating all possible options to assist dairy
farmers to recover from the unexpected losses occurring as a result of
the pandemic. The USDA is also working on several additional programs
to provide assistance to the dairy industry including implementing the
$400 million Dairy Donation Program and providing approximately $580
million in supplemental Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) for small and
medium farms.
Supplemental DMC as authorized in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2021 is scheduled for a special enrollment period. Supplemental
DMC will allow small and medium size participating dairy operations
that have increased milk production prior to 2020, the opportunity to
increase their production history through Supplemental DMC and enroll
that milk production increase retroactively to January 2021. Due to
continued market volatility for 2021, DMC has triggered margin payments
for all months and is projected to indemnify dairy operations for most
months this calendar year. To date, DMC has paid $505 million in
indemnity payments to dairy operations. The Farm Service Agency (FSA)
believes because of the large number of small dairy operations located
across the U.S. now, that are eligible for supplemental DMC, will
provide additional support during the 2021 market conditions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
biofuels
Question. President Biden's climate plan calls for ``doubling down
on the liquid fuels of the future, which make agriculture a key part of
the solution to climate change.'' Yet, scores of facility registrations
submitted by American entrepreneurs across rural America for cellulosic
ethanol made from corn fiber against a pathway under the RFS that is
already approved have been sitting at EPA, awaiting action, some for
more than 4 years. What has the administration done to make it a
priority to move these cellulosic biofuel facility registrations?
Answer. The USDA does not have any regulatory authority over the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). USDA defers to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for a response to this question.
Question. Last week the Acting Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Air and Radiation at the EPA gave an interview in which he
declined to answer whether biofuels have reduced carbon emissions,
saying he had not yet had time to look into this. Yet, since the Biden
Administration took office, the United States has:
A. Adopted a commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent by 2030;
B. Released a comprehensive infrastructure proposal focused in part
on cutting carbon emissions;
C. Extended the RFS compliance deadlines for refiners for 2020
until January 31, 2022;
D. Failed to prioritize facility registration applications for
production of the lowest carbon fuel we have today--cellulosic ethanol
from corn fiber--that have been languishing in some cases for 5 years
at the Agency;
E. Failed to move a proposed rule for the 2021 RFS blending volumes
a full 6 months into the compliance year; and
F. Failed to fulfill the requirements of a Court remand from 2017
to restore 500 million gallons of blending volumes that were
inappropriately waived from the 2016 RVO.
Mr. Secretary, in your experience to date, is this administration
planning to make biofuels a centerpiece of its commitment to
innovation, climate mitigation, and job creation?
Answer. The USDA does not have direct access to this data and must
defer to the EPA for a response to this question. As legislative
initiatives begin to make progress through both Houses of Congress
relating to the American Jobs Plan, the USDA stands ready to assist
efforts to include biofuel related infrastructure in those legislative
initiatives.
Question. The Energy Information Administration projects that about
80 percent of new vehicle sales will be gasoline or flex-fuel powered,
not to mention the ongoing use of gasoline for decades to come by cars
on the road today. Given the new goals adopted by President Biden to
cut emissions by 50-52 percent by 2030, we must deploy every solution
we have to meet this goal, including cutting greenhouse gas emissions
by 46%-120 percent in the case of ethanol and 74 percent in the case of
biodiesel from every gallon of fuel we use. Investing in biofuel
infrastructure will help deliver higher blends of ethanol and biodiesel
into the marketplace to speed decarbonization of the vehicle
transportation sector. Does the Administration intend to use funding
proposed in the American Jobs Plan for biofuel infrastructure?
Answer. Although the EPA is best suited to respond to this
question, we offer the following short comments. Under the Obama
Administration, I helped launch the Biofuels Infrastructure Program,
which served as the model of the USDA's current program, the Higher
Blends Infrastructure Incentives Program. The USDA is looking closely
at the outcomes of this program and determining what future investments
will be needed to promote the sale of higher blend fuels. As
legislative initiatives begin to make progress through both chambers of
Congress relating to the American Jobs Plan, USDA stands ready to
assist efforts to include biofuel related infrastructure in those
legislative initiatives.
edible oils
Question. I have heard concerns from food producers in my state
about the growing cost and limited supplies of edible oils--both plant
and animal oils and fats that are used in manufacturing human and pet/
animal food. As renewable and biodiesel production continues to grow,
those facilities are demanding increased volumes of edible oils for
fuel production, causing as much as a doubling of the prices for things
like canola oil and chicken fat in just a year's time. In the short-
term, this will increase costs for consumers, at a time when demands
snaps back following the pandemic and inflation is an increasing
concern. In the long-term, it may lead to shortages that will continue
to increase input prices and may result in a need to import soybeans
and other inputs into the United States. Is the USDA aware of the
growing market challenges affecting edible oils?
Answer. Vegetable and animal fats oil markets, including processing
of those oils for edible (food) use, are complex markets with strong
interactions with domestic and global markets.
The USDA closely tracks edible oil markets as part of our broader
market intelligence efforts as reflected in the World Agricultural
Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report released each month. This
principal Federal economic indicator (PFEI) work takes a comprehensive
view of these markets including both supplies of vegetable oils and the
demand by users. We have been tracking both vegetable oil prices and
the strong rise in the price of refining those oils for consumption.
Approximately 40 percent of the rise in edible refined soybean oil
prices, for example, have been a result of constraints on soybean oil
refining capacity.
Question. What steps can the Department take to assure that
supplies of edible oil remain available at reasonable prices for
American food producers?
Answer. The majority of the food dollar expense occurs beyond the
farm gate and is significantly influenced by labor and transportation
costs. We continue to monitor and inform on the dynamics of
agricultural and food markets, including vegetable and edible oils
markets, and have a standing effort to address supply chain disruptions
or bottlenecks which contribute to food prices.
Question. Are there policy steps you might recommend assuring an
equitable balance between fuel and food markets?
Answer. The food and fuel markets are complex and involve numerous
interactions at the crop, oilseed crush, and edible refining level.
Shifting pandemic demand and supply chain disruptions have further
impacted these markets. Robust domestic and trade demand for U.S.
commodities, both crops and livestock, are tighter than previously
anticipated. Supplies for many commodities and disruptions along the
supply chain have affected prices and availability of products.
These disruptions, including reduced available slaughter capacity,
resulted in lower supplies of meats and animal fats, increased
transportation costs and shipping challenges, shifts in transportation
energy use, and shifts in consumer food demand based in part on where
they are consuming the food they eat have all impacted the edible oil
markets. We continue to see the market respond to these signals as both
farmers and supply chains respond to pricing signals.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
conservation reserve program climate benefits
Question. Last month, USDA announced a $10 million initiative to
quantify the benefits of CRP contracts. Idling productive farmland
sends a market signal to U.S. competitors to plant more acres or plant
more aggressively. For example, as one of the world's largest exporters
of soybeans and beef, Brazilian farmers have plowed under more than
half of the largest savanna on the continent. Idling productive acres
here makes U.S. farmers less competitive and can lead to practices
abroad with negative environmental impacts.
When quantifying the climate benefits of a land idling program like
CRP, will this initiative consider the carbon emissions that occur as
other countries increase production to seize U.S. market share?
Answer. This effort will focus on quantifying the carbon
sequestration benefits of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) tree,
grass, and wetland practices, which are targeted to environmentally
sensitive agricultural land.
conservation stewardship program climate benefits
Question. Will USDA similarly undertake an initiative to measure
the climate benefits of working lands conservation programs like the
Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program?
Answer. NRCS recently provided technical assistance to the Farm
Service Agency on a soil sampling protocol to measure carbon
sequestration benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). As an
extension of these efforts, NRCS will expand the soil carbon sampling
efforts piloted on CRP contracts to also include NRCS working lands
programs. This project includes assessments of impacts as lands move in
and out of CRP. The work and partnerships developed through this
project will directly support USDA's long-term ability to monitor and
assess greenhouse gas mitigation and carbon sequestration on working
lands, including through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).
For some time, NRCS has been working with Colorado State University
and other Land-Grant Universities to develop a Carbon Management
Evaluation Tool, known as COMET. Since its recent release, more than
4,200 visitors have already explored the new online COMET-
FarmTM tool to learn how they can become part of the climate
change solution. COMET helps producers to estimate how much carbon they
can sequester with the installation of a conservation practice, or a
system of conservation practices.
In addition to COMET, the agency continues to lead the world in
natural resource research through its Conservation Effects Assessment
Project (CEAP) collaborations with Land-Grant Universities using a
unique geospatial sampling network of over 800,000 sampling points
across the United States. CEAP collaboration efforts are some of the
most scientifically defensible endeavors for estimating the impact of
conservation investments from the Federal government, and beyond.
Additionally, NRCS deployed a new tool in fiscal year 2020 known as
the Conservation Assessment and Ranking Tool (CART). CART established a
common frame of reference for collecting existing conditions across the
landscape, along with planned conditions with the installation of
conservation practices and presenting this for every single
conservation practice installed consistently. Last year, NRCS clients
installed over 1.4 million conservation practices; and we now have a
quantitative means to estimate the impact of every single practice in
ways we have never been able to do before. Once calibrated with CEAP,
and other natural resource research, these data will become the gold-
standard for carbon, and a host of other environmental markets for NRCS
clients, and all landowners installing conservation practices.
The USDA is working across programs to identify the most effective
conservation activities for climate smart agriculture. We have
identified 27 conservation practices as benefiting climate change
mitigation, including ensuring that the benefits of these practices can
be quantified, and outcomes are science based. The agency is evaluating
our remaining conservation practices associated with efforts to help
our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and woodland owners adapt to, be more
resilient to, and mitigate against the impacts of climate change.
conservation reserve program rental rates
Question. The 2018 farm bill limited CRP rental rates to no more
than 85 percent of the county rental rate for general sign-up and no
more than 90 percent of the county rental rate for continuous sign-up.
However, USDA announced it would make a 10 percent ``inflationary''
adjustment to these rental rates. Does USDA's announcement effectively
mean that these rental rates have increased to 95 percent for general
and 100 percent for continuous, beyond the limit set by the 2018 Farm
Bill?
What legal authority did USDA use to for the inflationary
adjustment to rental rates?
Answer. The inflationary factor is simply being reinstated after
several years of not being applied. The Farm Bill required reductions
(85 percent and 90 percent) are done after the adjustment.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Baldwin. [Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., Tuesday, June
15, the hearing was adjourned, and the subcommittee was
recessed, to reconvene at a time subject to the call of the
Chair.]