[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.]