[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m. in Room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tammy Baldwin (chairwoman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Baldwin, Feinstein, Tester, Leahy,
Heinrich, Hoeven, Collins, Blunt, Moran, Hyde-Smith, and Braun.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. VILSACK, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MR. JOHN RAPP, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN
Senator Baldwin. I am going to call the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies to
order.
Good morning, and welcome to the second budget hearing for
this subcommittee for fiscal year 2023.
Secretary Vilsack, welcome back, and thank you for joining
us. And Mr. Rapp, we welcome you here too. We are glad to have
both of you here today.
The Department of Agriculture's vast mission includes
ensuring the health and care of our Nation's land, plants, and
animals, as well as improving the quality of life and economies
in rural America. The Department serves Americans at the
county, state, and national level with even more locations
overseas. We are grateful for the work of the USDA employees
that support our farmers and ranchers at home and abroad.
The fiscal year 2023 Budget Request for USDA is ambitious,
and I am pleased that this request continues investments in
climate resilience, as well as support for our rural economies.
It also includes funds to ensure that socially and
geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers are able to
access the services and opportunities that are essential to
their success.
I look forward to discussing these initiatives, among the
many others included in your budget request. I am also pleased
the budget continues to invest in programs that support our
rural communities, the backbone of this country.
Rural development includes significant increases from
broadband, to housing, to water, and wastewater infrastructure.
As inflation drives up home ownership opportunities and rental
prices it is essential that we ensure rural Americans have
access to affordable housing. I am pleased to see a number of
proposed increases for rural housing programs.
One issue that I know is important to both of us, Mr.
Secretary, is ensuring USDA employees have the resources they
need to get the job done. We spoke last week about some of the
staffing challenges you face, and I hope we can have a good
discussion this morning about solving this problem, and how
this subcommittee can be helpful.
This subcommittee has a long tradition of bipartisanship,
and I look forward to working with our Ranking Member as we
begin the process of drafting the fiscal year 2023 Bill.
Again, thank you for being here this morning. I look
forward to your testimony.
And as he has not yet arrived, I think we will recognize
Ranking Member Hoeven as soon as he does appear. But why don't
we begin right now with your testimony and at the conclusion of
that we can recognize the Ranking Member.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. VILSACK
Secretary Vilsack. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and I
certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning,
and appreciate the attention of the committee members as well.
Let me start with a very important, and I think significant
statistic about the AG appropriations process. Non-defense
discretionary spending over the last eight or 9 years has grown
by 27.4 percent across all departments, while the USDA's
discretionary budget has grown about 14.3 percent, roughly
half.
And essentially what this has done is it has created some
challenges with reference to the Department, and I appreciate
the Chair's commenting on two of the three that I am going to
discuss today.
You mentioned the issue of staffing. Madam Chair, I will
tell you, this is a serious issue for us, and when you look at
our nutrition programs we have seen a doubling of the amount of
resources that goes through those programs, but we have seen
the workforce at FNS be cut by 25 percent.
When we talk about rural development, the department that
basically is in the mission areas that is in charge of 3,142
rural counties across the United States, 15 percent of
America's population, roughly 75 percent of America's land
mass, deals with 30- to $40 billion in loans and grants each
and every year, oversees a significant portion of the $230
billion loan portfolio that we have at USDA, but it is short
about 500 workers.
And when we take a look at the backroom operations of USDA,
the departmental administration, we have seen a nearly doubling
of procurement responsibilities in that department, but the
workforce has been cut by 43 percent. So I think it is
essential and necessary for us to talk about the staffing
levels at USDA. I think it is also necessary for us to talk
about research. While health care research has, understandably,
grown significantly by as much as 400 percent over the last
decade, research in the AG area has flatlined after you take
inflation into consideration.
At one point in time it represented 4.3 percent of the
overall non-defense research allocations and appropriations for
the Federal Government, today it is 2.3 percent. So it has been
literally cut in half. This, despite the fact that for every
dollar we invest in agricultural research there is a return of
investment of $17. And I would say that--most would say that is
a pretty good return on investment.
So our hope would be that as we talk about the budget that
we focus on the important role of agricultural research.
And you mentioned rural housing. That is also a challenge.
We appreciate the additional support and help that this
committee has provided in this space, but the reality is that
we continue to struggle to maintain adequate housing. And we
are going to see, over time, a significant reduction in the
number of units as loans are paid off.
Essentially what happens is those units convert from being
subsidized to being available at market rates. So we are
encouraging this committee to take a look at ways in which we
could decouple the mortgage--the interest rates, and the
mortgage and the loan from the subsidization, so that we would
continue to be able to provide additional units, and also
investing in their rehab of existing units so that the housing
is not only available, but also decent.
And in the time that I have remaining, Madam Chair, let me
talk about something that is really of concern to me, that is a
bit outside the purview of this particular Department but it
is--of this budget committee, but it is something I think we
all ought to be concerned about.
There are 61,670 farm families in America today that are on
the brink, 61,670 farm families that are either delinquent in
their loans to USDA, are bankrupt, or are pending foreclosure.
This is a serious issue that--and I am pretty confident that
every single member of this committee probably has a number of
those 61,000 farmers living in their states.
It is important and necessary for us to put a spotlight on
the challenges. Now, these are people who have borrowed from
USDA, or who have had a guaranteed loan from USDA, which means
that they haven't been able, on their own, to go to a
commercial bank and be able to secure financing. So these are
folks who need help, they need assistance.
I have represented farmers during the 1980s as a small town
lawyer, I can tell you the pain, I can tell you the stress, I
can tell you that the decisions that folks make under these
circumstances. I can tell you of very tragic decisions that
they make under these circumstances. So I would hope that as we
talk about the future of agriculture in this country, that we
don't lose sight of those 61,670 farm families.
They deserve our attention, they deserve some creative
thought about how we might be able to assist them during this
pandemic-stricken time, and I sincerely hope that we can work,
collaboratively, together in a bipartisan way to make sure that
they have a hopeful future, as opposed to one that is currently
stress-filled today.
I see the Ranking Member is here, and so I am going to stop
talking.
[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 2023
budget for USDA.
Under the President's leadership, America is building back better.
We have begun to turn the tide on the pandemic and our country has made
historic progress in the face of unprecedented challenges. With Putin's
price hike affecting American families at the pump and at the grocery
store, we are pulling out all stops to tackle inflation. At the same
time, economic indicators are overwhelmingly positive. We created more
than 6.5 million jobs in 2021, the most our country has ever recorded
in a single year. Our economy grew at 5.7 percent, the strongest growth
in nearly 40 years. The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.8 percent,
the fastest decline in recorded history. This progress was not an
accident. It is a direct result of President Biden's strategy to combat
the pandemic and grow our economy from the bottom up and the middle
out.
The fiscal year 2023 Budget details the President's vision to
expand on this Administration's progress and commitments to the
American people and recognizes the historic investments that Congress
has made through the American Rescue Plan and the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act. This Budget begins to reinvest in USDA's long
overlooked workforce through investments in staff and technology, as
well as the foundations of our country's strength: education, research,
food security, safe and affordable housing, and productive lands. These
are all areas that for far too long their funding has been stagnant or
nearly level. The work proposed by this budget will spur new job
creation and opportunities in rural America; help build resilience in
the food supply chain and restore America's advantage in agriculture;
leverage all of USDA's expertise to address climate change; and support
a stronger nutrition safety net.
The President's Budget for 2023 for USDA programs within this
subcommittee is $189 billion, of which approximately $165 billion is
mandatory funding and $24 billion is net discretionary funding. It
gives USDA a new set of tools and builds on our existing capabilities
to address the urgent challenges of our time-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 Budget is
not a wish list, it is a to do list. The challenges of our time and our
ability to address those, require serious investments in USDA agencies
and operations, non-action or continued underinvestment has significant
and immediate implications for the United States of America.
rebuilding rural america
It is no surprise when I say the 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 work closely with rural America and empower communities to take the
reins as they rebuild their economies, workforces, and infrastructure
to create more opportunities for a circular economy where wealth is
created and stays in rural areas.
It has been said that Rural Development can build a town from the
ground up. The essence of that statement is that USDA Rural
Development, when well-resourced and well- staffed, 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.
Beyond improvements to the quality of life, these investments attract
new businesses, create a greater sense of pride in the community, and
allow rural America to prosper.
To bring these outcomes to reality, the Budget proposal increases
funding for Rural Development by $935 million, including critical
increases for combatting climate change. Funding includes $1.773
billion for USDA multifamily housing programs, an increase of $256
million over the 2022 enacted level. This significant investment would
start to reverse chronic defunding of these programs and help address
housing insecurity and rent burdens in rural communities. This funding
will be prioritized for projects that improve energy or water
efficiency or facilitate climate resilience. Additionally, the Budget
proposes $1.5 billion in loan level for low-income single family
housing loans, an increase of $250 million, and proposes a critical
increase of $204 million for Rural Development to revitalize its
staffing and technological capacity. The Budget also increases USDA's
investment in expanding rural broadband service to put rural America on
a long-term path to economic success. The Budget includes $600 million
for ReConnect, an increase of $200 million in new competitive funding
over the 2022 enacted level, to provide flexible loans and grants to
deploy broadband to unserved areas. This investment also builds on the
$2 billion of funding provided by Congress in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act.
The President's Budget proposes $727 million in budget authority
and $1.5 billion in loan level for USDA's Water and Wastewater Grant
and Loan Program. This includes a new $100 million in set aside funding
for lead pipe replacement in rural households, and $140 million in loan
level for the most economically distressed communities with borrower
interest rates offered at one and zero percent. This is an increase of
$73 million over the 2022 enacted level and is a key investment in safe
drinking water and sanitary waste disposal systems, which 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 much needed access to clean
drinking water.
supporting nutrition for the nation
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 that 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
priorities.
We know that the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (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. Continuing the
bipartisan commitment to full funding, the Budget requests $6 billion
for WIC to serve an estimated 6.25 million moms, infants, and young
children per month in FY23. It also proposes to continue the enhanced
Cash Value Benefits (CVB) through 2023 to provide participants with
increased benefits to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. This ensures
that all participating women and children have access to the
scientific-based recommended level of fruits and vegetables.
SNAP is the primary source of nutrition assistance for many low-
income people and research has shown that participation in SNAP reduces
food insecurity and allows families to have healthier diets. Healthier
diets are known to lead to better health outcomes and, in the long-
run, lower health care costs. In 2023, participation is estimated to
increase to an average level of 43.5 million participants per month
from 42.3 million in 2022. While participation is expected to increase,
the overall cost of the program is actually expected to decrease by
more than $29 billion. The decrease is primarily due to the expected
expiration of emergency allotment (EA) payments that have been provided
during fiscal years 2020 through 2022. Those EA payments and other
program waivers are anticipated to continue for the length of the
Public Health Emergency, likely through the majority of fiscal year
2022.
Child nutrition programs, such as the National School Lunch
Program, School Breakfast Program, Summer Food Service Program, and
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, play a crucial role in ensuring that
children receive nutritious meals and snacks that promote health and,
educational readiness. When students participate in school meals
programs, their behavior, comprehension, and attendance improve. The
meals children receive prepare them for learning and shape their food
choices and health outcomes as adults. Providing healthy, nutritious,
and appropriate food choices can decrease obesity rates, and will
reduce food insecurity and result in better health outcomes. To better
support this work this Budget funds the Child Nutrition Programs,
through new appropriations and prior year balances, at a level that
will allow for the anticipated increases in participation and food cost
inflation. The Budget projects serving 5.6 billion lunches and snacks
(an increase of about 350 million over the current estimate for 2022)
and 2.7 billion breakfasts in schools, 2.2 billion meals in child and
adult care programs, and 145 million meals through the Summer Food
Service Program.
Mounting evidence supports the effectiveness of USDA nutrition
education and promotion efforts to improve knowledge and catalyze
healthier behaviors. Still, USDA faces multiple challenges in our
efforts to deliver effective and cohesive nutrition education across
programs. The Budget seeks funding for a new initiative to build and
broaden Food and Nutrition Service' (FNS) capacity to deliver effective
nutrition education and promotion to all Americans within existing
program structures by supporting research and evaluation of effective
strategies; leveraging partnerships with States, local, and
nongovernmental organizations; targeting underserved communities with
culturally appropriate resources and interventions; and improving
public access to USDA's nutrition education resources.
The Budget also invests in the vital functions of FNS to deliver on
this ambitious agenda.
While Federal funds managed by FNS have increased dramatically, as
much as 70 percent in recent years, the staffing levels have decreased.
The Budget proposes significant investments in FNS to ensure the agency
can provide the appropriate level of 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
USDA research influences every program that we implement, and it is
incredibly important to deepen our support for the organizations that
conduct and synthesize USDA studies and information. The share of total
food and agriculture research conducted by the U.S. government was
relatively stable at around 50 percent from 1970 to 2008. But, by 2013,
that share had fallen to under 30 percent. That's a significant
difference since private R&D tends to focus on commercial applications
(and only a few major crops and livestock markets) while the public
sector is still responsible for much of the fundamental research that
creates the building blocks for major agricultural innovations.
Fundamental work conducted by public R&D, in areas like food safety,
animal health, specialty crops, water quality and human health, benefit
society more broadly but may offer potentially lower monetary returns
or nonmarket benefits.
Between 1948 and 2019, total agricultural output in the United
States grew by 142 percent. This rise was not due to increases in
agricultural land or labor-in fact, both inputs declined over the
period. The productivity stemmed from the adoption of a whole suite of
innovations and technology transfer in crop and livestock breeding,
nutrient use, pest management, farm practices, and farm equipment and
structures. These innovations are the fruits of publicly funded
agricultural R&D.
That is why this Budget proposes an increase of over $355 million
for a total of $4.05 billion for USDA's research, education, and
economics programs. This investment is critical to addressing the
mounting hunger and nutrition insecurity crises, strengthening and
building markets for farmers and producers, and addressing the impacts
of climate change. This Budget includes increasing the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) Agriculture Food Research
Initiative (AFRI) to $564 million, an increase of $119 million over
2022 enacted to include broad emphasis on rural circular economies
through clean energy technologies and climate-smart agriculture and
forestry. These investments complement proposed increases for the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to expand research to fully
understand the myriad aspects of climate change drivers and impacts,
and to strategically develop approaches that can help mediate climate
change and its impacts on agriculture, our rural economy, ecosystem
services, and the quality of our natural resources.
Finally, the Budget proposes investments in USDA's research
agencies to rebuild both capacity and credibility after years of staff
losses. In fiscal Year2021, the Research, Education, and Economics
Mission Area was successful in hiring above their fiscal Year2020
staffing levels, but they are still significantly understaffed to
address the current and emerging challenges noted above.
combating climate change
Climate change presents real threats to U.S. agricultural
production, forest resources, and rural economies. Producers and land
managers across the country are experiencing climate impacts on their
operations through shifting weather patterns and increasingly frequent
and severe storms, floods, drought, and wildfire. 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 to support our
producers and land managers across the country.
Farmers, ranchers, and foresters can lead the way with tackling the
climate crisis through the adoption of voluntary and farmer friendly
incentive-based climate-smart agricultural and forestry practices. That
is why this Budget proposes $1 billion for Conservation Operations to
support producers and landowners in undertaking voluntary conservation
and climate-smart practices on agricultural lands that will improve the
profitability and resilience of producers and reduce emissions.
The Budget proposes $20 million for the Healthy Forests Reserve
Program to enroll private lands and acreage owned by Indian Tribes for
the purpose of restoring, enhancing, and protecting forestland to
enhance carbon sequestration, improve plant and animal biodiversity,
and promote recovery of endangered and threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act.
The Budget proposes to enhance the Equity Conservation Cooperative
Agreements, begun in 2021, with an additional $50 million, bringing
total funding for this initiative to $100 million. The Agreements are
2-year projects that expand the delivery of conservation assistance for
climate-smart agriculture and forestry to farmers and ranchers who are
beginning, limited resource, historically underserved and/or veterans.
This will allow for important outreach and promotion of inclusive
outcomes in a collaborative approach. Another critical investment in
the Budget is $21 million to support and expand NRCS's greenhouse gas
measure, monitor, report, and verify efforts as well as efforts to
increase internal capacity related to climate change science. The
budget also includes additional funds for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), to increase the delivery of science-based
conservation planning and technical assistance that supports the needs
of producers seeking to implement voluntary conservation practices that
can have technical, climate, financial, and economic benefits for their
farms.
The Budget also provides $300 million in new funding to support de-
carbonization of the electric grid to meet the Administration's goal of
zero carbon electricity by 2035. Specifically, grants and loan
modifications will be used to encourage rural carbon pollution free
electricity, with the greatest benefit going to the optimal combination
of carbon reductions and need.
Increasing annual funding for the Rural Energy for America grant
program will assist agricultural producers and rural small businesses
to purchase or install renewable energy systems or make energy
efficiency improvements, as well as funding to State, Tribal, or local
governments, institutions of higher education, rural electric
cooperatives, and public power entities or councils for energy audits
or renewable energy development assistance to rural small businesses or
agricultural producers.
In addition to combatting climate change, this Budget also helps us
react to the implications of a changing climate as we respond to the
prevalence and spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD) as well as the
spread of invasive plants, pests, and other diseases which are moving
at an unprecedented speed. The Budget calls for an investment of $6
million for the Civilian Climate Corps within our Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) to address issues related to invasive
species control and climate change and an increase of $3 million to
research the implications of climate change on the pervasiveness of
CWD.
focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion
Building a better America means bringing people of all backgrounds
and lived experiences to be a part of a healthy, safe and inclusive
workplace--from ensuring we are recruiting the best and the brightest
across our great country to investing in our employees through
recognition, wellness programs, and support to our employees, including
LGBTQ+, veterans, employees with disabilities and employees from
historically underserved communities, ensuring they have the equipment
they need, and access to promotions, learning and development and
retirement with a great sense of achievement. And building a better
America is about ensuring all people have equal access to USDA
opportunities, which demands that we design and implement our policies
and programs with our diverse customers at the center. The fiscal
Year2023 Budget focuses on building a USDA that is a model employer and
a great place to work, proposes investments that remove barriers to
accessing USDA programs, and addresses historic gaps with respect to
who benefits from USDA programming.
One long-standing barrier preventing farmers from benefitting from
USDA programs is heirs' property, which refers to when family land is
inherited without a will or legal documentation of ownership. Heirs'
property has historically been challenging to heirs because of their
belief that they cannot get a farm number without proof of ownership or
control of land. Though those affected are in all geographic and
cultural areas, many Black farmers and other groups who have
experienced historic discrimination, have heir's property. This Budget
requests $62 million for the Heirs Property Relending Program to assist
heirs in resolving ownership and succession issues on farmland with
multiple owners. Examining barriers to heirs' property owners is a part
of a broad USDA effort to revising policies to be more equitable.
To better use the research and development capacity at Minority
Serving Institutions (MSIs), this Budget proposes nearly $315 million
with almost $227 million going toward Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, which includes the 1890 Land Grant Institutions. The
Budget also supports preparing more Hispanic Americans for careers in
agricultural science and agribusiness through important investments in
the Hispanic Serving Institutions Education Partnerships Grants
Program. The Budget includes a 120 percent increase above 2022 enacted
levels for Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program, to allow the
program to serve the demand from 1994 Land-grant Institutions more
fully and effectively.
Ensuring that all rural communities are made aware of and
encouraged to participate in USDA programs, this Budget proposes $39
million to sustain and expand the Rural Partners Network (previously
known as StrikeForce) authority. The Rural Partners Network will
provide targeted training, technical assistance, and outreach to
distressed communities including energy communities in rural America
through an all-of-government approach and support more strategic
community engagement, facilitate regional coordination among Federal
agencies to share best practices, braid Federal resources, and foster
collaboration with local and State partners. This work follows through
a commitment the President made when he came to office--we must invest
in America's heartland in a meaningful way.
making usda a strong, modern organization and a best place to work
Nearly 100,000 strong and with a budget of more than 200 billion,
you would expect- and hope-that USDA has a robust operational core: An
operational core that has top notch human capital and administrative
staff and offices that can support and provide critical guidance given
the anticipated retirements, need to hire and hire in a vastly
competitive climate, and focus on having cultures and workplaces that
demonstrate a commitment to the employees. I have made it a priority to
make USDA a Best Place to Work. We have prioritized creating a diverse,
inclusive, equitable and accessible workplace; engaging and supporting
our employees in meaningful ways; recruiting the next generation of
USDA staff and leaders. However, we are challenged because more often
than not USDA's 'staff offices' operate on shoe-string budgets and with
staffing levels that dwarf the responsibility USDA offices bear.
An analysis of staffing levels since 2008 indicates that the
communications shop, for example, has been whittled down from 85 to
fewer than 50 people today--and the work as well as the importance to
message to the American people about services, benefits and programs as
well as to rebuild trust in our Federal institutions is more important
than ever. Our Office of Contracting and Procurement is a fraction of
the size it needs to be to oversee the contracting offices throughout
the Department. USDA obligates $10 billion on contracts annually, and
this Budget requests funds to ensure a larger staff and sound
succession plan are in place to provide strong leadership over
contracting and procurement throughout USDA. You might expect an agency
of the size and scale of USDA to have a robust training division--a
team focused on workplace wellness, employee engagement and recruiting
the next generation of USDA staff and leaders in rural America. But
you'd be wrong. Our Budget proposes to increase USDA's Office of Human
Resource Management by 31, compared to the current staff of just 87
staff. These increases will help us leverage the HR work that we do
with the Mission Areas and build a best- in-class operation for our
nearly 30 agencies and offices that employ about 100,000 people.
Year after year, USDA staff have taken on more and more work to
meet our complex mission and new directives from Congress. But without
commensurate increases in staff support, it positions us for greater
risk and creates a culture of siloes where we must find ways internally
to fund these necessary functions. While our mission areas, agencies,
and specific programs have often drawn greater interest and funding
increases from Congress, the FY23 budget proposes an initial set of
steps to build back a robust operational core within USDA. Doing this
right will take time and focus over the course of multiple years, but
it couldn't be more important. In addition to the programs that the
public relies on and subcommittee and Congress generously fund, I
implore you to also concentrate on the critical needs of organizational
abilities and operations management that ensure our staff are properly
supported and our programs are delivered efficiently, effectively, and
with integrity.
The fiscal year 2023 Budget lays out a plan for USDA to build on
the early progress and commitments of this Administration, build back
our workforce, and implement the historic legislation passed in the
past year while tackling critical issues within the food supply chain,
the impacts of climate change, and the pressures on our public and
private lands. As I stated at the beginning of my testimony, the Budget
is not a wish list, it is a to do list and USDA needs the support of
this subcommittee and of Congress to make the much-needed investments
called for in the President's fiscal Year2023 Budget. I look forward to
working with this subcommittee and to answering any questions you may
have about our Budget proposals.
Senator Baldwin. Senator Hoeven.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN HOEVEN
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you,
Secretary, for joining us today. Good to see you. Appreciate
our conversation earlier; and of course your testimony today.
Welcome back in front of the committee.
I have heard you say before that the Department of AG
touches the lives of all Americans every day, and in every way
and that is certainly true. Probably more true now than ever.
Really current events highlight the importance of our food
supply, and the importance of what our farmers and ranchers do
for our country every single day. Food security is national
security, and our farmers provide the lowest cost, highest
quality food supply in the world.
Right now of course we are struggling with inflation. We
see it obviously for our farmers and ranchers, we see it for
consumers across the board, we see it in the prices that people
pay at the grocery store, we see it at the pump, today gasoline
hit a record price average across the country of about $4.40 a
gallon, right in that range.
And so we have got to find ways to produce more energy in
this country, to find ways to address the supply chain issues,
and the other challenges that are creating inflation. And our
farmers are a big part of that. They are seeing it in the price
that they pay, not only for fuel for their tractor, and other
equipment that they have to run every year to plant a crop, and
harvest a crop, but also, obviously, in fertilizer, and their
other inputs.
And so it is very important that we do everything we can in
terms of the Department of Agriculture, and as well as in the
energy patch to address these issues. And I know that you are
working hard on it, we need to continue to do that. And of
course we are making significant investments here in this AG
Appropriations Committee to make sure that you are able to do
that on behalf of our farmers.
Just in recent years, in Fiscal 2022, USDA programs
actually received an increase of 6.2 percent over the fiscal
year 2021 levels, and that included a funding increase of 6.5
percent for research, which has been amazing in terms of what
it has done for our farmers and ranchers, and their ability to
raise crops and animals across this Nation. I have seen it in
my own state. I know you have seen it in yours. It is truly,
truly remarkable.
Also the resources for the FSA are incredibly important too
to help get our farmers through drought, through floods,
through tough weather, tough prices, and in some cases trade
agreements that aren't fair, FSA has a major role to play in
keeping our farmers going.
I want to be sure that our commitment to support rural
America is as strong as ever. I know you share that. I know you
have got some ideas on how to do that, we do too, we will talk
about those this morning. Also, I want to make sure that the
funding that we have put in place for things like the Livestock
Emergency Relief Program, WHIP+ for our farmers, that those
funds get out to our farmers.
You and I have talked about that. We will talk about it
some more today. And I know you are coming up with some ideas
to expedite that, I appreciate that, and look forward to
working with you on it.
Thanks again for being here today. I appreciate it very
much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. We are going to now begin
rounds of five-minute questions. And I will begin.
Mr. Secretary, rural America has historically lagged behind
urban regions in educational attainment, poverty levels, and
overall well-being, and data shows that rural America has
recovered from the great recession at a slower pace than urban
America, which has major implications for rural America's
ability to adapt to the current economic and inflationary
trends. So I was excited to see USDA formally launch the Rural
Partners Network, which we provided initial funding for in the
fiscal year 2022 Appropriations Act.
Secretary, can you provide an update on how the Rural
Partners Network is being implemented, and how it will target
funding to distressed communities? Additionally, talk about the
fiscal year 2023 budget proposal of 39 million for this
initiative, and what additional resources will these funds
provide?
And lastly, which agencies at USDA and other departments
play a role in implementation of this initiative?
Secretary Vilsack. Madam Chair, this is I think a pretty
significant question you have asked. The Rural Partnership
Network is really designed to provide intensive care, and
direction, and focus on communities that have been persistently
poor, communities that have had a poverty rate in excess of 20
percent for more than 20 or 30 years.
They require folks on the ground, living, working raising
their own families in these communities, and then helping
community leaders and community building organizations access
the variety of programs that are available. We have started
this in five states, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, New
Mexico, and Arizona. We have targeted communities within each
of those five states. We are in the process of hiring staff
today who will actually live in communities within those states
that we have selected through a process, a data process, data-
driven process.
Those individuals will begin to identify programs, and
challenges, and projects, that folks are interested in
pursuing, and then they will work collaboratively with 13
Federal agencies, and three commissions who will have what are
called ``rural desk officers'' in each of those agencies; so
this is Transportation, HHS, Education, et cetera.
Those rural desk officers will be responsible for working
collaboratively with the folks on the ground in those five
states, in those communities, to identify the programs, and to
short-circuit, if you will, the process for applying for,
successfully, resources.
Our belief is, that by providing this intensive care, and
by providing an all-of-government approach, we will be in a
position to provide a meaningful progress, that folks will be
able to see, and that they will actually learn, if you will,
how to participate in Federal programs, and they will see a
Federal government that is working collaboratively with state
and local governments to make life better.
Our goal and hope is that we are able to expand this
program significantly, which is why we have asked for an
additional $39 million. This is going to, essentially, pay for
individuals who will be living in those communities, and
working in those communities, as well as state directors
overseeing those operations. It will also provide additional
training. We know that there is a significant amount of
training that is required for community leaders to understand
the processes that they have to go through in applying for
various grants.
So these resources will allow us to expand the program, we
have designated an additional five states, hopefully, to be
able to select by the end of this year, this fiscal year, and
with this additional resources we would be able to
significantly expand this effort across the United States in
places where we just have had poverty that just hasn't gone
away.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Have you identified these five
additional states? Or are you still in the process of that data
collection effort?
Secretary Vilsack. We have identified those five additional
states. And I am sorry, I know a few of them but I don't know--
I can't tell.
Senator Baldwin. You can follow up with that.
Secretary Vilsack. Actually I think Wisconsin happens to be
one of them.
Senator Baldwin. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. North Carolina happens to be one of
them, and I can't--I am sorry I can't remember the others.
Senator Baldwin. Please just follow up afterwards, that is
totally fine.
Next, I am going to recognize Senator Hoeven for your
questions, first round of questions.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Secretary, at the end of September we authorized
funding both for WHIP+, and for the livestock assistance. That
was about $10 billion, 750 million for what, you know, is
referred to as the Emergency Livestock Relief Program, and then
$10.23--excuse me--$9.23 billion that is actually available for
WHIP+. We have talked about both, not only with you, but with
Zach Ducheneaux.
We appreciate the working relationship. The emergency
livestock relief assistance is out there for the livestock
producers, about 560 million of it. The remaining part I know
you are working on, we will work with you on that, we
appreciate that; that is underway.
But I want to ask you about WHIP+. Where are we with WHIP+
and in getting it out to our farmers?
Secretary Vilsack. I appreciate the support from Congress.
Senator, we are in the process of finalizing the work that will
allow us to pre-fill the application that will be required for
farmers to benefit from the WHIP+ Program. In the past there
were roughly 250 questions that would be asked of a farmer to
be answered, to be able to apply for WHIP funding.
We are going to pre-fill that application, so at the end of
the day it will be just a handful of boxes that have to be
checked, and signed. Our hope and belief is that within the
next couple of weeks, we announce the structure and the
framework for how you go about applying for these resources so
that payments can, potentially, start in June.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah. And what you have explained to me,
and I appreciate, is that it has taken longer on the frontend
to get it set, but that once you announce it, it will be
quicker to get it out, correct?
Secretary Vilsack. Correct. And we are going to do this in
two tranches. You mentioned the livestock situation, $560
million has been provided, the additional resources will be
provided in a second tranche, for those that the folks that
aren't--that weren't covered by Livestock Forage Program, or
they had shallow losses, or they had a loss that wasn't quite
covered by some of those programs.
Senator Hoeven. Right.
Secretary Vilsack. What we have done is we have taken the
information and data from those programs, like Crop Insurance,
like the NAP Program, and we pre-fill these applications for
the grain folks. There may be people who will be left out in
that process as well, so there will be a smaller second round
of funding after the June payments.
Senator Hoeven. And once it is out, we would like you to
have somebody get out there with us, and talk to the livestock
groups, or in this case the commodity groups, the farm groups,
so we can explain it, if that would--if that is something that
you would work with us to do.
Secretary Vilsack. Absolutely. And our state folks will
continue to do this at a state level, our state directors that
is part of their responsibility to make sure people understand
about this.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah. And we want to join with them in
doing that so we can explain it to producers. Livestock
Indemnity Program, again, we appreciate that, we have had
blizzards, we have had some calf mortality, not only in our
state but other places. So the Livestock Indemnity Program,
very important this year.
One of things we talked about, and that is for calves under
250 pounds, which is typically where you have a lot of the
mortality in these spring blizzards, that payment rate for 2022
really is not reflective of the cost of those animals. And I
have asked if you would work on adjustment there. And then also
making sure that for animals that get sick because of that
weather, they may not die right away, but they get anthrax,
pneumonia, or something else, and then they die later, that
that they are--you know, that the Livestock Indemnity Program
applies to those animals. So would you address those two things
under that program?
Secretary Vilsack. Sure. Actually we are focusing on those
two, plus the issue of timeliness, so those are three issues
that we are taking a look at. The payment rate is obviously a
challenging one, because it is essentially, we have tried to
marry the livestock program to--what kind of what we do on the
crop side, where essentially we take a look at a less than
market weight, as being almost like a freshly sewn crop, and
comparing it, and contrasting it to that.
We are in the process of taking a look at this, because you
have raised the issue about what has happened in North Dakota,
and we are taking a look at this. We are also taking a look at
the cause of loss, recognizing, as you point out, that it could
be delayed. There may be a problem that occurs initially during
a blizzard, whatever, but it doesn't surface until many, many
months later.
And we recognize and appreciate that may have an impact on
value, so both of those issues are being looked at by the team.
And we are also trying to figure out ways in which we could,
potentially, provide for more annual production information as
we do with crops, which might make it easier for us to have a
better understanding of how to value livestock at various times
depending upon the disaster, and depending upon weight.
As it is now we have to basically collect the stat on a
disaster-by-disaster basis, and that is problematic.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah I appreciate that. But it is
particularly that one category. So we are not saying cross off
categories, we are saying in that category 250 pounds and less,
so that is what we want you to take a look at, and I know you
understand that. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
I understand there is a special birthday today. Happy
Birthday, Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hoeven. Is this where we sing, or not?
Senator Leahy. No. I think that would ruin her birthday.
Senator Baldwin. Open to suggestions. It doesn't move you
up in the queue though. Sorry about that.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you Chair. I wished the Senator a
happy birthday earlier, and I said, I am glad to see these
young people here, in so far as everybody is in the Senate.
Secretary, it is great to see you. I appreciate all the
times we have been able to chat and good to see you.
And Secretary, I want to discuss a new initiative. I have
worked with Senators Baldwin, Hoeven, and Shelby to put in the
fiscal year 2022 Spending Bill for the Department, a new
investment for the Department which helped establish Institutes
of Rural Partnerships. Whether it was when Tropical Storm Irene
tore through Vermont, devastating and isolating so many
communities, or challenges brought out around the country with
COVID-19, Vermont is trying to find new ways to collaboratively
tackle these problems.
The Institutes for Rural Partnerships through the USDA can
help rural America plan for future challenges. That is a
priority of this committee, and they can forge connections
between public and private entities across every level of
government. And I think they are extremely important.
You, probably more than any, Mr. Secretary, understand
rural America. When do you anticipate the Department is going
to move forward with this initiative? How will USDA partner
with these institutes to promulgate best practices that can be
used in rural areas?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, our National Institute of Food
and Agriculture is our lead agency on this. They are in the
process of working with staff to make sure that we are
structuring this program in a way that is consistent with
congressional intent, and the feedback that we have recently
received about how these institutes should be set up. I foresee
that they will work closely and collaboratively with
missionaries like the Economic Research Service, ERS, to
collect data and information. I am sure that they work closely
with Rural Development to make sure that we know what kind of
programs.
As I have shared with the Chair, we have the Rural
Partnership Network, and I would imagine the institutes will be
quite interested in studying the impact and effect of those
partnerships. They will obviously continue to work with the
research aspect of USDA, so I think there is great
possibilities, and potential.
The challenge I think for us is to make sure we know
exactly what it is you want us to do because it could be an
incredibly broad array of things we could do, but that is the
reason why we are spending a little time listening but we are--
I would anticipate and expect that we are going to get this
thing going before the end of the fiscal year.
Senator Leahy. And one thing I am sure you are hearing from
everybody because of COVID, the food insecurity in our country.
I know our food banks in Vermont are feeling this. I think that
can probably be said about every state. Schools are now facing
the expiration of USDA child nutrition waivers that allowed
them to expand especially during the summer months.
I am pleased to see the administration propose increased
funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), a
vital source of funding for food banks, which I support. There
is another area, I know again--without being too parochial,
Vermont has been a leader in growing local and organic food,
but it is very difficult to get that included in Federal
nutrition programs such as TEFAP. Can we find ways to get
Federal dollars more involved in this?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we established a local and
regional food aspect of TEFAP this year, in which we are asking
the state agencies to work with us to provide, and we are
providing roughly $600 million as an initial effort, so that
food banks would be able to access locally grown and raised
foods, that could include organic.
So the State of Vermont, for example, could encourage that,
for both the food banks as well as for the school meal program.
And what we want to be able to do is create a stronger, local,
and regional food system that complement our commodity
production agriculture so that we have a more resilient food
system. So that is in the works.
Senator Leahy. Good. And we will work with you any way we
can. I just want to thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know the final
spending package for fiscal year 2022 saw a responsible, and I
believe very transparent, return to congressionally directed
spending. I want to applaud this subcommittee for the way they
worked, and worked across the aisle. I know you are working
with us on that, and I think you will find broad bipartisan
support to get it done. So I thank you. And I thank you, Chair.
Senator Baldwin. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Prior
to your confirmation we had an in-depth conversation that led
to my decision to vote for your confirmation. We discussed two
issues in particular, and I am going to follow up on those two
issues today, and express my disappointment.
The first is the issue of PFAS, those forever chemicals,
Maine is in the forefront of efforts to address contamination
on our farms from PFAS. I told you that in 2016 a dairy farmer
in Arundel, Maine, had discovered that the milk that was being
produced by his cattle contains some of the highest levels ever
reported from a PFAS contaminant.
Since that time these forever chemicals have been found in
feed, in soil, and water, in crops, in livestock, on farms all
across Maine. So this is obviously devastating for these
farmers, and their livelihoods, and their families, they are
facing extreme financial hardship, and we have learned that the
USDA's Dairy Indemnity Payment Program only covers fluid milk,
so it does not begin to cover all of the problems for these
dairy farmers, in particular.
In October last year I sent you a letter and asked you to
provide me with an update on what USDA could do to assist these
farmers. I received no response. Then in March, I again sent
you a letter that was signed by all the members of Maine's
delegation, requesting that USDA use all of its existing
authorities and programs to provide assistance.
Mr. Secretary, we received a response to that letter at
1:24 a.m. this morning. We never received a response to my
October letter, and the letter to you that we sent in March, we
got the response literally at 1:24 a.m. this morning.
Putting that aside. Will you work with us, and I mean
really work with us to identify programs that you either have
now, or that we could ask to be modified so that we can assist
these affected farmers?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I am surprised by your
question. And the reason I am is because I am under the
impression that we, in fact, are providing indemnity for
livestock as opposed to fluid milk. Recognize, we started this
process with just basically paying for the milk that was
damaged, and realized that that was not adequate, and so we are
in the process--I think we have done this, begin paying farmers
for the loss of livestock.
So I think we want to check on that but--so we have taken
action. Certainly apologize for not answering letters. I can
tell you the young lady behind me can attest to the fact that I
have put a concerted effort to try to get a response to
congressional inquiries. I am embarrassed by this, and I
apologize for it. We are going to try to do better on the
correspondence side, which is why you got the response at 1:48
this morning, better late than never, but certainly not
responsible as it should be.
The PFAS issue. Let me explain to you what I think we need
to do. We are working with EPA to try to establish a national
standard on what is an acceptable level, or not, of PFAS, and
the reason for this is so that we can, basically, help to
define the level of assistance and help that is required.
You are absolutely right. This is pervasive. It is not just
in Maine, it is everywhere, because basically sludge was used
to fertilize farm fields for many, many, many years without an
understanding and appreciation of the challenge.
So I would say two things, one, happy to work with you,
happy to work with the EPA to set a national standard, happy to
work with this committee, or whatever committee to establish an
amount of resources that would help deal with this issue. It is
going to be a large amount. And then I would certainly say, we
need to make sure we continue to fund research, because I think
we are going to continue to find some challenges with reference
to things that we have done for years, and years, and years
that are now cropping up as being problems.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I look forward to our second
round.
Senator Baldwin. Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary, last week President Biden announced a major
disaster declaration in New Mexico as a result of multiple,
severe wildfires, including one that was initiated by a U.S.
Forest Service prescribed fire that simply escaped control.
I want to make sure that the USDA is fully prepared to
assist affected communities, and mitigate potential flood
damages before this year's upcoming monsoon season which
starts, typically, in early July. The Emergency Watershed
Protection Program is going to be really essential in that
recovery.
The village of Ruidoso, which was subject to a wildfire
that caused several fatalities, destroyed over 200 homes, they
have already requested EWP assistance, and I am expecting that
a number of communities in northern New Mexico may do so soon.
My concern is really that the NRCS office in New Mexico has
just never had to deal with this quantity of EWP assistance
before, and may need additional personnel, or other resources
to be able to conduct those assessments and implement some
recovery on the ground before we get hit by those big
thunderstorms.
So just given the severity of the fire's destruction and
the upcoming monsoon season, I want to ask that you would work
with NRCS to make sure that they can meet that urgent need.
Secretary Vilsack. Happy to do it. And we are adding
additional personnel, Senator, across NRCS, to try to beef up
significantly capacities at the state level.
Senator Heinrich. That is great news. One of the other
areas that I think is going to be important, from the same sort
of perspective, is like EWP, other disaster programs within
Farm Service Agency, for example the Livestock Indemnity
Program, is going to be another one of those places where it is
just not set up for the scale of--you know, the demand that we
are going to see in the immediate after-effects of these fires.
And so I would also just ask that you look closely at FSA,
and make sure that they are able to get on the ground, and
really meet people in these communities, and get them to
understand what they need to do to access those sorts of
programs.
Secretary Vilsack. We will certainly do that. And if it
turns out that the staffing is not adequate, there are surge
teams that we can put in place. We, unfortunately, and
tragically have had far too much experience with this issue,
not just in New Mexico but in many other western states. So we
understand and appreciate what we have to do.
Senator Heinrich. No, I appreciate that. One of the related
issues I want to raise for you, and it actually goes back to
when you were talking about the Rural Partners Network, many of
the communities affected by these particular wildfires are
really under resourced, persistently poor, as I believe you
described it.
And because of the significant need for assistance in those
communities, the New Mexico delegation actually requested that
President Biden waive the Federal cost share for FEMA
assistance. I would like to be able to work with you to look at
the appropriate cost share for USDA disaster programs simply
because these are the exact same communities that--on the New
Mexico list that you referenced before that were barely getting
by before, they were just devastated by these fires. So would
like to be able to work with you to develop some guidelines for
what might be an appropriate cost share in this case.
Secretary Vilsack. That is an appropriate request, and to
the extent that we have the capacity through our regulations
and statutes to do so, we will be happy to work with you.
Senator Heinrich. Great. To shift gears for a second; on
last year's Agriculture Appropriations Bill, this subcommittee
encouraged USDA to conduct demonstration programs on dual-use
renewable energy systems, these are otherwise known as
agrivoltaics.
I wanted to ask, does USDA have enough funding for the
renewable energy infrastructure, and the research expertise to
really conduct some of these demonstration programs that we
have looked at through this committee?
Secretary Vilsack. Well I think it has the expertise, I
don't know that we necessarily have the resources. It is just
why part of what would be involved here would be NIFA, our
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, as well as our ARS
facilities, and I am frank to say we think that we need more
resources in those areas, across the board, not just in this
area, but in terms of staffing, in terms of facilities, and in
terms of the capacity to do more work with land-grant
universities.
Senator Heinrich. Madam Chair, I hope the committee will
look at this, as we have had a number of places around the
country where there has been a direct conflict between taking
land out of production to do renewable projects, and we have
seen great success in a few places where they have actually
been able to effectively produce energy and farm on the same
footprint, and increase the income for the farmer as a result.
And I think it has a lot of promise.
Senator Baldwin. Next, Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Chairwoman Baldwin.
And thank you, Secretary Vilsack, and Mr. Rapp for being
here today, and your willingness to serve and participate.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, the USDA, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the NRCS, assists state and local bodies
with flood mitigation, and water quality improvements, erosion
control, and several things related to that through the
watershed, and Flood Prevention Operations Program, which is
really important to a state like Mississippi.
Like many rural communities and landowners across the
country, Mississippi and its people have been hit particularly
hard in recent years by excessive rainfall, flooding and other
problems caused by natural disasters. The Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations Program has been invaluable in allowing
small towns to recover from these events and, importantly, to
prepare for the next one, because we know the next one will be
coming as well.
In early June 2021, many parts of Mississippi experienced
just unprecedented rainfall, some receiving more than 12 inches
of rain in less than 12 hours. My office was getting phone
calls all day, and videos, during that time. And, as you might
expect, it caused severe flooding, and the roads and bridges,
and failures of dams, and levees, and everything that such an
event as that would cause, and thousands of Mississippians were
affected, and millions in damages occurred.
Fortunately, we have programs like Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations administered by NRCS, but because of the
problems and similar problems I have mentioned, I requested 8.4
million in watershed operations funds in the fiscal year 2022
Agriculture Appropriations Bill for NRCS Mississippi, to help
address some of our challenges.
Funds were used to support nearly ten or more projects
across nine Mississippi counties. That provision became law
with the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2022.
And I thank Chair Baldwin and Ranking Member Hoeven for
supporting my request throughout that conference process. But
all along with my staff and many constituents, we have a great
respect, and don't know what we would do without the NRCS, and
we appreciate the many services that they provide.
But Mr. Secretary, what is the status of the Watershed and
Flood Prevention Operations Funding provided in that fiscal
year 2022 Omnibus? And I am looking for some feel-good news
that it is, you know, being put to very good use. But please
share any updates that you may have as to how the funds
provided by NRCS and Mississippi are, or will soon be utilized
to help rural communities and landowners addressing flood water
and these issues that I have just articulated?
Secretary Vilsack. With specifically, the $8.4 million, the
NRCS folks are working with the local sponsors of the projects
that were identified to basically work through the
implementation plan, so that process is in place. In addition,
the State of Mississippi was the recipient of $47.8 million of
additional resources under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of
the 500 million that was allocated under that law for watershed
and flood prevention operations, Mississippi receiving $47.8
million of additional resources.
So NRCS is working on a variety of projects in Mississippi.
My staff will be able to give you the list of the projects that
were identified in that 47.8 million. You know, we are working
on, for example, a big project with Madison County on a stream
bank erosion issue. We know that a lot of the sediment issues
in Mississippi are not a result of your losing your topsoil, it
is a result of the banks, basically, eroding and over time
creating some challenges.
And so I think you are going to see significant activity in
this space in the Mississippi because of the money and
resources that have been provided through the appropriations
process, and through the infrastructure law.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Wonderful. I appreciate that answer.
And I have got a few seconds left. Rural communities across
U.S., we will always be faced with these weather-related
challenges, and I was pleased that the fiscal year 2023 budget
request for USDA included the WFPO funding in it as well.
Should Congress provide funding to address project, or
watershed specific challenges through the WFPO in fiscal year
2023? How confident are you that the NRCS can put those funds
to good use?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am confident they can as long as
we continue to increase the staffing levels. I think the key
here is not just increasing the resources, but making sure that
you have got the staff on the ground that can implement these
resources in a proper way.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Great. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much Madam Chairman.
I just want to say you have a very tough job, to start
with. My understanding is that the west has become a real
problem for fire. Since 2017 wildfire has burned 10 million
acres in my state, California, killed nearly 200 people, and
destroyed more than 32,000 homes. Even as we speak I understand
that large wildfires are burning in New Mexico and Arizona.
So what do we do? The agencies have been chronically
understaffed, many Federal wildland firefighters are moving to
state jobs, particularly in my state because the pay is better.
So Mr. Secretary, I want to know what you think would help
most? Is it that rise in pay? What is it? Because we have got
to hire enough people to handle what is going to happen with
global warming? And that particularly goes for my state. And I
am very concerned.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, thanks for the question. I
think it is important for us to do two things--actually three
things. One, transition some of our part-time people to full-
time status, which would provide them additional pay and
benefits, and we are doing that we are literally transitioning
hundreds of firefighters.
Two, a new classification system for wildland firefighting,
we are in the process, as directed by Congress and the
President, we are in the process of working with the Department
of Interior and the Office of Personnel Management to develop a
new classification that will create a more competitive salary
scale for wildfire fighters.
And then three, we are going to continue to implement the
additional resources that were provided under the
Infrastructure Law to provide additional pay this year that
will allow us to be able to do a better job of recruiting and
retaining our workforce. So those three things are in the
process of being done, and I think you are going to see more
firefighters on the ground which is going to be absolutely
necessary, because we are not going to see an abatement of
these wildfires for some time.
Senator Feinstein. Well, in your recently released ten-year
strategy to address this crisis, you indicated your focus would
be on communities most at risk, and this is especially
important for more rural communities in California at the
Wildland Urban Interface. It is my understanding that your
fireshed map identified that many at-risk communities in
California are not near Federal lands, which means they won't
be eligible for most Forest Service funding for wildfire
mitigation.
How is the Department going to help rural communities,
especially those not adjacent to Federal land; to reduce their
risk and become more resilient?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, your support and the support of
others in the Senate for the passage of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law is a response to that question, because $1.5
billion of the resources that you allocated for the Forest
Service will be provided to state and local communities for
that very purpose, giving them the resources to be able to work
collaboratively with us.
It is collaboration, Senator. The fact that it may not be
on a particular map doesn't mean that we won't work with those
local communities, provide the technical assistance, direction,
and assistance. We do that all the time. But now we have the
resources, and we can give those local and state--states
resources to be able to provide more community preparedness,
more training, more support for their volunteer fire
departments, et cetera. So that $1.5 billion is incredibly
important.
Senator Feinstein. Well, you certainly have my support. And
I want to say, I think, you know, for the largest state in the
union my concern about fire in the last 10 years has just gone
straight up. I see these fires and I see what can happen, and I
really don't know what we can do to give you the resources to
put up those--the ability to stop big massive fire in our
state.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the ten-year fire mitigation
strategy is designed to do that, and certainly the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law was a start in terms of the financial
resources necessary.
But committees are going to have to continue to provide
that support over the next decade for us to see a significant
reduction in the risk, because we have hundreds of millions of
acres of dead trees as a result of pine bark beetle, and
climate. We have got a substantial amount of hazardous fuel
buildup that has to be addressed. It is going to require
resources. We have got them for the next couple of years. The
key will be to continue that effort over a ten-year period.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me ask this. I would be most
interested in helping with a plan if you have one, to see that
we can provide what we need to provide. I am really very
worried because California is extraordinarily dry, and fire is
a real enemy.
Secretary Vilsack. We will absolutely work with you,
Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Thanks, Madam Chairwoman.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Senator Blunt, you are next.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary, great to see you; and I think every appearance
may be some kind of record, because of your long service in
this job. And I am grateful that you have done that and
continue to be willing to do it.
You and I have talked about this before. I was a supporter
of relocating the headquarters of ERS and NIFA to another
location, that turned out to be in Kansas City, and of course I
was even more pleased with that. There was a report issued by
GAO that stated that the previous administration's decision to
relocate those agencies was not fully consistent with an
evidence-based approach.
You then pointed out, or the Department pointed out that
the GAO used metrics established after the relocation, and that
that was not exactly a fair analysis of what they would have
been looking at at the time. I have I have been to that
location recently, they are about to really come alive,
frankly, for the first time. A great space but highly
underutilized, because people have been working from home.
I am wondering, based on your previous role, and the
perspective you would have, if you have seen yet a way that
this move alters operations or applications. I think that
location with three-hour car drive from eight different land-
grant universities, which we thought was one of the principal
advantages you might have in the future. But are you seeing any
difference yet in operations there? Or what have you seen in
terms of filling job vacancies in that location?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we have a goal of about 750
people between the ERS facility and the NIFA Mission area. We
are about 650. We have seen about 450 folks who have been hired
in those two mission areas, so the hiring has been, I think,
robust. I think people are anxious and interested in working in
that environment.
You know, we have got some great people who work over
there, and they turn out the work, regardless of pandemics,
regardless of whatever the challenges may be. We had a morale
issue which we are dealing with, and I think as we hire more
folks, that issue, it becomes less, less of an issue.
The work is getting done, and it is getting done on time.
You know, the reality is that those agencies have great working
relationships with land-grant universities and minority serving
institutions all across America.
You know, I think I would say that as we look at this
concept the challenge I think is to do it in a way that
provides less disruption than the way it was handled before,
and I think there are ways to do that, and I think this is, you
know, I think we are going to see a lot of good work coming out
of that facility. I have no doubt about that.
Senator Blunt. Well, I appreciate that. And I think for
lots of reasons, cost of living, and other things, there are
reasons to look at other locations now as we think about
expanding here, or moving somewhere else. And I appreciate your
sense that what the impact on the current workforce, and how
you maybe transition is important there.
You know, those agencies, among others, really looking
carefully at world food need right now, and what happens as a
result of what is happening in Ukraine. What concerns do you
have, and what should the Department do? Should we make more
American acreage available for--in some foreseeable window that
might not be available otherwise? Or should we step back from
taking more acres offline as we try to figure out what happens
with this great food producing part of the world being so
impacted, in Africa, and other places that have benefited from
that raw, unprocessed food stuff being impacted?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I am traveling to Germany
tomorrow, and then to Poland in order to get a first-hand look
at the situation in Ukraine. We have a twin challenge here. We
have got an immediate global food security challenge by virtue
of the disruption that the invasion has caused, and the impact
it is going to have on unstable, potentially, unstable
conditions in the Middle East and North Africa because of food
shortages.
So we need to address that. And that is one of the reasons
why we tapped the Bill Emerson Trust, part of the challenge
there isn't just tapping the Trust but making sure that it is
replenished, which I think is important, and the supplemental
appropriations bill that you are considering would begin that
process.
The other challenge with that Trust is the transportation
cost. It is amazing to me that it costs more than the value of
the product we are transporting to get that food to Ethiopia,
and some of the North African countries. So I think there is an
opportunity for us to look at ways in which that could
potentially be addressed.
I would say with the second challenge we have is the issue
of climate, because that is going to impact our long-term
capacity to meet global food needs, and I am really, really
excited about the reaction to the Climate-Smart and Forestry
Product Partnership Initiative. We got 450 applications from
350 organizations and groups; commodity groups non-profits, for
profit organizations, all 50 states, probably three to four
times the billion dollars that we put on the table. So there is
tremendous interest in doing that as well.
So I think what we have to do is figure out ways in which
we could do both. And one thing we could do is look for ways,
creative ways to help double-cropping opportunities, expand the
number of counties that are insured, figure out the other
administrative ways to make it easier for farmers reducing the
risk of double cropping.
Senator Blunt. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I have,
there may be other questions either for the record, or for a
second round, if there is one.
Senator Baldwin. Well, we are starting it right now. And I
will recognize myself for five minutes of questions in the
second round.
Mr. Secretary, I want to talk a little bit about climate-
smart agriculture. Our farmers, ranchers, and producers
experience firsthand the impacts of climate change. I
appreciate this administration's whole-of-government approach
to combating the climate crisis, including the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's efforts to conserve and protect our Nation's
natural resources, while enhancing economic growth and creating
new streams of income for our producers.
Can you give the committee an update on the climate-smart
agriculture activities of the Department? And also what is the
Department doing to ensure that farmers, ranchers, and
producers of all backgrounds are able to access the resources
needed to strengthen their climate-smart agricultural
practices?
Secretary Vilsack. There are three ways I would like to
respond to that question. First, there has been a significant
effort on the part of NRCS to catalog, and to characterize
climate-smart practices, and to provide information on
different activities that farmers and producers can take to be
climate smart. Whether it is reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
or whether it is sequestering more carbon, and we are going to
continue to do a better job of providing that information.
NRCS has worked with a grant program with 118 different
organizations that are connected to minority producers, and
socially disadvantaged producers, historically underserved
producers, in an effort to try to make sure that those
individuals who may, in the past, have had a hard time
accessing that kind of information, get that information, and
that program is going to continue. That is something we feel
very strongly about.
That is in addition to the additional technical
assistance--efforts underway under the American Rescue Plan
under Section 1006, you provided resources to be able to
expand. We currently have 20 larger community building
organizations that are connected to minority producers that are
also working to make sure that they have the full array of FSA
and NRCS programs.
Secondly, as I just mentioned to Senator Blunt, we are
really excited about the response to the billion dollars that
was put on the table, to ask producers to put together pilot
projects and demonstration projects.
The fact that we got 450 applications from 350 different
organizations and entities across all 50 states, even at the
minimum, we are talking about $2.2 billion. I know some of
those applications were for $50 million or more. So I am pretty
sure we are probably 3X or 4X to what we put on the table. So
there is obviously tremendous interest there.
And then finally, I think there is, again, a research
component to this in which we are working with NIFA, and
working with ARS to provide the tools, and the technologies,
and the capacity for farmers to have a better understanding of
what climate smart actually means, and be able to measure, and
quantify, and verify it.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. I know we are on our second
round of questions, but I am going to interrupt the back and
forth of Democrat and Republican, to allow Senator Tester to
ask his first round of questions.
Senator Tester. Goodness, if I only knew what I was going
to ask. I want to, first of all, thank you for being here,
Secretary Vilsack. It is always good to see you, doing the
Lord's work, making sure that family, farmers, and ranchers
have a shot out there. And we all know that rural America has
been declining, and is going to continue to decline unless we
do some things a little differently.
And you know where I am going with this. A few weeks back
the Senate Agricultural Committee, and I am sure you were
watching it, held a hearing on two bills that deal with
consolidation in the marketplace when it comes to the cattle
industry.
You know, the statistics for companies control over 80
percent of the marketplace, capitalism doesn't work in
situations like that. And we want capitalism to work. We want
there to be competition in the marketplace, so that both the
cow-calf operators and consumers can reap the benefits of a
good competitive system.
The President's budget asks for $35 million for packers and
stockyards, given the issues that I just said, and I just
brought up beef, pork, poultry, and others are in a very
similar situation. Do you think that level of funding is
adequate, the 35 million for packers and stockyards?
Secretary Vilsack. It would represent a very significant
increase, Senator. And I think it would be adequate for us as
we strengthen packers and stockyards, this year you will see
probably three rules coming out from the Department in an
effort to try to strengthen the enforcement capacity of the
Department. And those resources would be very important to
being able to do that.
Senator Tester. That is good because it is going to be--I
mean you are the key to unlocking this, you or your Department,
and you. And so making sure you have the resources to deal with
the situation a fair way is really critically important. As I
told you before, I am not for putting anybody out of business,
what I am for is add more competition to the marketplace. And
the Packers and Stockyards Act, was originally set up to do
that, and we just haven't had the enforcement capabilities.
I don't need to tell you about the, historically, bad
drought west of the Mississippi. Last year was the worst year I
ever had, this is 44 years on the farm, grandfathered homestead
at 110, and I think with the exception of 1919 and 1920 when
they had to move back the Red River Valley after the historic
homesteading because of drought, this may be the worst year
since then.
And by the way, where I happen to live in North Central
Montana, I have been seeding the last weekend in dry dirt. If
we don't get rain it is going to be worse than last year.
We passed billion in disaster relief last fall, including
750 million bucks for livestock producers. This is critically
life-and-death money, I mean truthfully, it is nobody wants to
get a check from the Federal government, but the bottom line is
the drought has caused hay prices to go through the roof, there
has been no grass resource because there has been no water,
there has been no crops raised because there has been no water.
And so can the USDA, can you share any update on the
progress of getting that $10 billion in disaster relief out the
door?
Secretary Vilsack. Livestock producers have received checks
in the amount of $560 million last month and this month. So
there will be a second round of funding for the livestock
producers who weren't necessarily covered by the Livestock
Forage Program, or the Livestock Indemnity Program. We took
information from that, from those programs and basically pre-
filled the application so that we could move the money out more
quickly than in the past.
In terms of on the crop side, we anticipate and expect
announcing this month the structure for how the crop
reimbursements will take place, that will also involve pre-
filled applications, there are roughly 250 questions that are
asked of a producer in order to be able to access WHIP+, most
of those questions will be pre-filled from crop insurance and
NAP data, and we expect and anticipate the checks will come out
in June.
Senator Tester. So doing some quick math in my head so
there is about 190 million on the livestock side that is yet to
be allocated?
Secretary Vilsack. It is because we want to make sure we
cover those producers that didn't necessarily have, they may
have had a shallow loss, they may have had a loss that didn't
qualify for one of those programs, so therefore there wouldn't
have been the data, or the information available to the
Department. So we will go through a process of having them
apply for the resources.
Senator Tester. And thank you for that. And one really,
really quick; I was talking to, sitting in the airport last
Thursday, and I was talking to a guy that said that he had
received some money on cattle shipping to be able to move his
cattle. Is that number one--I certainly don't have a problem
with that, with the price of fuel, and lack of trucks. Are you
aware of that program, because it is not one I was aware of?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are providing it. We have
expanded the Livestock Indemnity Program, or I believe that is
the Livestock Indemnity or the Forage Program, to include
additional assistance for transportation.
Senator Tester. Okay, good.
Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure whether it is the cattle,
or whether I think it is transporting the cattle to where there
may be feed or grain.
Senator Tester. That is correct.
Secretary Vilsack. Yeah.
Senator Tester. That is exactly it.
Secretary Vilsack. We have expanded the program to include
reimbursement for that transportation expense.
Senator Tester. I don't know whose idea that was, but great
idea. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Next, Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Mr. Secretary, hello. Seems like every conversation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, for as long as I have been in the
Congress, includes conversations about disaster, and I want to
highlight a problem we have with the Emergency Livestock Relief
Program, we have had drought and wildfires across our state,
but most recently, in December of 2021, 160,000 acres across 13
counties in Kansas burned, grassland, forage sorghum, and other
feed sources that producers rely on to get through the winter.
Since those fires occurred outside the quote, ``normal grazing
period'' these producers are not eligible for LFP, and
therefore are not being helped by disaster assistance.
USDA described in the announcement, on March 1st, as Phase
One, will Phase Two of the Disaster Assistance provide support
to livestock producers who lost forage and grazing lands to
wildfires outside normal grazing periods?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we are in the process of
developing a list of those non-covered disasters, as the one
you have just mentioned, to make sure we have a comprehensive
list, and then from that list we are going to make a
determination of how best to spend and invest the second
tranche of resources.
Certainly understand what you have outlined, and I will
tell you that the concerns that you have expressed are on the
list, they have been placed on the list. You know, I want to
make sure that I check with our folks to make sure that I am
right when I say, we are going to consider this seriously. I
don't know that we have necessarily made a decision yet about
exactly who gets what, but I know that is on the list.
Senator Moran. If you would give me the chance to make the
case, it should be high on the list, I would appreciate that.
Secretary Vilsack. Certainly.
Senator Moran. Does USDA expect to need additional funding
for Ad Hoc Disaster Assistance?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am never going to ask or
question where, do you need additional resources? Here is the
problem, Senator, and you have addressed it. Our disaster
assistance programs are sort of a one-size-fits-all, and the
reality is we are now learning that there are multiple types of
disasters in multiple different areas, involving multiple
commodities, and in multiple different ways.
And it is going to be important and necessary for us, I
think, to have enough flexibility and resources to be able to
try to tailor the disaster assistance to the actual disaster,
as opposed to having a one-size-fits-all, and sometimes your
folks don't fit in it, and that is unfortunate.
You know, more resources, but I would say in addition to
more resources let us make sure it is flexible enough to be
able to use it for multiple disasters.
Senator Moran. I always like that flexibility until it
doesn't cover something that I think needs to be covered. And I
appreciate the conversation, and perhaps you are leveraging me
to suggest we need more disaster assistance, or more dollars.
Input costs, fertilizer prices, I have asked the
subcommittee that I am the lead Republican on, has jurisdiction
over the Department of Commerce. We are trying to do something
about countervailing duties on phosphates from Morocco, and to
stop the implementation of duties on nitrogen fertilizer from
Trinidad and Tobago. Can you help? Can you be an ally in any of
this?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have certainly indicated a
necessity of looking at those countervailing duties. In
addition, as you know, we have announced an effort to try to
put resources on the table to see what we could do here in the
United States to produce more fertilizer. We are also working
with producers on crop choice, and conservation practices that
could potentially reduce fertilizer use.
We are also focusing on a split nitrogen policy for crop
insurance that will basically cover crop losses if you decide
to half your nitrogen application. I mean there are a series of
things we are doing. And we are also working with state
attorney generals to take a look at whether or not the
fertilizer costs that are currently being paid by farmers are
legitimate.
It is an interesting, a very interesting graft, if you take
a look at the history, of fertilizer and crop prices as crop
prices go up so do fertilizer costs. And may just--no reason
for that, but.
Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, thank you. I don't understand
the love affair with the countervailing duties on components of
fertilizer. And I will continue my efforts, and I appreciate
any help you can give.
The supplemental--the double cropping issue, planting
soybeans after winter wheat just announced a week or so ago, I
would remind you that sorghum is a major food crop for many
African nations, and it is a crop that can be planted behind
wheat in many parts of Kansas. Additionally, much of the
world's sunflower oil comes from Ukraine, another crop that
could be utilized in that fashion.
Why does the administration's supplemental request only
propose to incentivize soybean and not include other food
crops, like sorghum and sunflowers?
Secretary Vilsack. It was conservation starter, and you are
absolutely right, and there is no reason why we couldn't
include those, and should.
Senator Moran. And would that include the $10 per acre
incentive for----
Secretary Vilsack. To the extent that there are incentives
that we are looking at, or flexibilities that we are looking
at, we are going to try to be as comprehensive as we can be.
Senator Moran. Right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I
appreciate your answers.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Next, I am going to go a little
bit out of order. I know Senator Collins has a time schedule
issue. So I am going to call on you for your second round; then
Senator Braun for your first round.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And
thank you, Senator Braun.
Secretary Vilsack, you won't be surprised that the second
issue that I am going to bring up with you today concerns
potatoes. Potatoes are an extremely nutritious vegetable. They
contain more potassium than bananas, they are a good source of
fiber, vitamin B6, vitamin C, and very important today to
families that are struggling to buy groceries. They are
affordable.
During the Obama administration, and I won't relive this,
but we went back and forth on whether potatoes should be
restricted in the school lunch, and school breakfast programs,
and the WIC programs, and they were not.
When you appeared before the subcommittee last year, I
questioned USDA's proposed elimination of funding for the
highly successful Potato Breeding Research Program. Congress,
on a bipartisan basis, not only rejected the elimination of
that program, but rather than zeroing it out, actually
increased it somewhat to $3 million a year.
Given the strong congressional support, I was very
surprised to see that your budget is again proposing to zero
out this program, especially when the administration is seeking
an overall increase of more than $2 billion in discretionary
spending for USDA.
The University of Maine is the leader in the research in
this program, and has worked with growers to develop a new
variety named the Caribou Russet, that is producing high
yields, and is much more disease resistant. And one needs to
look no further than the recent outbreak of the potato wart in
Prince Edward Island in Canada to understand the importance of
continuing to invest in research that produces hardier crops,
and protects our domestic markets.
So my question for you: Given Congress' action last year,
given what a small amount this is in the context of your entire
budget; why are you again seeking to completely eliminate
funding for the Potato Breeding Research Program which has been
proven successful in helping our growers prevent agricultural
and economic losses?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I rely on the professionals at
ARS to give me a list of their priorities and, you know, I
think it goes back to my earlier comments about the importance
of investing more money in research, and investing more money
in ARS. I mean the reality is that these have been flatlined
for an extended period of time, and when they are flatlined,
you establish priorities. And obviously if Congress, basically,
directs us to maintain that program we obviously will, but I
would hope that it does so in the context of significantly
increased resources for ARS, including resources to improve the
facilities.
Part of the challenges that we are now facing, we have 118
facility projects roughly 30 of them are either fully or
partially funded, that leaves quite a few that aren't. And so
it is a matter of resources. But if we have more resources, we
can do more work.
Senator Collins. Well, I am going to give you the chart
that I always hand out on potatoes. And which you have received
from me previously, but it doesn't make sense you end up
spending more money if you have to provide disaster assistance,
or other kinds of assistance, than if you invest upfront in the
research that produces a more disease-resistant crop.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Senator that would be true if that
was the only crop that we had to be concerned about, and the
only research project, but it is not, that is the problem. We
have, as we have already discussed here today, a multitude of
disasters and challenges, and that is the issue. If we have
more resources, then we can obviously cover more research
projects.
Senator Collins. But potatoes do not receive crop support
money, they do not receive price support.
Secretary Vilsack. They don't receive that support.
Senator Collins. They don't.
Secretary Vilsack. But there is 9.9 billion pounds of food
that we purchase through our commodity purchasing programs,
which includes potatoes. So in a sense there is also that kind
of support. Sometimes there is a tendency to forget that the
other ways in which we provide assistance for specialty crops
that is one way, not the only way.
Senator Collins. I just, you know, when I look at your
previous efforts to eliminate the University of Maine's
Agricultural Lab altogether during the Obama administration,
and restrict the use of potatoes, despite the Institute of
Medicine's study, that there was no basis for doing so.
Secretary Vilsack. That that wasn't the reason for the WIC
decision, as we have explained before. It was a situation where
we were trying to encourage folks to purchase those items that
they would not otherwise purchase with their own resources. It
wasn't that we didn't think potatoes were nutritious,
obviously, and we have just most recently expanded
opportunities for potato exports in Mexico. So it is, you know,
I have nothing against potatoes.
Senator Collins. Well, it feels like it. I can tell you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Baldwin. Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know,
agriculture has gotten so complicated. I mean, didn't grow up
on a farm but have lived on one ever since I moved back to my
hometown. Fell in love with the forestry side of agriculture.
In Indiana we were probably 90 percent forested at one time,
and got through subsistence farming, cut down to like 5
percent.
It is kind of reforested to the tune of about maybe 30- 35
percent, and value-added it is equal to, if not exceeds, the
value-add that you get from row crops. I think that is
something that most people don't understand. They see the vast
fields of corn, and soybeans. So I think it is important to
keep that in mind, to keep our forest owners healthy, and to
make sure that is as important part of the equation as the row
crop side is.
Since that is simple, the trees just grow and get larger,
don't involve any inputs, you know, and it is kind of a
generational crop. What I hear most about currently is two
things. It would be the concentration of AG when it comes to
industries across the input spectrum that used to have so many
local options, fewer and fewer companies.
I think that is something that we got to be aware of. The
individual farmer has had to go from small acres to many acres
to keep economic--economy of scale in place, frustrated each
year that they have maybe got fewer options.
I would like your comment on, is that side of farming in
peril because markets aren't as broad and available as they
used to be? We recently discussed it in the AG Committee on the
meatpacking industry. Would you want to weigh in on that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Senator, I think there are two
issues here. One, you have identified, which is the
concentration, and that is absolutely true. You know, we are
dealing with fertilizer issues right now. That is a very
concentrated industry at this point, the processing industry,
and we are trying to address that with some of the work that we
are doing at USDA.
I think the second issue, and you also alluded to it, is
the fact that there is a limited number of ways in which
farmers today profit. They grow crops and sell them, or they
grow crops and feed to the livestock, and sell the products of
livestock. What we need to do is be able to create additional
ways in which profit centers and income sources can come from
the farm.
That is why your work, and Senator Stabenow's work, and
others on the Climate-Smart Agriculture effort was important,
because it basically creates the platform, and the structure
for that possibility, that climate and climate-related
activities could create a revenue stream, an opportunity.
The conversion of agricultural waste to chemicals,
materials, fabrics, and fibers also creates another new revenue
stream that we are in the process of trying to support. So I
think the key here is for us to address the concentration issue
but also to address creating multiple income streams on the
farm.
Senator Braun. I think that is very important. Any business
that prospers over time, I can tell you, I ran one for 37
years, whatever you are knocking it out of the park with
currently, is sure to be different five to 10 years down the
road. And agriculture is a monoculture in terms of really what
you have been used to doing; it has got to reflect what you are
talking about.
The other real concern I hear, which is palpable was what
farmers are going to do in 2023. Let us put the cost aside.
That was a big challenge this year. Most ended up getting the
inputs they needed to get a crop out. With the current dynamic
in place, with our dependency on certain inputs that look like
they are in places of peril, do you think farmers will be able
to get the inputs for 2023, setting the cost aside? I hear real
concern about, they just limp through 2022, what are we going
to do for 2023?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, one of the things we were looking
at is, whether or not there is a possibility of taking a look
at our storage programs, because there may very well be the
capacity to purchase and store, which farmers could potentially
utilize to get them through a potentially tough 2023 crop year.
Then secondly, obviously, we work on strategies to try to
reduce the amount of these inputs. That takes us into precision
agriculture. I will just share with you, there is sensor
technology that is being developed at Iowa State University
that suggests that 30 percent of the corn acres in America
today, in the Midwest, do not require fertilizer. So if we can
accelerate that kind of research, and accelerate the capacity
of farmers to have that kind of precise information about their
farms, we may be able to get them through a process maybe not
2023, but in the future where they are not as reliant as they
have been on those inputs.
Senator Braun. Leveraging technology and finding new
markets would be the hallmark of any successful sector of our
economy; and never more applicable than in agriculture today.
Thank you.
Senator Baldwin. Senator Hoeven, you are now recognized for
a second round.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair. Did you already do
your second round? I don't want to jump in.
Senator Baldwin. Yes, I did.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Good to know, all right.
Secretary, I am concerned about the increase in the TRQ for
sugar, it has been raised twice now, 170,000 tons and then more
recently. I guess in April it was 220,000 tons, and then more
recently another 170,000 tons. That is about a 400,000-ton
increase.
I know that some of this came from production shortfall in
Michigan, but that certainly wouldn't be anything near 400,000
tons. So can you address that?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I want to be able to check our
numbers with your numbers, because we are under the assumption
it is a little bit less than what you have outlined. But having
said that, the key here, from our perspective, is to maintain a
proper balance; and the stocks to ratio has historically been
somewhere between 13.5 to 15.5, we got it down to 12.5.
And what we have been able to do with this additional
purchase is to put us within that 13.5 to 15.5 range. And that
is where we are comfortable, where we think the program works
particularly well balancing the equities that are involved.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Well, we are concerned it is going to
take you above that range, and so again we want to make sure
that that--you know, that those increases do keep it in that
range, and we are not getting above it.
Rural broadband, obviously you have got significant funds
in terms of rural broadband, and obviously it is a priority,
and I think a bipartisan priority so, you know, what is--where
are you at with getting those dollars out, and what is your
plan to do it?
Secretary Vilsack. We made a--so there are two pots of
money, the first pot came from American Rescue Plan, the
Pandemic Assistance Programs, and so forth, that pot has gone
through several rounds. We most recently completed a round. We
received 305 applications for roughly $1.15 billion. Those
applications I think were in the neighborhood of two to three
times that amount. So obviously, great interest.
We also received the bipartisan infrastructure resources of
1.9 billion. We are now taking a look and analyzing the
applications of 305 applications, Senator, to determine whether
or not there is a possibility of accelerating and utilizing
some of the BIL money, in that third round, because essentially
they would potentially qualify for the same requirements. That
would allow us to put several billion dollars into awards to
get action this year.
And then the balance of whatever is left from the
Infrastructure Law, we would announce availability sometime
later this year, for awards, probably, early part of 2023.
Senator Hoeven. Being around four, or would that be----
Secretary Vilsack. It would three and----
Senator Hoeven. You would just keep going?
Secretary Vilsack. Right.
Senator Hoeven. In other words, you are going to continue
on?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. And so when do you anticipate funding
announcements then for round three?
Secretary Vilsack. This summer.
Senator Hoeven. This summer.
Secretary Vilsack. We are going to complete the--we would
be able to make these announcements sooner, but we want to see
whether or not there is a way of accelerating the BIL money
into this round. And that requires us to analyze where these
applications are, you know, how many of them would, in fact,
qualify.
And it just--it is going to take some time. But we think by
the latter part of this month we will have a better
understanding of how much of that BIL money could actually be
incorporated in this round.
Senator Hoeven. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. And then that will be the set of
announcements this summer.
Senator Hoeven. All right. On the child nutrition waivers,
what steps are you taking as we get back to the traditional
program to be ready for next year, what are you doing?
Secretary Vilsack. Let me tell you something, Senator, this
is going to be chaotic. Just make no mistake about it, the
failure to have these waivers is going to create a lot of chaos
in schools across the United States. There is, very limited
things that we can do, we don't have the flexibility to provide
waivers to the extent that we have provided them, very, very
limited.
We can't increase the reimbursement rate, we can't expand
universal free school meals, so we will focus on community
eligibility, we will focus on the limited waivers that we have,
we will take a look at any additional capacity we have with
resources in terms of commodity purchases, but schools are
going to have a very difficult time. Make no mistake about it.
Senator Hoeven. So Madam Chair, I have a couple questions
left that I do want to ask--but I am happy to defer if you want
to. But then, I would like another shot at it.
Senator Baldwin. We can give you a special third round.
Senator Hoeven. Fantastic.
Senator Baldwin. Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Mr. Secretary, in recent years this
subcommittee has made just historic investments in developing
methods to better understand, and detect, and respond to
chronic wasting disease. And, you know, an incurable, always
fatal disease affecting the white-tailed deer, and other
members of the deer family. Historically, there have been many
questions and unknowns about the disease, but thanks to the new
CWD research being conducted by USDA, and its university
partners, along with the better surveillance and response
efforts carried out by the states' wildlife agencies; we are
starting to make great strides in CWD.
And hunting and outdoor recreation contributes billions to
the American economy, more than 2.7 billion in annual economic
output in Mississippi alone. Would you agree that our
investments in CWD are paying off, that we are seeing a
positive return on our investments? And would you agree that we
need to continue investing in activities related to chronic
waste disease in fiscal year 2023, and beyond that?
Secretary Vilsack. I think I would answer that yes, yes,
and yes. I think you asked three questions. Yes. We have got 35
herds, there is no vaccine or cure yet, it is in 25 states,
there is a need for more and additional resources, those
resources will allow us to do more surveillance, more testing,
more management, and hopefully more responsive activities. So
clearly we need additional resources.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Senator Baldwin. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. I want to commend Senator Hyde-Smith, just
in general, but here specifically for setting up my question.
Which is, we have legislation to do more with chronic wasting
disease, it is bipartisan. Martin Heinrich's lead on the
Majority side, but we have got others on both sides of the
aisle.
So clearly you would, based on your last comment, support
that legislation which would provide more funding for research,
relative to chronic wasting disease, because it affects both
domestic and wild animals.
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. Okay, great. FCIS--excise me--FSIS
overtime, we have got food safety, and inspection challenges I
mean we have workforce challenges everywhere, right, but with
our inspectors in FSIS we have some challenges, and so we
included some provisions that give you more flexibility so
where are we at with implementing that?
Secretary Vilsack. It is implemented, Senator, the problem
is, it is a 1 year--you have got to do it every year.
Senator Hoeven. Right.
Secretary Vilsack. But it does give us a tremendous amount
of flexibility, and it makes it a little bit easier, reduces
the stress, workers still have the option of working those
overtime hours, but if for whatever reason they are just spent,
this gives us the ability to continue to keep the plan open but
have the flexibility to have the inspectors on staff, who want
to be there.
Senator Hoeven. Which is something you need right now.
Secretary Vilsack. Absolutely.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah. Okay. And then, my last question
relates to the--is also a workforce question, and that is
getting the H-2A-eligible people through the process, and on
the job. And there two aspects to it, one, as for some of the
Ukrainians that are coming, you know, Ukraine is so similar to
us in terms of their AG base, as a matter of fact some of their
livestock, and so forth, come from my state where we have
actually--some of our producers have flown breeding stock over
on 747s, if you can believe that, and you maybe have seen some
of that. It is unbelievable.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Iowa started that a long time ago.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah. I figured you probably have been
involved with it too. It is really impressive.
Secretary Vilsack. We did it in Japan in the--when they had
a typhoon back in the 1960s.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah. But you would think they would go by
boat, but they actually put them on these huge aircrafts. It is
amazing.
Secretary Vilsack. Yeah.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah. You mean when pigs fly, right, how
crazy is that?
Secretary Vilsack. Yeah, they did, they really did.
Senator Hoeven. You have probably said that a few times as
governor. But you didn't mean it literally, necessarily. But it
is both processing these H-2A applications which we need to get
these folks, who are eligible, through the system, and in a lot
of cases are folks that have come before. And you know the need
out there for workers in the AG area.
So utilizing some of these Ukrainians that are coming here,
expediting their ability to get those work permits would be
good for them, good for us. That is one aspect of the question.
Then the other is, in terms of some flexibility in the work, in
that they can be out there and do fieldwork, and that kind of
stuff, or on farm work, but then we also need folks in the
processing plants, and their visa doesn't necessarily allow
them to do both, but it is really very--you know, it is just a
continuation of pretty much the same thing.
And it has some of the seasonality to it. So in is there a
way we can, maybe, do both of these things to kind of help with
the labor issue?
Secretary Vilsack. You know, I will make you a deal,
Senator.
Senator Hoeven. Sure--well, maybe.
Secretary Vilsack. I will help you with this problem if you
can get your colleagues to vote on the AG Workforce
Modernization Act, and actually get these things solved in a
permanent way. This is nuts. This is just crazy what is going
on here with the workforce.
We are sort of nickleing-and-dime it, we are putting a
Band-Aid on it, we are constantly talking about H-2A, when we
all know that, fundamentally, we have got to fix the
immigration system, and the AG community and the labor
community has come and said: Here is the fix that we would like
to see in our part of the industry, and it passes the House in
a bipartisan way. I just don't understand why it can't pass
this body.
Senator Hoeven. Well, it gets pulled into everything else,
you know that. But in the meantime though----
Secretary Vilsack. But why? Why does it get pulled into
everything else?
Senator Hoeven. Well, you know how that--you know how that
process works here, but in the meantime are these some things
we can do?
Secretary Vilsack. In the meantime we will work--in the
meantime we will continue to look for ways in which we can try
to alleviate the stress, but it is a temporary fix; it is not
going to solve the problem, it is not going to relieve the
underlying lack of confidence that farmers now feel. They just
don't know if they are ever going to have the workforce. And
they are they are scared about this. They are really concerned
about it.
Senator Hoeven. Well, and that is where the merit-based
aspect comes in that is very important. But again, our guys are
concerned about getting these folks through the system people
who are eligible now, and so we need your help on it.
Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to help.
Senator Hoeven. Good.
Secretary Vilsack. And I would hope that you will help me
get 59 other Senators to vote for the AG Worker Modernization
Act.
Senator Hoeven. Thanks for your work on all these things,
Secretary. We have had opportunity to work together as
governors, 8 years during the Obama administration, and so I do
appreciate your help on these things, thanks; and thank you for
being here today. And to your crew, to people like Zach
Ducheneaux, you have a lot of folks out there working really
hard for our farmers, and ranchers. And so I want to express my
appreciation for that.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Baldwin. And Mr. Secretary, I want to add my words
of thank you, to both you and Mr. Rapp for being here today. I
think we had a good discussion, and I look forward to
continuing to work with you as we begin the appropriations
process for fiscal year 2023.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Questions for the record are due by next Tuesday, May 17th,
and we would appreciate responses from the USDA within 30 days.
Secretary Vilsack. Madam Chair.
Senator Baldwin. Yes, you may.
Secretary Vilsack. Can I say just one thing? Because
Senator Hoeven was not here, I don't think, when I gave my
opening comments, and maybe he got in at the tail end.
Senator, I just want to leave with you the same statistic
that I left with the rest of the committee members. 61,670 farm
families are currently on the brink, these are people that have
borrowed money from USDA that are either delinquent, bankrupt,
or pending foreclosure. And it is an issue that we have got to
address.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
supply chain disruptions
Question. Supply chain disruptions over the past year have resulted
in massive losses for the agricultural industry, particularly in
California. A study out of UC Davis indicated that the California
agriculture sector lost $2.1 billion from May through September of last
year alone because of their inability to export products. These losses
are compounded by rising input costs, including more expensive gasoline
and fertilizer.
Secretary Vilsack, what is your Department doing to support the
agricultural sector during this unprecedented disruption to our export
capabilities, particularly the many California farmers who grow
perishable crops and have lost more than $2 billion as a result?
Answer. USDA is acutely aware that fewer shipping containers have
been made available for U.S. agricultural commodities as ocean carriers
have circumvented traditional marketing channels. To this end, earlier
this year, I announced plans to increase capacity at the Port of
Oakland in Oakland, California, and improve service for shippers of
U.S. grown agricultural commodities. Part of this effort included
helping establish the Howard Terminal ``pop-up'' site at the Port of
Oakland, which is providing space to prepare empty containers.
Specifically, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) covered 60
percent of the start-up costs for the pop-up terminal. Through the use
of Howard Terminal, agricultural companies and cooperatives have easier
access to containers, which they can fill with commodities; this
additional capacity will help relieve congestion and restore shipping
services.
On May 25, 2022, USDA shared that it would also begin accepting
applications for the new Commodity Container Assistance Program (CCAP),
which includes partnerships with both the Port of Oakland and the
Northwest Seaport Alliance, a marine cargo operating partnership in
Washington State. Under CCAP, USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) is
providing a $125 per container payment to partially assist agricultural
commodity owners for the additional logistical expenses associated with
picking up empty shipping containers to be filled with agricultural
commodities and products at the Port of Oakland. FSA is also providing
payments of $200 per dry container and $400 per refrigerated, or
reefer, container to help cover additional logistical costs associated
with moving a shipping container twice, first to the preposition site
and then to the terminal loading the vessel, along with cost of
temporary storage. FSA will make monthly direct payments to
agricultural companies and cooperatives on a per-container basis, based
on the location of the port and the type of shipping container.
Additional information about CCAP can be found at farmers.gov/pandemic-
assistance/CCAP.
Ongoing market disruptions have created logistical challenges
associated with the availability and flow of shipping containers to
transport agricultural commodities, which has prevented or delayed
American-grown agricultural commodities from reaching their markets.
USDA continues to work with industry partners throughout the supply
chain to relieve the disruption created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The
following are examples of additional USDA activities to support
solutions to best address specific challenges agricultural producers
are facing along the supply chain:
--USDA formed partnerships with several west coast ports as part of
the Administration's Supply Chain Task Force efforts with State
and local governments and builds on earlier efforts including a
US Department of Transportation partnership with the Port of
Savannah in Georgia. The benefits of relieving congestion and
addressing capacity issues at ports through partnerships go
well beyond the local region, as commodities and agricultural
products grown and processed from thousands of miles away flow
through these ports.
--Beyond the CCAP program described above, USDA continues to seek
opportunities to partner with additional ports or other
intermodal container facilities to help American farmers and
agricultural producers move their product to market and manage
the short-term challenges while pressing the ocean carriers to
restore better levels of service.
--USDA will also continue to partner with other Federal agencies and
State and local governments to address port operation
challenges resulting from the ongoing pandemic.
--As Secretary, I've pressed executives of five major ocean carriers
to address concerns about service and availability raised by
agricultural exporters, and encouraged greater cooperation with
agricultural export efforts, including committing to providing
needed empty containers.
--USDA will announce its Food System Transformation framework on June
1, 2022, targeted at strengthening critical domestic supply
chains and addressing structural challenges that benefit
consumers, producers, and rural communities, including
California farmers. USDA is limited in its domestic use of
market development funds to address supply chain issues.
Programs such as the Market Access Program (MAP), Emerging
Markets Program (EMP), and Technical Assistance for Specialty
Crops (TASC) assist California farmers who grow perishable
crops with increasing their export capabilities.
--The Farm Bill authorized Market Access Program, administered by the
Foreign Agricultural Service, provides Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) funding to U.S. commodity and trade
associations to aid in developing, expanding, and maintaining
foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products.
For fiscal year 2022, USDA awarded $28.4 million of this $200
million program to 16 non-profit California trade organizations
and cooperatives to promote U.S. agriculture products. Despite
supply chain issues causing a dent in their export numbers,
recipients continue to conduct export marketing efforts and
build demand for U.S. agriculture and affirm the U.S. is a
consistent supplier of high-quality agricultural goods.
--The Farm Bill authorized Emerging Markets Program, which provides
funding for technical assistance activities intended to
develop, maintain, or expand markets for U.S. agricultural
exports in emerging market countries. The program underwrites
assessments of the food and rural business system needs of
emerging markets and can also fund knowledge transfer
activities aimed at developing the food and rural business
systems in eligible markets. For fiscal Year2022, USDA awarded
$368,560 to support California entities in emerging markets
throughout India, Southeast Asia, Mexico, and South America.
--The Foreign Agricultural Service-administered Technical Assistance
for the Specialty Crops program is designed to assist public
and private U.S. organizations by providing funding for
projects that seek to remove, resolve, or mitigate existing or
potential sanitary, phytosanitary, or technical barriers that
prohibit or threaten the export of U.S. specialty crops. For
fiscal year 2022, USDA awarded $1.2 million to non-profit
California organizations promoting blueberries, avocadoes, and
wine to address technical trade barriers and counterfeiting.
Question. Many school districts across California-and the country-
are already dealing with many challenges because of the pandemic and
disruptions to U.S. supply chains. I appreciate your efforts to
mitigate the impact to children and families of ending nationwide child
nutrition waivers on June 30, 2022.
Secretary Vilsack, can you discuss the impact that the loss of the
waivers will have on children, families, and schools this summer and
during the 2022-2023 school year, and do you think that there is still
a need for the Senate to extend your nationwide child nutrition waiver
authority?
Answer. In March 2020, Congress first provided USDA with the
authority to waive the statute and regulations for Child Nutrition
Programs through the Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020
(the FFCRA), and later through the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021
and Other Extensions Act. These Acts allowed USDA to address the urgent
need for nutrition assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic by granting
USDA broader waiver authority than provided through Section 12(l) of
the National School Lunch Act, including the ability to grant waivers
nationwide and allow waivers that increased program costs. These
waivers allowed us to equip schools and other program operators with
resources and operational flexibilities that are still desperately
needed as our schools still grapple with the ongoing challenges
resulting from the pandemic. However, this authority expires June 30,
2022, and Congress has not been able to reach a deal to extend those
vital waivers yet. This means USDA can no longer offer the full range
of waivers that are currently available.
We know that Child Nutrition Program operators, including schools,
childcare providers, and community organizations, are still facing
tremendous challenges, and USDA has worked as quickly as possible to
identify everything we can do within our permanent statutory authority
to support them in this transition. Unfortunately, without the broader
nationwide waiver authority, our toolbox is limited.
Going forward, USDA won't be able to offer the full range of
waivers that have been available to schools, child and adult care
providers, and summer meal providers. Without the waiver to provide all
students meals that are reimbursed at the free rate and the waiver
providing the higher reimbursement rates for schools, we estimate that
the average school will see a 40 percent decrease in the reimbursements
they receive next school year. In addition, we expect average
reimbursement rates for CACFP family day care homes to drop starting
July 1, 2022, due to the lapse in waiver authority that allowed some
providers to receive higher reimbursements, many summer meals and at-
risk afterschool sites will no longer be able to operate as they are
located in areas that are not eligible for participation without the
waivers.
USDA is able to issue waivers on a State-by-state basis under the
permanent Child Nutrition waiver authority found in Section 12(l) of
the National School Lunch Act when certain conditions are met,
including that the waiver cannot increase the cost to the Federal
Government. Therefore, USDA has offered, on a State-by-state basis,
some ``no cost'' flexibilities that were previously available
nationwide. We are hearing from our stakeholders that the flexibilities
USDA is able to offer this summer and next school year simply don't
address all the challenges schools and other operators are facing and
will face in the fall. USDA would need additional waiver authority,
similar to the authority provided in FFCRA, to address ongoing critical
needs and meet our program operators where they are.
We are deeply concerned that without additional support, school
meal programs will struggle to manage the serious challenges they are
facing. The school meals marketplace has some specific features which
make it particularly vulnerable to current market disruptions. We have
engaged extensively with stakeholders, including school nutrition
professionals, industry representatives and others, who report numerous
concerns. School districts are putting out bids for next school year
and getting no responses, and many items, both food and supplies, are
very difficult to obtain. School nutrition staff report turning to
local retail outlets or other sources at the last minute to obtain
items needed to maintain meal service. School districts have unique
transportation, storage and distribution needs, and those networks are
extremely strained. Finally, school meals programs consistently report
major challenges with staff vacancies.
As a result, we are very concerned about program operators' ability
to maintain the high standards of quality, customer service, and
nutrition support which our students need and deserve. Schools will
likely be forced to reduce menu offerings and will likely have to
repeat service of available items very frequently. Popular items may be
unavailable, and schools will be forced to make substitutions of less
favored products, often on the day of service, frustrating students and
parents by not providing what is expected. Nutrition quality may suffer
if schools are unable to obtain the range of products needed to provide
healthy meals and instead must rely on whatever is available to them,
but waivers would help mitigate this concern. In this environment,
schools may struggle to maintain participation levels, further
exacerbating their financial challenges caused by the expiration of the
waivers.
While we do not necessarily expect large-scale exit from school
lunch and breakfast programs, we are concerned that more will consider
scaling back on other critical nutrition programs, such as after-school
snack and supper programs. We are also concerned that the return to
application-based programs will likely result in a rise in unpaid meal
charges, as eligible families who have not had to apply for free or
reduced-price meals for 2 years may be slow to do so. This would
further strain school meals programs financial status, as well as
increase the potential for ``lunch shaming'' whereby students without
funds to pay for a meal are denied service or otherwise singled out.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
partnership for climate smart commodities
Question. On February 7, 2022, the USDA announced the Partnerships
for Climate-Smart Commodities program, which will finance partnerships
to support the production and marketing of climate-smart commodities.
The pilot projects, which will last between one and 5 years, will
provide technical and financial assistance to producers, and pilot
innovative and cost-effective methods for quantification, monitoring,
reporting, and verification of greenhouse gas benefits.
The effects of climate change will vary geographically. We know
that agriculture is one of the most vulnerable sectors to climate
change in New England and in Vermont, specifically. Rising temperatures
and changes in water availability hit hard for a region that is home to
so many dairies, maple syrup, and small and diversified farming
operations. These farms may not, individually, fall within the typical
definition of ``commodity scale'' production. Would you agree that the
challenges related to climate change are regionally distinct, and that
as a result of being so, can you promise that Partnerships for Climate-
Smart Commodities will consider pilot projects in a variety of
geographic areas, including New England and the Northern Forest?
Answer. As you can see through the funding opportunity, there are a
variety of goals and objectives of the Partnerships for Climate Smart
Commodities. USDA intends to fund a diverse set of projects and will
not discriminate based on size of the project. Diversity of
applications, including geographic diversity and size and scale of
projects, will be considered when making award decisions. USDA will
select a variety of projects so that this emerging marketplace starts
out with robust competition and options for producers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
illegal logging
Question. Illegal logging and associated trade has been ranked as
the third-largest global transnational crime after counterfeiting and
drug trafficking, generating between $52-157 billion per year. In many
tropical countries, over half of deforestation is illegal. Left
unaddressed, persistent illegality and impunity undermine all
conservation and climate efforts, including the recent pledge by the
United States and 140 countries to halt and reverse forest loss by
2030.
In 2008, the United States, the world's largest consumer of forest
products, became the first country to ban trafficking of products
containing illegally sourced wood. The Lacey Act Amendments of 2008
were adopted with bipartisan support and have demonstrated their
potential for impact. Yet unacceptable delays in full implementation
and sporadic enforcement continue to limit their effectiveness.
In 2009, the Department provided a schedule where major product
categories would be phased in by September 30, 2010.\1\ However, the
current Lacey Act declaration requirements, which are managed by USDA
APHIS, still only apply to approximately 42 percent of the value of
wood products imported into the United States. This leaves $45 billion
of annual imports subject to the prohibition in the Lacey Act, in
practice, uncovered by the declaration requirement. This includes
nearly all imports of wooden furniture, pulp and paper, particleboard,
and fiberboard. It is long past due that APHIS fully implement the
Lacey Act Amendments of 2008--and there a growing chorus from industry,
civil society, and lawmakers to complete this phase in by the end of
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/02/03/E9-2232/
implementation-of-revised-lacey-act-provisions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your plan to phase in all outstanding plant and wood
product categories--including wood furniture, pulp and paper,
particleboard, and fiberboard?
Answer. I agree that illegal logging and the resulting
deforestation are enormous problems. The scope of the material covered
by the Lacey Act is also significant-APHIS currently receives
approximately 1 million declarations each year (1.1 million in fiscal
year 2021) but estimates that when the declaration requirement is fully
implemented, the number could be as high as 12 million per year. Prior
to fiscal Year2022, APHIS' annual appropriation for the Lacey Act was
$1.9 million. APHIS implemented the program and rolled out the
declaration requirement in six phases, starting with raw wood and
working towards more processed products. APHIS also worked to implement
an electronic filing system for the Lacey Act and to connect it to the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Customs and Border Protection's
(CBP) Automatic Commercial Environment (ACE) system to allow for more
efficient processing of declarations.
The program's annual appropriation supported the development and
maintenance of the electronic filing system and staff. Additionally,
APHIS works cooperatively with industry groups to effectively implement
the declaration requirements, including reaching out to industry ahead
of time to learn about the details of their supply chains, storage, and
manufacturing processes. The most recent implementation phase; Phase 6
covering wooden pallets and essential oils among other products, was
originally to be effective October 1, 2020, but it took an additional
12 months due to issues raised by the pallet industry and the
government of Canada. Our lessons learned from Phase 6 show that adding
more products to the implementation schedule will require significant
outreach to launch effectively, a minimum of 12 months. Accordingly,
APHIS will not be able to incorporate additional products by the end of
fiscal year 2022.
Question. If your plan is not to complete the full phase in by the
end of 2022, please explain why this deadline is not attainable?
Answer. The Agency has a plan to add remaining products in two
large phases and appreciates the additional funding provided for the
Lacey Act in the fiscal year 2022 appropriation, which will allow the
program to expand capacity to handle additional declarations. Phase 7
will include as many non-composite products as possible, including
furniture, remaining essential oils, baskets, cribs, and cabinets,
among other products. Phase 8 would then include the remaining
products, those made with composite materials that include mechanically
or chemically broken-down materials such as pulp and paper,
particleboard, and fiberboard, among others. Many composite plant
materials are currently manufactured in a manner that makes
identification of the genus, species, and country of harvest of the
plant content extremely difficult and costly. APHIS is continuing to
evaluate and address the issues associated with composite products.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
national accuracy clearinghouse for food and nutrition progams
Question. As you know, the 2018 Farm Bill established the National
Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC) in order to prevent duplicate receipts of
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in more than one
state. I remain concerned about the implementation delay for the NAC.
Can you explain the reasons for the delay and how the Department
intends to implement the statute before Congress writes the next Farm
Bill?
Answer. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is committed to ensuring
the NAC is built and deployed with maximum effectiveness for long term
program integrity. We take seriously our responsibility to do this in a
way that minimizes burdens on participants and delays in benefit
determination and leverages optimal security arrangements using the
latest and best technology to protect the personally identifiable
information (PII) of SNAP participants.
In its original design, the NAC would have stored the names, social
security numbers, and dates of birth of all SNAP participants
nationwide. While all appropriate security protocols were included in
the design, the Department decided to pause development in June of
2021, to explore options to enhance the protections for applicants and
participants by revising the technical requirements of the system to a
solution that does not store PII. On July 2, 2021, FNS briefed staff
for the House and Senate Agriculture and Appropriations Committees on
the Department's decision.
The updated NAC system design provides a method for States to de-
identify the name, social security number, and date of birth of
individuals before sharing this information to the NAC through a
privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL) process. The PPRL process
accurately matches individuals, while preventing the collection and
storage of PII in the NAC system.
The first four States expected to implement the NAC (Iowa,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Montana) are already working closely with
the NAC project design and development team. These initial adopters of
the Nationwide NAC have committed to making the necessary technical and
programmatic changes to implement the NAC matching processes as part of
the initial system launch planned for December 2022.
Question. Has the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) considered
allowing States to use the NAC data for other programs such as TANF,
Medicaid, and CHIP?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill provision that required the
establishment of the NAC (Sec. 4011) specified that NAC data shall be
used only ``to prevent multiple issuances of supplemental nutrition
assistance program benefits to an individual by more than 1 State
agency simultaneously.'' Nevertheless, we are mindful that if
successful, other programs may want to consider building upon the NAC
framework.
dietary guidelines for america
Question. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 required,
within 1 year of enactment, the National Academy of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to complete a detailed review of the
development of the 2020 edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
(DGAs), and to provide a report to the Secretary of Agriculture, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and Congress. However, this
report is now months overdue.
Regardless, the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human
Services have moved forward in initiating the next 2025 DGA process by
proposing scientific questions and calling for public comment without
having the benefit of NASEM's review of the 2020 process.
When can Congress expect the full NASEM report, and will Congress
receive notice and briefings on it?
Answer. It is my understanding that NASEM will provide Congress
with the study's midcourse report on May 18, 2022. NASEM requested an
extension to complete the study, and the committee now expects to
submit its final report to Congress by the end of this calendar year.
NASEM has told us it is their standard practice to offer Congress a
briefing on its study Committee's work. USDA is also happy to brief
Congress on the midcourse report that will be released publicly on May
19, 2022, and on the final report once we receive it ourselves.
Question. Given the Departments, relevant Congressional committees,
the scientific community, and general public have not first had the
benefit of learning from the NASEM report on the 2020 guidelines, do
you believe it may be premature to move forward with the 2025 DGA
process?
Answer. While the DGA is published every 5 years, the work to
develop each new edition is a multiyear process. In order to ensure we
release the next edition of the DGA on time, as mandated by Congress,
we had to begin work when we did, particularly to ensure we have enough
time to give the public ample opportunities to weigh in and participate
throughout.
The purpose of the NASEM study currently underway is to assess the
process for developing the 2020-2025 Guidelines in light of the 2017
NASEM study recommendations. While the current NASEM study will not
include recommendations on the process to develop the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, continuous quality advancement is critical to
our work, and we'll continue to work towards integrating the
recommendations from the 2017 NASEM study into our process as we move
forward.
We appreciate the ongoing work by NASEM on this analysis, described
in the midcourse report, and look forward to the final report once it
is published. This is one of many tools we will use to help support our
continuous process improvement and promote science-based decision
making across all that we do.
rural partners and strikeforce
Question. Rural Partners/Strike Force, the Fiscal Year 2022
Appropriations bill provided Rural Development up to $5 million for the
Rural Partners/Strike Force program.
Please provide a detailed budget breakout for the fiscal year 2022
funding, as well as a breakout of the fiscal year 2023 budget request.
The information should include a breakdown of FTE costs associated with
the proposal (including Salaries/FERS expenses) both at Headquarters
and in the field, information technology needs, funding provided to
other Federal Agencies/Departments, and funding provided to outside
groups.
Answer. The Rural Partners Network is a first-of-its-kind
collaboration between Federal agencies and local leaders and residents.
This Network is focused on improving social and economic well-being
bolstered by existing local partnerships and assets. The Network will
launch in selected communities in Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, New
Mexico as well as certain Tribes within Arizona. Community networks
within these States will receive individualized support with the
expertise to navigate Federal programs, build relationships and
identify additional resources to promote community-driven solutions.
The table below displays how the funding will be used to support
this effort:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
grain storage after tornados
Question. Following the devastating tornadoes that hit Kentucky in
December 2021, the FY22 Appropriations bill included report language
that instructed USDA to identify funds to build temporary grain storage
facilities at public and private inland waterway ports for the 2022
harvest season.
Please provide an update on identification of funds for the FY22
directive for a grain storage facility in Kentucky.
Answer. USDA acknowledges the report language in the 2022 Enacted
appropriations; however, we have limited authorities when it comes to
providing funding for temporary grain storage facilities. Grain storage
facilities are commercial in nature, therefore programs such as Rural
Development Community Facilities (CF) programs do not have statutory
authority to support such a project since the CF authorities are
targeted at essential public services and facilities. Within the
Guaranteed Business and Industry Loan program regulation requires
projects to meet credit standards, collateral must be adequate, and the
term of the loan cannot exceed the useful time of the temporary
facility. A short-term project such as a temporary grain storage
facility is unlikely to meet those requirements.
I understand that our staff continue to discuss the need on the
ground and what the best option could be to support the challenges your
producers are facing, given our statutory limitations.
Question. On March 15, 2022, the FY22 Appropriations package, which
began in the Democrat controlled House and was supported by all 50
Democrat Senators, became law. At no point did the Biden Administration
request the extension of COVID-related USDA nutrition waivers. While
legislation to extend these COVID-related waivers carried a cost of $11
billion, several of these waivers can be extended under existing law
with no cost.
Does USDA have authority to issue a State-by-state extension of
these no-cost nutrition waivers?
Answer. USDA is able to issue waivers on a State-by-state basis
under the permanent Child Nutrition waiver authority found in Section
12(l) of the National School Lunch Act when certain conditions are met,
including that the waiver cannot increase the cost to the Federal
Government. Therefore, USDA has offered, on a State-by-state basis,
some ``no cost'' flexibilities that were previously available
nationwide through COVID-related nationwide waiver authority. In
addition, Section 12(l) explicitly prohibits waivers that pertain to
nutrition standards, Federal reimbursement rates, and free/reduced
price meal eligibility. Given these constraints, Section 12(l), cannot
be used to grant a number of waivers that have supported program
operators during the pandemic, including:
--Waivers of area eligibility requirements, which allowed summer and
afterschool feeding programs to operate anywhere, as well as
allow all Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) family day
care homes to receive the higher tier 1 rate;
--Operating the Seamless Summer Option during the school year, which
allowed schools to be reimbursed at the free rate for all meals
served, without having to collect and process applications;
--Offering the higher Summer Food Service Program reimbursement rate
for school meals served during the school year; and
--Waivers of meal pattern requirements.
Although USDA has worked hard to expeditiously approve state
requests for individual waivers that meet 12(l) requirements, USDA is
hearing from our stakeholders that the available flexibilities simply
do not address all of the challenges schools and other operators are
facing this summer and will face in the fall. For example, without the
ability to offer all students meals that are reimbursed at the free
rate or the higher reimbursement rates for schools, we estimate that
the average school will see a 40 percent decrease in the reimbursements
they receive next school year.
In addition, we expect average reimbursement rates for CACFP family
day care homes to drop starting July 1, 2022, due to the lapse in
waiver authority that allowed some providers to receive higher
reimbursements, and many summer meals and at-risk afterschool sites
will no longer be able to operate as they are located in areas that are
not eligible for participation without the waivers. USDA would need
additional waiver authority, similar to the authority provided in
Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), to address these and
other ongoing critical needs.
covid state waivers
Question. Which waivers, and for which States, has USDA approved a
no-cost extension in advance of the expected end of the universal COVID
waivers?
Answer. As of May 31, 2022, USDA has approved 884 individual State
waivers related to COVID-19 using the waiver authority in Section 12(l)
of the National School Lunch Act. These approvals reflect the requests
submitted by each individual State; therefore, the specific waivers
approved vary by State. Waivers approved using 12(l) authority may not
increase costs to the Federal Government.
For the Summer of fiscal Year 2022 and School Year 2022-23, waivers
include:
Summer Food Service Program/Seamless Summer Option:
--Non-Congregate feeding
--Parent/Guardian Pickup
School Lunch and Breakfast:
--Non-Congregate feeding
--/Guardian Pickup
--Meal Service Times
--Offer Vs. Serve
School Meals Administration:
--Local School Wellness Policy Triennial Assessment
--Food Service Management Company Contract Duration
--Administrative Review Onsite Requirements
Reporting Requirements:
--Second (Independent) Review
--Administrative Review Data
Special Milk Program:
--Non-congregate Milk Service
--Parent/Guardian Milk Pickup
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program:
--Parent/guardian Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Pickup
--Alternate Site
--Unanticipated School Closures (USC):
--Non-congregate Meal Service during USCs
--Parent/Guardian Pickup during USCs
--Meal Service Time during USCs
Child and Adult Care Food Program:
--Non-congregate Meal Service
--Parent/Guardian Pickup
--Meal Service Times
--State Agency On-Site Monitoring
--Sponsoring Organization Monitoring On-Site
Additional Flexibilities:
--Paid Lunch Equity
--Carryover Eligibility
States requesting Child Nutrition operations waivers include those
displayed on the following table:
State Agencies Requesting Child Nutrition Operating Waivers for Summer
2022 and School Year 2022-23 as of May, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
number of
State Agency waivers
requested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development; 20
(DEED)....................................................
California Department of Education; (CDE).................. 19
California Department of Social Services; (CDSS)........... 5
Colorado Department of Education; (CDE).................... 19
Colorado Department of Education; (CDE).................... 21
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; 5
(CDPHE)...................................................
Connecticut State Department of Education; (CSDE).......... 24
DC Office of the State Superintendent of Education; (OSSE). 26
Delaware Department of Education; (DDOE)................... 24
Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning; (DECAL)..... 10
Georgia State Department of Education; (GaDOE)............. 17
Georgia State Department of Education; (GaDOE)............. 2
Hawaii State Department of Education; (HSDOE).............. 20
Idaho Department of Education; (IDE)....................... 3
Idaho Department of Education; (IDE)....................... 3
Idaho Department of Education; (IDE)....................... 2
Illinois State Board of Education; (ISBE).................. 24
Illinois State Board of Education; (ISBE).................. 2
Indiana Department of Education; (IDOE).................... 24
Kansas State Board of Education; (KSDE).................... 21
Kansas State Board of Education; (KSDE).................... 2
Kentucky Department of Education; (KDE).................... 15
Louisiana Department of Education; (LA DOE)................ 24
Maine Department of Education; (Maine DOE)................. 24
Maine Department of Education; (Maine DOE)................. 2
Maryland Department of Education; (MSDE)................... 23
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary 24
Education; (MA DESE)......................................
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary 2
Education; (MA DESE)......................................
Michigan Department of Education; (MDE).................... 22
Nevada Department of Agriculture; (NDE).................... 24
Nevada Department of Agriculture; (NDE).................... 2
New Hampshire Department of Education; (NHDOE)............. 15
New Hampshire Department of Education; (NHDOE)............. 2
New Jersey Department of Agriculture; (NJDA)............... 24
New Jersey Department of Agriculture; (NJDA)............... 2
New York State Department of Health; (NYDOH)............... 5
New York State Education Department; (SED)................. 19
New York State Education Department; (SED)................. 2
Ohio Department of Education; (ODE)........................ 24
Ohio Department of Education; (ODE)........................ 26
Oregon Department of Education; (ODE)...................... 24
Oregon Department of Education; (ODE)...................... 26
Pennsylvania Department of Education; (PDE)................ 24
Pennsylvania Department of Education; (PDE)................ 2
Puerto Rico Department of Education; (AESAN)............... 6
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary 23
Education; (RIDE).........................................
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary 2
Education; (RIDE).........................................
South Carolina Department of Education; (SCDE)............. 19
Tennessee Department of Education; (TDOESNP)............... 19
Tennessee Department of Human Services; (DHS).............. 11
Texas Department of Agriculture; (TDA)..................... 22
Texas Department of Agriculture; (TDA)..................... 24
Vermont Department of Education; (VTAOE)................... 24
Virginia Department of Education; (VDOE)................... 15
Virginia Department of Education; (VDOE)................... 1
West Virginia Department of Education; (WVDE).............. 22
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction; (WDPI)......... 22
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction; (WDPI)......... 24
Total--All Waivers Requested for Summer 2022 and SY 884
2022-23...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mexico ban on glyphosate
Question. At the end of 2020, Mexico adopted a decree that
progressively bans the use, distribution, and importation of glyphosate
by 2024. This decree adopted by Mexico violated Mexico's obligations
under USMCA. The Mexican government's justification for eliminating
glyphosate creates a dangerous precedent and it is vital our trade
partners uphold their commitments in trade agreements. Being that
Mexico is the second largest market for U.S. agriculture exports
totaling $18.4 billion annually,
What has USDA done so far to investigate and help mitigate this
violation of the USMCA trade agreement?
Answer. USDA is carefully monitoring Mexico's implementation of the
decree and related developments. We have frequently communicated our
concerns to Mexican officials. In fact, during my recent visit to
Mexico, I personally raised these concerns at the highest level of the
Mexican government, and USDA has been working diligently to explore all
possible avenues toward a satisfactory resolution.
Question. Is USDA currently working with any other agency to ensure
Mexico and other countries uphold their trade agreements?
Answer. USDA continues to work closely with the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative on these issues in Mexico to ensure compliance
with USMCA trade agreement commitments.
Question. Last year, USDA announced that $500 million in funds
would be set aside to expand meat and poultry processing capacity
across the U.S, with $150 million for existing small and very small
processing facilities. Kentucky is the largest cattle producer east of
the Mississippi River and the eighth most nationally but remains
underserved in slaughter capacity.
How will the distribution of these funds ensure that facilities in
States with an imbalance of capacity are prioritized?
Answer. USDA recognizes that strengthening the meat and poultry
supply chain requires geographic diversity. The scoring process for the
Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program allows for Discretionary
Points which are to be used, as noted in the Request for Applications
(RFA), ``...for projects to maximize diversity among awards on the
basis of geography (including those located in underserved
communities), operation size, species, ownership, and business model.''
Similarly, discretionary points may be awarded under the new Meat and
Poultry Intermediary Lending Program, ``to facilitate geographic,
species, or project diversity that increases capacity of the supply
chain or makes it more diverse, secure, or resilient.''
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
pfas impacts to producers
Question. Secretary Vilsack, in response to my question about
relief to producers impacted by PFAS, you stated that ``you were under
the impression you are providing indemnity for livestock in addition to
fluid milk.'' You also stated you ``think you have done this'' and are
``paying farmers for the loss of livestock.'' Unfortunately, this is
not the case in Maine. The Maine Executive Director of Farm Service
Agency in Maine confirmed to me that ``no DIPP payments [have been
made] for livestock depopulated due to PFAS.''
While USDA may be willing to provide indemnity for depopulated
livestock and has made the regulatory changes that allows the
Department to do so, the reality in Maine is that no payments have been
made thus far. It is important that the record be corrected on this
issue. When will DIPP payments be made to Maine farmers for
contaminated livestock?
Answer. I appreciate your continued focus on this important issue
for both impacted Maine producers, and those across the country. When I
was asked about this at the hearing, it was my understanding that the
Farm Service Agency's (FSA's) County and State Offices had received and
reviewed a DIPP cow indemnity application, along with supporting
documentation, from a producer in Maine, as well as other applications
from a producer in another state, which is the first step in this
process to begin paying farmers in the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program
(DIPP) for the loss of the livestock, or more specifically for a dairy
cow contaminated with PFAS. What I was not aware of at the time of the
hearing was that the State and County offices determined that the
documentation provided by the Maine producer did not substantiate the
number of cows for which compensation was requested. The State Office
has contacted the producer and provided appeal rights. I am sorry for
the confusion I may have caused at the hearing when I stated that we
are in the process to begin paying farmers for the loss of livestock.
Specific to the timeline you asked about for making the DIPP payments
to Maine farmers for contaminated dairy cattle, in this particular case
that is dependent on that appeal process and our receiving the
appropriate documentation to substantiate the requested compensation
level.
Question. Vegetable farmers across Maine are now finding PFAS in
their soil and have no program at USDA to turn to for relief. What
relief can you provide to these vegetable farmers today? How to you
plan to expand the scope of existing USDA programs to serve the needs
of all affected farmers, not just dairy farmers?
Answer. The Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) agencies; Farm
Service Agency (FSA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and
Risk Management Agency (RMA) are evaluating existing safety net and
conservation programs for their applicability to provide immediate or
longer-term support to our customers that are directly impacted by
PFAS.
Currently, there is no FPAC program that is statutorily designed to
address PFAS contamination for agricultural producers. Several key
programs that could possibly be utilized include the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), Farm Loan Programs, Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP), and RMA Multi-Peril Crop Insurance, among
others. NRCS is actively developing a new Conservation Evaluation and
Monitoring Activity (CEMA) to support PFAS testing in water and soil at
agricultural farms that may be contaminated with PFAS, which could be
utilized in EQIP and other programs. FSA is actively looking at options
and requirements for the establishment of a Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP) agreement that could be applicable to
agricultural producers, which includes vegetable farmers, impacted by
PFAS and is also soliciting proposals for research related to PFAS and
plant uptake. For crop insurance, by law, PFAS is not currently an
insurable cause of loss. However, RMA is reviewing options for
providing some relief if PFAS contamination is confirmed.
Finally, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
leading regulatory actions on PFAS, USDA is working with EPA and other
Federal partners to develop solutions and a coordinated strategy for
moving forward.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
covid relief progam implementation
Question. The COVID-19 pandemic had a dramatic impact on farmers of
all commodities and of all sizes. When constructing and implementing
relief programs, I respect your goal of making sure they reach the
producers who require the most assistance and your use of guardrails to
prevent abuse. However, at times, these guardrails can be a roadblock
to producers who are in dire need of assistance.
I have heard from several pork producers in Missouri that this
problem has occurred with the Spot Market Hog Pandemic Program's
exclusion of hogs that were sold on a formula agreement based on spot
prices. Were Congress to make funding available, would USDA be able to
use a framework similar to SMHPP to make these formula/LMR Code 3
producers whole?
Answer. As part of USDA's Pandemic Assistance for Producers
initiative, which has been focused on addressing gaps in previous
assistance, USDA created the Spot Market Hog Pandemic Program (SMHPP)
to assist producers who sold hogs through a spot market sale from April
16, 2020, through September 1, 2020. If Congress were to provide
additional funding to provide relief to a different subset of the hog
industry impacted by the pandemic, USDA would ensure it is ready to
expeditiously distribute that funding to eligible producers.
reconnect program
Question. In November 2021, I joined my colleagues in sending a
letter to you expressing concern regarding a new policy in USDA's
ReConnect Program that would favor broadband grant applicants that
commit to net neutrality principles. In my view, this represents a
backdoor way to impose heavy-handed net neutrality rules on the
industry. USDA should instead be focusing on rural broadband, not
politicizing the ReConnect Program and dragging the net neutrality
fight into it.
Moreover, the ReConnect program has been criticized for unduly
favoring grants for local governments, to the detriment of private
broadband investment, and for inadequately coordinating with other
government programs, such as the FCC's Universal Service Fund.
Secretary Vilsack, will you commit to focusing squarely on unserved
households in distributing the current round of ReConnect funding? To
that end, will USDA stop using ReConnect funding to advance partisan
priorities like net neutrality, broadband rate regulation, and
government-owned networks?
Answer. The third funding round of the ReConnect Program closed on
March 9, 2022, and the Rural Utilities Service is currently reviewing
the applications submitted. USDA is committed to working to close the
digital divide in rural communities and we know this effort is an all-
hands-on-deck effort. Acknowledging that, the third round revised the
scoring points structure that sought to encourage more partners to join
this effort and prioritize the communities with the most need. Seventy
out of the total 175 voluntary points possible, 40 percent of those
points, were offered for applications that prioritized the most
unserved rural communities: 25 points for applications that would serve
the least dense rural areas, 25 points for applications that would
connect areas without access to 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream
speeds, and 20 points for applications that would serve areas with a
high economic need. In addition, 15 points, which is only 8.5 percent
of the total available, were offered to encourage municipalities and
cooperatives to join this all-hands-on-deck effort. To get those 15
points, it is also important to note that a private corporation could
collaborate with a municipality or a cooperative to receive those
points. Even with this voluntary points structure, the majority of
applicants continued to be for profit and private entities.
USDA also offered 10 additional points for applicants that
volunteered to practice the principles of no blocking lawful content,
no degrading lawful traffic, and no engaging in paid prioritization of
content. USDA did not impose these principles, but instead presented an
opportunity for applicants to choose these additional points if they so
desired.
These basic ``net neutrality'' principles have been publicly
embraced by many large and small Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as a
way to ensure that consumers and businesses get the quality service
they pay for: full access to the Internet, unhampered by blocking,
impairment or degrading of lawful Internet content. The principles also
protect competition and innovation by ensuring that an ISP's
subscribers are not trapped in a service that favors its own or paid
content or services over content or services offered by others. These
principals are not partisan priorities, but rather a way to help equip
rural America to have the kind of broadband access that is meaningful
and that actually can make a difference to these rural communities that
are currently unserved and underserved. Adherence to these principles
has proven beneficial to broadband customers, particularly in areas
without multiple ISPs, where switching between providers is not an
option.
USDA is not involved in broadband rate regulation--that is the
realm of the Federal Communications Commission as the Federal authority
with the power to regulate the telecommunications industry.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
bill emerson humanitarian trust
Question. Does USDA have recommendations for policy changes that
Congress should consider to improve the functionality of the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust and make it more accessible in the future?
Answer. Under the current law the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
(BEHT) is not triggered until USAID has fully allocated the Food for
Peace program funds. USAID makes the commodity selections and also
identifies the recipients for the commodities purchased under the fund.
The proposal is then sent to USDA for concurrence. Under current law,
there is no USDA role in the process relative to the identification of
commodities. USAID makes the commodity selections to align with
countries that are both in need and where the product would be
culturally appropriate, and does not factor in U.S. prices or supply.
In addition, as we have seen with the current food security crisis,
there are countries that need food assistance, but do not meet the
threshold of USAID's emergency assistance programming.
When the BEHT is fully tapped, as it was earlier this year, the
current replenishment rate of $20 million per year, may preclude the
BEHT purchase of U.S. commodities to meet future global food security
needs. As Congress considers reauthorization of the Farm Bill next
year, USDA looks forward to engaging in the process to ensure that all
USDA programs, including international food assistance efforts are
maximized to benefit U.S. farmers producing high quality and nutritious
commodities and combat global food insecurity.
cost effective malnutrition interventions
Question. Secretary Vilsack, with over 44 million children on the
brink of starvation in the Horn of Africa alone, there is a strong need
for proven and cost-effective malnutrition interventions such as ready-
to-use therapeutic food (RUTF). I understand that two countries (South
Sudan and Ethiopia) have already requested RUTF through the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust. Do you support including funding for RUTF
via the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, the emergency supplemental
package, or annual appropriations process to ensure that this
lifesaving product gets into the hands of those who need it most?
Answer. USAID in consultation with USDA has selected Ready to Use
Supplemental Food (RUSF) through the BEHT to targeted beneficiaries in
Ethiopia and South Sudan. RUSF is designed to treat children ages 6
months to 5 years who have been diagnosed with moderate acute
malnutrition (MAM). While RUTF is meant as a meal replacement, RUSF is
typically a supplement to other feeding. RUSF treats the low-grade
malnutrition that leads to stunting and a multitude of other health
problems. It lowers the cost of intervention as a child only needs one
packet per day--not three. The BEHT commodity choices are meant to
supplement existing food interventions where we have current
shortfalls.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
guaranteed loan program
Question. USDA's Business and Guaranteed Loan Program (B&I program)
has successfully grown rural businesses, created new jobs, and expanded
rural economies for many years by increasing access to capital through
loan guarantees. Because of the COVID pandemic and current inflation,
more small banks in rural areas are timid to make large financial
loans. This, along with the growth in popularity of the program, has
rapidly increased the demand for guaranteed loans. Currently, the B&I
Program will soon run out of funding, well before the end of the fiscal
year, leaving many rural businesses eager to grow with no access to
capital. How do you plan to use your authority to ensure the B&I
Program is funded through the fiscal year? Are there funds within USDA
that can be transferred to fully support the B&I Program? If so, will
you ensure that the B&I Program, which has successfully grown rural
economies and local food systems, will be funded by USDA through the
fiscal year?
Answer. The budget authority (BA) provided by Congress for the B&I
Guaranteed Loan Program, along with carryover BA, will support the
authorized lending level for fiscal year 2022 of $1.4 billion. As in
any fiscal year, the discretionary appropriation provides a specific
funding level for loans and grants. These levels are meant to provide a
specific amount of assistance for the program. These are not mandatory
programs, and, as such, not funded to meet the annual demand. There are
many programs across government where the annual demand is greater than
the funding amount available, and the government does not routinely
increase these programs mid-year when demand is higher than expected.
We consider the program delivery to be successful in carrying out the
will of Congress if we are funding the full loan level provided by
Congress in the annual appropriation bill. However, we recognize that
the COVID pandemic and current inflation rates have put an
unanticipated demand on the B&I loan guarantees.
Consequently, USDA is investigating options that will allow
additional loan level within fiscal year 2022 to address this. We are
hopeful that our efforts prove successful but caution that there is no
guarantee that the additional funding will be sufficient to meet the
demand for the year, since it is not possible to know what that amount
is with any precision.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Baldwin. Thank you Mr. Secretary.
And with that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., Tuesday, May 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the chair.]