[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.]