[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE HONORABLE
THOMAS J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 28, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-5
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-212 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice Minority Member
Chairman JIM COSTA, California
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DOUG LaMALFA, California ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
DON BACON, Nebraska SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
MIKE BOST, Illinois ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TRACEY MANN, Kansas MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa Washington
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina,
BARRY MOORE, Alabama Vice Ranking Minority Member
KAT CAMMACK, Florida JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
RONNY JACKSON, Texas GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York GREG CASAR, Texas
JOHN S. DUARTE, California CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK ALFORD, Missouri ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin DARREN SOTO, Florida
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MAX L. MILLER, Ohio
______
Parish Braden, Staff Director
Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Finstad, Hon. Brad, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
submitted letter............................................... 99
Hayes, Hon. Jahana, a Representative in Congress from
Connecticut, submitted letter.................................. 100
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Witness
Vilsack, Hon. Thomas J. ``Tom'', Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Supplementary material....................................... 104
Submitted questions.......................................... 107
HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE HONORABLE
THOMAS J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn
Thompson [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Thompson, Lucas, Austin Scott of Georgia,
Crawford, DesJarlais, LaMalfa, Rouzer, Kelly, Bacon, Bost,
Johnson, Baird, Mann, Feenstra, Miller of Illinois, Moore,
Cammack, Finstad, Rose, Jackson of Texas, Molinaro, De La Cruz,
Langworthy, Duarte, Nunn, Alford, Van Orden, Chavez-DeRemer,
Miller of Ohio, David Scott of Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Adams,
Spanberger, Hayes, Brown, Davids of Kansas, Slotkin, Caraveo,
Salinas, Perez, Davis of North Carolina, Tokuda, Budzinski,
Sorensen, Vasquez, Jackson of Illinois, Casar, Carbajal, Craig,
Soto, and Bishop.
Staff present: Justin Benavidez, Patricia Straughn,
Jennifer Tiller, Trevor White, John Konya, Kate Fink, Josh
Lobert, Ashley Smith, Elaine Zhang, Michael Stein, and Dana
Sandman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. And
welcome, and thank you for joining today's hearing where we
will hear from Secretary Vilsack from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
And before we proceed, I want to take the opportunity to,
if you bear with me, just to offer a blessing over our
proceedings today and, quite frankly, to lift up in prayer
those who most recently have been in our nation impacted by
just evil and unwarranted violence in the incident that we have
recently seen. So if you will, please pray with me.
Heavenly Father, we love you so much, and we thank you for
all that you provide for us, the protections that you provide
for us, how you light our steps, Lord. And, Lord, this morning,
we do lift up those citizens of this nation that have been
impacted, and especially those in the just recent day have been
impacted by just unwarranted and evil acts of violence. And so
we pray blessings over those that were lost. We pray blessings
for those family members that are in grief, that they would
find comfort through a relationship with you, Lord.
We lift up and we ask your blessings over each and every
person here, our Members, our Secretary, all of our staff.
Lord, you know our prayers before we speak them, so just ask
that you minister to those prayers. We pray for those who
provide for this nation, those hardworking farm, ranch,
forestry families, those who work in processing. Lord, offer
your blessings over them. Lord, now I pray over this hearing
that we have, that all we accomplish here will serve this great
nation and, quite frankly, bring a blessing on to you. And I
pray this in the name of my Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
All right. Thank you all. And after some brief opening
remarks, Members will receive testimony from our witness today,
and then the hearing will be open to questions.
So good morning, and welcome, Secretary Vilsack. First of
all, on behalf of the Ranking Member and myself, we want to
thank you for the opportunity that we had here I think within
the past month--days go by rather quickly here--where we joined
you and Mrs. Vilsack and us, our spouses, and Senator Stabenow
and Senator Boozman for breaking some bread. It was a great
dinner, and we both greatly appreciate that.
Your appearance today comes at a critical time for the
Committee when Congress will soon come together to debate and
authorize the farm bill that will have implications across the
agriculture value chain for years to come. And that is where I
would like to start this morning.
The farm bill is one of the few remaining pieces of
legislation steeped in consensus and makes every attempt to
provide producers and consumers with predictability, sensible
policy, and fiscal responsibility. The return for this
bipartisan, targeted, and statutory investment is more than 43
million jobs, $2.3 trillion in wages, $718 billion in tax
revenue, $183 billion in exports, and $7.4 trillion in economic
activity. And almost like clockwork, Congress comes together to
reauthorize the farm bill with specific direction to the
Department for implementation and execution. Each chamber goes
about an extensive review of current law and implementation.
The House solicits input from Members from both caucuses and
the diverse stakeholders across the 12 titles and with
technical assistance from the Administration.
In most instances, the bill follows regular order in both
chambers. The conference committee produces consensus
legislation, and the final bill is voted on and sent to the
President's desk. Not everybody gets what they want. Diverse
viewpoints find consensus, and we all agree to move better
policy forward. It is this process that creates buy-in and
trust. It is this process that makes it work, and it is this
process that provides sustainable solutions.
And some may wonder why this is worth reiterating. Because
when parties begin to act unilaterally, trust begins to erode,
and our process fails, and our work of meeting the needs of all
Americans becomes that much harder. Unfortunately, this
Administration has consistently and without hesitation upended
Congressional consensus through a series of unilateral
Executive decisions that will resonate for decades at a time
when both the farm sector and debt is skyrocketing and the farm
safety net is dwindling, whether it be the expedited, shoddy
updates to the Thrifty Food Plan or the multibillion-dollar
climate-smart pilot, rulemaking outside the scope of authority
granted by Congress or the demonization of certain industries.
Frankly, we are at a crossroads. Despite these frustrations,
Mr. Secretary, I know that our Members, in partnership with you
and your team at USDA and our counterparts in the Senate, have
the capacity to work in concert.
In the wake of record inflation, a global pandemic, and
geopolitical turmoil, American farmers, ranchers, foresters,
producers, and consumers are suffering. The best way to support
them is to pass an effective farm bill that addresses
deficiencies in the current safety net and builds on the many
tools that we have to support current and future generations.
You say so yourself, Mr. Secretary. Our country depends on it.
So, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your time here today, and
I look forward to a productive meeting.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Good morning, and welcome Secretary Vilsack.
Your appearance today comes at a critical time, when Congress will
soon come together to debate and authorize a farm bill that will have
implications across the agriculture value chain for years to come.
And that's where I would like to start this morning.
The farm bill is one of few remaining pieces of legislation steeped
in consensus and makes every attempt to provide producers and consumers
with predictability, sensible policy, and fiscal responsibility. The
return for this bipartisan, targeted, and statutory investment is more
than 43 million jobs, $2.3 trillion in wages, $718 billion in tax
revenue, $183 billion in exports, and $7.4 trillion in economic
activity. And almost like clockwork, Congress comes together to
reauthorize a farm bill, with specific direction to the Department for
implementation and execution.
Each chamber goes about an extensive review of current law and
implementation. The House solicits input from Members from both
caucuses and the diverse stakeholders across the 12 titles, and with
technical assistance from the Administration. In most instances, the
bill follows regular order in both chambers, a conference committee
produces consensus legislation, and the final bill is voted on and sent
to the President's desk. Not everyone gets what they want. Diverse
viewpoints find consensus. And we all agree to move better policy
forward. It's this process that creates buy-in and trust. It's this
process that makes it work. It's this process that provides sustainable
solutions.
Some may wonder why this is worth reiterating. It's because when
parties begin to act unilaterally, trust begins to erode, our process
fails, and our work of meeting the needs of all Americans becomes that
much harder.
Unfortunately, this Administration has consistently, and without
hesitation, upended Congressional consensus through a series of
unilateral, Executive decisions that will resonate for decades, at a
time when both farm sector debt is skyrocketing, and the farm safety
net is dwindling.
Whether it be the expedited, shoddy update to the Thrifty Food
Plan, or the multibillion-dollar climate-smart pilot; rulemakings
outside the scope of authority granted by Congress, or the demonization
of certain industries, frankly, we are at a crossroads.
Despite my frustrations, Mr. Secretary, I know that our Members, in
partnership with you and your team at USDA and our counterparts in the
Senate, have the capacity to work in concert.
In the wake of record inflation, a global pandemic, and
geopolitical turmoil, American farmers, ranchers, foresters, producers,
and consumers are suffering. The best way to support them is to pass an
effective farm bill that addresses deficiencies in the current safety
net and builds on the many tools we have to support current and future
generations.
You say so yourself, Mr. Secretary, our country depends on it.
Mr. Secretary, we thank you for your time today. I look forward to
a productive hearing.
With that, I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member for opening
remarks.
The Chairman. And with that, I would now like to welcome
the distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Scott, for any opening remarks he would like to give.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
And, Secretary Vilsack, welcome. Secretary Vilsack, I am
very disturbed about the direction we are going in at this time
with the farm bill. I am very concerned about the impact that
certain pieces of legislation is having on SNAP. And let me
just give you some data. Agra polls recently reported an
estimate that Dusty Johnson's bill would take 1.5 million
seniors and families with school-aged children off of SNAP.
An analysis published by the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities has much more dire data. They say three million
parents and grandparents of school-aged children are at risk of
losing their SNAP benefits. That impacts more than four million
children. Another two million older adults without children are
at risk of losing benefits. Just right there, that total comes
to 10.5 million seniors, children.
And let me tell you about our veterans. USDA's, your own
Economic Research Service, reported that between 2015 and 2019
that more than 11 percent of working-age veterans lived in
food-insecure households and that veterans have a 7.4 percent
greater risk of food insecurity than the general population.
Now, Mr. Secretary, as I am talking about this, I am
reminded of those great words from David in Psalms 40 and 41
where it says ``Blessed is that person that helps the poor, for
the Lord will help him in his time of trouble. I cried under
God, and I waited with patience, and He delivered me. He lifted
me out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay. He set my foot
upon a rock, and He established my goings and He put a new song
in my mouth.'' We have to make sure that this farm bill is a
new song in the mouths of our veterans, our children, all of
that.
And not to mention our farmers, who are struggling. As The
New York Times recently reported, we are losing 17,000 of our
small family ranchers every year, and many thousands of them
haven't earned a profit in 5 years.
So, Mr. Secretary, let us make this farm bill sing in the
night with the song for our veterans, our poor, those who need
our help, and let that song be entitled, Congress is helping us
who need the help the most.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so our witness may begin his
testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for questions.
I am pleased to welcome back to the Committee our witness
for today, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. Mr. Secretary, thank you
for joining us, and we will now proceed with your testimony.
You have 5 minutes. The timer in front of you will count down
to 0, at which point your time has expired.
Secretary Vilsack, please begin whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. ``TOM'' VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And
to the Ranking Member, thank you as well and to the Members of
the Committee. It is an honor to be here today.
I think Members of this Committee would probably agree with
me that one of the major responsibilities, certainly not the
only one, is for the USDA to work in concert with the Congress
to advance the economic well-being of our rural areas. And
certainly the key to that is the economic health and well-being
of our farmers, ranchers, and producers.
The reality is in the last 2 years we have experienced
record levels of net cash income in farm income, but not all
or, for that matter, many have benefitted from that record
level of income. In fact, the ERS recently reported nearly \1/
2\ of our farmers over the last several years have not made any
money at all and that roughly 40 percent of farmers have made
money, but the majority of money they make actually comes from
off-farm income. So that means that the top ten percent, those
who sell more than $1 million of product, have done quite well,
and they should because they are extraordinary farmers,
ranchers, and producers.
But I think we have to focus as well on the 90 percent that
haven't fared as well. The President likes to talk about
rebuilding the middle class from the bottom up and the middle
out, and I think we have a classic opportunity here as we
discuss the farm bill to do just that.
I think we have two choices that confront us. We can either
get big or get out, as Secretary Perdue once suggested, or we
can build more, new, and better markets, providing
entrepreneurial opportunities for that 90 percent so that they
benefit beyond just simply selling livestock and crops and
government payments.
I think we have a new opportunity. As a result of resources
that are available to the Department of Agriculture, we have
worked very hard to expand value-added opportunities to create
an opportunity for our farmers to take full advantage of
emerging ecosystem markets where they are paid for the
environmental results that they can achieve on their farms,
looking for ways in which they can convert agricultural waste
into ingredients for biobased products like sustainable
aviation fuel, working to establish a local and regional food
system which complements our production agriculture system, and
working of course to take full advantage of the opportunities
to embrace renewable energy on the farm and to provide that to
their community. Mr. Chairman, these are real opportunities for
us to expand more, new, and better markets and to create an
entrepreneurial surge in rural places.
Now, this is not a new issue and not a new challenge. In
fact, in 1979 then-Secretary Bob Bergland came to this
Committee and essentially talked about the same issue. And in
fact, it goes all the way back to the beginning of this
Department. If you look at the first report of the Commissioner
of Agriculture, at the time, a fellow by the name of Isaac
Newton, not the real Isaac Newton, Commissioner Isaac Newton.
In his preface to a 632-page report that he made to the
President on the first year of the Department of Agriculture,
he mentioned the concern about the consolidation of real estate
in the hands of a few. So this is an issue we have been dealing
with for quite some time. But I am optimistic, and I am hopeful
that, as we work together to fashion a farm bill, that we
indeed can create real opportunities for small- and mid-sized
farming operations because when they survive and when they
thrive, it means that there are more people living in rural
communities. With more people, we can keep those schools open.
We can expand hospital and healthcare opportunities. We can
create new opportunities and new customers for those small
businesses that are so vital to a small community. So this is a
significant and pivotal and transformational moment for this
Committee, and we look forward to working with you.
Just a word about the other major responsibility which we
have at USDA, which is to provide not just food security but
also nutrition security. I am more than happy to talk to the
Chairman and to the Members of the Committee about the Thrifty
Food Plan, about work requirements, and about the SNAP program
and some of the other nutrition programs. I look forward to
questions that you may ask about what we did and why we did it
and the statutory authority for doing it. But I will tell you
that we are excited about the opportunity to see real
opportunity not only to reduce food insecurity and nutrition
insecurity, but also to create a connection between those in
need and those who produce.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here
today. I look forward to the questions from the Committee
Members. And with that, I will yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vilsack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas J. ``Tom'' Vilsack, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
A Transformational Opportunity
Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of
the Committee for the opportunity to come before you today to discuss
the work we have underway at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
as well as the transformational opportunity that the 2023 Farm Bill
represents. The programs funded by the farm bill play a significant, if
often unrecognized, role in the livelihood and well-being of every
American, and billions more people around the globe.
President Biden understands and appreciates that the strength of
this great country is in its middle class, and that we can rebuild the
middle class ``from the bottom up and the middle out.'' That is why,
over the past 2 years, the Biden-Harris Administration and USDA have
embraced a path where the future of American agriculture is secure and
where there is greater equity and economic opportunity for agricultural
and rural communities. With the once-in-a-lifetime investments that
Congress has wisely provided through the American Rescue Plan, the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act, we are
transforming the food and agriculture economy so that it works for the
future, and so that it works for the many.
We are at a pivotal moment for American agriculture and rural
communities with a decision to make about if, and how, agriculture will
meet the challenges of our time. One option is to maintain the status
quo. This path leads towards too many producers, particularly small
producers, struggling to cover their costs, too many rural communities
languishing, and the outdated agricultural policies designed to address
challenges of the 1930s and 1970s--that all too often reinforce
systemic inequities. This path works for a few who have done what
American agricultural economics has for too long required of them: to
get big or get out. But there is another path, one that prompts us to
recognize the undeniable challenges of climate change and the need for
greater equity in our food system and recognize they are also
opportunities to seize as we seek to adapt to a new course. This path
draws on lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed
vulnerabilities at every point in our food supply chain--from the field
to the factory to the grocery store--and compels us to take
transformative action so that this vital system is more resilient,
secure, and accessible to all. This path draws strength from the
Interim Recommendations of the USDA Equity Commission,\1\ because they
are a roadmap for ensuring USDA lives up to its name as the People's
Department for everyone. There is nothing more foundational to a
country's security and stability than its food supply; an inclusive
agriculture and rural life must be part of a shift to bottom-up,
middle-out system if we want to create more opportunity in this
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA Equity Commission. (2023). Interim Report 2023:
Recommendations made to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Advance
equity for all. https://www.usda.gov/equity-commission/reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my testimony, I will first provide insights into how we got to
where we are today. I will then discuss at length what we are doing
today at USDA. In doing so, I aim to make clear how all of us--you as
legislators, and my team and I as implementers--have the opportunity in
the next farm bill to choose this better path to lead us to this
transformation. You have the opportunity to be part of creating a USDA
that is better positioned to realize its full potential as the People's
Department. USDA can only succeed in its mission to help America thrive
if it ensures that the Americans who need its services most receive
them. The USDA that we can build together is one that ensures American
farmers and families have the tools and support they need to farm,
build a business, raise a family, and cultivate a good life in the
community they love.
A Stabilizing Force for America
Though our history has not been perfect, with the Department's
story reflecting both the aspirations and historical missteps of this
nation, time and again USDA has been a lynchpin in creating economic
stability for America. The department was created in 1862, in the midst
of the Civil War, because President Lincoln recognized the central role
of farming and ranching to our country's economy and future. Shortly
thereafter, Congress created a network of agricultural and mechanical
colleges, now known as the land-grant university (LGU) system, located
in every state and supported by Federal funding, to educate citizens
and support public research. In 1890, need for further annual Federal
appropriations to invest in and support the LGU system facilitated the
establishment of a set of LGU institutions that are Historically Black
Colleges and Universities.\2\ Creation of USDA and the land-grant
university and extension systems was prescient and fundamental to our
growing nation, with an overwhelmingly rural and agrarian population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Tribal Colleges and Universities later became part of the
system in 1994 through the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act
of 1994, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1930s, the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl brought
widespread food insecurity, market failures, environmental degradation,
and economic hardship to rural and urban communities alike. In
response, Congress and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the
Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933, a centerpiece of the New Deal.
Creating institutions such as the Farm Credit Administration, the
Commodity Credit Corporation, and the first Federal farm, conservation,
nutrition, and rural electrification programs. A reflection of the
economics, values and social norms of the time, this legislation and
the New Deal remain the foundation for agriculture, food, nutrition,
and rural policy today. Congress recognized then, as it does today, the
value of a strong farm safety net, lending programs to keep farmers
farming, rural development programs to enhance life for those in rural
areas and small towns, and the pairing of farm and nutrition programs
in a single legislative package that benefits us all. The programs and
policies put in place at USDA were instrumental in bringing the U.S.
economy back from the brink and ensuring that many American farmers,
families, and communities were more stable in the 1940s and 1950s than
they were in the 1920s and 1930s.
Fast forward to the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. economic policy began to
change, as advances in technology in an increasingly globalized world
rewarded productivity and efficiency. As a result, the policies and
programs of USDA also changed. In 1973, most supply management policies
that had been in place since the New Deal came to an end, and market
volatility combined with an ill-prepared agriculture policy structure
led to the farm crisis of the 1980s, which devastated countless farm
communities. Case in point: In 1950 there were 5.3 million farmers
total and just under 560,000 Black and 14,700 Native American farmers.
By 1978 those numbers fell to 2.5 million farmers total and
approximately 57,000 Black and 8,350 Native American farmers and by
1997 to under two million farmers total and just 18,450 Black and
10,638 Native farmers. And despite these changes, production output
continued to rise. Farm policy of the last half century established new
commodity programs, Federal purchase of excess product, food aid and
support for export markets, crop insurance, and permanent disaster
assistance with the intent to create a safety net to prevent such a
crisis from happening again. And to a point, this has been successful:
America became a more food-secure nation and our exports feed the
world. There have also been often undercounted and overlooked economic,
and social costs to these policies.
For instance, while our policies have ensured an increasingly
abundant food supply, growth in farm size and consolidation has put
extreme economic pressure on small and medium sized farms and our rural
communities. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian
invasion of Ukraine, have roiled the supply chain, and exacerbated the
impacts of climate change, droughts, wildfires, other natural
disasters, and an especially widespread highly pathogenic avian
influenza (HPAI) outbreak. American agriculture has proven itself to be
extraordinarily efficient, but these crises have further revealed
hidden weaknesses in our production-optimized system.
While the last couple of years have seen record national farm
income, we know that nearly 50% of American farmers have had negative
farm income. Our data shows that 40% of farms are small- and mid-size
farms where the primary occupation of the household is farming, but the
majority of their income that was supporting their families came from
off-farm sources. 11% of American farmers are mid-sized or larger-
representing over 80% of the value of U.S. agricultural production,
which drove the level record farm income. And lest we not forget that
2% of those farms that did exceedingly well were actually investment
banks and institutional investors. As you can see, there have been
consequences to solely focusing on productivity. It has become more
expensive to put a crop in the ground, which put economic incentive for
farmers to spread their expenses over larger bases. Farm sizes have
increased and so have gross farm incomes. However, net farm income has
decreased, meaning that, while a few farming operations may have done
well, with profit rewarding investments made to scale and grow, far too
many others have struggled and many have been pushed out of business.
This has impacted more than just farmers and ranchers. It has
affected small towns across the nation that depend on agriculture as
the driver of main street small businesses, education and healthcare
systems, and civic institutions. The 2023 Farm Bill can--and I believe
must--be one that enshrines programs, policies, and investments that
safeguard rural communities and also a transformational one that goes
further to advance equity and address challenges like climate change
that our producers face now and will face for generations to come.
To build this future, USDA and Congress must put farmers, rural
communities, and families at the center of program design. We must find
ways to engage producers in new and more effective ways, streamlining
the delivery of programs, opening the doors of agriculture to all, and
providing a more effective and holistic farm safety net with flexible
responses to disasters. USDA has been working hard to reduce barriers
to programs and improve support to underserved farmers, ranchers,
landowners, and communities. But there is far more that Congress can do
ensure that all farmers, ranchers, and foresters have access to the
tools, programs and support they need to succeed in agriculture.
Farmers of all kinds must be able to turn a profit and make a living in
agriculture. This future must also include the consistent and
systematic treatment of all individuals in a fair, just, and impartial
manner.
We must ask ourselves: do we want a system that continues to force
the big to get bigger and the small and underserved to get out or do we
want a build a more innovative system? There is an opportunity here to
transform the system so that when farm income is strong, it is strong
not only for the few, but also for the many and most.
Market Opportunities That Add Value While Tackling Climate Change:
Climate-Smart Agriculture, Organic, Biobased Products, and
Renewable Energy
USDA is working to make investments that support new revenue
streams for our farmers. An area of great opportunity are investments
that not only support new income sources for farmers, but also position
farmers to be part of the solution to climate change adaptation and
mitigation. Farmers need new tools to improve their practices, and,
through their purchasing power, consumers want to support these
efforts. It is a false choice for farmers to have to choose between
being profitable and being environmentally conscious.
USDA's Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, which is
creating new markets for sustainable agricultural and forestry
production practices that the market values and benefits, is case in
point. With more than $3.1 billion of investments in 141 projects, USDA
is making it less-risky for farmers to embrace and adopt climate-smart
production practices and linking producers to new markets that value
those practices and are willing to reward them. Consumers are eager to
better understand the origins of their food products, and if they have
been produced sustainably. The end result will be more than 60,000
farms reached, encompassing 25 million acres of working land engaged in
climate-smart production practices, hundreds of expanded markets and
revenue streams for producers and more than 60 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent sequestered over the lives of the projects. Coupled
with the investments Congress made in USDA's conservation and energy
programs in the Inflation Reduction Act, this will allow American
producers to appreciably reduce emissions from their operations.
An analogous opportunity that USDA is spearheading is the Organic
Transition Initiative, which is putting American Rescue Plan and other
resources towards USDA programs that make it easier and less expensive
for producers to transition to organic production. Organic production
allows producers to hold a unique position in the marketplace and thus
take home a greater share of the food dollar. Consumers have
demonstrated a consistent demand for organic products and USDA
assistance through the 3 year organic transition period is opening
opportunities for new and beginning farmers while also expanding direct
consumer access to organic foods. Farmers across the country are eager
to seek out these new market opportunities and USDA is partnering with
over 160 local organizations across the country to support producers
transitioning to organic and provide farmer-to-farmer mentoring through
the Transition to Organic Program.
Both Climate-Smart Commodities and organic markets serve as new
profit opportunities for producers. They also create the opportunity to
generate income through ecosystem service markets. There are more than
20 of these markets around the country today, and they include water,
carbon, wildlife, and biodiversity markets. They are markets in which
farmers will be paid for the environmental results they are able to
obtain from sustainable practices. For example, the organic market has
grown to $52 billion in 2021. The combination of these efforts will
also allow us to use resources to monitor, measure, report, and verify
these results. Continued support from Members of this Committee,
coupled with the resources from the FY 2023 Consolidated Appropriations
Act and the authorities from the Growing Climate Solutions Act, will
allow USDA to advance and foster opportunities for producers to
participate in these markets.
Another profit opportunity USDA has focused on is harnessing the
bioeconomy. Biobased products hold the potential to improve our food
system, supply chain, climate, and health--opportunities abound to
convert and balance a fossil fuel-based economy with a biobased one.
Thanks to the commitment from President Biden and his direction calling
for a whole-of-government approach to advance biotechnology and
biomanufacturing towards innovative solutions across many sectors as
well as investments by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, USDA is
investing in this space. Projects and research are happening across the
country. The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is leading the way
on an innovative project that proposes to convert swine manure and
other feedstocks into biobinders for asphalt that increase the quality
of recycled asphalt pavements. If commercialized, this work may reduce
landfill waste and reduce disposal costs for asphalt, food waste, and
low-cost products. Another example is an Iowa project that is
transforming high oleic soybean oil into thermoplastic rubber for
pavements, which has the potential to extend repair longevity for
existing surfaces.
Another incredible opportunity for American farmers is the future
market for sustainable aviation fuel. Unlike electric vehicles,
airplanes can't pull over and recharge. By some estimates, we will need
36 billion gallons of sustainable aviation fuel--fuel that can be
produced from agricultural waste and woody biomass. This presents an
entirely new industry opportunity for farmers--a new revenue source
that can simultaneously reduce operating costs and allows them to put
renewable resources on the grid for other small businesses and homes in
rural areas.
The Inflation Reduction Act provides once in a generation
investment in renewable energy through the Renewable Energy for America
Program (REAP), in biofuels infrastructure and the largest single
investment in rural electrification since the passage of the Rural
Electrification Act in 1936. Rural Development is excited to combine
its deep experience in working with rural communities, and long,
trusted partnerships with rural electric cooperatives and producers to
provide opportunities to accelerate the transition to clean,
affordable, and reliable energy. With these investments, we are
positioning farmers to be part of a transformation of our economy to be
biobased and renewable, and for wealth creation and investment in rural
communities.
Supporting innovation and growth of new market opportunities isn't
enough though. We must also work to address the challenges farmers
face--from immediate challenges of input costs due to the unprovoked
war on Ukraine and supply chain disruptions, to longer-term challenges
of drought and severe weather that are constants in the lives of
farmers and ranchers across the country. Protection from plant and
animal disease threats and ensuring food safety are pillars of USDA's
work that cannot be overlooked. USDA has worked to ease port congestion
and support grain storage capacity to ease the burden through supply
chains and has dedicated significant resources to expand domestic
fertilizer production in this country through the Fertilizer Production
Expansion Program. Demand has been overwhelming for this program.
Through two funding opportunities, we received $3 billion in interest,
from over 350 independent businesses across 47 states, for the $500
million we have available. We are beginning to make awards now, having
announced more than $29 million of small projects just last week to
increase American made fertilizer production.
Risk management tools are essential to support producers in
navigating increasingly severe weather conditions. USDA farm loan and
loan guarantee programs can be the difference between success and
failure for farmers who need access to credit and are not able to
secure credit from traditional financial institutions. We look forward
to working with Congress to ensure USDA programs are accessible,
responsive, and user-friendly and to ensure that USDA's response to
producers in need of financing or navigating, drought, floods,
blizzards, hurricanes, and other natural disasters find USDA programs
and service to be timely, responsive, and aligned with producer needs.
Market Opportunities in Food Supply Chain Resilience: Competition, Fair
Markets, and Expansion of Processing Capacity and Local/
Regional Food Systems
Another important way to increase producer income and to build
stronger rural communities is to return market power to farmers and
consumers. The food and agriculture sectors are overwhelmingly
concentrated where just a handful of corporations dominant--raising
prices and decreasing options for American families, while also
squeezing out small businesses and entrepreneurs.
Most farmers now have little or no choice of buyers for their
product and little leverage to negotiate, causing their share of every
dollar spent on food to decline. Fifty years ago, ranchers got over 60
of every dollar a consumer spent on beef, compared to about 39 today.
Similarly, hog farmers got 40 to 60 on each dollar spent 50 years
ago, down to about 19 today. To address this, one of the first things
USDA did under the Biden-Harris Administration, with support from
Congress, was provide resources to existing meat and poultry processing
facilities to help them upgrade from state inspection to Federal
inspection, opening up markets across state lines. Thanks to the
American Rescue Plan, we have been able to invest significant resources
to support new and expanded processing capacity for meat, poultry, and
pork across the country. To date, USDA has invested in nearly 300
opportunities and there are more to come in the months ahead. USDA will
also soon roll out funding for expansion of processing beyond meat and
poultry, creating opportunities for more local processing of specialty
crops and other food products.
In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress had the foresight to enhance
investments in local and regional food systems through the
establishment of the Local Agricultural Marketing Programs. With
American Rescue Plan funds, USDA added additional funding to two of
these programs: the Regional Food System Partnership Program and the
Local Food Promotion Program. In addition, USDA is establishing
Regional Food Business Centers to provide localized assistance to
access local and regional supply chains, including linking producers to
wholesalers and distributors. USDA has received close to $2 billion in
funding requests for this $400 million program.
Investing in building out local and regional food systems gives
farmers the opportunity to control their own businesses and--ideally--
to negotiate prices and marketing arrangements with consumers, schools,
grocery stores, and restaurants.
For instance, USDA recently invested an additional $10 million to
the Farm to School Grant Program. This a relatively small amount in the
scheme of things, but it has helped to finance applications from 5,000
schools--schools that will now be able to negotiate and contract with
local producers so that they will reap the benefit of locally produced
food and farmers will reap the benefit of another new market. We have
19,000 school districts in this country that run school nutrition
programs. Imagine the possibilities to ensure that schools and local
producers can work together so children benefit from higher-quality
foods on their plates and program operators have stable sources for the
products they need. Thanks to the resources from the American Rescue
Plan, USDA was able to continue to invest in this program and others
that are helping to build infrastructure required to facilitate robust
local and regional food systems that go well beyond farm to school.
USDA is also taking a thoughtful look at ``business as usual'' to
support innovative measures. For example, USDA has created the Local
Food Purchase Assistance and Local Foods for Schools Cooperative
Agreement Programs. Using funds from the American Rescue Plan and the
Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA has invested over $1 billion, and is
partnering with 77 state, Tribal and Territorial governments to
purchase and distribute foods within the state or within 400 miles of
the delivery destination. The result is additional revenues streams and
new market opportunities for producers and local food businesses for
food banks, schools, and organizations that support underserved
populations that are healthy, nutritious, and unique to their
geographic region. Farmers have shared that this new market has added
diversity to where they sell and long-term revenue streams that have
allowed them to secure financing.
COVID exposed the fragility and rigidity of the food supply chain
and exposed strong consumer interest and market opportunities for
producers that want to sell in their community or region. At USDA, we
are dedicated to continuing to strengthen this work in local and
regional food systems, and we look forward to working with Congress to
bolster these efforts.
Advancing Nutrition Security
The work to develop market opportunities, bolster local and
regional food systems, and build resiliency into our food supply chain
also connects to the foundational American value that no one should go
hungry--that access to affordable, nutritious food is a fundamental
human right.
Nutrition assistance has been a central component of our food and
agriculture policy from the start and it remains so today. What is now
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was first created
and authorized by Congress in 1939 to allow people to buy farm
surpluses that otherwise were going to waste because prices for crops
had fallen so dramatically as farms across America were struggling to
deal with excess supply.
While the name of the program, its design, and delivery have
changed dramatically in the last 80 years, two important elements of
the program remain true today. First, SNAP remains a lifeline for tens
of millions of Americans as the most far-reaching, powerful tool to
ensure that Americans can access healthy food. And second, SNAP still
directly follows a guiding principle from Congress in 1939 in that
investments in SNAP are more than just a safety net for families; they
support our farmers who produce the food that participants buy. SNAP is
a vital economic engine thanks to the support it provides to local
grocery stores--especially in rural areas where a greater percentage of
households receive SNAP benefits--to the nation's manufacturing plants,
local food distribution systems and aggregation centers, and our
transportation system.
In addition to serving as an economic engine, SNAP is particularly
important for the millions of workers in this country who deal with the
challenges of hunger in their households that is often episodic in
nature. Impacted individuals are often those dealing with low wages,
particularly for those living in the 20 states without a state minimum
wage and earning just $7.25 an hour (or even less in two states), no
benefits such as paid sick leave, high childcare and housing costs that
create difficult trade-offs related to basic needs. SNAP is a critical
support that addresses immediate needs by reducing poverty and food
hardship; it has long-term impacts as well--participation by young
children has been linked to better long-term health, education, and
employment. Of course, SNAP is by no means a cure-all, but is a key
instrument beside others in our broad safety net. That is why the
President's vision calls for an array of investments that support low-
wage workers, seniors, and families.
As we laid out in the National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and
Health, USDA aims to continue to modernize payment methods to support
online shopping and mobile pay, to provide enhanced job training tied
to local workforce programs, and to find additional ways to bring in
local farmers and markets as retailers. We are also working to
strengthen cross enrollment capabilities across Federal assistance
programs, eliminate barriers to food assistance for vulnerable groups,
and make healthier choices easier by expanding food purchasing options,
fruit and vegetable incentives, and local food procurement.
Moreover, we are proud of the investments that have been made in
emergency feeding programs, which expand their reach and support
efforts to tie food to local markets, and investments that have
increased Tribal involvement and engagement in all nutrition assistance
programs. The Biden-Harris Administration recognizes the important role
of Tribes and Tribal organizations in ensuring American Indian and
Alaska Native households have access to nutrition assistance, and we
are committed to continuing to work with our Tribal partners to explore
opportunities to advance Tribal sovereignty and access to culturally
appropriate food offerings with respect to FNS programs.
An Opportunity for Rural and Tribal Prosperity
Farmers and ranchers live in rural places, and rural and Tribal
economies are intertwined with the agriculture and natural resource
sectors. To ensure the future of agriculture and rural communities we
must make sure that there is ample opportunity in rural places--and
that rural communities are places where farmers, ranchers, and their
kids want to live and raise their families. That there are rural and
Tribal communities in America without water and sewer systems and
without broadband in 2023 is intolerable. It's also a problem we can
solve--and we must. That's why USDA is committed to ensuring rural
America equitable access to all essential resources. USDA is leading
the new Rural Partners Network (RPN), an all-of-government program to
help rural and Tribal communities access Federal funding and resources.
RPN currently supports 36 rural and Tribal communities in 11 states and
Territories, and we hope to be able to expand to more communities and
states. Through RPN, USDA is hiring new full-time Federal staff who are
from the region to work hand in hand with RPN community leaders. Now,
more than ever, it is critical to ensure rural and Tribal communities
can benefit from Federal investments as the Biden-Harris Administration
delivers unprecedented resources through the American Rescue Plan,
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and Inflation Reduction Act.
For example, one of the ways USDA has leveraged RPN is by
partnering with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the Closing
America's Wastewater Access Gap Community Initiative. Through this
Initiative, Rural Development is providing critical technical
assistance to help historically underserved communities identify and
pursue Federal funding for modern, reliable wastewater systems--and we
are doing it in partnership with the Federal family.
As each of us has experienced personally, the pandemic amplified
the need to ensure everyone has reliable, high-speed internet access.
Through our work to strengthen e-connectivity we can broaden economic
opportunities and job creation in rural America, while allowing
underserved communities to offer stronger business services, expand
access to modern healthcare, and improve education. Recognizing those
needs for equitable access, USDA has invested in more than 282
broadband projects that will connect 359,092 households to internet
through the ReConnect program and this is just one example of how USDA
is connecting rural communities to the local, regional, and national
economy. USDA will continue to work to quickly deploy these vital funds
to build high speed internet, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law investments that we are on track to fully award before the fall.
With a physical presence in rural communities that is unmatched,
USDA is positioned to be a partner to rural communities seeking Federal
resources--or a partner in turning a vision for a better future into
reality. From low-interest capital that enables communities to finance
projects for critical infrastructure ranging from housing and water
systems to broadband and business development, USDA is an essential
partner to rural and Tribal communities across the country. However,
USDA is often hemmed in with programs that are hard to access and
applications that are cumbersome, often building on statutes that are
outdated or programs created for the challenges of the 1930s and 1960s
rather than the opportunities of today. Without spending a dime,
Congress can reduce barriers to accessing USDA programs, enhance our
ability to work across the Federal family, improve our ability to
provide technical assistance and reach underserved communities and
ensure that our programs, tools, and authorities keep pace with the
innovation, transformation and needs of agriculture and rural
communities today.
The Important Role of Public Investment in Research and Extension and
Recovery
Finally, a word on research and new challenges. Federal investment
in public research and development (R&D) in agriculture is foundational
to ensuring we maintain our role as a global leader in agricultural
competitiveness and continuing to see the tremendous productivity
growth we have enjoyed and meet the challenges ahead. To be clear: it
will require far greater investments than current levels provided by
Congress. When adjusted for the rising cost of conducting research,
U.S. public agricultural R&D expenditures have declined by about \1/3\
since peaking in 2002.\3\ At one point in time, agriculture research
represented approximately 4.3% of the overall non-defense research
allocations and appropriations for the Federal Government. Today it has
dropped to 2.3%. Given that public R&D investment is the primary driver
of long-term productivity growth in U.S. agriculture, this is a trend
that must be reversed if we hope to maintain our competitive advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/june/investment-in-u-
s-public-agricultural-research-and-development-has-fallen-by-a-third-
over-past-two-decades-lags-major-trade-competitors/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this Committee is sharply focused on the farm bill
reauthorization, I must note that these public investments in R&D,
through the Agricultural Research Service, Economic Research Service,
and National Institute of Food and Agriculture to our land-grant
institutions, are nearly solely dependent on annual discretionary
appropriations. It must also be noted that historically, our 1890 and
1994 minority-serving land-grant institutions have not received funding
comparable to 1862 land-grant colleges and universities. These minority
serving agricultural institutions are making important contributions
towards equitable access to information, education, and capacity to
underserved students, farmers, ranchers, and foresters and have a
critical role to play as we transform our food system.
Even without farm bill funding, the programs Congress chooses to
include in the farm bill provide direction and set USDA research
priorities. As you revisit the farm bill, I urge you to consider
challenges of the future, needed program flexibilities, and ways to
ensure that USDA's research entities are focused on the challenges that
producers, community-based organizations, small business owners, health
professionals, parents, scientists, and communities will face in the
years to come. You must also consider how to make agricultural
research, outreach, and technical assistance with extension more
equitable, while serving a diversity of constituencies and marginalized
communities. Through our partnerships with Minority Serving
Institutions USDA is working to support capacity building initiatives,
education, and pathways to employment for students and faculty, while
helping to develop a strong pipeline of talented individuals for USDA
and all of agriculture in this country but there is far more to do and
more that Congress can support going forward.
Our research authorizations must be flexible, nimble, and working
on timely and relevant research and data collection, as the investments
we make today will define innovation for decades to come. Examples of
issues that we continue to hear essential for public investment
include: drought and climate change mitigation and adaptation, novel
food production, carbon sequestration, forest health and resilience,
cancer prevention, precision nutrition, environmental mediation, PFAS,
pesticides and soil remediation, soil health and cover cropping, food
safety innovation, workforce development, biobased product development,
renewable energy technology deployment, strategies for effective
community development, and economic transition. Transforming the food
system to bring prosperity and new opportunities to our producers and
rural communities will require investing in and strengthening research,
education, and extension capacity across the nation and prioritizing
the development of a well-trained workforce that reflects the diversity
of agriculture and communities across the country.
We have also seen that our disaster and risk management programs
must be flexible, nimble, and have sufficient resources to support our
nation's producers as they face an increased frequency and severity of
natural disasters, often driven by climate change, and more recently
man-made disasters. Within the current authorities, we have used the
available flexibilities to reach more types of farming and challenges,
and been able to aid farmers to some extent thanks to the variety of
tools that USDA has on hand today with the Federal Crop Insurance
Program, the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP),
various conservation, livestock, and crop disaster assistance programs,
and the vitally important and flexible Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC). These efforts have included filling gaps in assistance through
later rounds of the pandemic programs, adding both USDA and privately
submitted crop insurance options, recognizing how working lands
conservation like cover crops and no-till can help make farming more
resilient, major streamlining of permanent and ad hoc disaster program
to remove unnecessary paperwork, and using the CCC to purchase
commodities or assist with marketing needs or inputs like fertilizer
when the traditional tools oriented only toward natural disasters are
inadequate.
Unfortunately, there continues to be many farms and types of
disasters that simply are not adequately protected due to authorities
being designed for one-type of farming instead of specialty crops and
diverse systems or primarily focused on short term natural disasters
instead of the severe prolonged drought or man-made or input
challenges. USDA has sought out new ways to reach underserved producers
and improve equity in USDA programming by addressing constraints that
impede access to crop insurance or risk management tools and knowledge,
but for some producers and production systems it may take a shift from
a crop-by-crop approach to looking at the overall health of the
operation and targeting assistance based on the operation's overall
losses and need.
As these natural disasters have increased in both scale and
severity, we have seen that farmers and ranchers often face increasing
crop and rangeland losses that may not be covered by our existing
programs and risk management tools. Congress has responded in recent
years with a patchwork of ad hoc disaster programs--although most
recently in the FY 2023 Omnibus was under-funded given the scale of the
losses farmers and ranchers faced in 2022--and using the same narrow
crop loss and indemnity model despite the broader set of challenges
producers are facing today. USDA has gone as far as the current tools
and authorities allow and continues to look for ways to streamline and
improve access. This is another area where you must consider if our
risk management and disaster tools are strong not only for the few, but
also for the many and most.
Conclusion
The transformational opportunity before this Congress in the next
farm bill is not simply about farmers and ranchers, it's not just about
income or drought or SNAP, it's not just about breaking down barriers
to opportunity or entrepreneurship, all of which is important. It's not
just about jobs. It is about the essence of this country. This
transformation in agriculture can be part of strengthening the
financial base in rural America by rooting wealth, creating
opportunity, and creating thriving rural communities. And a strong
rural America is important and critical to our democracy.
There are countless farmers and families across the country
clamoring for a different way. With shared vision, will, and focus we
can create a different, innovative, creative way to approach the future
as we think anew and act anew. We can be innovative enough to create
additional profit opportunities for farms small, mid-sized, and large.
So instead of only one, two, or three ways to generate profit and
income on a farm, we can have five or six or seven different ways. We
can provide technical and financial assistance and help that will allow
producers to connect to their local markets, allowing them to take
advantage of expanded processing. We can make it possible for farmers
to provide their agricultural waste to a new business with a
manufacturing or processing facility located just down the road that's
creating a material, a fabric, a fiber, a chemical, a fuel, or an
energy source. Congress has an extraordinary opportunity with the farm
bill reauthorization to say to the farming community, it's not just get
big or get out, it's diversify and thrive. And all of this must be done
through a USDA that is mobilized, department-wide, to remove barriers
to access to our programs and services for all Americans, including
ensuring USDA and all of our Federal resources reach underserved
communities and those with the most need.
This is a time of great opportunity--a time to be hopeful. I look
forward to working with you on this charge because our farmers and
rural communities and next generations need us to meet the moment. And
quite frankly our country depends on it.
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for
your important testimony today. At this time, Members will be
recognized for questions in order of seniority, alternating
between Majority and Minority Members and in order of arrival
for those who joined us after the hearing convened. You will be
recognized for 5 minutes each in order to allow us to get as
many questions in as possible.
And I will try to be--quite frankly, I am anticipating
great participation today, so I promise to be heavy on the
gavel at the 5 minute mark so that we can give everybody an
opportunity to be able to ask their questions. And with that, I
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, the most recent omnibus
appropriations bill (Pub. L. 117-328) contained the SUSTAINS
Act (Sponsoring USDA Sustainability Targets in Agriculture to
Incentivize Natural Solutions Act of 2021), which allows USDA
to accept third-party donations to fund all farm bill
conservation programs. Now that the SUSTAINS Act is law,
recognizing that was signed into law just a couple months ago,
the end of December, where is the Department with using this
expanded authority across USDA conservation programs?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we are working extensively
to try to address the need to get information out to producers
so that they can take full advantage of our conservation
programs, which includes the opportunity for us to partner with
those who are interested in supporting conservation. I think
there are a number of opportunities and a number of
partnerships that are already being developed. We are looking
at a number of environmental and conservation organizations
that have indicated a desire to partner with us. You mentioned
the Climate-Smart Commodities Program. That is also an example
as well. We have incredible numbers of partnerships there that
will be advancing significantly climate-smart conservation
practices. So I think we are well underway to try and meet the
needs of that and the goals of that particular legislation and
expand beyond it.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. There are some definitions
that I think there is a lot of uncertainty and confusion about
what they mean. For example, and maybe you can define for us,
ultra-processed food. I mean, that is one that is creating a
lot of confusion. Does the Department have a clear definition--
I mean, we are using that definition, the Department is, but do
we have a clear definition of what ultra-processed food is?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, I think what we are
attempting to do in the Dietary Guidelines is to ask a series
of questions about the nutritional value of foods that are
being submitted to folks. I think ultra-processed obviously
involves sort of ready-to-eat kind of foods that have been
prepared that can be put in a microwave, that can be put in a
pot of boiling water to be able to produce more quickly the
food and then put it on the table. I think the challenge is to
find out whether or not, as you are producing that food for
your families, whether or not you are fully aware of the
nutritional value of that compared to maybe some other options
and choices that you might have. And that is why we have asked
the question in the Dietary Guidelines to give us information.
I think we are all in a learning process on this.
The Chairman. Okay. I mean, does that apply also to a word
that I think everybody feels like they understand what it is,
but within the Dietary Guidelines, what does healthy mean?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think the reality is that we now
know and we are learning more each and every day about
precision nutrition, that there are many challenges with
reference to the connection between what we eat and diet-
related diseases. And I think the reality is that a significant
amount of our healthcare costs are directly connected to diet-
related diseases, that is to say diseases that could
potentially be mitigated or even avoided with proper nutrition.
And I think that is the reason why we are investing and
learning more about precision nutrition so that we are in a
position to be able to provide consumers information so they
can make appropriate choices for themselves and their family.
And that is one of the reasons why it is important to have
Dietary Guidelines. It is important to take those guidelines
and roll them into the nutrition programs that we administer at
USDA.
The Chairman. Yes, the term I use for that coming out of
healthcare is prescriptive nutrition, and quite frankly,
everybody is different, so it is hard to paint with a broad
brush.
Secretary Vilsack. The prescription definition is one in
which--and we have the GusNIP program which does this,
essentially says to doctors, instead of prescribing
medications, you might think about prescribing the use of
fruits and vegetables, for example, as a way of treating a
particular diet-related disease.
The Chairman. Right. Nutrition is fundamental to health, a
fundamental building block, no doubt about it. And with that,
it looks like my time is going to expire before I get my
question in, but I will submit one to you. It really is on
implementation of the Packers and Stockyards Act and a concern
I have with the GIPSA rule, which is coming up for kind of a
third time at bat.
So with that said, I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Chairman.
Secretary Vilsack, I am very concerned about the drastic
and dramatic loss of farms in our agriculture system. As I have
said in my opening remarks to you, The New York Times has
reported an average of 17,000 small ranches or farms being lost
every year. That is absolutely staggering. And that many of our
farmers have not made a profit in 5 years. And so we went to
work, and we got a bill that we are moving on that would set up
a safety net for our small rancher families. We have to save
the small family rancher and the small farmer. They are the
heart and soul of our system. If we don't save them, who is
going to be producing and growing and farming? These huge
combines? That is what happened at the other end of the supply
chain with our meatpackers. We had thousands of meatpackers in
this country at one time. Now, it is only four, basically, who
control 80 percent. Now, we have to move. So I am asking for
your help on getting our bill that would set up a safety net
for our small farmers and will provide you with some money so
that you can help set up some excellent marketing opportunities
so that their products can be sold. I hope you will support us
with that.
Now for the veterans. Your information said that between
2015 and 2019 more than 11 percent of working-age veterans
lived in food-insecure households, and 7.4 percent of them
risked food insecurity. Ladies and gentlemen and Chairman, our
food is now becoming a national security issue, especially when
we can't feed our veterans. And you and I have been working on
this, and I have talked with you as recently as a few days ago
about the problems we are having just trying to feed our
veterans. Could you please comment on helping us feed our
veterans and help the poorer communities so that they are not
cut off of food stamps? Will you help us?
Secretary Vilsack. Obviously, Congressman, we would be more
than happy to do that. In fact, we are working with the
Veterans Affairs Department in an effort to get information out
to veterans concerning the availability of the various
nutrition programs. We are also working with the Defense
Department to try to figure out ways in which we can make it
easier for military families that, because of the nature of
military pay, find themselves in a position where they need to
have SNAP benefits.
So those are two issues that we are--we are also working
with our friends at HUD in terms of multifamily housing
opportunities that HUD is supporting in cities, making sure
that those facilities are making information available about
the various programs. And we will obviously work with states to
administer this program, the SNAP program, to make sure that
they are doing everything they can to get the information out
to veterans.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And to the small farmer.
Secretary Vilsack. Well----
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. To do that, I think it will
also give you some funds to help create marketing
opportunities----
Secretary Vilsack. We are certainly happy to work with you,
but I would also point out that we have just recently announced
31 grants to expand processing, and there is more to come. We
have also helped 277 existing facilities expand their market
opportunities so they now can sell across state lines. We have
helped nearly 3,000 very, very small packing facilities with
their inspection fees based on the resources that Congress has
provided to us.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is kind of hard
to believe, Mr. Secretary, it has been 14 years since the first
time we had one of these conversations. Thank you for being
back.
Secretary Vilsack. You still look the same, and I don't.
Mr. Lucas. You always were the handsome one of the two,
though.
Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to see in your written
testimony how you note the historic relationship between
Federal ag policy and the health of our rural communities. As
you have heard me say many times, my beliefs on this topic were
instilled in me by my grandparents and parents and various
elders in my home community. These were the people who
experienced firsthand the depths of unforgiving, persistent
droughts, markets upended by faraway conflicts, and monetary
and fiscal policy that made capital more expensive and running
a business much more complicated. These stories seem to have a
more relevant point now than ever due to the record high
inflation, surging input costs, erratic weather patterns that
producers are currently experiencing. And today, I would like
to focus on the impact extreme weather has on production and
the programs farmers and ranchers need to weather that storm.
Over the past 6 years, impacted producers have received ad
hoc assistance for extreme weather events through the WHIP+
Program administered by the previous Administration, and the
ERP program administered by your agency. ERP phase 1 followed
the WHIP+ model, basing 2020 and 2021 coverage on crop losses.
Producers who were left out of phase 1 were given assurances
that they would be captured under the ERP phase 2. However,
when the regulations came out for ERP phase 2, FSA had
completely changed course and moved from a model based on crop
losses to one based on revenue losses calculated by tax year.
The reports I am hearing from Oklahoma is that, due to the vast
changes in the program, the drought-impacted producers that
were left out of phase 1 are not qualifying for phase 2 under
the new parameters. So I ask, what is the status of ERP phase
2? Or, as my constituents would ask back home, who is
qualifying?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I think part of the
problem and the challenge is the Congressionally mandated 70
percent threshold that has to be met in terms of the ability to
access those resources. People are bumping up against that 70
percent, but they don't meet the 70 percent threshold, so you
may want to take a look at that in terms of what Congress has
directed us to do.
Having said that, the challenge is that programs sometimes
leave out very, very small producers. They leave out folks who
have not received any assistance at all and who are on the cusp
of losing their farm. And so the desire for the Department was
to create this revenue-directed program so that we would be
able to help those farmers out. And if there are resources left
over after we do that--and there may very well be--we can come
back and take a look at maybe those folks who are bumping up
against that 70 percent Congressionally mandated threshold.
Mr. Lucas. Which leads me to that exact question. If there
is money left over, will you go back and address producers who
were uncovered under phase 1 model and the unreached under
phase 2, potentially both?
Secretary Vilsack. So the answer is yes, and I would just
simply point out you are going to get a lot of complaints
coming out because the 2023 effort, you gave us $10 billion
before for 2021, $3 billion for 2022 issues. We are going to be
faced with a serious disconnect between the level of help and
the amount of money that is available to us.
Mr. Lucas. And certainly, that is our responsibility to
address it. And what are the odds that we would potentially go
back to a phase 1 approach for the 2022 losses?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we will learn from the experiences
of the first iteration of ERP, and we will certainly factor
that in to how we administer the program for this next phase.
And I would point out, too, that I encourage all of the Members
to take a look at this on the Farmers.gov website. It basically
lays out all the programs that are available for disaster
assistance and particularly disasters so that you have an idea
what programs you can direct your constituents to.
Mr. Lucas. And I would in closing note how much I still
appreciate your help on the 2012 that became the 2013 that
became the 2014 Farm Bill, Mr. Secretary. We had a very similar
set of challenges both budget-wise and the lay of the
Congressional land here. We are all going to have to work
together to get this done.
Secretary Vilsack. We are, Congressman, but I think it is
really, really important for people to understand that there
are a number of tools in addition to the farm bill that we have
to figure out how to creatively use to be able to meet the need
that is out there.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely, Mr. Secretary. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee, Secretary Vilsack. It is, again, I think my
honor and pleasure to work with you again on my fourth
reauthorization of the farm bill. And clearly, we have a
history. I concur with Congressman Lucas' reflection on the
fact that we have to work together on this. And it is
important, as the Chairman and Ranking Member indicated, for
all the reasons that are essential to America, which is that
food is a national security issue, and I think we all feel
similarly about that.
I want to focus on a couple areas, quickly onto questions.
As you know, I am a third-generation farmer and represent the
heart of the San Joaquin Valley in California, the incredibly
productive agricultural State of California. And, as I look at
the farm bill and the 12 titles, I am challenged by how we
overcome on a bipartisan basis the essential challenge of
baseline funding on very popular programs in the 12 titles that
historically in recent years have been oversubscribed. I am
talking about the EQIP program. I am talking about the MAP
program. The list goes on. I think that is going to be a real
challenge as we try to put this reauthorization effort
together. I would like your thoughts about the baseline funding
challenges that the Department faces.
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I think in a lead-in to
my comments to Congressman Lucas, as you know, the passage of
the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169) provides an
historic level of resources for conservation for EQIP, for CSP,
for the easement program, and for the RCPP program. And I think
it is important and necessary for us to understand that
utilization of those resources can complement and supplement
what you have to do and can do within the farm bill so that at
the end of the day you use all of those tools to meet the
demand out there. There is clearly a backlog, and IRA is going
to help us address that backlog. It is going to allow us to get
more technical assistance to producers. So I would say making
sure that you understand the full utilization of the resources
under the IRA is one strategy for dealing with this.
Mr. Costa. Well----
Secretary Vilsack. The strategy is, as the Chairman
indicated, partnering with organizations that are equally
interested in conservation, which we are doing.
Mr. Costa. And good, and more to follow on that. And you
and your Department have been very accessible in trying to work
on some of these things. Time doesn't allow me, but we will go
on there.
Also like I think almost everyone here on the Committee,
the nutritional programs are a part of--I look at the farm bill
as America's safety net. And whether we are talking about for
American agriculture, whether we are looking at the nutrition
programs, the working poor, young and old alike, many of the
folks that Congressman Scott referenced in his opening
statement, particularly in the school lunch and breakfast
program, but there are a lot of other facets to it, and I am
concerned about the reduction of the Women, Infants, and
Children's program on milk and dairy benefits and reducing
access to dairy nutrients and the Dietary Guidelines and how we
work on this. I just think the school lunch and breakfast
program is something that--and there is a lot of food wasted
that I think we also have to try to figure out how to address,
and I would like your comment on that, please.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I appreciate you raising the issue
about dairy with reference to WIC because the reality,
Congressman, is that actually more dairy is going to be
consumed. I think you have to distinguish between fluid
consumption and what we drink and what we eat in terms of
dairy. You are going to see an increase in yogurt, you are
going to see an increase in cheese consumption under WIC. Why?
Because we are looking at containers that are more popular with
WIC.
Mr. Costa. And avoids waste?
Secretary Vilsack. This is really an important issue
because the WIC program is supplements, and the reality is that
we were providing 128 percent of the daily intake of dairy, so
we knocked it down a bit. We are going to expand the number of
people using WIC, and so at the end of the day, you are
actually going to see significantly more dairy being----
Mr. Costa. Okay. Well, we will discuss it more. My time is
expiring here. We have had, as you know, a deluge of rain. We
prayed for rain. I guess maybe we prayed too well. But the
Emergency Assistance Program on Agriculture in California is
really critical right now. We are assessing the totality of the
cost impacted by farmers, ranchers, dairymen and -women, and I
am interested in the USDA's support as we deal with this
emergency assistance for the losses that have been sustained.
Secretary Vilsack. I actually met with Secretary Ross and
other secretaries and commissioners of agriculture from the
western states last week in Denver and committed to working
with them to try to address both the drought and the flooding
challenges.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin
Scott, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Vilsack, you have talked about the declining
number of farmers in the country, as my colleague, Ranking
Member Scott, did. The 2023 Farm Bill is currently projected to
spend approximately four percent on commodity programs and
seven percent on crop insurance. That is less than 12 percent
that would actually go to support production agriculture.
Eighty-two percent of it goes to SNAP. We have all seen what
happened with the price of eggs with the supply and demand
issues, and I guess my question for you is do you think that
the decline in the percentage of spending on actual farm
programs is right? I mean, we are less than 12 percent of what
we call the farm bill actually going to commodity support
programs. Do you support that number being so low?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I support a strong commitment to
nutrition and food security, Congressman. There is no question
about the importance of that not just to the people who need
that food assistance but also farmers. Remember, 16 to 18 of
every food dollar ends up in a farmer's pocket that is spent at
the grocery store. It is also about jobs, so there are a
multitude of issues involving SNAP.
Having said that, I think you have to look at the other
steps that we can take at USDA that are in fact providing
assistance and help to our producers.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And what are those steps?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, those steps are creating
additional market opportunities.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And what are those market
opportunities?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, let's start with the Climate-Smart
Agricultural Commodity Partnership Initiative, 141 partnerships
investing resources that provide assistance to roughly 60,000
farmers, 25 million acres, additional value-added opportunity
where they will make more money for the commodities they
produce. Plus, they are also going to be able to comply with
and take full advantage of ecosystem service markets, expanded
processing capacity providing opportunities for more local and
regional sales of livestock so they get a better price, a more
competitive price, the conversion of agricultural waste into a
variety of new biobased products by virtue of the
infrastructure law and by virtue----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Secretary Vilsack, I am going
to run out of time, but I think everybody in America who is
watching this is smart enough to recognize that the volume of
food, as we have seen with eggs, I mean, there are supply and
demand issues there. And so no matter how much you give
somebody in SNAP benefits, if the cost of groceries continues
to go up because of inflation and bad policy, then they have
less food to eat at the end of the day. Even if you doubled
their food stamps, if the price of eggs goes up threefold, then
they can buy fewer eggs with the same number of dollars.
Ninety percent of the food supply in this country, 90
percent of the food supply in this country comes from 12
percent of the farms. Now, I am all for beginning, young, and
small farmers, but if you don't have those large farmers out
there that produce 90 percent of the food supply in this
country, then you are not going to have the groceries on the
shelf. And so I want to ask you again. You have been the
Secretary of Ag for 10 of the last 20 years if I am not
mistaken. When you were originally Secretary of Ag, what
percentage of the farm bill went to production agriculture?
Secretary Vilsack. It is roughly the same as it was.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. No, sir, you want to check
those numbers. But do you think that less than 12 percent of
farm bill spending should go to production agriculture?
Secretary Vilsack. That is a difficult question to answer
because you are limiting the conversation to the farm bill when
there are other things that are being done by the Department.
ERP, for example, that is a good example.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Sir----
Secretary Vilsack. It is ad hoc disaster assistance. There
is research. There is a whole series of resources that are
being provided that you are not including in the equation,
Congressman, so it is not a----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. I absolutely support research
and extension. I think the majority of that that is done right
is actually done at the state level through the land-grant
institutions.
But let me ask you one other question. In the Inflation
Reduction Act there was money set aside to pay off loans. You
had phase 1, you had phase 2. You were about to come out with
phase 2, as I understand it. But phase 1, am I correct that the
loans that were paid off, if you were more than 60 days late,
if you were more than 60 days late, your loan got paid off, but
if you have sold your car and other assets to make your note
current, then you got nothing?
Secretary Vilsack. Let's be clear about this. If you were
more than 60 days' delinquent, you were brought current. Your
loan got paid off.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Plus next year.
Secretary Vilsack. Exactly. But you----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Well, no, if your loan would
have matured previously, you got paid off in some cases.
Secretary Vilsack. Very, very, very few cases, but----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. But you did get paid off in
some cases, correct?
Secretary Vilsack. Maybe a handful of cases. But the vast
majority of people got their payment made, and then we also
were--just I am answering your question, Congressman. We are
also bringing--those folks who actually did the right thing, we
are also giving them the same benefit.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. My time has expired. I am
going to be asking for more detailed information on it.
[The information referred to is located on p. 104.]
The Chairman. Now I am pleased to recognize the gentleman
from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Vilsack, first, I want to thank you for saying
that access to affordable, nutritious food is a fundamental
human right, and I couldn't agree with you more on that. And I
want to thank the Biden-Harris Administration for hosting the
White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health last
September. It was important. And the national strategy released
at that conference is bold but achievable, and it calls upon
every sector of society to do its part. And if we do, we can
make significant progress in ending hunger in this country.
For Congress, the national strategy calls upon us to expand
SNAP access for underserved populations, including those
subject to the harsh 3 month time limit.
Secretary Vilsack, can you please explain to the Committee
what the research shows about time limits on SNAP eligibility?
Secretary Vilsack. There was a study done, Congressman, of
nine states, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Oregon. I can't remember
some of the other states that were involved in this, but
basically took a look at the 3 month. And several things came
out of the study. First of all, who we are talking about when
we talk about these adults without dependents? Who are these
people? Well, they are mostly male, they are mostly homeless,
and they are mostly people with educational achievements that
aren't quite as high as you would expect them to be, so that
would include obviously a lot of the homeless veterans that we
talk about a lot.
The second point of this study was that in fact it didn't
impact positively--when you tried to restrain the work
requirements, it didn't impact the earnings or the employment
opportunities for those individuals. So in other words, you can
talk about constraining that, but it is not going to do what
you think it is going to do. Plus, you are going to hamstring
governors in terms of being able to deal with incidents and
events like the one in East Palestine----
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Secretary Vilsack.--to be able to deal with the
unemployment that may result in a community by having the
flexibility. So there are some real concerns with this.
Mr. McGovern. No, and I think it is important for this
Committee to focus on the research. Mr. Secretary, a few weeks
ago, President Biden said in a speech on the economy that if
Republicans try to take away people's healthcare, increase
costs for middle-class families, or push Americans into
poverty, I am going to stop them. Would you agree that the
proposals we started seeing from some Republicans that would
cut SNAP eligibility of benefits, including by expanding SNAP's
existing harsh work requirements and time limits would push
Americans into poverty?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, clearly, it is going to create
some challenges, Congressman. And, more importantly, I think we
are seeing a reduction in the number of folks on SNAP because
of the employment. Folks are getting jobs, and that is good. We
need to work with states to do a better job of using the
employment and training resources. Now, that seems to me to be
a more viable strategy in terms of trying to get people to move
out of poverty and out of SNAP.
Mr. McGovern. Yes, I find it interesting that in these
bills with all these new work requirements there is no work
requirement for people who receive farm subsidies to actually
work on a farm, but I don't want to go down that road.
In the last farm bill (Pub. L. 115-334) Congress passed on
a bipartisan basis, it directed USDA to reevaluate the Thrifty
Food Plan based on four factors. And that update has meant an
additional $1.19 per day for SNAP recipients, which has been a
lifeline, especially as we are dealing with high food costs. I
want my colleagues to appreciate. This is the first time in
nearly 50 years that a reevaluation actually led to a higher
SNAP benefit.
So I want to set the record straight on a couple matters,
Mr. Secretary. I have a copy of the law here. I don't see
anything requiring the reevaluation be cost-neutral. Is there
anything in the 2018 Farm Bill that required the reevaluation
to be cost-neutral?
Secretary Vilsack. No, nor is there anything in the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 88-525) which directed the
Department to do this assessment and laid out the conditions
and circumstances under which it was supposed to do it.
Mr. McGovern. And as a follow-up, would the reevaluation
have been able to fully incorporate those four Congressionally
determined factors if USDA had held it to cost neutrality?
Secretary Vilsack. No.
Mr. McGovern. Yes. And so, look, I don't know why, but as
we are getting to a farm bill here, we have people coming out
of the woodwork, again, beating up on poor people, and we ought
to be striving to create a country where there is nobody who is
hungry, there is nobody who is food-insecure, nutrition-
insecure. And it goes back to your statement about food being a
fundamental human right, and that ought to be the goal of every
single Member, Democrats and Republicans on this Committee. If
we want a farm bill, we ought not to screw around with SNAP.
And I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
DesJarlais, for 5 minutes.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Vilsack for being here today. It seems
like a lot of time is being consumed today talking about the
nutrition program, and I am going to continue that. As we get
ready to write a farm bill that is going to be a piece of
legislation that will set the stage for feeding the American
people for the next 5 years, I think it is an imperative that
this legislation focus on putting the needs of our citizens
first.
Eighty percent of the spending in the farm bill budget goes
to the SNAP program, so I think it is probably the most
important topic we are going to talk about today. The Ranking
Member indicated that up to ten million people could lose SNAP
benefits if Mr. Johnson's legislation were to become law.
Basically, I find it interesting because about 80 percent of
people across all political spectrums, Democrats, Republicans,
and Independents, agree that able-bodied people who can work,
should work, so I am not sure why that is an argument. Do you
agree that able-bodied people who can work, should work?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it depends on your definition of
able-bodied.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. I will let Representative Johnson get
to that, but most people agree that, if you get too many people
in the cart and no one to pull the wagon, there is going to be
a problem.
But what I want to focus on today that I have been trying
to get answers to for over a year, I asked Under Secretary Dean
last April about what we are doing with the immigration problem
at the border. I think that there is no one in this room that
can't look at the news and agree that we have a problem at our
southern border with illegals flowing in. How many people
roughly are on the SNAP program in America?
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, sir, what?
Mr. DesJarlais. How many people are on SNAP program in
America?
Secretary Vilsack. Approximately 41 million.
Mr. DesJarlais. Forty-one million? What percentage of those
are non-citizens or illegals?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am not sure that illegal people
can qualify for SNAP.
Mr. DesJarlais. Well, there are about 11 exceptions to
those rules, and I am sure you are aware of them. Two of the
ones I will talk about are the most common. One, if you are 18
or under, you qualify for SNAP. Do you agree with that?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. And if you are seeking asylum, you
qualify for SNAP. Those are the two biggest of the 11
exceptions. Do you agree with that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, yes.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. So how many people----
Secretary Vilsack. Are those 18 year olds, were they born
in the United States?
Mr. DesJarlais. No, people that came here illegally.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, if they were born in the United
States, they are American citizens.
Mr. DesJarlais. Right. I am talking about people that came
here illegally. So we have had roughly five million border
crossings since President Biden took office. He ended Title 42.
He ended the public charge rule. So the question I have been
trying to get answered is how many people of the 41 million
receiving SNAP benefits are here illegally? Can you answer that
question?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would pose the question this
way. I would say that there may be exceptions to this rule, but
for the vast, vast majority of those 41 million, you are
probably talking about American citizens or people that
legitimately are getting SNAP.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. That is the answer I always get, but
the number----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is the best answer.
Mr. DesJarlais.--of children that have come here illegally
that are 18 or under automatically qualify. That is a large
number of people. And the people seeking asylum qualify, and
that is almost everyone that is coming here illegally. They
know the game. If you come here illegally, you say you are
seeking asylum, you get released into the United States. Right
now, there are millions of people. When I first came to
Congress back in 2010, it was said that there was about ten
million people living here illegally. Now, there are estimates
of 20 to 30 million people living here illegally. And the
Center for Immigration Studies shows that 45 percent of non-
citizen households are on SNAP benefits, and 21 percent of
citizen households are on SNAP benefits. So you can do the math
and extrapolate. I think that it is fair to say that anywhere
between ten and 20 percent of the SNAP benefits are going to
people here illegally, and no one is giving me the information
I have asked for yet to disprove it. I sent a letter to you and
Secretary Mayorkas last week trying to get those answers. I
would urge you to look at that and see if we can get some
answers before we write this.
I agree with Mr. McGovern. We need to worry about feeding
Americans first. Can we all agree that Americans should be our
top priority when it comes to the SNAP program, American
citizens, soldiers, people who are needy?
Secretary Vilsack. Sure. All of those people are incredibly
important to feed.
Mr. DesJarlais. So what I need from you or from your
Department before we write this farm bill is how many people
are on the SNAP program that are receiving these benefits that
are not citizens, how many asylum-seekers, how many children
under 18? Because those right here in this rule says that they
qualify, and I would challenge that 90 percent of them fall
into that category.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, a significant percentage of the
people receiving SNAP are moms and dads with children who are
in the workforce.
Mr. DesJarlais. Are they American citizens?
Secretary Vilsack. They are under 18. You are going to see
a lot of numbers, but they aren't necessarily kids who came
here, in your words, illegally.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, you are not answering my
question either. Hopefully----
Secretary Vilsack. I am.
Mr. DesJarlais.--you will respond to my letter and we can
have an answer before we try to budget 80 percent of the farm
bill for this important topic.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I am now pleased
to recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the Ranking Member as
well. And thank you, Mr. Vilsack, for coming back. Mr.
Secretary, I appreciate the opportunity. It is just really too
bad that we want to penalize people for being poor.
But let me just raise a couple of questions with you. The
number of Black farmers in the United States has rapidly
decreased over the last century. And as you have noted in your
testimony, in 1950 there were over 500,000 Black farmers in
this country, and by 1997, that number fell to about 20,000.
That precipitous drop in Black farmers is part of why I joined
with Senator Booker to lead the introduction of the Justice for
Black Farmers Act (H.R. 1167/S. 96), which seeks to undo the
harm discriminatory practices have done to the Black farming
community over many decades. And while we did take an important
step in the Inflation Reduction Act by providing over $2
billion for farmers that have suffered from discrimination by
USDA, you and I both know that there is more work to be done.
And I am curious to hear from you about the progress that
is being made on the disbursement of these funds and how
realistic, Mr. Secretary, is it that money will start flowing
by the end of 2023? And what barriers have you faced
determining who is most deserving of payments, and what other
efforts are you taking to address this critical issue?
Secretary Vilsack. We have put out a solicitation for the
national administrator of that program, Congresswoman. That is
the decision-maker in terms of which individuals who suffered
discrimination should get financial assistance. We also put out
a solicitation to establish the regional hubs that will be the
collectors of the applications. We are also working with
cooperative groups so we can ensure that word gets out to all
those who believe they have been discriminated against at USDA
in farm loans and farm activities to be able to make sure that
they get the information necessary for the application. Our
goal is to try to get resources distributed by the end of the
year, and we have a very aggressive timeline, and we are going
to try to meet that.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I will probably be
in touch with you later to talk further. But, as you know,
prior to the pandemic, USDA approved a pilot program to allow
for SNAP beneficiaries in a select number of states to use
online grocery delivery. And as we have seen during the outside
of the pandemic and continuing today, grocery delivery services
are here to stay and are being utilized by more and more SNAP
households. And in your view, how successful has this expansion
into grocery delivery been, and can you speak a little bit more
broadly about the importance of SNAP keeping up with the way
modern consumers engage with their grocery shopping and modern
lives?
Secretary Vilsack. Forty-nine states have now worked with
us to create an online opportunity for SNAP families, and 170
major retailers have agreed to participate in that effort. So
you are going to continue to see an expansion to try to make
sure that we are doing everything we can to make sure that the
utilization of SNAP is modernized. It is also true in our WIC
program. We have also got a very extensive modernization effort
there as well.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir. I am a proud two-time graduate
of North Carolina A&T State University, a fierce advocate for
our 1890 land-grant universities and HBCUs across the country.
And my colleagues and I will continue advocating for a variety
of funding streams for 1890s through the appropriations process
like the Evans-Allen and Capacity Building Grant Programs. So
can you speak briefly to the importance of maintaining strong
partnerships between the Department of Ag and 1890 institutions
and how you plan to ensure that those partnerships are
strengthened, moving forward?
Secretary Vilsack. We meet with the President's council on
a regular basis. I meet with the President's council, and our
senior staff does as well. We have increased the funding on
both the capacity and the facility portions of the budget. We
have also developed a next-gen leadership initiative for not
just historic Black colleges and universities but minority-
serving institutions to try to create more internships and
opportunities for young people to access scholarships. So there
is a significant amount of assistance and help that we are
directing now to 1890s. We are also making sure that every
college and university has a liaison so that there is a direct
connection with the Department.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for your
positive comments about the need to make sure that no person,
no family should go hungry. It is really important. It is a
basic right. It is a human right, and I certainly hope that as
we move forward with the farm bill that we will address that as
needed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, as you recall, you and I had a conversation
a couple years ago at the beginning of the previous Congress
talking about the threats to production agriculture and how
that has really kind of become a gap in our national security.
And as we were talking on the phone, I indicated then that I
was offering a bill to introduce what I called the Ag
Intelligence Measures Act, the AIM Act (116th Congress, H.R.
8238), which essentially gives USDA Title 50 authority, brings
them into the intelligence community as a full-fledged member.
And I just wondered, I am hoping that you still support that,
as we see foreign state actors and non-state actors that are
trying to undermine U.S. ag and steal technology and things
like that.
And so my question is do you still believe that at this
critical moment in time with the way that China and some of our
other adversaries are behaving and posturing that this sort of
an office is needed and is necessary at USDA?
Secretary Vilsack. I think it would be helpful.
Mr. Crawford. Okay. Good deal. Well, I appreciate that. And
when establishing the office, do you believe there are other
capabilities that we should be taking into consideration that
we haven't discussed?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we continue to work with the
Treasury Department and others in terms of the CFIUS (Committee
on Foreign Investment in the United States) process to make
sure that USDA is connected when it is appropriate. We have
seen better cooperation recently in that space, but there is
probably always continued work to do in that area.
Mr. Crawford. Okay. I am glad you mentioned CFIUS because
that is exactly where I was going to go. And in fact, another
priority of mine in this ag security space has to do with a
bipartisan bill that myself, Representative Stefanik,
Representative Costa on this Committee, Senator Rounds and
Tester all support, and it is called the Promoting Agriculture
Safeguards and Security Act, or the PASS Act (H.R. 683/S. 168).
Basically, it establishes a permanent role on CFIUS for the Ag
Secretary, and I wanted to get your comments on that. I think
your comment just now sort of is in line with what we are
trying to achieve. So would you explain how you think your
experience and the experience of future Secretaries of
Agriculture would play into this new role on CFIUS as it
pertains to considering agricultural needs, protecting a vital
asset, reviewing foreign transactions that may affect our
national security?
Secretary Vilsack. I think what we are learning is that
sometimes it is difficult for people to see the direct
connection with agriculture, but once it is explained, then it
is fairly clear that there is in fact an agricultural interest
in a particular company or a particular transaction. So being a
permanent member would allow us the opportunity to educate the
other members of CFIUS about what to look for and what to be
sensitive to when it comes to agriculture and agricultural
production.
Mr. Crawford. Excellent, thank you. I am going to shift
gears on you, Mr. Secretary. As you know, producers across the
country are struggling to find reliable sources of labor. Many
have turned to H-2A program to help get the seasonal workers
they need. Yet recent changes to the wages for those workers
will make costs skyrocket for those producers. The Department
of Labor is utilizing the Farm Labor Survey conducted by USDA
to set wage rates under H-2A, yet that survey was never
designed with the intention of being used in this manner, and
it skews the wage rates to unworkable levels for farmers. So,
Mr. Secretary, my question is will you work with stakeholders
and the Department of Labor to address these out-of-control
wage rate increases?
Secretary Vilsack. What I am happy to do is work with the
Members of this Committee and others to pass the Farm Workforce
Modernization Act (117th Congress--H.R. 1603), which could have
solved this problem, Congressman. We had a chance to get it
solved. This body, the previous Congress, passed it in a
bipartisan way. The Senate didn't get it done. If they had
gotten it done, hundreds of millions of dollars could have been
saved. That is the answer. That is the answer. Get that Farm
Workforce Modernization Act passed.
Mr. Crawford. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I am going to yield the balance of my time to my colleague
from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Secretary Vilsack, Ms. Adams
brought up the issue of the loans as well. My question: if you
are going to do it based on discrimination, are they going to
have to have some evidence of discrimination, or are they going
to be allowed to self-certify discrimination?
Secretary Vilsack. There will be a requirement,
Congressman, for establishing the nature of the discrimination
that took place.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. So they will not be allowed to
self-certify?
Secretary Vilsack. They will provide the information under
penalty of perjury, which we think is a pretty significant one.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. But self-certification, that
is self-certification, so that is self-certification with no
evidence.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, they have to provide information
and documentation as well, Congressman, so it is not that they
just----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. So they are going to have to
provide evidence? They are not going to be allowed to self-
certify? They are not going to be able to just walk in and sign
the form that says I was discriminated against?
Secretary Vilsack. No, no, it is more----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. They are going to have to
provide evidence?
Secretary Vilsack. More than that.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay. They are going to have
to provide evidence. Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman. Does the gentleman yield back, Mr. Crawford?
The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Virginia, Ms.
Spanberger, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here, and welcome back, Secretary
Vilsack. I am excited to have you here today as we continue our
work on the 2023 Farm Bill. Your expertise and experience are
invaluable. I also appreciate your comments related to the Farm
Workforce Modernization Act, which is something I continue to
hear about from producers across my district.
I was really grateful for the time that you spent in my
district a few years ago as we were discussing our efforts to
recover from the COVID-19 crisis. And before I begin my
questions, I would like to once again invite you to spend some
time with Virginia's farmers and producers to hear the issues
on their minds as we prepare for the next farm bill. So I hope
we can have you back in the district.
My first question is about the Conservation Title. I
appreciated how your testimony really seized on the point that
often gets missed in the context of USDA's conservation
programs, and that point is that these programs, while really
good from a conservation perspective, good for the planet, they
are also essential economic components of a successful farming
operation. I hear that from producers across my district who
utilize these programs.
As farmers are both responding to the impacts of the
climate crisis and looking for new markets for their crops,
investing in climate-smart agriculture not only protects our
planet but increases resilience of the farmland, increases
marketability, reduces input costs, and raises crop yields. And
so I am really proud that in the last Congress we passed the
Inflation Reduction Act, which included the largest single
investment in conservation since the Dust Bowl. And these
investments will soon be paying dividends for producers across
the country through programs like EQIP, RCPP, and CSP.
So as we approach the 2023 Farm Bill, there is broad
consensus among groups representing growers, including the Farm
Bureau and the National Farmers Union, that conservation funds
included in the Inflation Reduction Act should stay in place,
and I agree. But I am concerned about not sustaining higher
funding levels for these historically oversubscribed and under-
funded programs in the future. From your perspective, how
should this Committee be thinking about future funding for
conservation programs in the context of the 2023 Farm Bill? And
what might that value be to farmers if we were to sustain these
higher levels of investment over the long-term?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the Inflation Reduction Act,
Congresswoman, provides us the opportunity to actually address
the backlog, the significant backlog of farmers who want work
done but haven't been able to get the approval. The expectation
is that we could actually within several years be able to
eliminate that backlog and actually provide additional
resources for advancing climate-smart practices, and that will
in turn allow farmers additional income opportunities. So I
think it is critical.
Ms. Spanberger. And it is critical, essentially, reducing
the backlogs, so these are producers who want to employ these
programs on their farms, voluntary programs. We made the effort
to reduce that backlog, but recognizing the value of these
programs into the future, we want to ensure that they are there
not just for farmers who want them but for future generations
of farmers. Would you agree with that?
Secretary Vilsack. I would, and I am concerned about
suggestions that we reduce the overall budgets by a significant
percentage. That could result in as many as 84,000 fewer
farmers getting the assistance and help that they want.
Ms. Spanberger. And when we are talking assistance, we mean
money out of the pockets of farmers, investments that they
can't make on their properties, and investments that help them
lower input costs, increase output, and impact their day-to-day
operations positively?
Secretary Vilsack. Right. And the technical assistance that
allows them to create those concepts and those plans.
Ms. Spanberger. Important issue on the technical
assistance. Thank you.
I would like to pivot in the minute I have left to
livestock and competition. I hear often from Virginia's farmers
and livestock producers about the trend of greater
consolidation in the food and farm system, and the anecdotes
are startling, but also the statistics are jarring. I am
thrilled that the Packers and Stockyards division received a
significant increase in funding in Fiscal Year 2023 to improve
its enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, a law to
deal with anticompetitive behavior that, as you well know, was
put in place 100 years ago. Can you please share an update on
how the Department plans to spend these new resources to
improve competition in the livestock sector and ideally
positively benefit smaller producers like those I represent?
Secretary Vilsack. It is a combination of three things.
One, making sure that we work collaboratively with attorneys
general around the states that are concerned about this issue;
two, making sure that we continue to invest in additional
competition, additional processing capacity; and three, making
sure that we expand and make clear the powers under Packers and
Stockyards. It is the reason why we have proposed a number of
rules with greater transparency, more predictability in terms
of what the scope of the rule actually means.
Ms. Spanberger. And I thank you, through your ability
putting forth much of what we proposed in the Butcher Block Act
(H.R. 559) through USDA, and I know Dusty Johnson and I
continue to work to get that passed legislatively into the
long-term.
Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for spending time with us
today as we tackle the farm bill on time this year.
First, I want to thank you for the quick response by your
agency for the issues on the disaster declaration we had for
tree nuts, more specifically, walnuts in California where a
terrible pre-harvest drought and heatwave really, really
negatively affected that crop. And so they have a pretty large
carryover of low-quality nuts that are still stuck in the
supply chain. Section 32 was helpful for a good portion of that
on the disaster declaration and some low-interest loans. But as
we know with loans, they have to be paid back, and that sector,
who has really never asked for much of anything in this type of
vein, they are looking for enough relief to move this backlog
of crop through. And so other than the Emergency Relief
Program, what avenues do you think we are able to help them get
a direct result with this backlog for these tree nut growers,
and most specifically the walnut folks?
Secretary Vilsack. We have provided resources to the state
agriculture departments to essentially allow them to purchase
local and regionally produced foods for food banks, for school
meal programs, and for other benefits and purposes. This would
be one avenue that I would suggest the walnut growers take a
look at in California to see whether or not those resources
could be used----
Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate it. And that is where the ones
that maybe aren't perfect quality but they are still very, very
edible. There is also a considerable amount that are not edible
that would be better for, in some cases, cattle feed or use in
energy plants. What could we do to further and speedily get
that out? Because they are still stuck with them.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I guess we could work with the
energy companies to see whether or not there is a possibility
of utilizing the resources under the Renewable Energy for
America Program to allow conversion of those walnuts into
feedstock for energy on the farm.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Thank you. A little while ago we were
talking also about the processing plants, and you did mention
there was 277 existing facilities that are receiving help.
There is a perception by some of the existing plants that they
are unauthorized, that their drought support, they were
ineligible for that. And are you finding that that is an issue
that is coming up? Because we are hearing that from some of our
processors.
Secretary Vilsack. That is news to me, Congressman. I am
happy to look into it if you will provide us more information.
[The information referred to is located on p. 105.]
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Thank you for that. Last, we have had
tremendous success with many of the conservation programs,
EQIP, RCPP. My concerns on the climate-smart one are that this
is going to be competing for the same narrow group of dollars
here and that although there was an influx, one-time money,
that ongoing that it is going to be competing with already
oversubscribed programs that are indeed voluntary. So when I
look at the climate-smart, basically, that boils down to if we
are trying to keep carbon in the soil, basically no-till, and a
lot of crops are not adaptable to no-till.
Secretary Vilsack. Well----
Mr. LaMalfa. Go ahead.
Secretary Vilsack.--it is much more than that, Congressman,
much more than that. But the goal here is to create market
opportunities, so the individuals who are embracing climate-
smart practices and utilizing some of the conservation
resources to do that are going to see a higher price in the
market for what they sell, so it creates a value-added
opportunity that they don't have today.
Mr. LaMalfa. Because there is a perception by buyers that
they are doing such practice, but such practices are not
adaptable for everybody in their types of crops. So what I am
afraid of is that they are going to be aced out of that ability
to be in the conservation----
Secretary Vilsack. Every crop is involved in this. All
specialty crops are engaged and involved in a variety of
partnerships, so this covers all commodities. It is not limited
to just the basic corn, soybeans. It covers all commodities and
all producers.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Last, tariffs are really negatively
affecting our ability to get ag products into India. Are we
going to be able to work with the U.S. Trade Rep to quickly
expedite and be able to overcome this tariff situation in
India?
Secretary Vilsack. I think that is one of the reasons why
we are engaged in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for
Prosperity. It is also one of the reasons why we are engaged in
conversations with the Indians. Recently, we were able to get
tariff reductions for cherries so that we got cherries into the
Indian market.
Mr. LaMalfa. Walnuts are saying that, too.
Thank you. I would like to yield a little bit of time to my
colleague, Mr. Kelly from Mississippi.
The Chairman. The gentleman only has 8 seconds left.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, that is----
Mr. Kelly. I was going to ask a question for the record,
Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Secretary, my home State of Mississippi has
been a big user of a Conservation Stewardship Program, or CSP.
In the 2018 Farm Bill, statutory changes made to the program
impacted the way the program is delivered in my state, dollars
versus acreage. Can you update the Committee on how the
Department plans to utilize the conservation dollars received
in the Inflation Reduction Act to better accommodate producers
that can't get a CSP contract under current conditions? And if
you will take it for the record.
[The information referred to is located on p. 105.]
The Chairman. Very good. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Connecticut, Mrs.
Hayes, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you so much, Secretary Vilsack, for being here
today.
Predictably, I will focus my questions today on the SNAP
program. But before I start, I do want to highlight something
because words matter. A person seeking asylum is not here
illegally. They are following U.S. law as it is written. And
regardless of how they entered the country, if Congress deems
they are eligible, they are eligible. Undocumented immigrants
are not and never have been eligible for SNAP benefits. People
are not illegal.
This month, I led a letter to the House Budget Committee
urging the Committee to avoid cuts to SNAP benefits in Fiscal
Year 2024 budget resolutions. I am committed to making sure
that we are putting forth programs and legislation that feed
more people, not less.
When COVID-19 emergency allotments were in place, the
likelihood of food insecurity decreased by roughly nine percent
with larger impacts for Blacks and Hispanic families with
children. We know that increases in SNAP benefits from the
reevaluated Thrifty Food Plan kept nearly 2.3 million people
out of poverty.
Last month, the USDA Equity Commission presented its 2023
interim report to your office. Of the recommendations they
provided, I am strongly interested in the recommendations to
continue reevaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan.
And I also want to note the conversation surrounding able-
bodied workers. There are many people, as you know, Mr.
Secretary, who benefit from this program and are already
working and still living under the poverty level.
Secretary Vilsack, are there things that Congress and USDA
can take into consideration for the next reevaluation? Because
it shouldn't be every 50 years. And how will these changes
impact food security for the most vulnerable in our
communities?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008, Congresswoman, basically directs the Department to do
this every 5 years, so that is going to happen and should
happen every 5 years. And it is appropriate for it to happen
every 5 years because there are changes in consumption
patterns. There are changes, obviously, in food prices. There
are changes in physical activity in families. There are
multiple factors that need to be taken into consideration.
So I think that it is important for folks to understand
that this needs to be done on a periodic basis. If you do it
once every 45 years, you are going to see an increase. You are
going to see a pretty significant increase. If you do it every
5 years, that increase may not be quite as significant.
And so that would be my advice, which is make sure that the
Department lives by that 5 year rule, and make sure that you
are very clear about what you want them to look at in terms of
developing what an appropriate family that is getting by, what
they would need as a supplement.
Mrs. Hayes. I couldn't agree more. And I think especially
as we are emerging from this pandemic and we have seen so many
shifts, 5 years would be an appropriate time to reevaluate the
Thrifty Food Plan.
We also know during the economic downturn every $1 in new
SNAP beneficiaries can increase GDP by $1.54. So as we continue
conversations about supporting farmers, we should also think
about what happens if we limited the spending dollars of both
customers and their communities. We saw food delivery being
increased. We saw local grocers having to increase inventory as
more people moved and relocated into communities. Can you share
how rural communities benefit from SNAP and why it is
imperative that we expand SNAP to rural beneficiaries and rural
economies?
I will yield you the rest of my time, but I also wanted to
make one last point about fraud in the SNAP program. The
instances are very low, and EBT payment accuracy has reached
about 96 percent, so I want to make sure the people know that
the SNAP program is functioning at the highest level of
integrity that they have ever seen.
So I yield to you, Mr. Secretary, for benefits in rural
communities.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, one of the challenges we have in
rural areas is the ability to actually not only make sure folks
sign up for the program but also make sure that they have a
grocery store available to them where they can use the SNAP
benefit and that those stores have a wide enough variety of
choices that they have advantages for nutritious food, which is
one of the reasons why the online ordering and shopping could
potentially be of some significant benefit, and that is why we
have been focused on it, and that is why we are excited about
170 retailers joining us with that effort and modernizing the
program.
Look, it is important regardless of where you live, whether
you live in a rural area, suburban area, or urban area. It is
important. It is important for the families. It is important
for the jobs that are connected to those people who purchase
groceries, and it is important for farmers as well.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Rouzer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I
address the Secretary, I just want to mention that it has
always been striking to me, this conversation about
consolidation. And I think it is important to understand why
consolidation happens. It is driven by the need for economies-
of-scale. And what drives the need for economies-of-scale? It
is a combination of things, but lower prices, higher input
costs affected by inflation, certainly now. The war on American
energy, American traditional energy affects it, unnecessary
rules and regulations that add a lot of cost. All that drives
the need for economies-of-scale, which leads to consolidation.
So, we get more of what we incentivize, not more of what we
disincentivize, so I think that is an important point.
Mr. Secretary, great to see you, as always. Thank you for
coming before the Committee today. In the 2018 Farm Bill when I
served as Chairman of the Livestock and Foreign Agriculture
Subcommittee, we worked very hard to establish the National
Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank. I just want
to get a quick update if we can on where that stands. I know
that according to the agency's website, APHIS has invested more
than $56 million to amass a stockpile of foot-and-mouth
vaccine. Can you provide an update on where we are with that?
And a follow-up to that is whether we are sufficient to where
we need to be. And then a third follow-up to that is what do we
need to do with this farm bill to improve it and to help the
agency respond?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are looking forward to the
transition from Plum Island to the NBAF facility in Manhattan,
Kansas, and that is ongoing as we speak. And that is where the
vaccine bank and the countermeasures will be housed. We are
going to continue to invest in building up the vaccines, and we
are going to continue to invest in research to create vaccines.
I think we have a lot of work to do in that area, and I think
we have learned a little bit about that in connection with some
of the recent challenges with high-path avian influenza and the
need for us to develop and continue to develop a vaccine that
is workable. We are not there yet. We have more work to do. We
have African swine fever literally in our hemisphere, which is
of deep concern and the need for us to make sure that we have a
vaccine ultimately to provide protection for our pork industry.
So my advice would be to focus on the ability to develop and
create and commercialize these vaccines.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, I appreciate you and your team's work on
that front. It is critically important. We live in a day and
age it seems that the perfect storm in every industry, every
situation, and I worry about a disease outbreak in this country
and what it would do to our food supply and the economic
consequences of that as well.
Speaking about economic consequences, disaster assistance
programs, we obviously have a lot of hurricanes, flooding, et
cetera, in my part of the world there in North Carolina,
southeastern North Carolina. Can you speak a little bit to the
need in your view for some type of permanent disaster program?
I know sometimes, for example, we might have a hurricane in
North Carolina that doesn't happen anywhere else, but it is 3
years later before we can get some ad hoc disaster assistance
passed. Cash flow is critically important to producers. I
personally am in favor of some sort of at least initial payment
once a disaster hits without having to wait for Congress.
Curious about your thoughts.
Secretary Vilsack. I think it is important to understand
the importance of having a number of tools in addition to crop
insurance, NAP, and other risk management tools, and disaster
assistance would certainly be one of them certainly for the
livestock industry in particular.
I would say that if you are going to craft a livestock or a
disaster assistance program generally, you want to make sure
that there is significant flexibility in the crafting of this
because a disaster in one place doesn't necessarily equate to a
disaster in another place. We are seeing significant
differences between what is happening, say, in the western part
of the United States versus what is happening in the Southeast
versus what happens in the Midwest. So the degree to which you
can provide flexibility to meet the moment, I think that would
be very important.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, so I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. He yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Ohio,
Congresswoman Brown, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ranking
Member Scott, for holding this hearing. I also, Mr. Chairman,
want to thank you for opening this hearing with a prayer for
the victims in Nashville because prayers for comfort are kind,
but I pray for courage to do what is right and necessary to end
the scourge of gun violence. I pray we stop offering empty
words but effective actions that have been long overdue to ban
assault weapons, weapons that time and time again have been the
source of these mass killings.
Now, as a person licensed to carry and a Christian, I
believe in the Second Amendment and the power of prayer. But
let us not forget faith without works is dead. It is imperative
we do the work like passing long-overdue laws to make our
nation safer. Our faith without works has resulted in too many
needless deaths. So let's be sure to couple our faith with the
courage to do what is necessary, the necessary work, by passing
responsible gun safety laws that the majority of Americans
demand and deserve.
So I will start my questions for you, Mr. Vilsack. Thank
you for being here. As a Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit, I have
heard from farmers and ranchers about the need for strong, up-
front investments in the farm safety net and disaster program
in the farm bill. My constituents have unanimously expressed
this preference over patchwork and ad hoc payments and
unpredictability, as was common in the last Administration.
Secretary Vilsack, my constituents and I thank you for all
your hard work. So can you elaborate for us on the need for
strong, up-front investments in our commodity and disasters
programs in the farm bill?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congresswoman, I think it is
important to have a set of tools to assist folks in disaster. I
think it is important to have a strong crop insurance program.
I think it is important to have a program, the Noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program, the NAP program. I think it is
important to have a disaster assistance program that triggers
when we are faced with a serious disaster, as we have seen
recently. I think you need all of those tools, and I think you
need flexibility to be able to meet the moment, as I said
earlier.
And I think it is also important to make sure that we are
not focusing the relief on just a small percentage of our
farms, that we make sure that we have resources available
particularly to small- and mid-size production operations. What
we have found during the pandemic was that the initial CFAP
payments were made to production agriculture, but they left
some of the commodities and some of the producers out or that
they didn't meet the moment. For example, those who had to
depopulate their livestock because there weren't processing
capacity because of the pandemic didn't receive assistance. And
so we took a look at ways in which we could provide additional
resources and more flexibility and creativity and where those
resources go so that a wider range of people received the help
that they needed to stay in business.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. Furthermore, we know that there have
been disparities in the past on how these payments have been
distributed, particularly for socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers. So, Secretary Vilsack, can you talk about things
the Department has done or could do to address the disparities
in payments? What can be done to ensure that disadvantaged
producers are able to equitably access benefits in assistance
programs?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think the first step in that
process is to make sure that they are aware of when they in
fact benefit from these programs. Oftentimes, we find that
folks are not aware of the programs that are available and feel
disconnected with the ability to apply appropriately. That is
one of the reasons why we have entered into roughly 85
contracts with a variety of cooperator groups to basically go
out into communities of underserved folks and basically provide
them with information about programs that are available. I
mean, if you look at disaster assistance, it is a bit daunting.
When you look at this document, the number of programs there
are, you may not know that there are programs that might be of
assistance and help. So working with these groups, we are
getting information out to producers, and then we are using
those groups to help them apply and make sure that they are
getting the benefits they are entitled to.
Ms. Brown. Thank you again. And as we discussed nutrition
and spending in the context of the farm bill, it is important
to remember that investing in nutrition does not take 1 away
from farm programs. It is misguided to suggest that investing
in families comes at the expense of our investing in our
farmers.
So with that, I will close with this, Romans 12:20, ``If
your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him
something to drink. No one is exempt from the call to feed the
hungry. God calls us to meet the needs of even those we might
call our enemies.''
And with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr.
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I will start with some thank yous, Mr. Secretary. We had
Under Secretary Torres Small in South Dakota a couple weeks
ago, and she did a great job. She really cares about adding
capacity in the meat processing space, as I know you do. My
able partner Abigail Spanberger and I were able to pass the
Butcher Block Act out of Congress last year. And I know you
all, not through that program but through a different funding
source, have been able to do really good work out there, and we
look forward to adding some permanence to that program by
codifying it through the Butcher Block Act this Congress
hopefully.
Second, I want to thank you for the work that the Forest
Service is doing and really being innovative and trying to ship
timber to mills in the Black Hills of South Dakota who
otherwise would not be able to get inventory and for being
willing to use LiDAR flights to give us a better sense of what
is going on in the hills.
And then finally, sir, I want to thank you for talking
about the importance of developing a high-pathogenic avian flu
vaccine. And as we together decide how to move forward, I would
just ask you to give consideration to the platform technologies
being developed like in South Dakota with an animal health
company. Others are doing it as well. I think it is very
promising technology and gives us a real opportunity to move
forward in a good way.
But I want to turn my attention now to some truly
unfortunate comments that were made at the top of the hearing
by Ranking Member Scott, who called me out by name. And I
think, Mr. Ranking Member, yes, American families need our
help. There is no question about that. They need our help in no
small part because of the hyperinflation for food that has been
caused by multitrillion dollar giveaways in the past 2 years.
Yes, American families need our help, and I would tell you,
sir, that their plight is not well-served by the kind of
fearmongering that we have heard. The reality is that when we
use words like extreme to talk about work requirements, let's
review the facts. Were these work requirements extreme when
they were put into place with Democrats and Republicans working
together in 1996? Were those work requirements extreme when a
bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans stood together to
renew them in farm bill after farm bill? Are they extreme, sir,
in the way that they are being implemented and deployed in your
State of Georgia? Were they extreme when then-Senator Joe Biden
said from the Floor of the Senate, ``The culture of welfare
must be replaced with the culture of work. The culture of
dependence must be replaced with the culture of self-
sufficiency and personal responsibility, and the culture of
permanence must no longer be a way of life.''
Let's set the record straight because we are talking about
millions of needy people being kicked off, so let's make sure
we understand what current law and what these proposals would
do. No one who is pregnant would be denied benefits. No one
with young dependents at home, no one who is disabled, no one
who lives in an area with high unemployment. And yes, I realize
that there are some hard-to-serve populations that fall out of
those buckets, and that is why existing law provides
flexibility to states to select 12 percent of their caseloads
to give them additional flexibility because, yes, we want to
help people who are trying to help themselves. Work is not
punishment. Work is opportunity. There is no pathway out of
poverty that doesn't include some mixture of work, education,
and training, and we want to lift up those families that need
that work and that education and that training.
There has been plenty talked about today with regard to
research and data, so let's be clear about that. When work
requirements have been reimposed in those places where they had
been previously held in abeyance, they have not put the
multitudes into poverty. In fact, when you look at Arkansas
after work requirements were reimposed, caseloads fell by 70
percent not into poverty, but instead, the incomes of those
people who moved off the program tripled. I will say that
again. The incomes of those folks who moved off the program
tripled.
American families do need help, and I think we have an
opportunity in a bipartisan way to talk about what kinds of
flexibilities and what kind of support would help them move out
of poverty. Instead, when we use the language to demonize
people who are trying to continue what has previously been a
strong bipartisan commitment to work, we do not give this issue
the dignity that it deserves.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Kansas, Ms. Davids, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Chairman. I do have a
slightly different approach than some of my colleagues. I guess
I would just say that, well, in 1996 I was 16, and there were
plenty of decisions that were made that I would probably very
much disagree with on both sides of the aisle. And so I just
will put that out there. Yes, some of those decisions were
extreme, and plenty of us disagree with people who were on both
sides of the aisle at that time. Granted, I was in high school,
so I didn't know at the time what I agreed or disagreed with
because I wasn't like the youngsters today who are so involved
in this stuff.
So, Secretary Vilsack, thank you so much for joining us. I
am Sharice Davids. I represent the 3rd District in Kansas. And
my district is actually really interesting. We have quite a
range of folks, medium-size family farms, we have urban areas
and rural areas. We have everything ranging from hobby farms to
poultry producers, specialty crops, some row crops. And the
Kansas City region also happens to be home to some really key
intermodal hubs that our ag economy from across the country
uses to move their products to feed our country and to feed the
world.
And over the last 2 months, I have spent a lot of time--I
am new to this Committee, so I have been visiting with dozens
of farmers, producers. I have had quite a few roundtables and
listening sessions. And I have heard a lot of ways that USDA
works and some ways that maybe some of the programs don't work
as well as they could. And one of the common concerns I have
heard about is around supply chain issues. And in your
testimony you mentioned farmers and consumers at all points of
the supply chain needing a more resilient system. So I am
curious if you could expand on that a bit and share a bit about
flexibility of the supply chain and improving that resiliency
from your point of view.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there are a couple of
things that we need to be focused on, and that is the rail
industry, the trucking industry, and the ports in terms of
being able to move product more efficiently and more
effectively. I think it is fair to say that we have some
serious issues with reference to the rail industry and the fact
that they may very well be understaffed at this point. We have
seen significant delays that have occurred as a result of the
transition in transportation of grain that is being produced in
the Midwest out to the West Coast that is needed for their
farms. That is a deep concern that was expressed to me when we
had a series of roundtable discussions with groups and
producers.
There is an issue with reference to encouraging more
individuals into the trucking industry so that we have more
trucks, more capacity. And we still have some challenges with
reference to the ports. So part of the challenge that we have
to undertake at USDA is to make sure that we expresses concern
to the boards and commissions that are in charge of surface
transportation, in charge of ports to make sure that they know
that the problems have not been totally solved, that we still
have issues and that we still require a very keen eye on all of
this.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. And then I do want to switch over to
a different important topic, and I might have missed it if it
was discussed earlier, but one of the things that I am very
concerned about is our farmers and producers have very
demanding lives. Growing and producing the food that feeds us
requires demanding days. They are dealing with supply chain
disruptions and extreme weather events. And there is a ton of
stress that is associated with that. And I know that ranchers,
farmworkers, rural residents are having a hard time accessing
mental and behavioral health resources. That is material
support, the full range. And I know that the Farm and Ranch
Stress Assistance Network has been doing a lot of work to fill
the gap, but I am curious if you could talk about that program.
And actually, my time is running out, so if you could----
Secretary Vilsack. We have provided more resources for that
program, and we have also worked with secretaries and
commissioners of agriculture at the state level to encourage
more information. We have also invested more in rural mental
health services and facilities through our Community Facility
Program.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you so much, and I appreciate
that work. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I would now recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mann,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mann. Chairman Thompson, thank you for hosting this
hearing. And, Secretary Vilsack, think you for being here
today.
I represent the big 1st District of Kansas. We are the
number-one beef, sorghum, and wheat-producing district in the
country. My district has more than 60,000 farms and ranches,
feedlots, ethanol plants, and agribusinesses, and farm country
has made it loud and clear that they cannot survive when the
government burdens them with nonsensical regulations and red
tape.
Mr. Secretary, your proposed Packers and Stockyards rules
are especially concerning to me because, while I understand
USDA was directed by Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill to undergo
a prescriptive rulemaking under the Act, I also understand that
that mandate was satisfied by a rule finalized during the Trump
Administration. Yet the Department ignores Congressional intent
and legal precedent regarding harm to competition. Congress has
weighed in and made it clear that competitive harm or
likelihood thereof is a requirement to establish a violation of
the Act. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Poultry,
and Dairy, I can say that I concur with my predecessors on this
point. And if we as Congress did not make it crystal clear, the
courts certainly have. The harm-to-competition standard has
been challenged in Federal circuit court eight times, and on
eight occasions, the courts have upheld the will of the
Legislative Branch. In my opinion, this issue is settled, and I
am looking forward to working with my colleagues to craft
sound, comprehensive livestock policy that honors the work of
every link of the American agriculture supply chain.
Next topic, Mr. Secretary, as you know, President Biden's
budget eliminates the stepped-up basis and imposes a new
capital gains tax on the unrealized gain of assets held in
family trusts for more than 90 years. This is the farm-killer
tax. We have to understand that these taxes the Administration
is putting down are not game-changers, they are game-enders for
American agriculture and our family farms.
My question for you, Mr. Secretary, in your opinion, what
would the elimination of the stepped-up basis or the imposition
of the farm-killer tax do to family farms and small businesses?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am not sure that that is what
the President proposed because I think there is a limitation or
a--I don't know what the right word is, but there is an
exemption that is attached to that, which will cover 99 percent
of the farms that we are talking about. So I am not sure that
that is what he is proposing.
Mr. Mann. But, Mr. Secretary, I mean, clearly the intent
repeatedly by this Administration is to do away with the
stepped-up basis. We fought this fight three times, and then a
new tax, the farm-killer tax.
Secretary Vilsack. No----
Mr. Mann. Everybody needs to understand. So lands owned by
farms.
Secretary Vilsack. I don't think that is correct,
Congressman.
Mr. Mann. I am going to finish my--for 90 years in 2030
would be subject to a one-time capital gains tax. This is
devastating. I have introduced legislation, introduced last
week (H. Res. 237). We have bipartisan support to keep the
stepped-up basis. And I don't understand how we can talk about
food security if we are not willing to stand up for our
producers. I will let you finish, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, obviously, you and I disagree in
terms of what the President has proposed, and I would say that
at the Department of Agriculture we are working every single
day to work for producers, for ranchers, and farmers. And I
could go through a litany of all the things that we have done
and are doing to try to create additional markets, to expand
markets, to provide credit, to provide disaster assistance, so
I think it would be unfair to suggest that we are not concerned
about our producers. We are.
Mr. Mann. Well, I would encourage everyone on this
Committee to join our legislation to tell the Administration
loud and clear that we want to keep the stepped-up basis for
our ag producers.
Next topic, June 2022 the EPA announced proposed revisions
to the September 2020 proposed interim decision for atrazine
that included a picklist of mitigation measures that producers
would be required to implement when using atrazine. In the
development of these mitigation measures, the EPA refused to
incorporate any feedback provided by USDA. The public comment
period on these revisions closed in October 2022, and USDA once
again provided feedback. Mr. Secretary, have you had any
conversations with Administrator Regan about the importance of
atrazine and why USDA feedback should be incorporated into
these proposed mitigations?
Secretary Vilsack. I have had a number of conversations
with the Administrator about the important role that USDA has
in terms of providing input to the EPA. But frankly,
Congressman, this is a tough issue. I don't want the EPA
Administrator calling me and telling me how to do my job. Our
job is to basically provide the information, provide it as best
we can, provide the documentation behind it. EPA makes the
decision, and then it is our job to figure out ways in which we
can help farmers comply if they can, and that is what we are
going to do.
Mr. Mann. I understand. I would just say if those of us in
this room don't stand up for our producers, no one else is
going to, and it is on us to make sure that we get it right for
them.
Last question, I know my time is expiring, how much were
you involved in the rewrite of the WOTUS rule that went into
effect? At the USDA, were you able to provide input into the
process?
[The information referred to is located on p. 105.]
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, do you want to give me a
minute to respond to that, or do you want me to respond in
writing?
The Chairman. Respond in writing, please.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay.
The Chairman. As much as I would like to hear it myself, we
will keep within expectations I set.
Mr. Mann. I yield back the time that I no longer have, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. And it is gladly received, Mr. Mann. Thank
you so much.
I now recognize Congressman Slotkin from Michigan.
Ms. Slotkin. Hi, Secretary. Great to see you. I am proud to
be the only Michigander on this side of the Agriculture
Committee on the House side along with Senator Stabenow,
obviously, the queen of agriculture on the Senate side. And you
came to my district in 2021 and did a town hall with farmers
actually on the capital gains tax issue, and you were a strong
proponent of saying there should be an exception for farmers,
so I just want to make that note.
I am a former CIA officer and Pentagon official, so I tend
to look at things through a national security lens. And I think
reauthorizing the farm bill is a national security imperative,
and learning the lessons on supply chains that we all learned
clearly from COVID I think to me are an area of focus. And I
led a defense supply chain task force in 2021 with
Representative Mike Gallagher picking up the rug on defense
supply chains, our military supply chains. And there were some
creepy-crawlies under there, particularly as it relates to
dependencies on China. And the Defense Department is now taking
a proactive approach to diversify, to get rid of those
dependencies. And I guess my question is I hear from farmers
all the time about all the different ways supply chain issues
are affecting them, fertilizer, chemicals, inputs, outputs, the
whole thing. What comprehensively has the USDA done in order to
look at this as a national security issue for our food
security?
Secretary Vilsack. We began a process of trying to
establish more self-reliance in terms of fertilizer and the
inputs necessary to put a crop in the ground. We recently
announced eight awards in the fertilizer initiative. There are
21 in phase 1 of this effort to try to become more self-reliant
that we are going to fund, everything from additional
fertilizer production to substitutes to new and more efficient
ways to use fertilizer, so that money is being invested.
Roughly $500 million is going to be invested in this effort.
There will be a second round that will be focused more on
longer-term, larger-scale capital projects that will be
announced later this year. So there is a significant amount of
activity. We got several hundred applications for these
resources, over $1 billion--actually, over $4 billion of
requests. My guess is it will probably score $1 billion of
those projects, try to figure out resources that we can put
towards greater self-reliance.
Ms. Slotkin. Great. Just a comprehensive approach I think
is really important after what we have all learned. Can you
talk a little bit about the legislation? We know that in this
Committee there are going to be a lot of debates. You have seen
some of them expressed already. There are going to be debates
on SNAP and food assistance. I think also it seems clear that
there is going to be an attempt to claw back some of the
legislation that was in the Inflation Reduction Act in August.
Can you talk a little bit about what that legislation opened up
for farmers specifically?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, specifically, it gives us the
opportunity, first, to reduce the backlog that exists in EQIP
and some of the other conservation programs, number one. Number
two, it allows us the opportunity to--once we learn more from
our Climate-Smart Partnership Initiative, we will be able to
make wiser and more targeted investments that will be of
benefit to farmers and producers, creating additional market
opportunities, value-added opportunities, allow them to
participate in ecosystem service markets. It will basically
generate new revenue streams.
One of the challenges here is that we are limited. We
either sell a crop, we sell livestock, we get a government
payment. We have to have more revenue streams particularly for
small- and mid-size producers. To do that, you need those
conservation resources to be able to get the environmental
results that then could be marketed or sold if you will. So
there is tremendous opportunity.
Ms. Slotkin. Yes, I think in spirit the incentivizing of
farmers to do things on conservation, I have heard only
positive things from farmers who want those incentives, and I
just hope that we have a conversation that is based in fact on
what helps our farmers versus what is based in politics.
Last comment, I know you have gotten a few questions.
Chinese ownership of American agricultural land, of food
manufacturing, food production. Just tell me your topline
philosophy on foreign purchase of agricultural land and
components to the sector.
Secretary Vilsack. The top five countries in the world
today that own American agricultural land are Canada,
Netherlands----
Ms. Slotkin. No, we love our Canadian brother.
Secretary Vilsack. No, no----
Ms. Slotkin. I am talking about adversaries.
Secretary Vilsack.--this is the point, Congresswoman. The
point is in terms of Chinese ownership, it is less than one
percent of one percent. It is a relatively small amount. I
think the real challenge is a structure and system that we can
get more consistent information about foreign ownership. Right
now, we are reliant on people basically self-reporting. There
is no mechanism for us to collect from 3,000 county
organizations that recorded deeds every single day. So I think
if you want to focus on this, you need to focus on some kind
of----
Ms. Slotkin. Reporting.
Secretary Vilsack.--system that will allow us the
information.
Ms. Slotkin. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Congresswoman
Miller, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Miller of Illinois. Yes, thank you, Mr. Secretary. As
you know, there is a growing concern over the foreign purchase
of our farmland, especially by Chinese Communist Party. And I
was wondering if you could tell us what the USDA is currently
doing to enforce the Agriculture Foreign Investment Disclosure
Act (Pub. L. 95-460) and what you are doing to investigate
foreign purchases that have not been reported.
Secretary Vilsack. We have doubled the number of people
focused on implementation of the current law. But,
Congresswoman, here is the challenge. The challenge is we do
not have any investigative power. We don't have that power. We
have essentially the ability to assess penalties, but we don't
have the capacity to investigate. You are looking at more than
3,000 counties in this country. Every single county has a
recorder's office. Every single recorder's office receives
deeds. There isn't a process now for there to be an
accumulation of the deeds that are being filed today in those
recorder's offices. It is dependent on people making the report
to us voluntarily. So it is a system where there is a gap in
terms of our ability to know what transactions are taking
place.
Ms. Miller of Illinois. Well, it is too bad that we have
let this go on so long and not sought to rectify it.
Secretary Vilsack. When you think about rectifying it,
basically what you would have to have is you would have to have
a clearinghouse where information would be filed on every real
estate transaction in the country, okay, so that clearinghouse
can then be looked at. Now, I mean, just think about that,
whether people really are----
Ms. Miller of Illinois. Yes, that is why I have a bill to
stop foreign purchases of farmland until we can get this in
place and figure out, number one, how much land is owned
already by foreign----
Secretary Vilsack. About 40 million acres.
Ms. Miller of Illinois.--and foreign adversary, China, and
how we are going to enforce the disclosure of those purchases.
Mr. Secretary, on March 2, I sent you a letter outlining
concerns with Brazil's beef imports after they were late to
report an atypical case of BSE. Given Brazil's repeated history
of failing to report diseases and failing to meet international
standards, what steps are you taking to ensure beef from Brazil
does not pose a risk to U.S. consumers?
Secretary Vilsack. We continue to provide significant
surveillance of the border to make sure that whatever is coming
in from this country is safe. I would say that you have to be
very careful about atypical cases because we have had atypical
cases here in the U.S., so we have to be very careful about
bans on exports because----
Ms. Miller of Illinois. Yes, well, I wasn't talking about
bans.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay.
Ms. Miller of Illinois. It was the fact that they didn't
report it. I mean, I understand that we have that also.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay. Well, that is a situation and
issue where the WTO is basically advised. We expressed concern.
We are obviously going to continue--and we have expressed
concern about the lateness of it, but we want to make sure that
you know that we are making sure that we are doing extra, extra
vigilance at the border, not just for Brazil but also, as I
mentioned earlier, African swine fever. That is a really
significant issue.
Ms. Miller of Illinois. Great. Thank you so much. My
constituents are concerned with Mexico's import ban of GM corn
from the U.S. I was happy to hear that the U.S. Trade
Representative requested technical consultations earlier this
month. Can you talk more about what happens after the technical
consultations and if the USDA would encourage the White House
to bring a dispute?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I have been very clear about this.
We are going to take this as far as it needs to go to be able
to reverse the decree that Mexico has in place today.
Ms. Miller of Illinois. Good, thank you. Illinois corn
farmers appreciate that.
And one last question, the EPA continues to create this
overburdensome regulation for farmers as it relates to
pesticides. So what is the message of the USDA towards the EPA
when it comes to over-regulation of crop protection tools?
Secretary Vilsack. We have a division within USDA that
basically provides information to EPA on any proposal that they
have relative to crop inputs to make sure that they understand
and appreciate the impact and effect that a particular course
of action might be on producers and on production.
Ms. Miller of Illinois. If you find that they are
overburdensome, do you follow up with them?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, basically, our job isn't
necessarily to tell the EPA exactly what they are supposed to
do because I don't want them telling me what to do. My job is
to basically provide them the information as best we can in
terms of the impact and then whatever decision they make, it is
our job to try to provide resources so farmers can comply with
whatever the regulation is.
Ms. Miller of Illinois. I am sure you are very influential
with them, and the overburdensome regulations are a great
burden on the farmers. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Colorado,
Congresswoman Caraveo, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, to you and to
Ranking Member Scott, for hosting the hearing this morning.
And Secretary Vilsack, thank you for taking the time to
come and provide your testimony and in particular for coming to
Greeley in my district last week.
Earlier this month, I also had the opportunity to meet with
a great dairy farm called Colorado Cow that is in my district
with Under Secretary for Rural Development Torres Small. This
dairy has received a Value-Added Producer Grant from the USDA.
This grant, they told me, really helped expand their company's
market, a product line of A2 milk, which is friendlier to
individuals with lactose issues. And frankly, they said it
saved their business.
The USDA has incredible grant opportunities for our farmers
and ranchers, but it was also clear that the grant application
process is difficult for a small family dairy to maneuver, and
actually had to employ an outside grant writer that came at a
significant cost to Colorado Cow.
I know that helping small and family ranchers is a priority
for you. Can you tell me what the USDA currently does to help
smaller groups apply for grants that the agency offers? And how
can we continue to work and making sure that the process is
easier to best serve our community so that all of these
programs are both well-known and accessible?
Secretary Vilsack. We have invested nearly $100 million in
85 organizations that have access to and are connected to
underserved producers and communities to basically give them an
opportunity to go out and sort of extend our reach with
information about programs that we have and to provide
assistance and help for folks to be able to qualify and apply
for programs. So we are doing that on the farm service side,
and that would include opportunities like the ones you have
suggested. We are also doing it with NRCS in terms of
conservation. They have another program where they are
providing resources to about 118 organizations. So we are
extending our outreach.
We are also taking a look at our application process. It is
fair to say that some applications can be pretty cumbersome.
Just most recently, our farm application used to be 26 pages.
Now, it is 13 pages. I would suggest it is probably still too
long, but it is better than 26 pages. And we are encouraging
all of our mission areas to take a look at how complicated
things need to be or how simple they could be and encouraging
them to do so.
Ms. Caraveo. I certainly appreciate those efforts. And the
Under Secretary in particular highlighted that grant
application process and how it has been shortened.
To kind of switch gears a little bit, I do want to thank
you again for visiting in particular Maplewood Elementary
School in Greeley, and we really hope you were able to have
some great conversations on the innovative nutrition programs
at that school. I was excited to hear your announcement on
actions USDA will be taking to expand support for access to
school meal programs, including for increased collaboration
between schools and food partners, expanded nutrition
education, and options providing more healthy meals to children
at no cost.
As a pediatrician, I cannot emphasize enough the importance
of children being able to have access to healthy foods for
their well-being as they grow and so that they can focus on
their schooling. Can you speak more to the importance of
investing in school meals for our students and how Congress and
the USDA can continue to work together on this issue?
Secretary Vilsack. One of the things we are attempting to
do is to try to allow school districts who are interested in
participating in universal free school meals to be able to do
so through the Community Eligibility Program and reducing the
threshold for compliance or ability to participate in that
program. The President's budget also proposes additional
resources to support financially those school districts--which
you benefit from the fact that Colorado voters basically
approved a referendum that allows you to have universal free
meals starting in 2024. That particular school district
actually put resources of their own to make sure that it was
available this year.
I would say community eligibility is one issue. I would
also point out the fact that there is pretty good research that
there is a direct correlation between healthier outcomes and
nutrition and better school performance and nutrition and that
school meals need to be looked upon as truly an integral part
of the school day. That school district was pretty smart
because they put recess before lunch and not after lunch. It
basically resulted in kids actually having an appetite but also
having sort of the jitters out of them before they went into
the school line, so a lot of creative things in that school
district. They are doing a great job.
Ms. Caraveo. Well, I thank you also for your emphasis on
child nutrition and the ties to education. Before I yield back,
I want to reiterate what so many of my colleagues have talked
about, the importance of SNAP, particularly for children. With
changes to the program, there would be 50,000 children in my
district alone who would have benefits that are at risk, and we
should be investing in children, making sure that they have the
nutrition they need to focus on what they need to do in school.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Her time has
expired.
Just for clarification, if many Members are aware, the WIC
program, although it falls on the shoulders of the Secretary,
the WIC program and school nutrition is in the jurisdiction of
the Education and Workforce Committee. As near and dear as it
is to most of our hearts, it is outside the jurisdiction of
this Committee.
I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Congressman
Moore, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Secretary Vilsack,
I appreciate you being here today.
I was listening to the debate and the discussion here
today, and I need clarification. How many people did you say
are receiving SNAP benefits in America?
Secretary Vilsack. Roughly 41 million, Congressman.
Mr. Moore. Forty-one million people. We are not tracking
how many illegals at this point. We really don't know, I guess,
is what you are telling us? Mr. DesJarlais kind of brought--I
have been to the border a few times, and when he asked that
question, I was just kind of curious, too. We are not tracking
that at all, or do you have any kind of estimates?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, as has been pointed out, those who
are undocumented are not entitled to participate in the SNAP
program.
Mr. Moore. But if they apply for asylum, they automatically
qualify. Is that correct?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, but then they are not illegal
because they have applied for asylum and the law allows them to
do that.
Mr. Moore. Okay. And then it brings a valid point. I think
that is something--I have been to the border three times, and
this is something I just want to bring to your attention. I was
down on the border in Yuma, Arizona, a couple weeks ago, and
this is for my friends across the aisle. Anybody who hasn't
been to the border, we need to go and see what is going on. But
the minute folks cross the border down there, Secretary, they
are offered a motion to appear. It is an MTA basically, and
they turn themselves in to the border agents. And so that
qualifies them instantly. They consider that their asylum
request. What happens then is they automatically, according to
the locals that I have talked to in Yuma and different areas,
is they are automatically qualified for taxpayer-funded
subsidies. And so in a sense the way the border is working
right now--and even the cartel are actually doing this. They
are sending groups of people at a time, four or 500 at certain
spots, and they will turn themselves in to the CBP. Our border
agents basically have become concierge. So they instantly get
that motion to appear in court, and they get a free cell phone
so we can call them when it is time for them to appear in
court. Now, they take our phones, but they are not taking our
phone calls right now. Ninety-five percent of them we don't
know where they went. But my concern is we have had five
million encounters on the U.S. southern border. You are telling
me we have 41 million people now that are currently on
subsidies or SNAP program. The five million are turning
themselves in instantly, they are getting the motion to appear,
and they are becoming eligible. But at this point, we really--
are you concerned, Mr. Secretary, at some point--I am not
trying to make this political, believe me. I am just curious.
Are you concerned that at some point that we will have more
people----
Secretary Vilsack. No.
Mr. Moore.--receiving benefits than the American
taxpayers----
Secretary Vilsack. No.
Mr. Moore.--can afford?
Secretary Vilsack. No. Look, first of all, let's take a
look at who is actually getting SNAP. Somewhere between 80 to
85 percent of the people receiving SNAP are in one of three
categories. They are a person with a disability, they are a
senior citizen who worked and is living on a fixed income,
Social Security check, or working moms and dads with children.
Mr. Moore. But we are not tracking it, so we don't really
know if the five million people that have applied for asylum
actually are--or we have come in contact are eligible at this
point?
Secretary Vilsack. With due respect, Congressman, I think
it is absurd to suggest that there are five million people who
applied for SNAP.
Mr. Moore. Oh, I am not suggesting. I am just asking if you
can give me a number. I am just curious. If we don't know the
number, then how can it be so absurd to ask the question? I am
just trying to get to the bottom of it.
Secretary Vilsack. Because we would know if there were five
million people.
Mr. Moore. There is 41 million now, right?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are 41 million. We would
know that five million of them----
Mr. Moore. Well, I am just curious.
Secretary Vilsack. It is ridiculous.
Mr. Moore. I am not trying--I just want to let you know
that down there, people are getting instantly benefits when
they turn in as a motion to appear in court----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I don't believe that they are----
Mr. Moore. My concern is for the American taxpayer and the
program itself. One of my colleagues--and she made a valid
point a while ago. She said, ``For every $1 we put in SNAP,
that is 80 percent of the program now.'' I have been in
Congress 25 months. I was stunned to find out that 80 percent
of the program is actually SNAP. About 20 percent actually goes
to the producers in the country. But one of the colleagues
pointed out a while ago that for every $1 we put in SNAP, we
get $1.54 in return. But where does that $1 that goes into SNAP
come from, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it comes from the people of this
country.
Mr. Moore. The American taxpayer.
Secretary Vilsack. Let me ask you a question, Congressman.
Mr. Moore. And hopefully I can answer it.
Secretary Vilsack. What do you think about the fact that
there are working men and women with children who require SNAP
because they are working for $7.50 an hour? Do you think we
should increase the minimum wage?
Mr. Moore. No, you can't increase the minimum wage.
Secretary Vilsack. Oh, you can't----
Mr. Moore. It doesn't work. Because then----
Secretary Vilsack. That would reduce----
Mr. Moore.--everything--when you increase the minimum wage,
this is simple economics, everything in the economy increases
in price. We have seen nothing else----
Secretary Vilsack. It would reduce----
Mr. Moore. Milton Friedman said himself--and he is an
economist----
Secretary Vilsack. It would reduce the SNAP--it would
reduce----
Mr. Moore.--that every time we print dollars in D.C.,
basically, we are creating inflation. And that is the problem
the American farmers are facing right now, whether it is fuel
cost with the domestic energy policy or us printing money like
runaway sailors up here, it is making it harder and harder for
the small farmer to survive, and we are going to ask the
taxpayers where we are excited about spending money, $1 a
person to get $1.54 back, when every bit of it comes from the
American taxpayer. And then, as these people are pouring across
the U.S. southern border, we are giving them MTAs and instant
benefits. How much longer can the people that are pulling the
wagon pull the wagon if everybody is riding in it?
And, look, I have to yield back, I am running out of time;
but, I was just curious if we knew how many people were on
SNAP. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the Congresswoman from Oregon,
Congresswoman Salinas, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Ranking Member for holding this hearing today. And I want to
thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for being here.
You understand the limitations at USDA to continue to
assist specialty crops, especially in an era of increasing
devastating wildfires and different natural weather-related
events that really risk the entire livelihoods of many of the
farmers in my district. And we really are a specialty crop
industry in the Willamette Valley. And as I look towards this
farm bill, I am interested in finding a solution that really
puts specialty crops on par with other commodities, which have
long had protections for market stabilization and other things.
So my goal is really to leave no farm behind, especially for
the Willamette Valley specialty crops. So my question is: are
there any specific authorities that would be helpful for
Congress to provide USDA in order to address this specific
concern?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it is important for
Congress to continue to support crop insurance and to encourage
the Risk Management Agency to continue to do what they have
done recently, which is to expand the number of policies that
are available. There are now over 600 policies available, and
that covers a great number of specialty crops, and we are
seeing more and more of that opportunity. And to the extent
that we can get the data that will allow us to create those
policies, that is one mechanism.
We talked about a disaster assistance program earlier. I
think that also is another thing that ought to be considered.
We are focused as well on creating additional local and
regional market opportunities for those producers, and I think
it is important to be very supportive of that because that is
going to help the small- and mid-size producer have additional
income opportunities that they need to have to be able to keep
the farm.
Ms. Salinas. Great. Thank you. And on a topic that we
really haven't discussed very much today, or at all, I don't
think, I would like to ask a broad question around forest
policy. As I previously alluded to, one of the natural
disasters that has been really devastating a lot of my growers
and farms back home have seen these more frequent and intense
wildfires that Oregon has seen in the last few years. And the
health of our forests, obviously, is essential for curbing the
magnitude and scale of any future wildfires. And the impacts
extend far beyond our farmers, though they often feel the
damages most immediately. As new science becomes available on
forest management, how can we best facilitate the Forest
Service adopting and implementing new practices that would have
the potential to limit wildfires and conserve our forests?
Secretary Vilsack. I think we are doing that,
Congresswoman. Because of the infrastructure law and other
resources that have been provided as well under the Inflation
Reduction Act, we have identified roughly 250 firesheds, which
we think represent the greatest risk based on the most recent
science. We just recently announced 21 priority landscapes,
some of which are in the State of Oregon and in the area that
you are talking about to essentially put resources, nearly $1
billion of resources over the next couple of years into better
forest management, utilizing a number of strategies, thinning,
prescribed fire, et cetera. So that is going to happen. Because
of the lifting the cap in the REPLANT Act (Repairing Existing
Public Land by Adding Necessary Trees Act), we are also engaged
in a reforestation effort, which will be helpful as well.
So I think that is happening. You are going to see a much
more aggressive effort in the forest space that will be
minimized over time if these resources can be continued and
supported. Part of the challenge is to make sure that we
continue to support this. We have resources for the next couple
of years, but then the question is what happened after that.
But if those resources are continued, I think you are going to
see significant improvement over the next several years.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. So we really need the funding
behind it.
Secretary Vilsack. No question about it.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking
Member Scott. And I just want to say thank you, Secretary
Vilsack, for being here today. I have always appreciated what
you have done for Iowa over the years. I had a lot of
conversations with you over the years and highly respect what
you have done.
I have concerns obviously with the Administration, which
you are a part of. We are from Iowa. We are the breadbasket of
the world, literally, the breadbasket of the world, and I just
wish the Administration would talk about it once in a while. I
never hear the Administration ever talk about rural America. I
never heard it in his State of the Union address. We have so
much to offer this great country, especially economically, and,
I don't know, it sort of hurts me.
And then also, if I look at what is happening in trade, we
had Katherine Tai in Ways and Means a week ago, and we have
this significant ag trade deficit that, again, could be very
concerning to our farming community. And then obviously, Waters
of the U.S. with EPA doubling down and just penalizing the
farmer.
And then finally, which I want to talk about with you. And
I know my good friend, Congressman Tracey Mann, mentioned this
is the budget that the Administration put out, I mean, this is
really going to hit hard if it were to be passed when it comes
to like-kind exchange and stepped-up in basis. And you noted to
him that 99 percent of the farmers would not be hurt. That is
probably pretty inaccurate when I think about northwest Iowa. I
talked to our accountants. I just got off the phone with them,
and they said virtually everyone would get hit, especially when
it comes to like-kind exchange when you are exchanging out your
tractors and stuff like that. And I just wondered, any thoughts
or anything that you can help the people, the producers that
are listening right now, the bread basket of the world, what is
your thought on this matter?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, with all due respect,
first of all, the President did mention and did talk about
farmers in his State of the Union address. I was there. I heard
it, number one. Number two, on the trade side, we have had $15
billion of new and preserved market access during the course of
this Administration, fresh potatoes in Mexico, tariff
reductions on beef in Japan, corn, wheat, and pork
opportunities in Vietnam with tariff reductions, et cetera. I
could go on, and there is----
Mr. Feenstra. But were there any new markets?
Secretary Vilsack. Pardon?
Mr. Feenstra. Were there any new markets?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes. Fresh potatoes in Mexico is a new
market.
Mr. Feenstra. Okay. I understand that. But how about corn
or soybeans?
Secretary Vilsack. There is----
Mr. Feenstra. I mean, we are Iowans.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we reduced the tariff for corn and
pork in Vietnam, for example, and that expanded the market
opportunity there. Opportunities for ethanol in Panama,
opportunities for poultry in the Middle East.
Mr. Feenstra. I mean, this is the first time in decades
that we are at an agricultural deficit. I mean, this doesn't
happen----
Secretary Vilsack. Oh, no, no, no. I am not sure where that
does--that is not accurate at all. We have been at a trade
surplus in agriculture, and there was a suggestion that we
might have a trade deficit this year, but if you look at the
recent trade numbers, what you are going to find is that
exports are actually exceeding expectations and that we are
still operating at a trade surplus.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes. So can you address the topic of tax,
like-kind exchange, stepped-up in basis. You already talked
about stepped-up in basis. Like-kind exchange is obviously very
significant. What are your thoughts there, and can you advocate
to the Administration that these are sort of big topics for the
farmer?
Secretary Vilsack. I clearly have provided information to
the Administration on the notion of stepped-up basis, which is
why when this was proposed there was an exemption that
basically would cover--done the research on this. It is like 99
percent of the farms, what it touches really. And, to me, this
is where there ought to be concern. You can talk about farms
and farm families, but the reality is a growing number of
investment bankers are the owners of this real estate. Roughly
four percent of the top ten percent of production facilities in
this country are essentially owned and operated----
Mr. Feenstra. Yes, okay----
Secretary Vilsack.--by investment banks, so----
Mr. Feenstra. I understand. Let me yield back my time. But
you think about northwest Iowa, Secretary. I mean, every
farmer, yes, they are corporate, they are LLCs or----
Secretary Vilsack. No, no, no----
Mr. Feenstra.--partnerships----
Secretary Vilsack. There is not----
Mr. Feenstra.--and they are going to get hit.
Secretary Vilsack. This is not about partnerships and
corporations. This is about investment bankers owning farmland
and basically owning very, very large amount of farmland. And
the question is----
Mr. Feenstra. Right, but I am talking about the regular
producer, the regular producer in Iowa that owns 500 to 1,000
acres. They are the ones that they might be asset-rich, but
they are poor when it comes to what they have to pay in tax. So
we might disagree on this, but this is a really significant
topic for a lot of our farming communities. And thank you for
being here again, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now am pleased to recognize for 5 minutes Congresswoman
Gluesenkamp Perez.
Ms. Perez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Secretary Vilsack, for being here.
I want to touch on some of the big issues facing my
district in southwest Washington. Mr. Secretary, I would like
to get your perspective on how USDA relief programs can work
better for producers in my district. I recently visited Pacific
County, which sits on the Pacific Ocean, as the name suggests,
on the western edge of my district. The county produces over 50
million pounds of oysters and clams a year valued at over $10
million and supporting almost 600 jobs. When I was there, I
spoke with an oyster farmer who was so excited that aquaculture
is now eligible for ELAP but that she and her fellow oyster
farmers faced some challenges in accessing the program. As you
know, ELAP requires oysters to be completely containerized
while they grow in order to distinguish between wild and the
seed oysters. This is challenging in Pacific County where wild
oysters often intermix. In order to be eligible for the
payments, the producer then has to identify which of their
oysters are wild versus seed and to get this information
verified. So, as you can imagine, this is extremely difficult
to determine and leaves the program out of reach for many, many
producers in my district.
So my question is what can the USDA do to help shellfish
producers access these ELAP payments? What technical assistance
or other services are available to help them navigate this
program? Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congresswoman, first of all, I am
working with the Farm Service Agency folks to try to make sure
that they understand the challenges. I appreciate you bringing
this to my attention. I will be happy to take this back to our
team and ask them to take a look at how we might be able to not
only simplify the process but also make sure the information
gets out about it.
[The information referred to is located on p. 105.]
Ms. Perez. Thank you so much. I have also heard about
challenges with ERP. Both rounds of ERP require crop insurance
in order to access the funds. For many specialty crop producers
in my district and across the state, crop insurance is
incredibly expensive, and many have never had it. So for too
many who consider purchasing crop insurance, in order to be
eligible, they find that the cost of insurance is actually
higher than any potential USDA payout. So what can we do to
ensure that specialty crops are not left out of these vital
programs?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, first of all, they are entitled to
ERP programs. There are two phases to this. Phase 1 involved
those who have crop insurance and named coverage. Phase 2 is
basically covering those who don't have access to those
programs, so they are entitled to ERP programs.
And then second, we are trying to work with folks to better
understand how we can price and market crop insurance so it
becomes more available to folks. I think it is a challenge for
us in some cases. But your producers can qualify for ERP even
though they didn't sign up for crop insurance----
Ms. Perez. In Phase 2. Okay. Thank you.
I would like to shift a little bit and talk about rural
development, specifically broadband. So I live in a rural area,
and like many rural areas, I have terrible internet. I get it
from a radio tower. I would like to talk about how USDA can
provide more services to our rural communities. Broadband is
obviously critical to this, and that is why it is so important
that the bipartisan infrastructure law provided almost $2
billion for ReConnect Program.
So I read in your testimony that Congress can reduce
barriers to accessing USDA programs without spending a dime,
and I would love to hear more about that.
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry, I didn't catch the last part
of that.
Ms. Perez. In your testimony, you stated that Congress can
reduce barriers to accessing USDA programs such as rural
broadband without spending a dime.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think what we are encouraging--
well, first of all, let me just say about the ReConnect
Program. We will have most of those resources that were
provided under the infrastructure law obligated by probably the
end of this spring, so we are getting the resources out the
door.
Second, I think the challenge for us I think is to figure
out where else we need to be focusing our efforts. To the
extent we know where there is lack of service, insufficient
service, inadequate service, the more we know about where those
places are, the better we can target those resources.
Ms. Perez. Yes. And that leads into another issue that we
have seen. The FCC's National Broadband Map should be a key
tool for identifying rural communities that are underserved and
guide broadband investments, but when I looked into this, I
actually found that the only way for logging challenges against
the map is online. And if we don't have internet--so there is a
mismatch there, and I would like to talk about how the USDA has
engaged to create a National Broadband Map and how the agency
can improve coordination for rural broadband deployment
programs.
Secretary Vilsack. We can certainly convey those concerns.
That is something that--we are not actually drawing the map or
we are not actually participating in that.
Ms. Perez. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack. The Commerce Department and the FCC are
doing that. So I will be happy to----
Ms. Perez. Thank you. Sincerely, thank you for your work. I
yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Finstad,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Ranking Member Scott, for having this important hearing today.
And also, thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for being here.
Food and farm security is national security. It has been
stated a few times, and I don't think we can state it enough.
And as a proud fourth-generation farmer from southern Minnesota
raising that fifth generation, I understand very clearly how
important it is that we write and pass a strong farm bill. And
I would just say that this farm bill needs to be by farmers and
for farmers, by rural America and for rural America. It can't
be written by those of us in a small room here in D.C. for
D.C., so the more we can do to listen to real folks that are
making real things happen, the better this farm will process
can be.
I just want to make a statement here. Mr. Secretary,
earlier today, you responded to our colleague from Kansas
about--and I liked what you had to say. You said I don't want
EPA calling me and telling me how to do my job. And I will just
tell you, as a farmer and someone that represent a lot of
farmers in southern Minnesota, I don't want EPA telling us how
to do our job. I don't want them showing up on our farms and
telling us to farm with one hand behind our backs, so I agree
with you on that statement.
I want to switch gears a little bit here. Mr. Secretary,
last September, it was revealed that the Feeding Our Future, a
Minnesota nonprofit, allegedly exploited USDA child nutrition
programs to defraud American taxpayers of over $250 million. It
was intended to feed hungry children during the COVID-19
pandemic. Indictments later revealed that the items purchased
at the taxpayers' dime included luxury vehicles, real estate,
and even an airplane.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit into the record a
letter I sent to Secretary Vilsack on September 30th of last
year, along with you and the Education and Workforce Chairwoman
Fox and Oversight Chairman Comer requesting documentation to
enable Congressional oversight on how USDA and its partnering
state agency, the Minnesota Department of Education, failed to
prevent this fraud.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 99.]
Mr. Finstad. So, Mr. Secretary, I know a lot of folks from
Iowa. I do a lot of phone calls, texts, emails, and I write
letters to my friends in Iowa. They respond right away. It has
been 6 months since we sent this letter, and I haven't heard a
word from you or your office. So would you commit today to
providing the Committee staff information that we have
requested in this letter within 2 weeks? That would allow us to
do our job is Congress and enable Congressional oversight of
this Feeding Our Future fraud.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I will commit to you that
we will get a response. I don't want to necessarily commit to a
2 week time frame because I don't know how complicated the
response is. I don't know whether or not there is litigation
involved, investigations involved. I would like to have the
opportunity to basically--we receive over 300,000 inquiries a
year from folks across the country, including Members of
Congress, so give me an opportunity to get the letter, read the
letter, and, certainly, you are entitled to a response, and you
will get a response.
Mr. Finstad. Well, and I hope you see the wisdom in the
needed response. When we are talking about rewriting the farm
bill, we have heard a lot of conversation today around SNAP and
the importance of making sure that we as good neighbors are
willing to give the shirt off our back to those that are in
time of need. It is hard to say that with a straight face when
you see this kind of fraud that has happened. And so with that,
what measures has the USDA taken to enhance integrity measures
across all of the FNS programming to ensure that fraud on this
scale will never be allowed to happen again?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, as you know, the programs are
administered by the states, and so we are going to work closely
with the states to make sure that they understand the joint
responsibility we have to make sure that these programs are
operated in a fair way.
I think, during the course of the pandemic, things were not
as focused on this as perhaps they could have been because of
the nature of the pandemic and the challenges that that
presented and the need to get information and support out to
folks that were in need. But I am happy to take a look at this
particular circumstance to figure out what we should be doing
or can do to make sure this doesn't happen again because it
shouldn't happen. You are right.
Mr. Finstad. I appreciate that. Switching gears here quick
with my remaining few seconds, I want to thank you for moving
quickly to provide certainty for the pork producers in southern
Minnesota and all across this nation for following the letter I
sent to you in February requesting an extension of the NSIS
time-limited trial for pork processing plants. I guess my
question to you in the closing seconds here is do you agree
that a permanent solution is needed to provide certainty for
our pork and poultry plants to ensure that they continue to
operate safely and efficiently at this operational capacity?
Secretary Vilsack. Sure.
Mr. Finstad. Perfect. I appreciate your time here today,
and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yield back.
I now am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Hawaii,
Congresswoman Tokuda for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The
difficult part about going towards the tail end of a large
Committee is I know we have discussed a lot of issues already
today. I wanted to go into an area about statistics. I am a
self-professed data wonk myself, and the National Agricultural
Statistics Service survey recently conducted the Census of
Agriculture, and we will see the data in the summer of 2024. We
are still using some data from before the pandemic to make
vertical policy decisions, as you know.
Furthermore, while speaking with agricultural producers
across my district, which is a very rural community, I have
heard concerns about the lack of agricultural data, making
their decisions as farmers and business owners much more
challenging. What barriers to data collection has the USDA
identified, and what more can the Committee do to ensure that
we have the data we need to do our jobs? And how can the USDA
ensure data is up-to-date, it is accurate in a rapidly changing
market with market changes, consolidations, global crisis, and
conditions? Secretary?
Secretary Vilsack. Part of our challenge is to make sure
that people understand the importance of filling out the
survey, so we have done and continue to do an aggressive
outreach effort to make sure that people understand and
appreciate the more people who respond to the survey completely
and fully, the better the information and data is. So we have
actually put resources behind further extension and outreach to
make sure that we are dealing with underserved populations who
need to fill out and need to be part of the survey. And I am
hopeful that we will see increased data, a reflection of that
in the data that is going to be created from this particular
survey.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Secretary. And hopefully with that
data we will also understand where best we can apply resources
and support as well.
When I talk to a lot of the farmers and producers and
ranchers in my district, who are mostly small- to medium-size
farms in Hawaii, one of the big things that come up is
farmworkers, labor issues, shortages that we are dealing with.
And I know we have done the Farm Workforce Modernization Act,
but more can we do to support our farm workforce? And I think
of housing, I think of healthcare, mental health services. As
our farms struggle to get workers and we need to support our
workers, what can we do in this area?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, passage of the Farm Workforce
Modernization Act again by this Congress would be helpful. It
didn't get through the Senate, and that would be pretty
significant, number one.
Ms. Tokuda. That is true. We still have work to do.
Secretary Vilsack. Number two, we are working on a pilot
program to try to create a pathway or a model that can be
utilized to showcase how that Farm Workforce Modernization Act
could work, and we will be launching that sometime this spring
or summer, which addresses some of the issues in a pilot way,
and so look for that.
We are also using our Rural Development resources, we are
encouraging better utilization of the farmworker assistance
programs within USDA. There are still significant resources
available for housing that we want to make sure people are
aware of and can utilize to provide better housing.
On the mental health side, as I have indicated, we have
used our community facility program resources to expand the
facilities for mental health services, and we have continued to
work with commissioners and secretaries of agriculture at the
state level to expand access and support for the hotlines and
telephone opportunities for folks to call in if they need help
and assistance.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. And touching a little bit upon that,
one of the big things that I hear often is that it is just too
difficult to make use of the--to apply for or to qualify to
comply with a lot of the programs that exist out there or
potentially will be coming through the pike. So really, how are
we doubling down on technical assistance to farmers to make
sure, especially for our smaller farmers, a lot of them also
are newly arrived citizens to this country. How are we making
sure that that technical assistance is there so that they can
actually draw down these programs that are important to them?
Secretary Vilsack. The NRCS on the conservation side has
agreements with 118 organizations that are linked to the
populations that you just mentioned to basically extend our
ability to reach out into those unserved populations to get
information out about programs. FSA and FPAC have also entered
into a series of contracts with 85 organizations to get
information out about farm loans and other programs that
operate through the Farm Service Agency. So there is an
extensive network that has now been supported and created to
try to get information out and to provide assistance to apply
for the programs that are available.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. I appreciate those programs. I would
often say, too, we need to always make sure that our ROI on
those programs are in fact getting to the people that they need
to get to. I am not questioning any of these organizations or
its effectiveness of these programs, but I often hear from at
least our rural farmers that is very, very difficult to even
get that tech assistance to be able to comply.
So thank you very much. I have a number of other questions,
but I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Congressman
Rose, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member
Scott, for holding the hearing. And thank you, Secretary
Vilsack, for taking time to be with us here today.
Mr. Secretary, in addition to record inflation and
crippling input costs facing the cattle producers in my
district, depredation by predatory birds like black vultures
has taken a real financial toll on our producers. According to
USDA APHIS, nearly \1/3\ of calves lost to predators each year
in Tennessee is attributable to predatory birds, vultures being
chief among them in our state. These scavengers are a nuisance
to livestock producers, and they take a significant chunk out
of agriculture's bottom line each year in Tennessee and across
the country. What tools and flexibilities does USDA provide to
farmers and ranchers to deal with this issue?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I have been asked a lot of
questions today, and I have answers to most of them, but this
one I don't. I am happy to take a look at what we do in this
particular area.
Mr. Rose. Sure. And if you might--and I would appreciate
that--if more legislative flexibility was given to USDA's
Wildlife Services to address this issue, would you direct the
agency to expand their efforts to control and take species that
are currently listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
including the black vulture?
Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to take a look at this and
figure out exactly what we need to do. I appreciate you
bringing it to my attention. It is something that--this is the
first time I have heard it.
Mr. Rose. Well, thank you. And we will certainly follow up
on that.
Secretary Vilsack, I am going to shift gears here a little
bit--that science and consumer surveys show that when all forms
of produce are present, people eat more fruits and vegetables.
And I learned this a long time ago. My mom was a county home
agent, home demonstration agent back in the days. I guess today
we would call her a county extension agent. And she taught me
growing up on the farm that when you preserve fruits and
vegetables by freezing them--and she was from that era when
freezers were a new thing--that actually the freezing process
retains the nutritive value of those fruit and vegetables. And
in fact, recent science has shown that perhaps it actually
improves the nutritional value of vegetables and fruits when
they are preserved by freezing. However, anytime USDA puts
anything out, the agency highlights one type of produce, and
that is fresh, which you and I know doesn't always provide
families the choices they need, particularly for our low-income
neighbors. As a matter of fact, there are some days when frozen
is the only option to make sure my own family gets the fruits
and vegetables that they need.
I want to know what USDA is doing to make sure that all
USDA agencies are supporting the availability of all forms of
fruits and vegetables to families in the manner that best
serves them?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are providing resources,
partnering with states with resources under The Emergency Food
Assistance Program to provide resources for food banks and for
our schools. And they end up purchasing a lot of canned and, to
the extent that they have refrigeration capacity, frozen
options. So that is a way in which we are providing resources.
Mr. Rose. And I want to focus your attention specifically
on the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program, or GusNIP--
you are probably familiar with that program--which supports
fruit and vegetable consumption for low-income families through
point-of-sale incentives and a produce prescription program,
also separately a produce prescription program that USDA has
currently. But they only promote the consumption of fresh
produce. And so while USDA has the statutory authority at least
since the 2018 Farm Bill, to fund frozen projects, they never
have. If the goal is to get more people consuming fruits and
vegetables, particularly those utilizing Federal assistance,
then why would we limit their options, especially when frozen
produce is just as nutritious as fresh and more affordable,
lasts longer when families need it, and particularly in rural
areas where we don't get to grocery stores every day?
Secretary Vilsack. Let me look into it.
Mr. Rose. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Just quickly in the minutes that remain, this past year the
Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a rule entitled,
The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related
Disclosures for Investors (87 FR 21334). Mr. Secretary, I fear
deeply that if this rulemaking is put into place, that farmers,
particularly small farmers all across the country, are going to
be adversely impacted. And I hope that you will commit to
pushing back against that rule. And with that, I see my time
has expired. I yield back.
The Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman. I also appreciate
the gentleman's question given that it is frozen food month, so
it was perfect timing.
And I had missed the opportunity, so I wanted to enter into
the record Mr. Finstad's unanimous consent request to submit a
copy of his correspondence. It is agreed to without objection.
[The information referred to is located on p. 99.]
The Chairman. I now am pleased to recognize the gentlelady
from Illinois, Congresswoman Budzinski, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Secretary Vilsack. It is great to be with you, thank you for
making time to be here.
I am really honored to get to represent the 13th District
in Illinois, which is really located in central and southern
Illinois. And I think this area actually has some very unique
agricultural opportunities. From Decatur to Champaign, we are
the ag tech corridor of the country. We have ADM. We have the
University of Illinois, my alma mater that is in this district.
We are really leading with some of our community college
partners, with Parkland Community College and Lincoln Land on
precision agriculture. I would say second also Piatt County is
the top soybean-producing county in our entire state. And then
of course, we are very excited to share the Farm Progress Show
with the State of Iowa, which we are hosting actually in
Decatur later this year and extend that invitation.
My first question, though, is really about how we are
supporting our young and beginning farmers. The USDA launched a
pilot program to increase access to land capital and markets
for underserved producers, including young and beginning
farmers, which I hope to make permanent. Removing barriers to
entry of the farming industry will serve to strengthen the
pipeline into the agricultural sector. I understand the rollout
is underway. And can you tell us about why the program is so
vital and some of the barriers to entry that you have observed
thus far?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, one of the big challenges we face
in agriculture is the aging nature of our farm population,
which means it is important for us to be able to figure out
ways in which we can attract younger people who are interested
in this. I mean, it is no secret it is a challenge to get in
this business from a credit perspective, from a capital
perspective. That is one of the reasons why we proposed and
suggested in the President's agenda that we increase the
Microloan Program from $50,000 to $100,000 to make it easier.
That is why we have proposed changes in the qualifications for
participating in FSA loans, perhaps not requiring as much level
of experiences in the past to be able to access those larger
credit opportunities. It is why we have resources that are
outstanding in our effort to try to figure out ways in which we
can expand access to land and markets for new and beginning
farmers and for underserved producers. We have received a
significant number of proposals that we are in the process of
reviewing, and sometime this summer, we would expect to make
grants to organizations that will help us figure out creative
ways to provide access to land. So if you provide access to
land, you make it a little bit easier to get credit and
capital, and then you create new market opportunities by
linking those young beginning farmers to a local and regional
food market, maybe a local school, maybe a local grocery store,
a local restaurant. You can create the opportunity for them to
eventually get started and grow over time.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes, I would love to be a partner with you
in that work for sure. I also just wanted to share--this is
more disheartening information that I just received last week
in one of the communities that I represent in the district. The
Walmart in Cohokia Heights, Illinois, which is in the metro
east region right near St. Louis, near other communities like
east St. Louis, announced that it would close its doors in
April. And I know we talked a little bit--you have spoken a
little bit about food deserts, but this closure really has the
potential to exacerbate an already existing food desert
situation in a very underserved area of this district, limiting
access to healthy food options for many of the residents in the
13th District. Solutions exist, as you know, like the Food
Deserts Act (H.R. 1230) to support the operation of grocery
stores in underserved communities. I am very proud to be a
cosponsor of that legislation. But could you talk a little bit
more about what USDA is doing to help address the food desert
crisis?
Secretary Vilsack. We have what we refer to as the Healthy
Food Financing Initiative in which we provide resources to
community development, financial institutions who in turn
provide credit and resources to those who are interested in
establishing a grocery store or expanding a grocery store with
a capacity to better serve underserved or food desert areas. So
we have roughly $130 million that we have allocated to that--
actually, $155 million that we have allocated to that
initiative, and so that would be one place where I would
suggest the community might begin to think about accessing
potentially those resources to see if there will be someone
else that would be able to provide grocery services.
Ms. Budzinski. Great. Thank you.
I will go ahead and yield back my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady as she yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Congressman
Jackson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
Mr. Secretary, numerous times throughout your testimony you
mentioned addressing the many challenges the agriculture
industry has facing it today with outdated agricultural
policies initially designed to address challenges from the
1930s and the 1970s. And obviously, I couldn't agree with you
more on that. America's farmers and ranchers are still facing
historic levels of feed, fuel, and fertilizer costs that they
absolutely rely on to produce the food and the fiber that feeds
and clothes the world, not to mention the issues with finding
qualified, reliable labor, disruption to the supply chain, and
barriers to global markets. America's agriculture, I think
anyone would argue, is struggling to survive.
The natural disasters that have wreaked havoc on most of
the U.S. over the past few years have created many unique
challenges and hardships for America's agriculture producers.
To provide relief for farmers and ranchers throughout the
country, Congress was quick to implement disaster assistance
for crop losses in 2020 and 2021. While farmers were extremely
pleased with the effective approach taken to expedite payments
under the Emergency Relief Program, phase 1, the changes that
were implemented in the rollout of ERP phase 2 have been less
well-received. Phase 1 provided straightforward relief for
producers and minimized the paperwork for local Farm Service
Agency employees. Now, phase 2 is requiring farmers and
ranchers to disclose Schedule F tax information in order to get
the program funds that were appropriated to support them.
Additionally, it has been brought to my attention that the
USDA has instructed FSA employees not to help producers
complete the documents necessary to apply for the ERP phase 2
in person, and if they have additional information, they should
contact a tax preparer.
Another issue I have been hearing from producers in my
district has been about timing issues regarding winter wheat
growers and when losses were verified by their crop insurance
agent at the end of 2021. Wheat farmers that suffered losses
from the same disaster but had their losses adjusted in early
2022, just a few days or weeks later, are still waiting for
assistance. The process used for ERP phase 2 has become too
burdensome and complicated for farmers and the FSA agents that
are responsible for providing this assistance. With these
issues in mind, sir, could you please discuss what is the
Department's plan for offering disaster assistance for eligible
2022 losses?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, the farmers that we
are talking to about phase 2 are very small producers who have
never accessed any of these programs because they don't have
crop insurance, they don't have NAP coverage. And so we are
looking at a revenue structure to be able to provide resources
to these producers. So there is an element of agriculture that
doesn't get benefits under the traditional disaster assistance
efforts, so we are trying to address it and keep those people
on the farm.
Once that phase 2 is completed, if there is additional
resources available under the $10 billion that was originally
appropriated, we are going to go back and take a look at any
other farmers that may not have been able to meet the 70
percent threshold that is required that Congress has set and
provide potential resources for those folks as well. We are
going to learn from this experience, and we are going to figure
out ways in which we can improve the $3 billion that you have
provided for 2022 disasters, and we hope to be able to do a
good job of getting that resource out very quickly.
I have made a note about the wheat issue that you have
mentioned, and I will be happy to take a look at that and
whether there is something we can do to expedite those
payments.
[The information referred to is located on p. 106.]
Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you, sir. And also, I think one
of the things that I hear the most also is about the new
information that is required regarding tax information and
stuff. Is that absolutely necessary, or is there a way that
that could be relooked at?
Secretary Vilsack. We are actually looking at it from a
revenue perspective as opposed to a production perspective. It
is a different way of addressing those farmers who don't have
crop insurance. The reason why the ERP worked very well the
first time was because we were using that information that we
had already received about damages, losses that have occurred
because they filed for crop insurance or they had NAP coverage,
right? If you don't have that coverage, how do you establish
the loss? One way to establish it is whether or not your income
has significantly been impacted, and if so, this is how we are
going to provide help and assistance to those very, very small
producers. That is who we are trying to help here.
Mr. Jackson of Texas. Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate
that. I think part of the heartburn is also I think a lot of
people are just worried about it. I understand where you are
coming from and what your issue is and how you are trying to
use information, but honestly, I think people in my district,
in combination with things like the Biden Administration's
new--the money that has just been provided for 87,000 new IRS
agents is making people in my district a little bit nervous.
But I understand where you are coming from, sir. I just
wanted to pass that information that is a concern for farmers
and ranchers in my district. And thank you, sir. I appreciate
your time. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman
from Illinois, Congressman Sorensen.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Vilsack, for your time today.
Your insight, your leadership is essential to help Congress
craft a bipartisan farm bill that ensures our farmers, rural
communities, and food systems are resilient and thriving. And
from my district on the eastern banks of the Mississippi River
in Illinois, my thanks to you for your service across the
Mississippi in the Hawkeye State.
I would like to talk about crop insurance. It is one thing
that I hear from a lot of folks in my district in western
Illinois. Since the last farm bill, producers received $13
billion in response to extreme weather events as it has
impacted their yield, which is why I will work to protect and
expand the crop insurance program in the upcoming farm bill.
The current safety net does not reflect the current levels of
risk, especially in a warming climate as we see more increasing
weather disasters.
So my question to you, Mr. Secretary, are there options
available and/or being developed through the Federal Crop
Insurance Program to help farmers manage these increasing
risks?
Secretary Vilsack. We are always taking a look,
Congressman, at ways in which the risk management tools
available to our farmers can be improved, whether it is
expanding coverage or whether it is making sure that we are
keeping abreast of prices and what the risk actually is. That
is an ongoing process, and we are committed to it. We are
committed to crop insurance. We are committed to it as a tool.
It is by no means the only tool, but it is a very important
one.
Mr. Sorensen. I would like to talk for a minute about
biofuels. Last summer, President Biden took bold action to
address high fuel costs, issuing an emergency waiver to allow
E15 to be sold. As a result, consumers saw the savings in my
district of up to 30 a gallon and across the country where E15
was sold. As summer approaches, we may see an increase in the
price of gas unless action is taken to permit the sale of E15
again. Do you foresee the Administration permitting the sale of
E15 yet this year?
Secretary Vilsack. I know that that is currently under
advisement, but the good news is that there has been an
indication from the EPA Administrator of a desire to make that
a permanent fixture in 2024, which obviously would be
beneficial.
I think one of the challenges I think from a national
perspective is making sure that the infrastructure that allows
for these higher blends to be available to consumers, and that
is one of the reasons why it is important to continue to get
resources out the door under the bipartisan infrastructure law
for the infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Act. We intend
and expect to make over the course of this year quarterly
awards of resources to retailers to be able to expand
distribution systems so that E15 and other higher blends are
more readily available.
Mr. Sorensen. In Illinois, we are proud producers of
ethanol. As transportation goes electric, I have heard from our
producers saying what is going to happen to us as we are
producing the corn for ethanol? As their trusted meteorologist
for many years in western Illinois, I said, ``Hey, listen, we
need to talk sustainability.'' How do we make sure that we
advance biofuels such that airlines and aircraft manufacturers
are going to be able to utilize biofuels in the aviation
industry?
Secretary Vilsack. There is a grand challenge that the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, and
Department of Transportation are engaged in. The goal is to get
3 billion gallons of sustainable aviation fuel by 2030. Our
role at USDA is to really focus on feedstock and feedstock
supply and logistics, and so we have I think roughly 26 of our
experts basically working on this piece of it, trying to figure
what is the best feedstock, how can we convert it, how do we
make sure it is available. The Department of Energy is
providing grants for the production of sustainable aviation
fuel. This is a massive opportunity. It is a 36 billion gallon
industry that doesn't exist today that will exist and will more
than help those farmers who are concerned about what the next
level is.
By the way, we are going to have to have combustion engines
for a long period of time, so I don't foresee that we are going
to not have the need for ethanol. And we are seeing greater
export opportunities as well.
Mr. Sorensen. And I think you and I both agree that farmers
are going to be the heroes in the climate solution.
And with that, thank you, Secretary.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Nunn, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Nunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Secretary. It is always good to have another Iowan who is
championing not just agriculture but serving in our government
here.
Sir, I want to first off begin with E15. I want to
highlight the fact that are you, first of all, aware,
Secretary, that the EPA has recently announced a proposed rule
that would allow the year-round sale of E15?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. Nunn. Are you further aware that that does not go into
effect until 2024?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. Nunn. Do you realize that by pushing this out until
2024 we are missing out on an entire summer that would
basically result in the lack of 1,888 new jobs, $20 billion
reduction in consumer motor fuel spending, and would prevent a
$66.3 billion contribution to our nation's GDP by not having
year-round E15 starting this year?
Secretary Vilsack. You are making an assumption that we may
not have it. I am not willing to agree to that at this point in
time.
Mr. Nunn. Well, thank you, Secretary, because I am very
much on the same page with you. I think we do need to move
forward on this. The EPA has the ability to move forward with
emergency power.
Secretary Vilsack. Right.
Mr. Nunn. Would you support year-round E15 starting this
summer?
Secretary Vilsack. I always have.
Mr. Nunn. Very good. I would like to move forward then on
our rural broadband programs. Both you and I worked together in
the State of Iowa on making sure that Iowa had access to rural
broadband, but still, \1/3\ of Iowa counties sit in broadband
deserts. USDA has a huge opportunity here to be a leader in
this, and Congresswoman Spanberger and myself, through
bipartisan efforts, have pushed forward with the support of 83
Members of the House Appropriations Committee urging Chairman
Granger and Ranking Member DeLauro to provide adequate funding
for our rural broadband programs. Are you also committed to
making sure that high-speed internet for all of our rural
communities is something that USDA will stand with us on?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, I am pleased that we are--the
roughly $2 billion that was allocated under the bipartisan
infrastructure law to USDA for the ReConnect Program, that we
will have all those resources obligated by this summer. And
those are the first resources under the bipartisan
infrastructure law for expanded access that will actually be
obligated. I am looking forward to our colleagues in the
Department of Commerce and the FCC working collaboratively with
states to make additional resources, $63 billion of additional
resources available. States are obviously going to play a very
big role in making sure that the unserved or underserved areas
receive the benefits of those once these maps are completed, so
I look forward to continue working with our ReConnect Program.
But I think the real big opportunity is with the additional
resources under the infrastructure law.
Mr. Nunn. So, in Iowa, obviously, we know where those needs
are. We allocated $300 million of our own money towards it. We
look forward to the Federal Government actually allocating
those resources forward so they can actually go to those
communities.
I would like to move on to pesticides here. In November of
2022, the EPA issued a proposal, interim decision restricting
the use of common rodenticides. The USDA then provided a
comment to this rule stating the proposed restrictions on the
use of rodenticides would devastate U.S. agriculture, resulting
in potential loss of rodent control, increased crop damage, and
spread of animal and human diseases. Mr. Secretary, do you
agree that these restrictions would result in the loss of
rodent control, and have you personally been in contact with
the EPA about restricting the use of those rodenticides?
Secretary Vilsack. The process that we use, Congressman, is
for our office that works on these issues to work
collaboratively with the EPA to provide that information, which
we have done and which we will continue to do. The reality is
that the end of the day the decision is obviously the EPA's,
and it is our responsibility at the USDA to figure out if there
are ways in which we can use the conservation resources or
other resources at USDA to provide help and assistance to
comply with whatever regulation EPA is adopting.
Mr. Nunn. Well, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that. And I
know that you do a great job of listening to people across this
country on this. Representative Budzinski and myself, a
Democrat from Illinois, we have a number of these type of
issues that are very acute for our communities. We would offer
you the opportunity to come out to either Illinois or Iowa in a
bipartisan fashion and hear again firsthand from individuals in
your home state and mine on why this is so important to them.
And I guess I would ask, we have tried to commit several times.
I know you have a very busy schedule on this. But would you
commit to coming out and joining us here in the Midwest to hear
firsthand from farmers on these issues?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I live in the Midwest.
Mr. Nunn. As do I.
Secretary Vilsack. And I have talked to a lot of farmers in
the Midwest. I am happy to come out, and obviously, I will be
in Iowa from time to time and I will be in Illinois from time
to time. And I make myself available to farmers all the time.
We are acutely aware of the issues that are out there.
Mr. Nunn. I yield my time back. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I am now
pleased to recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr.
Vasquez, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Vilsack, I want to first thank you for the work
that you and all of USDA do for New Mexico's farmers, ranchers,
cattlemen, and farmworkers, as well as those across the
country. New Mexico is at the heart of the American
agricultural landscape. Our state produces staples ranging from
beef to our famous green chili, including my district's very
own famous hatch chili. But I am worried about the future of
family farms in my district.
During my first district work period, I met with Dale and
Dwayne Gillis, and in fact, I actually brought Dale to the
State of the Union address. Dale and Dwayne are two brothers
who own a multigenerational onion and chili farm in the Hatch
Valley. They told me that they are finding it difficult to
sustain their small family farm these days, and they
consistently hammered one message. The biggest issue that they
have wasn't water. It was farm labor and how their farm and
nearby operations have struggled to find local workers since
the pandemic. Dale and Dwayne told me that they have 100 acres'
worth of produce that they left on the ground because they
cannot hire enough workers, despite a wage increase that they
offered. And so at a time when our country is losing record
numbers of farms and ranches, we can't afford to leave crops
unharvested.
Secretary, short of what Congress can do and should do,
what can USDA do to address labor shortages on farms like for
the Hill brothers?
Secretary Vilsack. We have a pilot program that we are
working collaboratively with USAID on identifying the potential
of workers in the northern triangle that can be identified,
that can be trained appropriately, that can be brought into the
U.S. properly, and then basically located in farms that would
be willing to embrace these workers. We want to be able to show
what the Farm Workforce Modernization Act would actually be
like if it were in fact enforced or enacted. And honestly, at
the end of the day, it is very limited what we can do at USDA
in terms of this. We can do this pilot, but at the end of the
day, it really requires Members of Congress have the courage
and the fortitude to get this Farm Workforce Modernization Act
passed both in the House and in the Senate.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Secretary.
And as a follow-up to that question, some of the issues I
heard around specifically with the H-2A visa program were
around the housing requirements and also the lack of work
authorization for spouses and dependents. What are your
thoughts on H-2A? How could that program work better?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, in terms of the housing, we have
resources at USDA that potentially could be utilized to expand
housing opportunities and would encourage producers to take
full advantage of those resources. We will continue to work
with our friends at the Department of Labor to make sure that
to the extent that we can, we make the H-2A program work as
effectively as it can. But frankly--I am going to beat a dead
horse here--at the end of the day, it really does need the Farm
Workforce Modernization Act to get it done because then you
would have a guaranteed number of people. You would have
guaranteed conditions for workers. You would have guaranteed
income stability for the farmers. It is the right thing to do,
and it is amazing to me that it hasn't been done yet.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you for that answer, Secretary.
There are over 24,000 farms in our state. Most of them are
smaller operations. About 75 percent make less than $10,000 in
sales. And as you noted in your testimony, we have seen record
profits for large operations, but our small family farms are
struggling. Small farms not only face higher costs but don't
have the resources to market their products the same way the
large farms do. With growing seasons in competitive places like
Mexico overlapping with our own, our farmers are getting
crowded out of the market. Secretary, how could we increase
opportunities for these small farmers to advertise and sell
their products in a competitive both state and national and
global market?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are four programs in
particular. There is a local farm promotion program that has
resources to be able to help farmers with marketing. There is a
regional farm marketing effort to try to create local and
regional food systems that can service schools, can service
hospitals, other institutional purchasers. There is a Value-
Added Producer Grant Program. There is an effort underway to
encourage local procurement by state agencies that are using
our resources to purchase food for food banks and for schools.
And we are also giving resources to local schools to be able to
purchase locally. So there are a number of different ways in
which we are creating new market opportunities for small- and
mid-size producers to be able to access resources and new
markets that they have advantages.
The other issue would be farm-to-school. There are farm-to-
school grants. Just to give you the power of this, we recently
did $10 million in farm-to-school grants. It impacted and
affected 123 grantees who in turn provided opportunities in
5,000 schools across the United States. That is 5,000 new
markets.
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlemen's time has expired.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Texas,
Congresswoman De La Cruz, for 5 minutes.
Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, Secretary, for being here with us today.
I am in south Texas on the border of Mexico. The Biden
open-border policy has affected many communities and
specifically our ranchers and our farmers, who have suffered
property damage, loss of crops, loss of livestock, as well as
the mental anguish of finding abandoned children, dead bodies
on their farmland.
That being said, like my colleague across the aisle,
Congresswoman Slotkin said, looking through this in a national
security lens is important. That being said, I would like her
and my colleagues across the aisle to look at border security
through the lens of, as my colleague said, facts versus
politics. Let me give you, and my colleagues, some facts. Some
of these facts include a 1,221 percent increase in Chinese
nationals crossing through just the RGV sector, just one sector
where they are paying the cartels from $30,000 to $50,000 for
each person. We are under great stress, and our farmers and
ranchers through their experience of, again, property damage,
loss of crops, loss of livestock, as well as the dead bodies
that they find on their ranch lands.
Now, Mr. Secretary, us Texans, we are resilient, and we
look tough times in the face and we take them head on. With
that being said, sometimes, we do have to ask for help, and
there is one thing that we do need help on, and that is the
fever tick issue happening in south Texas. You see, the fever
ticks pose a great threat to our agriculture economy of Texas
and our domestic beef industry as a whole. These ticks carry
cattle fever, which attacks and destroys animal's red blood
cells, causing high fevers and enlarged spleen and liver.
That being said, in the unlikely chance that these
parasites get out of control or out of the quarantine zone,
which we have several quarantine zones in south Texas, we are
looking at herds being devastated and livelihood lost. Can you
assure us of the necessary resources are put toward keeping the
quarantine zone from growing and even commit to shrinking it?
Secretary Vilsack. We are continuing to work on this issue,
Congresswoman. I appreciate you bringing it up. I know that we
have invested resources, and we will continue to do that
because we understand the challenge.
And I would also say just as a parenthetical to your
comment about the damage that farmers have experienced, we have
provided EQIP resources to assist them in the repairing of
fencing and things of that nature. You might want to be aware
of that.
Ms. De La Cruz. And I will make you aware of that the
farmers and ranchers have said while there is the system, they
have had great difficulty in actually accessing the money. And
we hear that time and time again. And, Mr. Secretary, I invite
you to my district so you can hear from the farmers and
ranchers and what difficulty they have had. In fact, we have so
much difficulty that in Brooks County one of the counties in my
district, they have actually had to build a morgue just to hold
the amount of dead bodies that they have found on ranch lands.
It is completely unacceptable. And again, I invite you so you
can hear from our farmers and ranchers in south Texas.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. I am now pleased
to recognize I think Mr. Carbajal--well, give me just a second
just to make sure.
Mr. Carbajal. Why don't I go and you could go back later?
The Chairman. I know, and you will have me check later. I
am kind of tempted to put you last, but I would be glad to
recognize my good friend from California, Mr. Carbajal, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Secretary Vilsack, for being here today.
I also would like to, like everybody else before me, invite
you to my district. I know we have been talking about finding a
date. I hope we can make that happen. I think my constituents
would really benefit from an exchange with you.
Secretary Vilsack, the recent storms in California have
resulted in losses of crops and millions of revenue. On the
Central Coast which I represent, there has been growing
frustration from growers of specialty crops about their
inability to receive disaster relief support. With climate
change, these storms will not be the last to hit the Central
Coast and other regions in California. What can Congress do to
better support farmers in the aftermath of climate disasters to
help them keep up with the food demand of our nation?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, first and foremost, make sure that
we get you a copy of this, which provides a listing of all the
disaster assistance programs that are available for producers.
Second, I think it is important--and we have talked about
this today, about the need for a disaster assistance provision
if you will in the farm bill that provides the flexibility to
be able to respond instead of the ad hoc assistance that you
have been providing.
One of the challenges will always be trying to figure out
what amount is the appropriate amount. We did $10 billion 1
year, we do $3 billion the next year, so people's expectations
are that this is that they are going to get a certain amount,
and they are obviously going to be surprised when that amount
is significantly less than it was for disasters 2 years ago. So
I would say disaster assistance would be helpful.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. And I am really glad--I was
hearing the testimony in my office before I came for my
remarks, and I am really glad that you are providing
clarification to a lot of the misinformation that is put
forward. When I come to my hearings, I don't mind having a
healthy debate with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
but when there is outright misinformation and BS that is coming
forward, I think it really demeans the institution by not
having the integrity of information that is put forward like
five million undocumented individuals on SNAP, which couldn't
be more ridiculous on its face value.
You mentioned in your testimony that SNAP is a vital
economic engine, especially in rural areas where there is a
greater percentage of households that received benefits. During
the COVID-19 pandemic, SNAP was a key player in feeding
families and helping farmers find markets for their remaining
produce. Cutting this program will leave millions hungry in the
country. Can you touch on additional impacts that would occur
should SNAP be cut?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, in addition to reducing the
benefits and the access to groceries, obviously, there are a
number of studies that have shown that by having adequate SNAP,
you basically have better health outcomes, particularly for
children. So that is at risk.
Second, you have the jobs that are associated. Every time
somebody is able to buy more at the grocery store, they do
that, which obviously creates a series of jobs in the supply
chain. And obviously, every time there is $1 spent at the
grocery store, there are resources that end up supporting our
farmers, so there is an impact there as well. So if you are
interested in poverty reduction, if you are interested in
healthier outcomes, if you are interested in jobs, if you are
interested in farm income, this is a program that is part of
the overall comprehensive nature of how we provide resources to
assist people.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You mentioned in
your testimony that SNAP is--am I getting these wrong? There
are several challenges facing the farm workforce right now,
especially with the recent storms in California that have left
many unemployed. How can we best support that next generation
of agricultural producers through the farm bill and other
methods like immigration reform or workforce development
legislation?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Farm Workforce Modernization Act
being passed would be very, very helpful, providing additional
resources for beginning farmer and rancher programs helpful to
get people as they transition from being a farm laborer to a
farm owner. Ultimately, that is what we would like to see more
of. The ability to make sure that we can provide additional
support for housing, which has been discussed here today as
well, and there are a variety of ways in which there can be
significant help.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Congressman
Alford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. Mr.
Secretary, thank you for being here today.
I want to talk about chlorpyrifos, a critical crop
protection tool for soybeans, alfalfa, cotton, and wheat
important to our Missouri farmers. EPA Administrator Regan
frequently claims the 9th Circuit tied the EPA's hands and
forced them to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos. However,
they actually gave EPA the option to either revoke all
tolerances or modify the existing tolerances. Secretary
Vilsack, in the letter from September 20 of 2022, you broke
with the EPA's decision to revoke all tolerances and said,
quote, ``OPMP scientists believe EPA could retain certain
chlorpyrifos uses that meet EPA's safety standards,'' end
quote. The 2020 Democratic party platform even stated the
party's desire to ban the use of this provided further evidence
that this decision was political.
Mr. Secretary, do you agree that this decision was based on
political science and not actual science? Yes or no, sir?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't think----
Mr. Alford. That would be a yes or no, sir, please.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, no, you can't define how I answer
a question, sir.
You can ask the question, but you can't define how I answer
it.
Mr. Alford. Is it yes or no?
Secretary Vilsack. And the answer is I honestly believe the
folks at the EPA are acting in good faith. Now, do we disagree
with them from time to time? For sure, and we provide
information. At the end of the day, they make the call, but I
don't think this decision was political in nature.
Mr. Alford. So it was not a political decision, correct?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't think it was a political
decision.
Mr. Alford. Since the answer is no, do you no longer agree
with the USDA scientists that certain chlorpyrifos's uses could
have been retained? Why? What changed?
Secretary Vilsack. Nothing changed. That is the opinion
that we provided. Sir, you don't understand the process. The
process is we don't get to dictate what EPA does. We get to
provide information to EPA. We get to provide the best
information based on the science as we see it. We give it to
EPA. EPA makes a call, and then it is our responsibility to
figure out ways in which we can help farmers comply with
whatever regulation. We don't make the regulations.
Mr. Alford. Okay. I am going to move on to the next
question regarding China because I know a lot of people have
asked about this. This is a big concern in my district as well.
We have 95,000 farms. You said earlier that foreign-owned land
is 40 million acres?
Secretary Vilsack. Correct.
Mr. Alford. And that one percent of one percent is owned by
the Chinese?
Secretary Vilsack. Roughly 383,000 acres.
Mr. Alford. That is a lot of acreage.
Secretary Vilsack. It is less than one percent of one
percent of----
Mr. Alford. I am here to tell you, Mr. Secretary, this is a
big concern, and 1 acre that is bought or owned by the Chinese
Communist Government or any agent thereof is a big concern,
especially when it is near Whiteman Air Force Base in my
district home of the B2 stealth bomber.
Secretary Vilsack. No, I agree.
Mr. Alford. Something has to change in this.
Secretary Vilsack. I agree with you, Congressman, that we
have to be very, very careful about the ownership of land near
any of our defense installations, which is why a recent
situation in North Dakota was brought to everyone's attention.
I agree with you on that.
Mr. Alford. In real estate, I had to give up my real estate
license to do this job. There are disclosures for mold, radon,
lead, sexual predators even. The Chinese Communist Government,
it is a serious threat, as you know, to the future of our
nation in all aspects. They have their tentacles in everything
we do. Would you be in favor of a buyer's disclosure to the
seller and that would go to the USDA stating exactly where the
money is coming from to buy farmland in America?
Secretary Vilsack. The more information we have, the better
job we can do of implementing the law that is on the books.
Right now, we don't get the information that we need to fully
completely comply with it.
Mr. Alford. Why aren't you demanding that information?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are demanding it, but the
reality is we are talking about, as you know, because you are
in the real estate business every county officer gets deeds
every single day, and they are supposed to report to us. The
question is we don't have any investigative power. We don't
have any ability to know on a particular day whether----
Mr. Alford. Well, what would you suggest--and we have 30
seconds left----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, a clearinghouse----
Mr. Alford. What do we need to do to make this right before
it is too late?
Secretary Vilsack. Some kind of clearinghouse, some way of
basically making it easy for us to know precisely what is
happening on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Alford. Are you committed to working with this
Committee to make sure that that happens?
Secretary Vilsack. Absolutely.
Mr. Alford. I would love to have a personal conversation
with you. I know many others on this Committee, especially
those who are also on the House Armed Services Committee
because we see what is going on. The veil is being lifted. The
Chinese Communist Government is the number-one threat to
America right now, and we have to do something before they buy
up farmland and they start firing missiles at our stealth
bombers. It has got to stop.
Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Secretary
Vilsack, for your leadership, for showing you are a class act
through what has been a long hearing. And thanks for traveling
to Polk County, areas near my district just recently. I know
you were very well-received there by our citrus growers and our
ranchers. I also want to thank you for helping dispatch Under
Secretary Torres Small to Osceola County in our district to
meet with our good friends at Deseret Ranch, the biggest cattle
herder in the nation. And we got to go to communities like
Kenansville to talk about rural broadband that we are helping
fund through the American Rescue Plan and the infrastructure
law, $7 million already that is connecting hundreds of farmers
and ranchers in the south part of our district, as well as
meeting with folks in Orange County, too, who are doing urban
and suburban farming.
We are home to citrus, cattle, ranches, farmers growing
strawberries, blueberries, tomatoes. You heard firsthand about
their challenges, as well as Under Secretary Torres Small, and
citrus greening is one of the challenges that you know very
well. How critical from your experience from going there is the
research and making sure we have the right waivers for certain
herbicides and pesticides and for Emergency Relief Program
after hurricanes, the future of America's vitamin C source?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the citrus industry has been
devastated by citrus greening. And research is incredibly
important. And the good news is that there appears to be some
research that is showing very, very good signs of working. The
challenge will be the cost of application of that research, so
there needs to be something that we can potentially do at USDA
to encourage more of that solution to be utilized. And it is
important to obviously have programs that provide assistance
and help to those who are impacted and affected by disasters.
Mr. Soto. And in fact we in Congress have to make sure we
get you the right resources, right? We saw a cut in some of the
Emergency Relief Program that you lamented about when you were
in Polk County as we saw citrus growers recovering from
Hurricane Ian, as well as the research. So we need to get you
the resources so that you can lead and do what we need to do
for USDA.
Also with our ranchers we have heard a lot about beef
competition and processors, vaccine banks, even our bipartisan
bill on black vulture population control. How key is
competition to making sure we have the best prices at the
grocery store while still making sure our ranchers are making a
good living?
Secretary Vilsack. It is critically important, which is why
we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in expanded
capacity and in providing opportunities for existing processing
facilities to sell to a wider market.
Mr. Soto. And in fact under your leadership we are going to
see a new one near central Florida that I know our ranchers are
very excited about after many years of really dealing with the
big four, and that is just un-American to not have that kind of
competition.
And then of course the SNAP program, we heard a lot about
that already, but strengthening The Emergency Food Assistance
Program I have heard from so many of our food banks in the
area, as did Deputy Secretary Torres Small, disaster, SNAP. And
what I really was excited about is all your focus on improving
farm income. I am thinking of the small family ranches in my
district that are under 1,000 acres with a few hundred head of
cattle. You have mentioned conservation and new products like
aviation fuels. What I am most excited about is your concept
for SNAP in school lunch through regional food centers.
So talking to local ranchers at home, how would these
regional food centers help local ranchers and blueberry farmers
and citrus growers connect to their local school programs
better?
Secretary Vilsack. We are eventually going to set up a
series of centers across the country in which people who are
interested in developing a local and regional food system in
the supply chain would be able to get the technical assistance
and the financial assistance to make that happen. We know it is
complicated, so we want to try to break it down by having
places where people can go and get the information they need
and assistance that they need to make sure that they get access
to resources.
Mr. Soto. And the paperwork is complicated, as well as the
logistics to make sure we are getting food to our schools in
time, right, while it is still fresh?
Secretary Vilsack. That is basically what this is designed
to do. It is designed to simplify that process and break down
the barriers that exist.
Mr. Soto. Well, in one of our first hearings we had the
President of the American Farm Bureau here talking about that,
a critical link between our local farmers and providing food to
the SNAP program and how both of those are critical to the farm
bill, so thank you for your testimony, Mr. Secretary, and I
yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van
Orden, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
I would like to briefly address this SNAP issue we have
been talking about. I was raised in abject rural poverty by a
single mother, and we depended on the SNAP program. And then as
an active duty Navy seal in combat getting shot at, my wife and
I utilized the WIC program to feed our children. So I don't
want anybody thinking and saying things like we are beating up
the poor and trying to penalize the poor. Those statements are
inflammatory, and they are not productive, and I will not be
lectured. That is just not going to happen.
So, Mr. Secretary, I find some of your comments in the
written statement disturbing as you mentioned the word equity
five times, some form of transform eight times, but you failed
to mention the word equality or excellence. We don't need to
fundamentally change American agriculture. Our farmers feed the
nation and the world. Unfortunately, some of the policies the
Biden Administration are proposing and setting we are on track
to be a net food importer as early as 2026. That is not bottom-
up, middle-out. That is bottoming out.
The only thing that needs to fundamentally transform is the
Biden Administration's attempt at regulatory overreach and a
war on energy that is killing our farms, particularly
curtailing natural gas production for fertilizer and the 58
percent increase in diesel fuel since President Biden has taken
office. To put a seed in the ground, to water it, foster that,
get it out of the ground, get it to a processing facility, and
then get that to a market is all predicated on diesel fuel. So
until the Biden Administration figures out what they are doing
and lowers diesel fuel costs, none of these food costs are
going to go down. And it is devastating.
So I have a question for you, sir. This Committee, in
coordination with our brothers and sisters on the Education and
the Workforce Development Committee, are working diligently to
get whole milk and cheese--and I am the cheese king of
Congress. Just ask the Chairman. We are trying to get this back
into schools. Will you please champion this effort with us?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, this is an issue that I
have talked to the dairy industry about this. And I think part
of the challenge that you are going to face with this is the
cost, the cost associated with it. And I think as the dairy
industry comes forward to this Committee and to me with changes
in the Milk Marketing Order, which I think are long-overdue, I
would imagine and anticipate that they will probably make some
effort to try to address the cost issue.
Mr. Van Orden. Yes. Will you help champion this with us?
Secretary Vilsack. I will be happy to work with folks on
this.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. But that is a challenge. There is a
second issue here in terms of consumption generally, and it has
to do with the containers.
Mr. Van Orden. Oh, yes.
Secretary Vilsack. There are a lot of things that have
improved in the world since I was in school, a lot. One thing
that hasn't changed are those containers, milk containers.
Mr. Van Orden. Yes, sir. I have limited time. I understand
you are spot on.
We introduced the DAIRY PRIDE Act (H.R. 1462, Defending
Against Imitations and Replacements of Yogurt, Milk, and Cheese
To Promote Regular Intake of Dairy Everyday Act) that is
designed to make the FDA follow their own definitions that
basically states that milk comes from a mammal. This promotes
truth in advertising and allows Americans to understand what
they are consuming and promotes the consumption of wholesome
dairy products. In your professional opinion, does milk come
from a mammal?
Secretary Vilsack. If you use the term milk, it has a
nutritional brand.
Mr. Van Orden. I like where you are going.
Secretary Vilsack. And I think if you are going to use the
term, then you ought to be able to establish that the
nutritional value of whatever it is you are trying to say is
milk is equal to or better than----
Mr. Van Orden. So should the FDA have to follow their own
definitions?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I mean----
Mr. Van Orden. I know you are not--we talk----
Secretary Vilsack. I think the regulation is on the books,
and if they want to change the regulation, that is up to them.
Mr. Van Orden. Right on.
Secretary Vilsack. But at the end of the day, I think the
key here really is making sure that whenever people use these
terms, that the nutritional value, that the consumer is not
confused.
Mr. Van Orden. Yes, sir. And then my final question is you
use the term build new and better market opportunities multiple
times. There are 1.5 billion Indians on the subcontinent.
According to Pew Institute, 81 percent limit their meat
consumption. And that is 1.2 billion people. Thirty-nine
percent self-report as vegetarian. That is 585 million people.
The number of Indians who exercise dairy restrictions is
nominal.
So will you go on the record today saying that you will go
with me so my buddies from this Committee and some from whoever
else is appropriate, probably from Ways and Means, to go to
India to try to open up these markets for dairy products and
also not just for our farmers but to help reduce the Chinese
strategic advantage that they are currently holding in the
Indo-Pacific region? I would love to host you.
Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to work with you on this. And
I had this job before.
Mr. Van Orden. I know.
Secretary Vilsack. For 8 years I pounded on the door.
Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack. I went to India. I traveled to India. I
think the opportunity with the generalized preferences, India
is very concerned about having lost that capacity. That is a
leverage that ought to be used to help open up those markets.
Mr. Van Orden. Well, let's go. I will take that as a yes.
Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired, and his
designation as the cheese king is accepted without objection.
The Chairman. I would now recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Casar, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Mr. Secretary, for spending all this time with us and for
recently spending time with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
I learned a lot from you and from your time as Secretary.
I appreciate how at the beginning of your remarks today you
laid out how in the past there has been this view of get big or
get out that has really hurt our consumers and our small
farmers and small ranchers, and now we are looking at a more
bottom-up and middle-out philosophy. I also noticed in your
testimony and we have talked about in past committee meetings
how, for example, four corporations controlling over 80 percent
of the beef industry and meatpacking really hurts consumers in
particular. And the question that I have starting for you is it
seems that at four we have an enormous amount of corporate
concentration. Would it be even worse if we were at three or at
two?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, obviously.
Mr. Casar. And you think that it would be a helpful
exercise for us in this Committee as we work on things like the
farm bill to find ways to better examine and potentially slow
down continued concentration so that we don't go, for example,
from four to three or to two?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think that is part of it, but I
think also something that this Committee could do and ought to
do is continue to figure out ways in which we can help
competition grow, in other words, help small and independently
owned processing facilities be able to be located in the
appropriate areas. So I think it is a combination of making
sure that consolidation doesn't occur when it is inappropriate,
but also making sure that you are providing financial resources
to expand competition.
Mr. Casar. And the reason I ask the question is because I
think there has been a good amount of continued conversation
and good support for us to say let's support those smaller
operations. Let's make sure that they can make it through.
Let's make sure that even on a sometimes uneven playing field
of corporate concentration, that they can still make it. But I
think there has been a little bit less focus on, well, this
corporate concentration has continued to occur over the years.
When does it stop? Could it get worse in this one particular
area, go from four to three to two? I know there has been some
number of bills and amendments that have been discussed over
the years on how we can slow that form of corporate
concentration. What ideas get kicked around in your Department
on what the Congress could do to better slow the continued
concentration that makes it harder for those small farms and
small ranchers to keep competing?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, one of the things that we attempt
to do is to try to work closely with our colleagues at the
Department of Justice to make sure that they have information
and data because at the end of the day they are the ones who
are making the decision about whether or not something makes
sense or doesn't make sense, something is anticompetitive or
not. But in order for them to make a rational decision about
that, they have to have data and information, and that is where
we come into play. So the ability for us to have information
and data that is accurate, that is comprehensive, that is
current becomes incredibly important, so that is one area in
particular that I would focus on in terms of the jurisdiction
of this particular Committee.
Mr. Casar. I appreciate that, and we will be--I am brand
new to the Congress but have seen excellent work from Abigail
Spanberger and Ro Khanna and Mark Pocan and others on trying to
figure out how we can support both the DOJ's work but also
USDA's work to slow the corporate concentration while we
support the smaller operators. So thank you for your time.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time to
the Ranking Member.
The Chairman. Well, the Ranking Member is not here.
Mr. Casar. Well, if you would like----
The Chairman. Anyone else you want to yield----
Mr. Casar. That is okay. I will just yield back, Mr.
Chairman. I am just trying to be polite.
The Chairman. All right. And the gentleman's politeness is
appreciated, and he yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Congresswoman
Chavez-DeRemer, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I feel like I should invite
you to Oregon. I don't know if you have been, but since
everybody else was inviting you, I am thinking that should be
the first thing I should do instead of waiting until the end. I
know that I have the Chairman coming out with the Committee to
see exactly what we offer there. So thank you for appearing
today.
I want to talk about an industry that I often find that is
left out of the conversation despite the contribution to both
American and worldwide markets and consumers. Like many other
Members on the Committee, I represent a state that produces an
abundance of specialty crops. Our specialty crop producers face
unique hurdles when interacting with USDA. I have heard from
many of our producers that the current offerings of the crop
insurance program do not meet their needs or align with
industry-specific risks they face. The program still largely
operates as a one-size-fits-all. What steps are you taking to
improve these programs to better meet the needs of these
specialty crop growers?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, one of the things that has
occurred is a fairly significant expansion of risk management
tools for specialty crop producers. And when I first got this
job back in 2009, there were very limited options. Now, there
are over 600 policies that are being offered.
To the extent that we can have information and data, we are
very open to creating new programs or to take a look at
existing programs. I know on the organic side, for example, we
looked at the pricing mechanisms and realized that there needed
to be some adjustments. The NAP coverage also provides
additional resources in the way in which we are administering
the ERP program, phase 2, also speaks to specialty crop
producers. So we are open to any suggestions or information
people have about how we can improve that effort. We are
obviously interested in doing that.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Great. Thank you. I do have a follow-
up on that. Specialty crops have a smaller market share than
commodity crops, which makes it more difficult for producers to
access buyers and secure fair prices for their goods. What is
your team at the USDA doing to support the development and
promotion of those markets for those specialty crops?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there is a Local Food Promotion
Program. There is the Regional Agricultural Promotion Program.
There is the establishment of regional food business centers,
which I talked about, which will create opportunities to create
the supply chain for local and regional food systems. There is
an effort that we now have underway. As we provide resources
for food banks and for school meals, we are directing a portion
of those monies be spent with local and regional producers.
Oftentimes, those are specialty crop producers. So there are a
variety of assistance that we are providing.
We are also taking a look at ways in which we can create
more processing capacity in that area. There has been a lot of
focus, obviously, on meat, poultry, and processed eggs in terms
of our efforts at USDA, but you will see this summer what we
refer to as a Competitive Food Initiative, which is designed to
expand processing capacity for non-meat and poultry products,
which will provide opportunities as well.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Okay, great. Thank you. I am going to
switch directions a little bit. I recently held a farm bill
listening session in my home State of Oregon where I heard from
many women farmers that they, like many other women in America,
struggle to find accessible childcare. I thought that was
unique when I heard that. We heard often across the country but
in different industries. My office has been looking into
options to ease the burdens for moms who farm such as
incentivizing the development of childcare facilities and
services in rural areas. Make no mistake, the ag industry would
suffer without their involvement, as you very well know. Is
your Administration aware of this? If not, I suppose you could
stop there. But if you have heard this, what is the Department
doing to ensure that all families have access to this and what
they need to thrive both on and off the farm?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the one thing we can do at USDA is
to provide assistance to develop, to equip, and to locate
childcare facilities to reduce the cost of actually starting up
a childcare operation in rural places. We have a Community
Facility Grant and Loan Program, which has pretty broad
application, including the ability to finance childcare centers
and to equip those childcare centers. That is an important
consideration for us.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
My intention here is to recognize Mr. Davis from North
Carolina for his line of questioning. And then votes have been
called, so I will recess after that, but we will reconvene. We
have a number of Members who have yet to ask questions. There
are only two votes, and so we will gavel back in as soon as we
complete those two votes. So now I am pleased to recognize the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman, and also to the Secretary for being with us today.
The first question is for a district that is as rural as
mine, Members have just put in for community project funds
request. And I look at the USDA community facilities account,
and it is an invaluable funding source, especially in areas
such as mine. However, the sliding scale for cost-sharing under
this account is considerably steep. Mr. Secretary, can you give
me a sense of what criteria are used to determine these cost-
share requirements? And what if any procedures are in place at
USDA to regularly review these requirements?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I will be general in my
answer and will provide you more specifics because your
question is pretty technical.\1\ But I think part of what we
are attempting to do is try to distinguish areas of persistent
and long-term poverty in an effort to try to make sure that we
are providing resources in those areas. But in terms of the
criteria, I think that is one criteria where if we know that
this is an area of persistent poverty, then we take a look at
what we can do and how we can reduce the financial impact to
the community and try to provide as much support as possible.
But honestly, I will have to get you more detailed information
about the scoring criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Editor's note: the information referred to is located on p.
106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Housing is a major issue in eastern North Carolina, and USDA
has been very helpful to provide vital assistance to the
elderly in rural areas with repairs and rehab to their homes.
How has USDA responded to the increase and rising cost and
inflation to help the elderly with this assistance?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is a budget issue, Congressman.
To the extent that we have additional resources or additional
capacity, we can provide additional help. If the resources are
limited, then obviously, we are going to continue to have the
limitations that we have because we want to be able to try to
provide as much help as we can.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. And, Mr. Secretary, I was
using my time wisely here because I know votes have been
called, so there has been a lot of comments made that you visit
certain districts, and then others have made requests. And I
think I even heard a request to India--I am just going to make
my request for eastern North Carolina. How about that one?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
Unfortunately, votes have been called. The good news is there
is only one vote. Is that right? There are two, so we will
return quickly to get through the rest of our Members'
questions, and we appreciate your patience, Mr. Secretary. With
that, the Committee stands in recess, subject to the call of
the chair.
[Recess.]
Mr. Baird [presiding.] So I want to call this hearing back
to order.
And, Mr. Secretary, I hope you have had a nice break. You
got me for a little bit, and then GT will be back. So we really
thank you for being here. We have just about five or six more
that would like to ask questions, and so with that, Mr.
Langworthy from New York, you have 5 minutes.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for being here.
This is a very important hearing as USDA has gone unchecked
over these past 2 years. In speaking with farmers back in
western New York in the southern tier in the western end of New
York State that I represent, the number-one issue facing their
operations are skyrocketing energy costs. In addition to this
Administration's egregious green climate agenda, which also
they are getting double hit by the state government, it is
putting our farmers' backs against the wall. And frankly, it is
going to end up running some of them right out of business.
Our farmers have been left with uncertainty in a lot of
cases, and what we have gotten so far is very little
transparency and honesty from this Administration. But I very
much am optimistic that we can change that. This farm bill will
have consequences and impact on how farm policy is shaped over
these next 5 years.
And with that, Mr. Secretary, I wanted to discuss rural
broadband. As you know, rural development in the farm bill is
critical as it provides funding for infrastructure and small
businesses and job creation. I have a very rural district. And
across the border around 75 percent of my constituents have no
access to the internet in a broad way. What steps can the USDA
take to improve broadband infrastructure to support those that
live in very rural areas, including farmers in their
agricultural operations?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I am familiar with your
area. I went to school in upstate New York and went to law
school in Albany and lived in Richfield Springs on Route 20, so
I am familiar with the area.
We have a ReConnect Program, which is our principal
broadband assistance program. It is really designed to provide
resources to communities to be able to improve access by
increasing upload and download speeds and by providing
resources to be able to do that. We received about almost $2
billion from the infrastructural law, and I am proud to say
that we will have all of those resources obligated by this
summer. So that money will be available to projects as they
unfold, and that should begin to bridge the time when the
Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications
Commission provide the resources to fill in the gaps operating
through state governments to provide resources for expanded
broadband access.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I know that
the Department continues to state that the Thrifty Food Plan
reevaluation was data-driven and science-based. However, the
GAO highlighted the key role that policy decisions played. As
Secretary, what was your role in making decisions for the
reevaluation?
Secretary Vilsack. This is interesting. I am glad you
brought this up, Congressman, because if we had followed the
prescription and direction of the GAO, the increase would have
been significantly higher than it was. It would have been
roughly 17-18 percent higher because they were asking us to use
a different data set. We use the more conservative data set in
terms of the calculations. When you don't do something for 45
years, it is not surprising that there would be an increase.
But you look at basically the consumption patterns of American
families, we don't see families spending an hour to an hour and
a half preparing food from scratch like we did back in the
1970s. Things have changed. That has to be factored. The
choices that people have at the grocery store, we used
information from specific purchasing to be able to provide as
accurate a picture of what a family has to actually go through
to be able to provide food for their families. We very strongly
believe that we followed the right prescription, we followed
the law, and we came up with the conclusion we came up with.
And if we had followed GAO, it would have been even higher.
Mr. Langworthy. Now, was it you that authorized the
acceleration of the reevaluation?
Secretary Vilsack. We didn't authorize acceleration. We
were required by law by the 2008 food and farm bill that was
passed by Congress to do this by 2022, which is what we did.
Congress directed us to do it by 2022.
Mr. Langworthy. According to the GAO--and I know you took
some umbrage there--when the USDA accelerated the Thrifty Food
Plan reevaluation in 2021, it was done without having key
project management elements in place, and the USDA missed a lot
of great opportunities to identify ways to measure project
success and to set clear expectations for stakeholders. And
second, USDA developed a project schedule but not a
comprehensive project management plan that included certain
elements such as a plan for ensuring quality through the
process. And then third, the agency did not employ a dedicated
project manager to ensure that key practices in project
management were generally followed.
So I am out of time here, but thank you very much for your
testimony. I yield back.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And now we
go to Illinois for Mr. Jackson, 5 minutes.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I feel
obligated to also call you my Governor from my great
neighboring state, and my father and family send their
greetings to you. I appreciate your candor and your
preparedness for these questions. On rural broadband is the
question I have for you. Is there anything else that we can do
that needs to be done to speed up the facilitation of access
and implementation for rural broadband?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I think if I were in your
shoes I would be reaching out to my Governor to make sure that
he and his Administration are prepared to quickly review the
maps that are being presented and will be presented this year
to determine where the unserved and underserved areas are left
in your state and make sure that they are accurate because that
is going to drive where the resources go, the resources under
the infrastructural law. So that is number one. And number two,
that they are prepared once they get the resources from the
Federal Government, this is going to be funneled through the
state governments, that the state governments are prepared to
quickly appropriate those resources.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. The other question, sitting from
your position--and this seems like it is going to be a hot-
button issue on SNAP. I am hearing a lot of people in my
district that we are having, still, grocery store closures.
There are 6,500 tracts according to the United States Census
where people are food-insecure. They simply don't have
transportation, mobility, or they may have the higher level of
poverty where the grocery markets aren't able to work and have
profitable groceries. That is a longer-term issue I would like
to discuss with you. But what is the benefit of SNAP that you
would tell everyone in the Congress that we should know about
why it should be increased and maintained?
Secretary Vilsack. There is data that indicates obviously
that SNAP is one of the most effective poverty-reducing
programs, if not the most effective poverty-reducing program we
have. There is also ongoing data collection and research that
indicates that with adequate SNAP benefits, health outcomes,
particularly for children, are improved. Obviously, there are
circumstances as well where employment is tied to the supply
chain, to the ability to have adequate SNAP benefits. It is a
process that I think creates--if you look at the troubled
places in the world today, they have two things in common. They
have a lot of unemployed people and a lot of hungry people. And
to the extent that we can provide opportunities for employment
and we provide opportunities for people to avoid hunger, I
think it makes us a safer place. So I think it helps to
stabilize our democracy, which I think is pretty important
right now.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Can we talk about the growing need
for college students to have access to SNAP and nutritional
programs? Hunger amongst college students is an overlooked
topic by many.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think one of the things that has
changed is the character of the person going to college. We
have a lot of single parents that are trying to get themselves
an education and trying to get themselves an opportunity for
advancement. And so the SNAP program can be incredibly
important to those college students who are playing by the
rules and doing what they are supposed to do and trying to get
a better education.
The reality is it also provides a little bit of help in
terms of the cost associated with college, as we know, pretty
expensive, and sometimes these young people are laden with debt
as a result, so it is an effective tool.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. And last question is, do you think
the SNAP work requirement rules are sufficient or, if they were
to change, would it have a negative unintended consequence?
Secretary Vilsack. I get the messaging part of this, but
honestly, if we are really seriously interested about this,
what we should be doing is working with states to improve the
employment and training programs that we finance under SNAP. We
know that there are some states that do a particularly good job
of helping able-bodied individuals who are capable of working
to be able to find employment. I mean, it is the state
governments that know who is receiving SNAP. It is the state
governments that know where the workforce opportunities are.
And the question is why aren't we, at the state level, doing a
better job of connecting the people who need the job with the
jobs that are available, especially in this labor market today?
It seems to me that is where the focus ought to be. If you
restrict the capacity of a Governor to respond to a particular
crisis, a plant closing in a community that can be devastating,
the loss of a major employer, I think you are going to find
that that is not at the end of the day the best thing by
restricting the Governor's capacity. I think the challenge here
is to say to the Governors let's do a better job of using the
millions of dollars we are providing for employment and
training.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. The gentleman yields back.
And now we go to Florida with Representative Cammack.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I know last
time we jumped right in talking about some dairy programs. And,
as you know, Florida is a pretty unique situation. And, as you
know, our dairymen and -women have suffered doubly this past
year, first with the aftermath of devastation from Hurricanes
Ian and Nicole and the residual impact of the Pandemic Market
Volatility Assistance Program caps that left them with massive
shortfalls and disparities from farm to farm as a result of how
the payments were calculated.
I am glad that USDA has made announcements on both fronts
to provide additional payments from funds that Congress has
provided, but none of those payments have gone out. Can you
update us on the status of both of these programs and let us
know what we can be doing to help get as much of this
assistance needed out the door and onto the farm?
Secretary Vilsack. I anticipate the Dairy Margin Protection
Coverage that we increased reasonably will be going out very,
very shortly.
Mrs. Cammack. What is very, very shortly?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, let me get back to in terms of the
actual time, but we are not talking about months and months and
months. We are talking about something less than that.
Mrs. Cammack. Can you commit to me that you will have an
answer by the close of business today?
Secretary Vilsack. I will get you the answer as quickly as
I can because, I don't know, I might still be here by the close
of business today.
Mrs. Cammack. I think for everyone in this room we hope
that you aren't. But how about this we will compromise.
Secretary Vilsack. We will get you an answer.
Mrs. Cammack. By the end of the week if you could have an
answer back to my----
Secretary Vilsack. Sure.
Mrs. Cammack.--I surely would appreciate it. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. Sure.
Mrs. Cammack. Also, as you know, Hurricane Irma, as it
ripped through the heart of Florida, our ag communities in
2017, they were absolutely devastated, particularly the citrus
industry. Much like Ian and Nicole, it literally blew away an
entire crop, leaving Florida growers with absolutely nothing. I
was there when the announcement came on anticipated boxes for
the year, and it was like being in the middle of a bad dream
that you couldn't wake up from.
So, as you know, we have been working together on a block
grant to make sure that the delivery of Federal disaster money
made it to the citrus industry. Can you commit to working with
us as we seek to give the USDA the authority again to make sure
that the citrus industry can participate in the disaster
funding that was recently appropriated by Congress?
Secretary Vilsack. If you direct us and give us the power
to do so, we will do everything we can to get the resources to
people who are in need as quickly as we can.
Mrs. Cammack. Okay. At the end of this--I am just going to
jump right to it. At the end of this, would you commit to
meeting with me before the end of the month or the end of
April? Because there is a lot of Florida-related specific items
that I think need to be addressed that a lot of our producers
are concerned about.
Secretary Vilsack. The only reason I am hesitating is
because a significant amount of the first part of April I will
be traveling to the G7 meeting in Japan and Vietnam on some
trade issues, so that has a tendency--makes it more difficult
for me to commit to being in D.C. at a particular time, but we
will certainly make an arrangement. I will tell you what I can
commit is maybe a phone call.
Mrs. Cammack. That will suffice.
Secretary Vilsack. That would be a little bit easier.
Mrs. Cammack. That can be arranged, I believe, in 30 days
certainly.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay.
Mrs. Cammack. And shifting now to Rural Utilities Service,
RUS, and the NTIA's BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, and
Deployment) Program, which has really been working with the
state broadband programs, I know that you guys have signed a
memorandum of understanding and taken steps to coordinate NTIA
and the FCC on the broadband funding issue. But what are the
results of that coordination? Have you been able to assure that
the funding will not be going to areas that are already
connected? Because overbuilding has been a constant concern.
Secretary Vilsack. We are sensitive to the overbuilding
concern, and we are providing information to the other entities
in the MOU about where we are making investments under our
ReConnect Program so that they are aware of where we are
investing as they put their maps together and they make
decisions about the allocation of the bulk of resources under
the infrastructure law.
Mrs. Cammack. Okay. And that is something that I will
definitely follow up with you on talking about the broadband
deployment issues when we have our call before the end of
April, just putting that on the record.
And then finally, turning to some of the more concerning
news that has been coming out of Brazil, obviously, I am sure
you know that the test samples were submitted to the World
Organisation for Animal Health, and they tested positive for
BSE. That was on February 22nd of this year, but it indicates
that the event of BSE started on January 18th, which was a
difference of 35 days. Unfortunately, Brazil has a history of
delayed reporting, which, as you know, could have devastating
consequences for our markets. Considering their track record is
basically a failed one of reporting on animal diseases and
compliance with the standards, will your Administration, your
agency take appropriate action to suspend Brazilian beef
imports until we can verify an equivalent level of safety and
credible reporting in Brazil's food safety and animal health
systems?
Secretary Vilsack. I think that would be a mistake,
Congresswoman, and the reason it would be is because we are
talking about an atypical BSE incident, which we also had in
the United States. And if we were to restrict trade because of
that atypical incident that is not recognized by WTO as an
actionable interest, we would be exposing our own industry to
significant disruption.
We have expressed concerns to Brazil about the lateness,
and we have also made sure that our surveillance at the border
is as appropriate as it needs to be to protect our industry.
Mrs. Cammack. Mr. Secretary, respectfully, I think that is
a mistake. This is billions of dollars that we will be
susceptible to loss of.
So with that, I yield back. I am over my time. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. And now
we go to California and Congressman Duarte.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary,
for being here today.
Let's talk a little about WOTUS and the risks of farm
operations with the new WOTUS rule coming down and perhaps
other regulatory issues, but I think we are going to focus on
WOTUS for the most part today.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay.
Mr. Duarte. I am a farmer who is prosecuted with threats of
criminal penalties for planting wheat in a wheat field under
the 2008 WOTUS rule, so this goes way back before Obama, before
Trump, before the new Biden rule. And one of the concerns with
the expanded WOTUS rule that is coming is farmers just don't
know what the rules are. We don't know what prior converted
cropland standards are. There is no universal definition that I
am aware of. There is no universal definition of what crop
rotation means or how farmers are to work under the new WOTUS
rule to--in my case, I planted wheat in a wheat field that had
been planted 20 years prior, and wheat markets in 2011 were
high. There was a global food crisis similar to what we
stumbled on with the Ukraine invasion here recently, so we
recommissioned idled farmland that had been grazed, an
agricultural use but hadn't been planted to wheat for a couple
decades simply because markets didn't warrant that it be
planted to wheat. Have you worked with the Administration or
have you worked within your USDA to actively promote what
exactly are the rules that farmers need to follow to be
compliant with the new WOTUS rule as published?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I encouraged EPA to, first
and foremost, as they are developing a response to a court
directive to develop this rule, to make sure that they met with
farmers. And I was pleased to see that there were literally
dozens of meetings that EPA had with ag organizations, that in
fact they put together a Farmer and Rural Advisory Committee
that included 30 farmers and ag stakeholders that made
recommendations that were incorporated in the rule, that they
had ten regional roundtables, three of which were led by Farm
Bureau presidents, state presidents, in North Carolina,
Arizona, California. So to me, that is the first responsibility
I have is to make sure that they are listening to farmers. And
then second, as they develop whatever the rule is going to be
whenever it ultimately gets finalized, our job at USDA is to
say, ``Okay, how can we help? How can we help farmers with
conservation resources or whatever it might be to be able to
comply?''
Mr. Duarte. Sure.
Secretary Vilsack. The challenge is we are going to
continue to go back and forth----
Mr. Duarte. Well, let me ask you this. You use the EPA as
your lead agency to define what a wetland is or isn't and to
communicate standards.
Secretary Vilsack. It is their job.
Mr. Duarte. They are not often interfacing with farmers.
The USDA is oftentimes the lead agency interfacing with
farmers, and many farmers plant their crops without a
consultation of the EPA, as was the case with me.
Another issue I would love you to answer is I was
prosecuted by the Army Corps of Engineers when I wasn't under
an Army Corps of Engineers permit, and when the EPA wouldn't
pick up the case and prosecute me, they went to the Department
of Justice Division of Environment and Water and got them to
prosecute me because the EPA wouldn't prosecute under our set
of facts. Are you going to agencies outside the EPA and looking
for what their guidance is in terms of what cases will be
prosecuted by them if the EPA demurs?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think the first order of
business, Congressman, is to get a rule, we don't have that
really. We have multiple rules in multiple jurisdictions. There
is a great deal of uncertainty. And my plea is that we get some
degree of certainty in this process.
Mr. Duarte. Well, I would venture then, the rule is
written, and the Obama rule was very similar. They defined
wetlands with a lot of latitude given to the actual field agent
at the very bottom of the organizational chart as far as I
understand the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to
determine, based on their experience and expertise, what is or
isn't a jurisdictional wetland. So you not only have multiple
agencies prosecuting with and without subject matter
jurisdiction, but you also have field agents determining what
is or isn't a wetland on their, quote, experience and expertise
kind of on-the-fly. So I don't know how the Administration
seeks to have a unifying rule when they leave it really up to
the field agent.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there is an effort to try
to be as responsive as we possibly can and get this thing
finally done. I mean, we have been talking about this for
literally decades. And the reality is it is a result of a law
that was passed in 1972, the Clean Water Act. I think everybody
wants clean water. The courts have directed EPA to do this, and
they have to do it. So the question is when are we going to
have the rules in place that we actually know what the rules
are? We constantly have----
Mr. Duarte. I would offer, as long as we look for an
expansive definition of what is or isn't a jurisdictional
wetland under the Clean Water Act, you are going to have
pushback, and it is going to continue to vacillate back and
worth. If the Army Corps of Engineers or EPA wants to regulate
farmland in a way that is pretty much specifically excluded by
the Clean Water Act in the 404 permit amendment that was done
later, then I would suggest they come back to Congress and seek
that jurisdiction.
Secretary Vilsack. I don't know if I am supposed to
respond, the time is up, but the reality is the Supreme Court
has basically created this directive, and Federal courts are
directing the EPA to do this. It is not like the EPA is doing
this on their own. They are being directed to do this, so they
have court direction.
Mr. Duarte. Well, they have had a single judge that said
something about a significant nexus. We can go into this.
Secretary Vilsack. Still, it is a Federal judge.
Mr. Duarte. So when the Sackett decision comes down here in
a few days, weeks, months, the Administration will take that
direction, reopen this rule, and provide compliant rulemaking
for that decision?
Secretary Vilsack. I am sure that the EPA will do whatever
the court directs them to do because that is what we have to
do.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
And now we go to Representative Molinaro.
Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
I just would argue that there was certainty as it related
to jurisdictional wetlands. That was gummed up. I live in the
State of New York, served in the State of New York. And quite
frankly, in fact, the State of New York guide rails were
sufficient.
But I am not here to talk about that particular topic. You
would not recall and there is no reason to, but I joined then-
Congressman Gibson and perhaps even Congresswoman Gillibrand in
welcoming you to upstate New York some years ago. I don't
recall in what role, but I want to focus on some of the
challenges in upstate New York in particular, and thanks for
your time today.
So my first question is as it relates to the Risk
Management Agency's proposed rule. This drastically changes
apple crop insurance. As I am sure you are aware, New York is
the second-largest apple-producing state in the country. I am
kind of partial to Cortland apples myself as they are
principally in the 19th Congressional District, and there are
approximately 600 commercial producers across New York,
including dozens in my district alone.
Many of those growers have expressed concern regarding the
proposed rule as it is to them and to us detrimental to apple
farmers throughout the Northeast. It doesn't take into account
varying conditions of regional family farms like ours. Many of
the growers expressed that crop insurance will no longer be
available or a viable option should the proposal be implemented
as-is. The RMA held an initial public comment period and is now
conducting a series of listening tours across the country. I
would like to know if the RMA is still considering significant
revisions to the rule to incorporate that feedback, whether or
not there is an update on the timeline. And, as I understand
it, some of those listening sessions had to be rescheduled due
to the same weather the farmers deal with, and I am hopeful
that that period is extended to accommodate additional
concerns.
Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to provide you with details
about this, Congressman, but I would hope that RMA would take
into consideration what they are hearing out there in the
field. But I am happy to check on this and get back to you.
[The information referred to is located on p. 107.]
Mr. Molinaro. So some of the reporting requirements and, as
I understand it, in particular, apple farmers are concerned
they just won't be able to meet the standard as has been
initially proposed, so the hope would be more than listening,
that they accommodate some of those very unique challenges that
Northeast apple farms face.
Broadening that particular topic, fruit farmers in general
have concern regarding accessing crop insurance, and I wonder
if there is an effort to ease some of the reporting
requirements to accommodate their accessing that coverage.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, you could help us by being a bit
more specific about what you mean.
Mr. Molinaro. Okay. What I would love to do offline is
provide you very specifically what they have identified, and if
you are open to it, I would love to talk in more detail. We
don't need to use a hearing for that.
Secretary Vilsack. Sure.
Mr. Molinaro. And I appreciate that. I want to just if I
could address some concerns in the area of farm labor,
specifically a reversion to the adverse effect wage rate
released by the Department of Labor. I know from New York
farmers that some of those changes added an administrative
burden that severely limits the flexibility of H-2A workers.
And of course that is a challenge for all of us. Considering
those particular changes and the rate is calculable based on
USDA Farm Labor Survey data, I would like to know if USDA had
input in the Department of Labor's rulemaking process, and what
if anything USDA has expressed on behalf of those farmers.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I will tell you what the USDA has
expressed, which is pass the Farm Workforce Modernization Act,
which would have saved farmers hundreds of millions of dollars.
That is the answer, Congressman. Honestly, that is the answer.
Mr. Molinaro. That is a broad answer, but we have obviously
this specific concern----
Secretary Vilsack. No, this----
Mr. Molinaro. In the interim, Mr. Secretary, would the
USDA----
Secretary Vilsack. We provide information and data, and the
Department of Labor obviously then makes calculations, and they
basically run through a process and a formula. And that is
precisely why the Farm Workforce Modernization Act is so
important because it creates a----
Mr. Molinaro. I appreciate your advocating for this piece
of legislation. I am just----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is the answer.
Mr. Molinaro. I understand. In the interim, having USDA at
least advocate within that rulemaking process until such time
would be reassuring and helpful to the farmers that are
affected.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am happy to advocate for
farmers, and that is what I am advocating for is a process that
provides greater predictability than what we have today.
Mr. Molinaro. So USDA is not in this particular rulemaking
case making any advocacy or simply abdicating for the broad
change of legislation?
Secretary Vilsack. When you say rulemaking----
Mr. Molinaro. In this rulemaking----
Secretary Vilsack.--case, I am not quite sure what you mean
by that.
Mr. Molinaro. Well, my time is up, and I apologize. I would
be happy to communicate with you offline. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
The Chairman [presiding.] I think the gentlemen. I now
recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Miller, for 5 minutes.
Secretary Vilsack. You have been patient.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Well, Mr. Secretary, it has been a long
day for both of us. Am I on?
The Chairman. Is your microphone on?
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Is that working?
The Chairman. It is now.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Yes, running back and forth between
hearings is fun for everyone, but thank you for your patience,
and thank you for being here today.
Agriculture is one of Ohio's largest industries.
The Chairman. Max, I don't think it is on. Sorry.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Does that work? All right. Man, you
really got to hug this thing. Can I get some time back? Is it
on the clock, maybe just like 20 seconds?
The Chairman. I am okay with giving your time back.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We will get you a fresh start.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. It is like in football, right? You
throw a flag, got to get some time back. All right.
The Chairman. That is right.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Well, thank you. I recently heard
firsthand from our farmers and livestock producers regarding
key priorities to farm economies throughout northeast Ohio when
I convened an Agriculture Advisory Council of farm sector
leaders. Volatile commodity markets, rising fertilizer and crop
inputs, regulatory uncertainty threats from animal disease,
unstable trading markets, and other issues continue to pressure
the farm safety net, impacting Ohio agriculture.
Runaway inflation the last 2 years is having a terrible
impact on America's farmers and ranchers as spiraling energy
and farm diesel costs are taking their toll on our ability to
produce. Ohio ranks number nine in the nation in the number of
farms, and nearly 90 percent of those farms are run by families
or individuals. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
most recent farm income forecast indicates a decrease in farm
income from last year of $25.9 billion or down 15.9 percent in
2023.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, as well
as Members of this Committee, on the upcoming farm policies to
provide an opportunity to address the broad range of challenges
to the farmers and livestock producers in my Congressional
district and throughout the country.
While international trade is a critical market component
impacting Ohio agriculture producers, I understand the U.S.
Department of Agriculture forecasts U.S. agriculture exports to
be 5.5 billion less than had been forecast back in November.
USDA anticipates exports for all major commodity groups to be
reduced with the largest decreases projected for corn, sorghum,
and soybeans, and this was from USDA Economic Research Service
February 23, 2023.
Mr. Secretary, you have called publicly for reauthorization
of trade promotion authority, an important tool in the
negotiation of international trade agreements. Absent trade
promotion authority, how can we best help expand our overseas
markets?
Secretary Vilsack. A couple of things, Congressman. First
of all, the keys to trade are people, presence, and promotion.
Expanded trade missions are one strategy. We are getting more
information out and getting opportunities, making sure that we
continue to support the Foreign Market Development Programs or
the MAP program to be able to provide resources for cooperators
so that they in turn can be out there marketing U.S. products,
looking for opportunities to break down barriers, whether it is
in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, looking
at trade barriers that exist, SPS issues that exist, breaking
them down similar to what we have done, for example, in Japan
with increased beef opportunities by addressing the beef quota.
So there are a multitude of ways in which we can make a
difference in terms of trade without necessarily focusing
solely on trade agreements. And that is what we are focused on
right now. I can tell you in the last 2 years, $15 billion of
new or expanded market access has been created by virtue of
what we have been doing it USDA.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Well, thank you for that answer, and if
you can help me work with our ally to the north and get our
tariffs off dairy from the USMCA agreement that they violated--
--
Secretary Vilsack. No, and that is why we have gone to the
consultation room not once but twice with our Canadian friends,
and we are going to continue to focus on that until we finally
get a decent implementation of USMCA. And that is important
because that is what builds trust in trade is the fact that
when you have a trade agreement, you actually live by it. And
that is precisely why we are pursuing our friends in Canada, as
well as our friends down south.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Big dairy producers down in Wade County
in the 7th, so I would love to see that go away.
Secretary Vilsack. Got it.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. In the absence of new agricultural
market access opportunities, the enforcement of existing trade
agreements becomes even more important, including Canada's
adherence to its dairy market access, as I just touched on,
obligations under the USMCA. Can you provide an update on when
we can expect a ruling on the ongoing USMCA dairy dispute
settlement panel?
Additionally, if the United States were to win this second
panel, will you commit to working with other Administration
officials and our overseas counterparts to ensure Canadian
compliance?
Secretary Vilsack. We will continue to work until we get a
satisfactory response from our Canadian friends. The timing of
the consultation and the decision-making process--and I don't
want to give you too precise an answer because I am not sure.
It depends. But I can tell you as soon as that process is
completed, if in fact we are successful, we will press Canada
for meaningful changes to their tariff quota and the way in
which they implement this quota. They play games, and they have
been playing games forever, and this is the first time we have
actually called them on it. We were satisfied with the first
response from the first consultation process. That is why we
brought the second one.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I do have a
couple more questions, but I want to be respectful of your time
and everyone else's. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. And thank
you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. He yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Congressman
Bacon, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, sir. And thank you, Mr. Secretary,
from your neighbor from Nebraska.
I have a couple of questions dealing with foot-and-mouth
disease, trade, E15, so we will start off with foot-and-mouth
disease. It was largely my initiative back in the last farm
bill to try and get that in the farm bill. Could you just give
us an update how we are doing? Are we operational with the
foot-and-mouth disease vaccine bank, and what else do we need
to do to even make it better?
Secretary Vilsack. We are operational. We are in the
process of purchasing vaccine and stockpiling it, and we are in
the process of making the conversion from Plum Island to
Manhattan, Kansas, in terms of the NBAF facility.
Mr. Bacon. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. We should probably be completed sometime
in 2024. That is where the vaccine bank will be housed, and
that is where our countersurveillance measures and so forth
will also be operated out of.
Mr. Bacon. I think that is a success for our ranchers, and
I appreciate that.
How are we coming along with African swine fever? Are we
nearing the spot where we can start doing vaccines, or is there
more research that needs to be done?
Secretary Vilsack. I think there are three efforts that
need to be addressed here. First, the need to try to rectify
the circumstances in the Dominican Republic and Haiti. We have
invested resources, we have invested time and personnel to try
to do that, more progress in the Dominican Republic than Haiti
simply because of the nature of the government down there.
Having said that, we need to and we have bolstered our
biosurveillance and security on our own border. We have created
a zone within Puerto Rico. We are increasing our K9 presence in
airports and ports-of-entry to make sure that nothing is coming
in that could potentially create a problem. And we continue to
work on vaccine. There is a vaccine study in Vietnam that has
promising results. We are not quite there yet, but we are going
to continue to focus on trying to figure out at the NBAF
facility what we can do in terms of ultimately getting to a
point where we have a vaccine.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you. Trade is obviously a top priority for
Iowa farmers and ranchers, as well as Nebraska. How is China
doing with meeting its agreements?
Secretary Vilsack. With its----
Mr. Bacon. China, is China meeting the first-phase
agreements or are they falling short?
Secretary Vilsack. They are continuing to purchase it at a
pretty significant rate, which allows us at this point in time
to look like we might have a trade surplus as opposed to a
deficit, which was originally projected. Having said that, they
are not at where they promised to be, which is no surprise.
Mr. Bacon. How about Mexico with what I would say the break
in the treaty agreements when it comes to the corn? Are we
making progress with them?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have started the consultation
process because, frankly, we weren't satisfied with the
reaction and response to the questions and concerns we
expressed. And I made two visits to Mexico to speak directly to
the President of Mexico about this. They are continuing to
purchase our corn, not the white corn, certainly the yellow
corn. But this is a very important issue for us. We have to
make sure that we are very firm about this because it
underlines our entire approach to trade. You have to have a
science-based system. If you basically begin to inject culture,
you inject things that are nonscientific, it is going to be
very destructive to the trade system globally. So this is a
very important case for us. We are going to continue to push
it.
Mr. Bacon. I will just make a statement on the E15. You
know how important it is for Iowans and Nebraskans, so I
appreciate you helping us make that a year-round requirement
for E15.
I would like to go down something we call the cliff effect
with SNAP. But it affects a lot of our social programs. We had
a hearing in the last Congress. The Democratic experts, two of
the three, said there was a cliff effect, one said not. And the
Republican witness said there was. The bottom line is you get a
certain point in earnings. If you earn $1, you could lose $400
to $600 in benefits. So it seems to me that that is a reality.
Would you be interested working with us to find a way to
decrement the support so that we can incentivize full-time work
and promotions so someone feels like they are not taking a pay
cut if they get more money?
Secretary Vilsack. I mean, I am happy to take a look at
what you are concerned about, Congressman. I think we always
ought to be open to taking a look at things. I am happy to make
sure our team works with your team to see what works and what
doesn't.
[The information referred to is located on p. 107.]
Mr. Bacon. I just think we have an opportunity instead of
someone making $1 more and losing $400, if we decremented that
down bits at a time, then they are not taking a pay cut when
they get the pay raise or the full-time job. And I think that
is what we need right now. We want to incentivize people to
feel like they can achieve their dreams and not be held down.
So we have an opportunity to make improvement here, I believe,
and I would like us to look at it. And I appreciate your
willingness to take a look at it. Thanks.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
And now I recognize the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology, Congressman Mr.
Baird for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
And, Mr. Secretary, we sure appreciate you being here. And
I have heard a lot of folks mention inviting you to their
state, Iowa for one and Illinois, Nebraska. So I want to extend
a very good Hoosier welcome to you to come to Indiana. And, as
you well know, Indiana has quite a significant agriculture
presence. And I know you have been there before, so I extend
that invitation.
I guess I have a couple of questions that I think you will
find relatively easy with all the other questions you have had.
But the USDA laid down a 2024 budget to develop a science-based
regulatory pathway, and so I am getting around to animal
biotechnology, and I am really pleased to see this development
which the budget described as secretarial, high-priority. And
this proposal addresses concerns raised by myself and
Congresswoman Plaskett in a letter to you. And while I am
supportive, I don't see that we have made any plans, and it
seems to be unclear. So my question is can you clarify USDA's
proposal and timeline for implementing a plan to develop a
science-based regulatory pathway for products of animal
biotechnology at USDA?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, we are still in the process
of trying to distinguish responsibilities between the USDA and
the FDA in terms of animals that are being produced for food
production, animals that are being produced for potential
health benefits. And we are in the process of negotiating and
having conversations with the FDA. My hope is that in the very
near future those conversations will ultimately lead to an
agreement in terms of jurisdiction so that we provide some
degree of clarity and certainty to the industry. I understand
the importance of getting this done quickly because the
industry wants to move forward and move ahead. They need to
know what the rules are, and we are working on it.
Mr. Baird. Very good. I am glad to hear that because I
think that is an issue some folks are concerned about.
So my second question deals with animal feed ingredient
innovation and regulation. It is a similar question to the
first one regarding a science-based regulatory pathway for
products of animal biotechnology, and regulatory hurdles are
preventing FDA's approval of innovative feed ingredients with
forward-leaning environmental benefits. And I am thinking about
the methane reduction in cattle, for those ingredients. And so
I think we are falling behind because of this slow process. So
my question is how has USDA engaged with FDA to help modernize
the agency's approval process so that the farmers can have
access to these feed additives? And it is very similar to your
last question, but I will give you an opportunity to----
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, on that specific issue, first and
foremost, we have tried to advise our friends at FDA about the
reaction and attitude of other countries in terms of this same
feed additives and how they have approached it as a feed
additive as opposed to a pharmaceutical. Part of the problem
with our current structure is FDA is treating this as a
pharmaceutical and not necessarily as a feed additive, which
creates more time, more expense. New Zealand, the EU see this
differently, and as a result, they are putting it into the
market more quickly, which provides them potentially a market
advantage, and we tried to explain that to our friends at the
FDA. We will continue to do that. And hopefully, eventually,
they get it done because it is a significant reducer of
methane, which obviously we are all interested in having.
Mr. Baird. So I appreciate it. I hope you will continue the
conversation with them, and I know you will.
And so with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding
back.
Mr. Secretary, thank you again for--let me make sure I
didn't--I don't see anybody else sitting here, so we are good.
Thank you for your patience and your endurance. And as always,
we appreciate your engagement, and I look forward to a
productive partnership as we continue crafting an effective
farm bill that works for all of agriculture.
I am proud to be the third Member of Congress from
Pennsylvania to ever chair the House Agriculture Committee. We
had the first one in 1820, and then we had one just prior to
the Civil War. I am hoping that person didn't contribute to the
Civil War. I don't know anything about them. And I am the
third. And based on my review of the facts, you are the first
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to be born in Pennsylvania, and
so we are kind of--I know Iowa claims you, but we are pretty
proud of that fact, too.
On behalf of the Ranking Member, who had obligations he
really tried to get out of that he couldn't, and myself, I want
to thank you, Secretary, and your staff for your preparation
and your time, your work, your endurance, and your service. I
want to thank our Members. We had great participation today. I
want to thank our staff because we couldn't do any of this
without all of our Committee staff and our personal staff, and
much appreciated.
As we prepare for the 2023 Farm Bill, this hearing and our
future hearings and listening sessions are instrumental,
especially bringing the voices for those who produce, process,
and quite frankly consume our food, fiber, energy, and building
resources.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the words that you used in your
opening statement, in concert. And that which is done, quite
frankly, because that describes how we are going to do the best
possible job with this coming farm bill and, quite frankly, all
the responsibilities that we have outside the farm bill as well
that maybe some people aren't familiar with, but we have that
responsibility as the House Committee on Agriculture.
In concert is important to me because I believe that which
is done unilaterally is destined to fail in fulfilling the
intended purpose. So I appreciate your commitment to work in
partnership and in concert as we move forward. We heard
questions identifying important issues that will be addressed
in the farm bill from our Members, and thank you for your
responses. Alphabetically, I couldn't identify anything with a
Z, there was probably something out there, but we went from
animal health to yellow corn.
And I want to note for our Members that there were a lot of
questions outside the jurisdiction of what you have control
over with the EPA and some of their actions which, quite
frankly, have hurt American farmers. And I am pleased to
announce that Administrator Regan has accepted an invitation to
come and be before the Committee. So some of the questions you
received we have maybe a more appropriate place to ask those
questions here sometime in the future.
We heard about nutrition. And quite frankly, farmers feed,
and nutrition matters. I am an old Boy Scout, so everything I
do, I use principle-based leadership. And we have used that now
for over 2 years in the Committee, and we define our principles
ahead of time, and we use that like the true north arrow on a
compass, to keep us pointed in the right direction. And, quite
frankly, there are a lot of distractions and disruptions when
you are serving in Congress, but this keeps us focused.
When it comes to the nutrition title, four pretty simple
principles. Number one, this is 2023. We should be looking to
leverage whatever flexibility and innovation we can within that
Nutrition Title now, which is a lot more than SNAP EBT. As we
know, it is support for food banks and food pantries. There are
some great programs well beyond the SNAP program, which is a
great program.
Number two, the Congress in past Administrations, as we
have had farm bills passed and enacted into law, have always
been committed to helping these folks through work
opportunities and moving people towards independence, financial
independence. And so financial independence is something we
should obviously--is the right thing to do for folks who are
struggling financially.
Number three is program integrity. We have a fiduciary
responsibility to make sure that--I personally don't believe,
as I have looked at the data, there is a tremendous amount of
widespread fraud within the SNAP program, but we know that
some, like in all programs, always exists, and we have an
obligation to do our best to address even the smallest amount
of fraud that may be out there.
And number four, I think we all share this commitment to
healthy foods and healthy eating. So those are the four
principles that, as far as I am concerned, will guide us as we
go through this process on Title IV of the Nutrition Title.
There is a lot on the line as well as we strive for a
bipartisan, bicameral, on-time, and highly effective farm bill,
a lot on the line for those that produce, those who process,
and, quite frankly, those who consume. Well, that would be
everybody in the country. And the bottom line, if farm families
fail, all American families will fail in the end.
As we close today, I did want to briefly circle--I am not
really looking for a response, but I just want to make sure I
just fully teed up a topic that I ran out of time to touch on
earlier but has been mentioned several times today, the pending
Packers and Stockyards regulation. Unfortunately, your comments
earlier to Ms. Spanberger about the expanding powers of the
Packers and Stockyards Act underscores the concern I mentioned
in my opening statement about unilateral administrative action
exceeding the balance of Congressional intent and statutory
authority. You are obviously knowledgeable and passionate about
these so-called GIPSA rules, having pushed them three different
times during your terms as Secretary. And given your
experience, you are also acutely aware of the controversial
nature of these rules and widespread concerns about their
unintended market consequences.
And so far during this round of rulemaking we have only
seen two parts of the plan and are still waiting on the third.
So without all three proposals in hand, it is impossible to
evaluate their full impact at this point. But frankly, I am
concerned about this piecemeal approach and what I see as a
chilling effect on public input and farm feedback at the
Department.
So, Mr. Secretary, it is unlikely we are ever going to
fully agree on these policies, but at a minimum, quite frankly,
I am hoping you are willing to commit to two things: first,
assuring us USDA will evaluate the cost of all these rules in
their totality; and second, ensuring stakeholders have the
opportunity to provide input on the full suite of rules well
ahead of any of the individual components being finalized.
Obviously, that is the best way we all work.
And with that, I appreciate you really taking that into
consideration. And with that, under the Rules of the Committee,
the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar
days to receive additional materials and supplementary written
responses from the witness to any of the questions posed by a
Member. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. Brad Finstad, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
September 30, 2022
Hon. Thomas J. ``Tom'' Vilsack,
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
We write with concerns about fraud and improper payments affecting
taxpayer-funded nutrition programs intended to help hungry Americans.
Feeding Our Future, a Minnesota-based nonprofit organization
participating in the Federal Child Nutrition Program,\1\ allegedly
defrauded the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) of over $250 million.\2\ As Members of the
Minnesota delegation and Committees with oversight jurisdiction over
these programs, it is critical that we understand how this alleged
fraud was perpetrated and what is being done to mitigate further
exploitation of these programs. We request documents and information to
assist our oversight efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Attorney Announces Federal
Charges Against 47 Defendants in $250 Million Feeding Our Future Fraud
Scheme, DOJ (Sept. 20, 2022) available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/
pr/us-attorney-announces-federal-charges-against-47-defendants-250-
million-feeding-our-future.
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child and Adult Care Food Program and Summer Food Service
Program are taxpayer-funded, state administered programs within USDA
that provide meals to eligible children and adults through approved
local providers.\3\ They are designed to operate as a partnership among
the Federal Government, designated state agencies, and approved local
providers of meals to adults and children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ USDA, Child and Adult Care Food Program State Agency, (accessed
Sept. 27, 2022) available at https://www.fns.usda.goy/cacfp/state-
agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feeding Our Future is a Minnesota-based nonprofit organization that
claims to ``utilize the Child and Adult Care Food Program to increase
healthy food access for Minnesota's youth and seniors.'' \4\ Last week,
the Department of Justice unsealed criminal charges against 47
defendants affiliated with Feeding Our Future, alleging criminal misuse
of $250 million of taxpayer funds in a vast fraudulent scheme.\5\ The
number of charged defendants have grown to 49 in recent days. The
alleged conspiracy, according to the charges, appears to have started
around the time of the increased flexibilities provided by USDA and
Congress in the wake of the COVID pandemic.\6\ For example, Feeding Our
Future received only $3.4 million in 2019, but nearly $200 million in
2021.\7\ As part of the conspiracy, the defendants submitted fraudulent
reimbursement claims and used the proceeds of the scheme for a variety
of personal--and potentially illegal--uses, including luxury vehicles,
residential real estate, and international travel.\8\ In addition,
participants in the scheme are alleged to have both given and received
kickbacks often described as ``consulting fees'' to expand the number
of contracted providers in order to bilk the taxpayers out of even more
money.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Feeding Our Future, (accessed Sept. 27, 2022) available at
https://www.feedingourfuturemn.
org/.
\5\ Supra, n. 1.
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These allegations raise many questions about the management of
these programs by the Biden Administration. It is unclear how the USDA
and its partnering state agency, the Minnesota Department of Education,
failed to prevent this fraud, which has been described as the ``largest
pandemic fraud . . . in the United States.'' \10\ Billions of taxpayer
funds were allegedly stolen at the expense of hungry children in that
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ WCCO Staff, U.S. Attorney's Office charges 47 in ``largest
pandemic fraud in the United States.'' CBS Minnesota (September 20,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To enable oversight of improper payments at USDA programs intended
to provide nutrition assistance for hungry Americans, please provide
the following documents and information no later than October 31, 2022:
1. All documents and communications regarding Feeding Our Future,
including but not limited to any records required to be
made available by Feeding our Future for audit and
inspection in connection with its participation in Federal
nutrition programs;
2. All documents and communications regarding any USDA inspection or
audit of any records associated with Feeding Our Future;
3. All documents and communications between any USDA official,
employee, agent, or contractor and any official or entity
within the State of Minnesota, including but not limited to
the Minnesota Department of Education, relating to Feeding
Our Future;
4. A copy of any relevant USDA policy relating to the authority of
USDA officials, employees, agents, or contractors or state
partner agencies to respond to and prevent potential fraud
or improper conduct;
5. All documents and communications relating to any actions taken or
planned by USDA to establish additional integrity measures
designed to prevent against fraud and improper payments.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. To make
arrangements to deliver documents or ask any related follow-up
questions; please contact Committee on Oversight and Reform Republican
Staff at (202) 225-5074. The Committee on Oversight and Reform is the
principal oversight committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and
has broad authority to investigate ``any matter'' at ``any time'' under
House Rule X. Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this
inquiry.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Michelle Fischbach, Hon. James Comer,
Member of Congress Ranking Member, House Committee on
Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Virginia Foxx, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Ranking Member, House Committee on
Education and Labor Agriculture
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Brad Finstad, Hon. Tom Emmer,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Pete Stauber,
Member of Congress
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress
from Connecticut
March 13, 2023
Hon. Jodey C. Arrington, Hon. Brendan F. Boyle,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on the Budget, House Committee on the Budget,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Arrington and Ranking Member Brendan Boyle,
In accordance with Section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 and clause 4(f) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, we are writing to offer additional views and estimates
regarding the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 budget as it relates to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
We are happy to see that the President's FY 2024 budget request,
released last Thursday, helps to better align our nation's Federal
nutrition programs with the National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and
Health. Making progress towards the goal of ensuring that all Americans
have access to healthy, affordable food and eliminating barriers to
food assistance for vulnerable groups are key priorities for each of us
and we look forward to working with the Administration on these issues
as the Committee works to draft the 2023 Farm Bill.
In 2023, SNAP recipients, like all Americans, will likely continue
to face economic pressure from inflation and the increased cost of food
associated with the ongoing impacts of COVID-19, the war in Ukraine,
and the avian bird flu outbreak in the U.S. These factors, in addition
to the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan reevaluation mandated by the bipartisan
2018 Farm Bill, have led to increased outlays in the program. However,
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that program spending
will decrease by $6 billion from FY 2023 to FY 2024 as Federal Public
Health Emergency measures sunset, inflation subsides, and participation
decreases, contributing to an improved fiscal outlook.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congressional Budget Office, ``Baseline Projections:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,'' February 2023. (http://
www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2023-02/51312-2023-02-snap.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FY 2024 and beyond, SNAP spending is expected to remain flat
over the remainder of the decade as enrollment continues to decline and
Americans recover from the lingering impacts of these major world
events.\2\ As a result, SNAP spending as a share of gross domestic
product (GDP) is expected to decline over the next decade from 0.5
percent of GDP to 0.3 percent \3\ and from 1.4 percent of Federal
spending in Fiscal Year 2019 to less than one percent, a historic
low.\4\ These projections reflect that SNAP, like many farm bill
programs, is countercyclical. SNAP spending increases when economic
conditions necessitate further support for families, and it declines as
the economy improves. Indeed, this feature helps make SNAP one of our
most powerful anti-poverty tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ Dottie Rosenbaum, ``Setting the Record Straight About SNAP
Spending and the Upcoming Farm Bill,'' Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. (https://www.cbpp.org/blog/setting-the-record-straight-
about-snap-spending-and-the-upcoming-farm-bill).
\4\ Peter G. Peterson Foundation, ``What is SNAP? An Overview of
the Largest Federal Anti-Hunger Program.'' (https://www.pgpf.org/blog/
2021/09/what-is-snap).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the next decade, SNAP spending will continue to support a
robust national economy by returning $1.50 for each additional dollar
spent in a recovering economy,\5\ and by generating hundreds of
thousands of jobs in grocery, transportation, manufacturing, and other
industries.\6\ Further, SNAP's outsized economic impact in rural
communities will help to ensure that economic recovery does not leave
these communities behind; SNAP spending is shown to increase rural
economic output annually by 1.25 percent and rural employment by 1.18
percent \7\ and to have a stronger impact on poverty in rural counties
than non-rural counties.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Canning, Stacy, ``The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) and the Economy: New Estimates of the SNAP Multiplier,'' USDA
Economic Research Service. (https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-
details/?pubid=93528).
\6\ National Grocers Association, ``The National Grocers
Association Economic Impact Study.'' (https://www.nationalgrocers.org/
news/new-study-highlights-independent-community-grocers-pivotal-role-
in-growing-the-u-s-economy/).
\7\ USDA Economic Research Service, ``SNAP spending contributed to
rural economic output and jobs following the Great Recession'' (https:/
/www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/
?chartId=103216).
\8\ Schanzenbach, ``SNAP Supports Rural Families,'' American
Enterprise Institute. (https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/
SNAP-Supports-Rural-Families.pdf?x91208).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also important to note that SNAP's favorable economic effects
extend far beyond its immediate impact. Food insecurity can have
serious long-term impacts on individuals' health and well-being,
leading to higher incidence of chronic diseases and increased
healthcare costs,\9\ while participation in SNAP is linked to improved
current and long-term health, increased access to preventative
healthcare, and reduced healthcare costs.\10\ Studies have found that
adults participating in SNAP are more positive in assessing their
health status, miss fewer days of work, have more preventative checkups
but fewer doctors' office visits overall, and have lower likelihood of
psychological distress.\11\ Children receiving SNAP have better health
outcomes than their counterparts not receiving benefits--including
reduced likelihood of obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease and
diabetes in adulthood.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Gregory, Coleman-Jensen, ``Food Insecurity, Chronic Disease,
and Health Among Working-Age Adults.'' (https://www.ers.usda.gov/
webdocs/publications/84467/err-235.pdf?v=42942); U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, ``Social Determinants of Health Literature
Summaries: Food Insecurity,'' Healthy People 2030. (https://health.gov/
healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/literature-
summaries/food-insecurity).
\10\ Arteaga, Hodges, Heflin, ``Giving Kids a Boost: The Positive
Relationship Between Frequency of SNAP Participation and Infant's
Preventative Health Care Utilization,'' SSM-Population Health 15, 2021.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235282732100
1853).
\11\ Hoynes, Whitmore Schanzenbach, Almond, ``Long-Run Impacts of
Childhood Access to the Safety Net,'' American Economic Review, 106(4):
903-934, April 2016 (https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/
aer.20130375); Christian A. Gregory, Partha Deb, ``Does SNAP improve
your health?,'' Food Policy 50, 2015 (https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/
wgreene/AIB/Gregory-Deb-SNAP-Bivariate-OP-Probit2015.pdf).
\12\ Hoynes, Schanzenbach, and Almond, ``Long-Run Impacts of
Childhood Access to the Safety Net.'' (https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/
pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20130375).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP is a work support program. The vast majority of SNAP
participants who can work, do work.\13\ In fact, in 89% of SNAP
households with children and at least one non-disabled adult, at least
one member of the household worked in the year prior to or after
receiving SNAP.\14\ Further, research has established that receiving
SNAP benefits as a child has been linked to long-term improved economic
outcomes in adulthood.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Keith-Jennings, Chaudhry, ``Most Working-Age SNAP Participants
Work, But Often in Unstable Jobs,'' Center on Budget Policy and
Priorities. (https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/most-
working-age-snap-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs).
\14\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ``Policy Basics: The
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.'' (https://www.cbpp.org/
sites/default/files/policybasics-SNAP-6-9-22.pdf).
\15\ Hoynes, Bailey, Rossin-Slater, Walker, ``Is the Social Safety
Net a Long-Term Investment? Large-Scale Evidence from the Food Stamps
Program.'' (https://gspp.berkeley.edu/faculty-and-impact/working-
papers/is-the-social-safety-net-a-long-term-investment-
5cd06d6b43b4a4.020837
62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP and its Employment & Training program also work hand-in-hand
to improve employment and earnings outcomes for program participants,
further contributing to its far-reaching economic effects. SNAP is
structured to incentivize work by phasing out benefits gradually--every
dollar in earnings warrants only 24 to 36 in benefit reduction \16\--
and by providing a 20 percent deduction for earned income when
determining eligibility. SNAP also includes stringent work
requirements, including a strict 3 month time limit on benefits for
non-elderly adults without children that are unable to find work.
Rather than promoting work, this time limit has been shown repeatedly,
through independent studies, to have little effect on employment and
earnings.\17\ These policies do, however, create a steep cliff for
childless adult beneficiaries--many of whom are veterans, chronically
homeless individuals, and people struggling with underlying mental and
physical health problems--causing them to lose the modest benefits they
need to afford food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Wolkomir, Cai, ``The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Includes Earnings Incentives,'' Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
(https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-
nutrition-assistance-program-includes-earnings-incentives).
\17\ Gray, Leive, Prager, Pukelis, Zaki, ``Employed in a SNAP? The
Impact of Work Requirements on Program Participation and Labor
Supply,'' American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 15 (2023) (https:/
/www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20200561); Feng, ``The Effects
of Changing SNAP Work Requirement on the Health and Employment Outcomes
of Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents,'' Journal of the American
Nutrition Association 41 (2022) ([Link Redacted]); Urban Institute,
``The Impact of SNAP Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) Time
Limit Reinstatement in Nine States.'' ([Incorrect link in submitted
letter]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The built-in features of SNAP--including means-testing that makes
it responsive during economic downturns, public-private partnership
that supports the broader farm and food economy, positive impacts on
recipients' health, and incentives for work and earned income--make it
an incredibly powerful economic stabilizer, both for the larger economy
and for individual households, and one of our nation's most cost-
effective anti-poverty programs. Additional investments in the program
serve to further increase the reach of these favorable impacts. As
mentioned, in 2021, USDA reevaluated the Thrifty Food Plan based on
current food prices, food composition data, consumption patterns, and
dietary guidance, as required by our Committee in the bipartisan 2018
Farm Bill. This was the first reevaluation to take place in 15 years
and, at the behest of Congress, the first in 40 years not to be held
cost neutral. As a result, SNAP benefit levels were updated in October
2021 to better reflect the cost of an adequately nutritious diet for
low-income households. In the fourth quarter of 2021, the reevaluation
kept nearly 2.3 million people out of poverty \18\ and amplified SNAP's
impacts as an economic stabilizer for American families and the broader
U.S. economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Wheaton, Kwon, ``Effect of the Reevaluated Thrifty Food Plan
and Emergency Allotments on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Benefits and Poverty.'' (https://www.urban.org/research/publication/
effect-reevaluated-thrifty-food-plan-and-emergency-allotments-
supplemental).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Budget Views and Estimates letter, the House Agriculture
Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has made clear the importance of
SNAP. As Democratic Members of the House Agriculture Committee, we
remain unified in opposition to any cuts to SNAP or the nutrition title
and to any further restrictions on beneficiaries. We agree that
additional resources are necessary to further improve our already
strong anti-hunger safety net. A robust nutrition title is key to
enacting a bipartisan farm bill this year. We appreciate your
consideration of the immense positive impact SNAP has on the lives of
millions of Americans as well as its beneficial impact on the national
economy and our nation's long-term financial sustainability.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Jahana Hayes,
Member of Congress,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and
Horticulture
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. James P. McGovern Hon. Shontel M. Brown
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Jim Costa, Hon. Donald G. Davis,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Jonathan L. Jackson, Hon. Jill N. Tokuda,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Darren Soto, Hon. Chellie Pingree,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Angie Craig, Hon. Yadira Caraveo,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Sharice Davids, Hon. Gabe Vasquez,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Andrea Salinas, Hon. Jasmine Crockett,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Eric Sorensen, Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Alma S. Adams, Hon. Nikki Budzinski,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, Hon. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Greg Casar, Hon. Elissa Slotkin,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez,
Member of Congress
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Hon. Thomas J. ``Tom'' Vilsack,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Insert 1
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. . . .
* * * * *
. . . In the Inflation Reduction Act there was money set
aside to pay off loans. You had phase 1, you had phase 2. You
were about to come out with phase 2, as I understand it. But
phase 1, am I correct that the loans that were paid off, if you
were more than 60 days late, if you were more than 60 days
late, your loan got paid off, but if you have sold your car and
other assets to make your note current, then you got nothing?
* * * * *
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. My time has expired. I am going
to be asking for more detailed information on it.
Secretary Vilsack, I'm concerned that under Section
22006 of the Inflation Reduction Act, borrowers who
were more than 60 days late on their loan payments had
their loans paid off, while others who made sacrifices
to stay current on their payments got nothing.
Now we've seen that USDA is taking steps to help
individuals who received Section 22006 assistance
alleviate the tax burden on the forgiveness they
received. Please provide a detailed overview on the
steps USDA has taken to help these individuals avoid or
alleviate their tax burdens as well as how much tax
revenue this could amount to should all of the burdens
be avoided or alleviated.
USDA understands that some borrowers made sacrifices to stay
current on their payments and avoid delinquency on their loan accounts.
These sacrifices have included but are not limited to refinancing more
debt, selling property and other assets, and/or deducting funds from
their retirement, college, or savings accounts. We are currently
working on a program to address the sacrifices borrowers made to stay
current and anticipate providing additional details in late May or
early June.
USDA continues to work with the Department of Treasury,
stakeholders, and cooperators to help borrowers understand the
potential tax implications from the receipt of assistance under Section
22006 of the Inflation Reduction Act, including that options may be
available to potentially avoid or alleviate any tax burden incurred
from receiving this financial assistance.
In early April, USDA shared a specific set of revised tax
documents, educational materials, and resources to borrowers that
received assistance in 2022, including a link to a webinar hosted by a
group of farm tax experts to provide education on the options
available. USDA cannot provide tax advice and encourages borrowers to
consult their own tax professional, but FSA is providing educational
materials for borrowers to be aware of the options.
Insert 2
Mr. LaMalfa. . . . A little while ago we were talking also
about the processing plants, and you did mention there was 277
existing facilities that are receiving help. There is a
perception by some of the existing plants that they are
unauthorized, that their drought support, they were ineligible
for that. And are you finding that that is an issue that is
coming up? Because we are hearing that from some of our
processors.
Secretary Vilsack. That is news to me, Congressman. I am
happy to look into it if you will provide us more information.
Mr. Secretary, you made several announcements last
year totaling hundreds of millions of dollars for
grants to strengthen the supply chain and expand
processing capacity, but at the same time the
Department told my constituents who were staggering
through year 3 of drought that support for their
survivability was unauthorized. Instead of new
announcements and grants to encourage new processing,
why doesn't the Department find a way to support the
processing we already have in places like California,
and for that matter much of the West, which supplies so
much of what we consumer?
USDA provides support for existing processing plants and also
expansion. The vast majority of USDA's work in this space allows for
expanding processing capacity and applications from existing plants.
Insert 3
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Secretary, my home State of Mississippi has
been a big user of a Conservation Stewardship Program, or CSP.
In the 2018 Farm Bill, statutory changes made to the program
impacted the way the program is delivered in my state, dollars
versus acreage. Can you update the Committee on how the
Department plans to utilize the conservation dollars received
in the Inflation Reduction Act to better accommodate producers
that can't get a CSP contract under current conditions? And if
you will take it for the record.
See response to Mr. Rose Question 2 (p. 130).
Insert 4
Mr. Mann. . . .
Last question, I know my time is expiring, how much were you
involved in the rewrite of the WOTUS rule that went into
effect? At the USDA, were you able to provide input into the
process?
See response to Mr. Thompson Question 34 (p. 121).
Insert 5
Ms. Perez. . . .
So my question is what can the USDA do to help shellfish
producers access these ELAP payments? What technical assistance
or other services are available to help them navigate this
program? Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congresswoman, first of all, I am
working with the Farm Service Agency folks to try to make sure
that they understand the challenges. I appreciate you bringing
this to my attention. I will be happy to take this back to our
team and ask them to take a look at how we might be able to not
only simplify the process but also make sure the information
gets out about it.
FSA is updating the ELAP fact sheet with further amplification of
outreach and education efforts. FSA is also continuing to provide
additional educational training to all state and county office
personnel across the country to ensure producers receive the adequate
and timely customer service they deserve. In addition to the
aforementioned efforts, FSA is currently working with field offices and
stakeholders to pursue further opportunities to expand and improve the
ELAP aquaculture program and requirements. We are including a link to
the current ELAP fact sheet.\1\ *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/
FactSheets/2022/elap_farm
raisedfish_factsheet-2022-final.pdf.
* Editor's note: the fact sheet is retained in Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert 6
Mr. Jackson of Texas. . . .
* * * * *
Another issue I have been hearing from producers in my
district has been about timing issues regarding winter wheat
growers and when losses were verified by their crop insurance
agent at the end of 2021. Wheat farmers that suffered losses
from the same disaster but had their losses adjusted in early
2022, just a few days or weeks later, are still waiting for
assistance. The process used for ERP phase 2 has become too
burdensome and complicated for farmers and the FSA agents that
are responsible for providing this assistance. With these
issues in mind, sir, could you please discuss what is the
Department's plan for offering disaster assistance for eligible
2022 losses?
Secretary Vilsack. . . .
* * * * *
I have made a note about the wheat issue that you have
mentioned, and I will be happy to take a look at that and
whether there is something we can do to expedite those
payments.
To maintain flexibility in allowing producers to apply under ERP
Phase 1, applications included indemnified losses for 2020, 2021, and
2022 crops in which the claim record recorded by the Approved Insurance
Provider documented a 2020 or 2021 calendar year damage date. Before
the ERP payment can be issued, participants are responsible for
certifying that the indemnity shown on the ERP Phase 1 application is a
result of a qualifying disaster event occurring in either the 2020 or
2021 calendar year, per the authorizing statute. In the event a
participant suffered a crop loss and the damage date recorded is in the
2022 calendar year, the indemnified record would not be considered
eligible for ERP Phase 1 as the documented adverse weather event
occurred in the 2022 calendar year.
Insert 7
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. . . .
. . . Mr. Secretary, can you give me a sense of what criteria
are used to determine these cost-share requirements? And what
if any procedures are in place at USDA to regularly review
these requirements?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I will be general in my
answer and will provide you more specifics because your
question is pretty technical.
The authorizing legislation for the Community Facilities Grant
Program specifies that the maximum grant shall not exceed 75 percent of
the total project cost. Further, it directs the Secretary to establish
a graduated scale for the amount of the Federal cost share for grants,
with higher Federal shares for facilities in communities that have
lower community population and income levels.
The Community Facilities Program regulations have implemented the
statutory requirements to provide grant assistance on a graduated scale
so that smaller communities with the lowest median household incomes
are eligible for projects with a higher proportion of grant funds.
There are currently four levels of grant assistance ranging from 75
percent to 15 percent based on a population range of 5,000 or less, to
20,000 or less, and median household incomes of the population to be
served ranging from 60 percent or below to 90 percent or below of the
state non-metropolitan household income, or below the poverty line, if
higher.
The Community Facilities Program has been working to develop new
consolidated direct loan and grant program regulations that will
simplify the graduated scale. However, in recent years, the
appropriation for Community Facility grants has been declining and
there is some concern that a reduction in Federal cost share for
communities with larger populations and higher incomes would result in
fewer communities being served.
Insert 8
Mr. Molinaro. . . .
* * * * *
Many of those growers have expressed concern regarding the
proposed rule as it is to them and to us detrimental to apple
farmers throughout the Northeast. It doesn't take into account
varying conditions of regional family farms like ours. Many of
the growers expressed that crop insurance will no longer be
available or a viable option should the proposal be implemented
as-is. The RMA held an initial public comment period and is now
conducting a series of listening tours across the country. I
would like to know if the RMA is still considering significant
revisions to the rule to incorporate that feedback, whether or
not there is an update on the timeline. And, as I understand
it, some of those listening sessions had to be rescheduled due
to the same weather the farmers deal with, and I am hopeful
that that period is extended to accommodate additional
concerns.
Secretary Vilsack. I am happy to provide you with details
about this, Congressman, but I would hope that RMA would take
into consideration what they are hearing out there in the
field. But I am happy to check on this and get back to you.
RMA is still reviewing comments and feedback from the listening
sessions. Changes, if any, will be published in a Final Rule no earlier
than August 2024 for the 2025 crop year.
RMA will hold listening sessions in June 2023 to accommodate
earlier sessions impacted by the weather, including additional sessions
in New York. We will get you the details on these sessions.
Insert 9
Mr. Bacon. . . .
I would like to go down something we call the cliff effect
with SNAP. But it affects a lot of our social programs. We had
a hearing in the last Congress. The Democratic experts, two of
the three, said there was a cliff effect, one said not. And the
Republican witness said there was. The bottom line is you get a
certain point in earnings. If you earn $1, you could lose $400
to $600 in benefits. So it seems to me that that is a reality.
Would you be interested working with us to find a way to
decrement the support so that we can incentivize full-time work
and promotions so someone feels like they are not taking a pay
cut if they get more money?
Secretary Vilsack. I mean, I am happy to take a look at what
you are concerned about, Congressman. I think we always ought
to be open to taking a look at things. I am happy to make sure
our team works with your team to see what works and what
doesn't.
SNAP is an important work support, and the program is designed to
provide incentives for participants to seek employment and increase
their earnings. For each additional dollar SNAP participants earn,
their SNAP benefits decline by only 24 to 36 . That ensures that
workers see an overall benefit when they bring home additional income.
In addition, a SNAP state option, categorical eligibility, allows
states to mitigate a moderate benefit cliff for households with income
close to the income cutoff, who otherwise could face a meaningful cliff
given even modest increases in earnings.
We welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to ensure that
SNAP incentivizes work through targeted benefit design and state
flexibility.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Thomas J. ``Tom'' Vilsack, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
Congress from Pennsylvania
Question 1. The August 2021 Thrifty Food Plan report uses the word
``healthy'' more than 100 times across the 125-page report. The
Department has consistently touted the reevaluation as a means for
households to increase the purchase of healthy foods, and subsequently,
achieve a healthier diet. Secretary Vilsack, please walk me through the
library of research that supports these claims, particularly when a
sufficient body of impartial (and apolitical) research shows those
receiving SNAP have higher instances of diet-related, chronic disease.
Also, it has now been 18 months since the reevaluation impacted
household benefits; can you provide the Committee with the body of
research to support not only that the reevaluation increased the
purchase of healthy foods, but also improved diets? Please also provide
the Committee with the definition of healthy as used throughout the
Thrifty Food Plan reevaluation report.
Answer. A modernized TFP is more than a commitment to good
nutrition--it's an investment in our nation's health, economy, and
security. Putting healthy food in reach for low-income families helps
prevent disease, supports children in the classroom, reduces health
care costs, and more.
The modernized TFP puts healthy foods and beverages in reach for
low-income families by supporting a practical, cost-conscious,
nutritious diet. For example, the 2021 TFP includes more fish and red
and orange vegetables to reflect the latest dietary guidelines. The
2021 TFP also includes more convenient foods like baby carrots and pre-
cooked, canned beans and soups to reflect what Americans purchase and
eat.
Research published by the Urban Institute found that the increase
in SNAP benefits resulting from USDA's reevaluation of the TFP reduced
poverty rates by nearly 5% in the fourth quarter of 2021 after the re-
evaluated TFP took effect. The Urban Institute also found that the TFP
reevaluation alone reduced child poverty by 8.6%.
The evaluation of the Summer EBT demonstration--which was
implemented in certain states and Tribes and provided a SNAP-like
benefit to low-income households with children in the summer, when
children lose access to school meals--is also instructive. The
evaluation showed that providing Summer EBT not only cut the most
severe form of childhood food insecurity by \1/3\, but also that
households receiving Summer EBT ate more healthfully. Children
receiving Summer EBT ate about 13% more fruits and vegetables, 30% more
whole grains, and 10% more dairy.
FNS's FY 2023 Research and Evaluation Plan includes substantial
investments to investigate how the increase in SNAP benefits resulting
from the TFP reevaluation has affected SNAP households.
Congress designed SNAP to supplement the income households have
available for food up to the cost of the TFP, to support their ability
to buy that diet.
Question 2. Secretary Vilsack, as you know, the Department held an
``expert'' roundtable in February 2021 related to the Thrifty Food Plan
reevaluation. Who was invited, and who at the Department was
responsible for selecting the ``experts?'' How did the Department
ensure the ``experts'' represented a range of backgrounds and
perspectives? How was the input from the ``experts'' incorporated into
the reevaluation, if at all? Additionally, each of the public events,
and even the press campaign leading up to the introduction of the
reevaluation, were significantly skewed. This is exactly why a peer
review process is necessary, especially when the outcome significantly
increased the cost of the benefit. Why did you permit the reevaluation
to go without a peer review process? Please provide any and all
documentation related to the decision not to pursue a peer review.
Answer. FNS engaged external subject matter experts in a roundtable
focused on the TFP methodology, including the optimization model, in
preparation for its reevaluation. The roundtable discussion included
individuals from government, academia, and nongovernmental
organizations with identified expertise in economics, nutrition, and
policy implementation related to the TFP. Individuals with extensive
knowledge of SNAP demographics and participation rates were also
invited to join this discussion. The continued use of the optimization
model to inform the 2021 reevaluation was supported by the subject
matter experts who participated in the roundtable. USDA also hosted
five listening sessions with SNAP participants, researchers with
relevant expertise, state and local officials, public health and health
professionals, and other relevant organizations, to gather diverse
input about the TFP.
FNS also drew upon broader USDA expertise in key areas, including
consultation with economists from the Economic Research Service on
methods for calculating food prices, and nutrition scientists from the
Agricultural Research Service on the food composition datasets used in
the development of food categories used in the model.
As we continue to advance peer review in future reevaluations, FNS
will commit to developing a formal Peer Review Guidance document
specific to FNS, applying the USDA Guidance, and further clarifying the
decision-making process for which scientific projects will be subject
to peer review, how those decisions will be made, and the process for
peer review. (USDA DR 1074-001) \1\ * and USDA Peer Review
Implementation Guidelines.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.usda.gov/directives/dr-1074-001.
* Editor's note: references annotated with are retained in
Committee file.
\2\ https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
USDA_Peer_Review_Guidelines.doc.
Question 3. Secretary Vilsack, the Department continues to state
the Thrifty Food Plan reevaluation was data driven and science based,
however the Government Accountability Office highlighted the key role
policy decisions played. As Secretary, what was your role in making
decisions for the reevaluation? Did you authorize the acceleration of
the reevaluation? Did you support avoiding a peer reevaluation? Do you
think the failures in this process have led stakeholders to question
the Department's commitment to data, science, and transparency?
Answer. In the bipartisan, 2018 Farm Bill, Congress required USDA
to conduct a reevaluation of the TFP by 2022. President Biden issued an
Executive Order on January 22, 2021, prompting USDA to prioritize the
TFP reevaluation because ensuring the SNAP benefit amounts reflect the
true and current cost of a nutritious, economical diet was an important
way to provide American families with resources and to help stabilize
the economy in the midst of COVID. USDA's FNS conducted a science-based
reevaluation of the TFP using the latest available data, as directed by
Congress.
FNS completed peer review of the scientific methods used to
calculate the 2021 TFP. The methodology of the reevaluation was
provided for peer review to colleagues at USDA's Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) and Economic Research Service (ERS), who have the
expertise necessary to conduct such a review. Additionally, FNS also
engaged a technical panel in a discussion of the TFP reevaluation,
including the optimization model.
Question 4. Office of Management and Budget guidance states that
information with ``a potential impact of more than $500 million in any
1 year on either the public or private sector'' should be designated
``highly influential,'' and subject to a more rigorous peer review. The
Thrifty Food Plan reevaluation clearly met that threshold, as it
increased the cost to the taxpayer of more than $20 billion per year.
Why did the Department not heed this guidance? Who initiated that
decision, and subsequently, who approved it?
Answer. Through the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, Congress
provides USDA with the authority to set the TFP, and that authority has
been in place for decades. The Food and Nutrition Act also links SNAP
benefit levels to the cost of the TFP. The TFP was introduced in 1975,
and each of the subsequent TFP updates over the next 45 years have been
cost neutral as a matter of Administrative policy. Previously, the
timing and frequency of updates were done at the Secretary's
discretion. In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress directed USDA to re-
evaluate the TFP on a specific timeline--by 2022 and at 5 year
intervals thereafter--based on four specific elements. USDA conducted a
careful, considered re-evaluation of the TFP based on these four
factors, consistent with the timeframes directed by Congress.
Fundamentally, USDA took a conservative approach to the TFP
reevaluation. As directed by the bipartisan 2018 Farm Bill, USDA
reevaluated the TFP based on four specific factors: current food
prices, food composition data, consumption patterns, and dietary
guidance. In conducting the re-evaluation, USDA utilized the same TFP
model used in all previous updates and only made updates to the model's
data sources and constraints consistent with the four specified
components. Where there was insufficient evidence to support changes to
the existing assumptions, USDA kept the model as it was in 2006 (when
the TFP was last reevaluated), and those assumptions carried forward to
the 2021 edition.
The most significant methodological change driving the increased
cost of the TFP was updating the source for food price data to the
strongest available data--moving from food price data reported by
households to retailer-provided scanner data. Another driver was the
incorporation of updated dietary guidance from the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans, 2020-2025 and the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM or National Academies). For example,
the 2021 TFP includes more fish and red and orange vegetables to
reflect the latest Dietary Guidelines.
Additionally, USDA met the farm bill directive to reflect current
``consumption patterns,'' by ensuring the model inputs reflected the
forms of foods households typically purchase. For example, the price of
beans considers all forms of beans. Most households purchase canned
beans rather than dry beans, so the amounts and prices for beans in the
model reflect that.
USDA also changed the dietary constraints of the model to reflect
the most recent Dietary Guidelines, which affected the foods in the
final food packages.
Question 5. Secretary Vilsack, as you know, the Dietary Guidelines
Advisory Committee's evidence review will focus on the scientific
questions as identified by HHS and USDA. Do you support the two
agencies dictating the questions, and in essence, outcomes that have
long resulted in a one-size-fits-all approach for a society rife with
diet-related, chronic disease? And if you do, how can you support such
rigorous science and process for one policy arena but disregard it in
another, as the Department demonstrated in the 2021 reevaluation of the
Thrifty Food Plan? Additionally, knowing diet-related, chronic disease
is at an all-time high, why does the Department continue to grandstand
these ``guidelines'' through insisting they underpin nearly every
nutrition-related rulemaking?
Answer. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans is crucial in helping
to improve the health of Americans. USDA and HHS remain committed to
keeping scientific integrity and equity at the forefront in the
development of nutrition guidance. HHS and USDA solicited public
comments on the proposed scientific questions from April 15-May 16,
2022. Approximately 1,400 public comments were received, and HHS and
USDA considered all comments relevant to the criteria listed below to
inform revisions and to prioritize the questions to be examined by the
Committee. The same criteria were used to identify the list of
questions that were posted for public comment:
Relevance--Question is within scope of the Dietary
Guidelines and its focus on food-based recommendations, not
clinical guidelines for medical treatment.
Importance--Question addresses an area of substantial public
health concern, uncertainty, and/or knowledge gap.
Potential Impact to Federal Programs--There is a high
probability that the question will provide the scientific
foundation for guidance that would inform Federal food and
nutrition policies and programs.
Avoiding Duplication--Question is not addressed through
existing or planned evidence-based Federal guidance (other than
the Dietary Guidelines).
The availability of research is also being considered to help
determine which scientific questions the Committee will address. If
sufficient research is not available to inform consideration of a
question, the question will be identified as an area needing more
research.
The Dietary Guidelines is based on scientific evidence on health-
promoting diets for healthy individuals, as well as for individuals
living with diet-related chronic conditions or at risk for diet-related
diseases. Sixty percent of adults in the United States currently live
with one or more diet-related chronic conditions; the majority of those
adults have a condition that is included in the evidence base for the
Dietary Guidelines.
The Dietary Guidelines is not intended to be clinical guidelines
for treating diet-related chronic diseases. However, Dietary Guidelines
has served as a reference for Federal, medical, voluntary, and patient
care organizations as they develop clinical nutrition guidance tailored
for people living with a specific medical condition. Health
professionals can adapt the Dietary Guidelines to meet the specific
needs of their patients with chronic diseases, as part of a multi-
faceted treatment plan.
In this way, the Dietary Guidelines serve as a foundational piece
of America's larger nutrition guidance landscape.
Congress structured both WIC and school nutrition programs,
including the National School Lunch Program, to reflect the latest
nutrition science. Specifically, the National School Lunch Act requires
USDA to develop school nutrition standards that are consistent with the
goals of the most recent Dietary Guidelines and that consider the
nutrient needs of children who may be at risk for inadequate food
intake and food insecurity. Similarly, the Child Nutrition Act requires
USDA to conduct a comprehensive scientific review of the WIC food
packages at least every 10 years. Guided by the nutritional science
presented in the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines, the NASEM report, and in
recognition of the importance of nutrition security, FNS in 2022
proposed revisions to the WIC food packages that prioritize
participants' supplemental nutrition needs.
Question 6. Secretary Vilsack, alcohol consumption and health
outcomes are complex and serious policy issues, and there is an
abundance of science related to this topic that must be objectively
reviewed and deliberated by multiple experts at the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). More importantly,
consumers deserve dietary guidelines based on independent, robust, and
unbiased review of the current scientific and medical literature. As
you know, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, included language
and funding for review of the outstanding eight research questions
related to alcohol, with an 18 month timetable attached. Three months
later, there has been no movement on this initiative. My understanding
is the Department has yet to issue the contract to NASEM to commence
the review; if true, why the delay? Do you commit to moving more
expeditiously, as the clock is ticking, and we deserve this information
prior to the release of the next iteration of guidelines?
Answer. Alcoholic beverages and health remain a high priority
topic. HHS and USDA are addressing this topic through efforts separate
from the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of
Underage Drinking \3\ (ICCPUD), led by the HHS Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), will support a
technical subcommittee with expertise on adult alcohol consumption to
review evidence on adult alcohol intake and health. Additionally, in
the 2023 Appropriations Act, Congress mandated USDA to enter into a
contract with the NASEM to conduct a series of systematic reviews on
alcoholic beverages and health. USDA has been in planning discussions
with the National Academies and the NASEM study is expected to begin in
the summer of 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.samhsa.gov/iccpud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SAMHSA technical subcommittee will consider the findings from
the NASEM study as part of their evidence review and make
recommendations on adult alcohol consumption. The SAMHSA subcommittee
report will be published and available to the public in 2025. This
timeline will allow for the topic of alcoholic beverages and health to
be considered in the development of the next edition of the Dietary
Guidelines.
Question 7. Secretary Vilsack, the Dietary Guidelines have long
fallen short of meeting adequacy goals for basic nutrients recognized
as essential for human health. In the 2020 iteration, the nutrients
that did not meet recommended dietary allowance or adequate intake
goals included Iron, Vitamin D, Vitamin E, Choline and Folate. What is
the Department's plan for remedying these shortfalls?
Answer. As described in the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee's Scientific Report and stated in the 2020-2025 edition of
the Dietary Guidelines, food group and subgroup recommendations are
based on nutrient and Dietary Guidelines standards. Standards for
nutrient adequacy aim to meet the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA),
which are designed to cover the needs of 97 percent of the population,
and Adequate Intakes (AI), which are used when an average nutrient
requirement cannot be determined. The food group and subgroup
recommendations meet these standards for almost all nutrients. For a
few nutrients (vitamin D and vitamin E for all ages, and choline for
ages 2 and older), amounts in the Patterns are marginal or below the
RDA or AI standard for many or all age/sex groups. In most cases, an
intake of these nutrients below the RDA or AI is not considered to be
of public health concern.
Nutrient adequacy of the Dietary Guidelines food group and subgroup
recommendations is examined using an approach known as food pattern
modeling. To prepare for the establishment of the 2025 Committee, HHS
and USDA collaborated on Continuous Quality Advancement (CQA) efforts
for food pattern modeling, focusing on methods to better reflect the
complex interactions involved, variability in intakes, and range of
possible healthful diets. Federal staff evaluated the analytic methods
and development of data inputs and constraints for food pattern
modeling and compared them to methods used in the development of
guidance in other countries, as well as other modeling exercises
described in scientific publications. This effort is part of HHS and
USDA's commitment to drive continuous process advancements and adopt
best practices. More information about advances in food pattern
modeling analyses to support the work of the 2025 Committee will be
provided during the Committee's review.
Question 8. Despite the recent global pandemic, record inflation
and broken supply chains, both USDA and FDA seem to instead be focusing
on a flurry of altruistic and inconsistent nutrition policies and
regulations. Given the Dietary Guidelines for Americans are expected,
by statute, to be the foundation for all nutrition policies, how are
you working with FDA and across Department mission areas to ensure the
influx of new, agency-driven nutrition policies are aligned with the
DGAs?
Answer. The Dietary Guidelines have been and continue to provide
healthy eating patterns that are adaptable frameworks that can be
customized to individuals. This framework approach purposely provides
recommendations by food groups and subgroups--not specific foods and
beverages--so people can ``make it their own.'' The current Dietary
Guidelines emphasize that people can customize their food choices to
fit their preferences, cultural traditions, and budgets. USDA is
committed to working with its Federal partners to ensure scientific
integrity and equity are at the forefront in developing nutrition
guidance.
USDA recently proposed changes to the WIC Food Packages. By law,
USDA is required to conduct a comprehensive scientific review of the
WIC Food Packages at least every 10 years and update them, as needed,
to reflect nutrition science, public health concerns, and cultural
eating patterns. In developing the proposed revisions, FNS considered
several factors, including the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-
2025, which included new recommendations, specifically for pregnant
women, infants, and children under the age of 2 years, for the first
time.
Additionally, the current Dietary Guidelines recommend reducing
overall sodium intake, and in October 2021, the Food and Drug
Administration published voluntary sodium reduction goals. Building on
that development, USDA's proposed rule, ``Child Nutrition Programs:
Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent with the 2020 Dietary Guidelines
for Americans,'' proposes weekly sodium limits informed by the FDA's
voluntary sodium reduction goals. FDA's goals were developed to reflect
reformulation in targeted foods, where an actionable reduction could
occur. The proposed limits are also informed by USDA's stakeholder
engagement efforts; based on input from schools, industry, and other
partners.
Question 9. You have prescribed complicated and narrow nutrient
recommendations in both your WIC and School Meals proposals. However, I
am concerned that you have ignored the American Academy of Pediatrics
guidance recommending against the consumption of artificial sweeteners
in children's diets. Can you tell us how you will address this
important advice in your implementation?
Answer. USDA and the Biden-Harris Administration are committed to
setting children up to be healthy and thrive--and WIC and school meals
are proven tools to give kids access to the nutrition they need for a
bright future.
USDA recently proposed changes to the WIC Food Packages to align
with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans and recommendations
in the NASEM 2017 report: ``Review of WIC Food Packages: Improving
Balance and Choice.'' The proposed rule was published on November 20,
2022, with a 90 day comment period, during which USDA encouraged all
interested parties to submit public comments. USDA is currently
considering approximately 17,000 comments received to inform
development of the final rule.
Based on feedback from our school meal partners and the latest
nutrition science, USDA also recently proposed updates to the school
meal standards in a few key areas to align with the goals of the most
recent Dietary Guidelines and support children's health. The proposed
rule was informed by thousands of public comments received on a
transitional or ``bridge'' rule published in 2022, as well as extensive
stakeholder engagement with state agencies, school food professionals,
industry partners, Tribal stakeholders, and experts in children's
health and nutrition.
We are currently reviewing tens of thousands of public comments
received on the proposed rule to help us refine the final rule, with
the goal of updating meal standards in a way that moves the needle for
children's health and is workable.
Question 10. Mr. Secretary, USDA has had a tremendous influx of
funding for conservation, $20 billion over 4 short years from the
Inflation Reduction Act. Do you feel confident USDA can effectively
administer that tremendous influx of money or do you think Congress
should bring that money into the farm bill baseline to be spent over a
longer period of time?
Answer. USDA is confident NRCS can implement its IRA authorities
along with its regular authorities. The NRCS is positioned to bring on
new staff, utilize existing partners and develop new partnerships to
provide services to new and existing customers that desire to address
these climate challenges through the use of our voluntary programs. The
need is great as our programs have been oversubscribed for many years.
NRCS is using our locally-led delivery system to fully implement IRA
using the program authority frameworks of CSP, EQIP, RCPP and ACEP.
Question 11. Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Inflation Reduction
Act authorized $8 billion for EQIP. However, the law also removed the
existing requirement that at least 50% of EQIP funding support
livestock producers. Can you commit to the Committee today that
livestock producers will be given fair consideration and will receive
contracts through this funding?
Answer. It is USDA and NRCS' expectation that livestock producers
will receive fair consideration related to their conservation resource
concerns as nutrient management, and other livestock related practices,
are recognized as climate-smart mitigation practices.
Question 12. Mr. Secretary, the conservation funding in the
Inflation Reduction Act has restrictions on how those dollars can be
spent. We have heard from stakeholders that are displeased that popular
and effective practices and programs aren't being used to their full
potential. Should that funding go to a broader set of practices,
specifically to build upon other climate benefits like improving
efficiency, wildlife habitat, water quality, and other natural resource
concerns?
Answer. NRCS conservation practices provide multiple benefits. In
addition to opportunities through regular EQIP, producers may select
practices from the Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry mitigation
list with IRA funding. We received a lot of feedback from stakeholders
and customers that has resulted in an assessment of additional
practices that, based on science, meet the intent of the IRA
authorizing language, and could be added to the list. We anticipate
having a fuller slate of practices for Fiscal Year 2024 than were
available in Fiscal Year 2023.
Question 13. Mr. Secretary, USDA has awarded nearly $3.1 billion
for 141 Climate-Smart Partnership projects. You first announced those
over 6 months ago, how many of those agreements have been finalized and
what agency is leading the effort to finalize these agreements?
Answer. The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities tentative
selectees were announced in September and December of 2022. This is a
Departmental effort, and the program is housed in NRCS. Since
announcement, the tentative selectees are working to finalize their
agreements. Implementation began in late Spring 2023. Through
Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, USDA is delivering on the
promise of positioning American agriculture as a global leader in
delivering voluntary, incentives-driven, market-based climate
solutions.
Question 14. Mr. Secretary, of the $3.1 billion in Climate-Smart
Partnership grants, how much of that money will go directly to farmers
and ranchers? Also, what do you anticipate will be the non-Federal
investment in the Climate-Smart Commodities pilot?
Answer. Expanding climate-smart markets for producers is the core
goal of these grants, and the ``direct'' financial assistance to
producers varies by project. Each project has a different breakdown of
assistance to producers for climate-smart practices, measurement,
monitoring, reporting and verification, marketing incentives and other
activities necessary to support those markets. The non-Federal
investment is anticipated to be over $1B and likely about 50 percent of
the Federal investment.
Question 15. For the Climate-Smart Commodities Partnerships
Program, what science was provided in the application process and what
criteria did the USDA use to decide which projects to award?
Of the awarded projects, are you on track to reach the stated goal
of an emissions reduction of 60 million metric tons of CO2?
Answer. All projects are required to include plans to (1) quantify
greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits and (2) monitor/verify those benefits
over time. Projects are starting the implementation phase and
measurements have not been provided. For quantification, projects are
employing a variety of innovative approaches and technologies. These
include numerous crop and livestock models and other tools.
Additionally, to help ensure comparability of project results, funded
projects are using COMET-Planner where applicable to determine
comparable estimates of the GHG impacts of production activities. For
monitoring and verification, proposals are testing a range of
innovative, rigorous, and cost-effective approaches. These include
satellite imagery and remote sensing, in-field measurement using
innovative technologies, testing new mobile apps, and using advanced
data collection and reporting tools. As an example of verification, a
row crop project may compare COMET-Planner and another tool as part of
estimating GHG impacts of climate-smart practice implementation, and
then uses a combination of remote sensing and in-field measurements to
verify GHG benefits over time.
Question 16. Your testimony states the Climate-Smart Commodities
program will cost $3.1 billion and altogether, the projects will
sequester 60 million metric tons of carbon. However, when I look at the
projects awarded, there is no information posted regarding each of the
141 projects' sequestration or emissions reduction potential. Mr.
Secretary, by the Committee's math, $3.1 billion spent to sequester 60
million metric tons equals roughly $51 per metric ton sequestered. It
seems convenient that the Department's estimate of the program's
sequestration perfectly aligns with the Administration's estimate of
the social cost of carbon--$51. Given that the academic community of
scientists and economists widely acknowledge the difficulty in
estimating social cost and sequestration this figure appears to be the
Department creating the data necessary to make its programs a net
benefit to the economy, despite the $3.1 billion cost to the taxpayer.
With all of this being said, were you aware of the Administration's
Social Cost of Carbon and where did you come up with the 60 million
metric tons?
Answer. The preliminary estimate for Partnerships for Climate-Smart
Commodities GHG reductions were made considering the acreage and
practices in the tentatively selected proposals.
Question 17. During your time under the Biden Administration, how
many times have you used CCC authority to fund programs, projects, or
initiatives, and what is the total spending? Are you willing to make
this information more accessible and transparent?
For each of the five CCC-funded programs mentioned in your
testimony program mentioned in your testimony--the Climate-Smart
Commodities Program, the Organic Transition Initiative, the Fertilizer
Production Expansion Program, the Local Food Purchase Assistance
Program, and the Local Foods Schools Cooperative Agreement Program--can
you share wherein the CCC Charter Act the authority lies?
Answer. About $10.3 billion has been transferred under the Biden
Administration. This is reported in the annual Appendix to the
President's Budget.
Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities was authorized by
Section 5(e) of the CCC Charter Act; under the Organic Transition
Initiative, the Organic Market Development Grants Program (OMDGP) was
authorized by Section 5(e) and the Organic Certification Cost-Share
Program (OCCSP) was authorized by 7 U.S.C. 6523(d) (national program)
and 7 U.S.C. 1524 (certain certifications for certain states); the
Fertilizer Production Expansion Program was authorized by Section 5(b);
the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program was authorized by Section
5(c); and the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program was
authorized by Section 5(c).
Question 18. Mr. Secretary, when you announced the Climate-Smart
Commodities Program at COP27, you also announced USDA will establish an
International Climate Hub. Can you provide more details on this
initiative and more specifically, will it be funded through the
Commodity Credit Corporation, as well? If so, under what CCC Charter
Act Authority will this be created? If not, how do you intend to fund
it without further Congressional Authority?
Answer. The International Climate Hub will not be funded through
the Commodity Credit Corporation. The USDA Climate Hubs program was
established in 2014 to develop and deliver science-based, region-
specific information and technologies to agricultural and natural
resource managers, and communities, that enable climate-smart decision-
making, and to provide assistance to implement those decisions. The
network of regional Climate Hubs supports USDA Agencies in carrying out
their missions and responsibilities. Funding for the International
Climate Hub is being provided through annual appropriations.
The International Climate Hub will not be funded through the
Commodity Credit Corporation.
As USDA implements domestic programs for new products produced
using climate-smart agricultural practices, it is important to ensure
that there are markets for these new products and that overseas market
standards mirror U.S. standards so that U.S. products are not shut out
by foreign market barriers. USDA's FAS is positioned to assist other
countries in implementing production practices that meet the same
criteria as the U.S. The International Climate Hub will complement USDA
domestic and international commitments to promote climate-smart
practices. The International Climate Hub (International Climate Hub D
USDA Climate Hubs) \4\ is a platform to share research, tools,
collaborative efforts, and best practices on a global scale to improve
the world's ability to adapt to climate change and mitigate its
impacts. This new portal will enable science-based, climate-informed
agricultural decision making by providing information and resources
tailored to specific regions and needs, including a focus on the
countries and producers most vulnerable to the effects of global
climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/international.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Climate Hub website is not funded through the use
of CCC funds. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) personnel created the
International Climate Hub content, which is hosted as a module of the
domestic climate hub page. The USDA Fiscal Year 2024 budget requests
$2.3 million to support International Climate Hub efforts led by FAS to
promote acceptance of U.S. climate-smart agricultural products and
production practices. In addition, FAS Foreign Service Officers will
work to promote the International Climate Hub resources and tools, and
present possible use cases for them to foreign governments and
stakeholders. Without the requested funding, USDA's ability to preserve
current markets and to develop new markets for U.S. climate-smart
commodities will be compromised, as will the ability to efficiently
share technical capacity with a global audience.
Question 19. Mr. Secretary, in your testimony before the Senate
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee last week, you told
Senators the cumulative data shared as part of the Partnerships for
Climate-Smart Commodities Program would be protected and that producers
would be made aware of the sharing process. You said the responsibility
for tracking and protecting this data would fall under the FPAC
umbrella, naming NRCS and the Farm Service Agency specifically. How
will USDA work with the project leaders--of which you noted there are
141--and producers to compile this data that spans across different
practices and regions? How will you distribute it across not only the
USDA agencies, but EPA, the White House's Council on Environmental
Quality, and others?
Answer. USDA's robust data and learning strategy for Partnerships
for Climate-Smart Commodities will include requirements for grantees to
submit the following information as part of their quarterly reporting:
Progress reports and updates on farm, tract, and field data
including, but not limited to, producers enrolled, acres,
crops, and livestock covered, climate-smart practices
implemented and related incentives.
Updates on project summary data including geographic data,
partner activities, and marketing activities as well as
financial and budget information.
MMRV methods, modeled and measured GHG benefits, and
environmental co-benefits including, as applicable water, air,
and habitat-related benefits.
Other periodic updates on supplemental data, including information
related to the MMRV plan and direct field measurement results will also
be required. Additional reporting and data sharing requirements may
apply at time of award. Certain reporting elements will be required to
be geo-referenced. Financial reporting will also be required consistent
with 2 CFR 200. Spot checks may be required upon review of reporting
documents or other USDA analyses. Data will be submitted through a
secure portal where producer privacy will be protected according to
applicable laws.
All Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities projects will be
required to participate in a Partnerships Network, which will bring
partners together virtually or in-person on a regular basis to share
learnings. The inaugural meeting of the Partnerships Network was April
27th. USDA will summarize and publish important information from these
gatherings, as well as consolidated data from required project
reporting. Project findings--including summary data--will be shared
publicly to further this goal.
Question 20. The USDA $500 million, CCC funded, Fertilizer
Production Expansion Program is meant to ``increase American-made
fertilizer production, spur competition and combat price hikes on U.S.
farmers caused by the war in Ukraine.'' I have heard from stakeholders
that USDA has not been clear on program eligibility or objectives. Even
a recent article by DTN Progressive Farmer questioned the effectiveness
of this program finding that the first awardees will do little to boost
overall fertilizer production. Mr. Secretary, is this program
sufficient to move the needle here? What other steps is your agency
taking to encourage the Biden Administration to source fertilizer
inputs at home?
Answer. There was significant demand for the $500 million
Fertilizer Production Expansion Program with $3 billion in applications
received from more than 350 independent businesses from 47 states and
two Territories for the two rounds of the new grant program. This
demonstrates significant interest from producers in adding to domestic
fertilizer production capacity. The support provided to the producers
receiving grants will contribute to increased competition in the
fertilizer industry and help address demand, key factors contributing
to recent high fertilizer prices. The FPEP expansion of domestic
capacity was just one part of a multipronged strategy for USDA to use
its programs and authority to fertilizer supply and prices. On March
11, 2022, USDA announced plans for a $250 million investment in grants
to support additional fertilizer production for American farmers to
address rising costs and spur competition. These grants are part of a
broader effort to help producers \5\ boost production and address
global food insecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.farmers.gov/global-food-insecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service is also improving
opportunities for nutrient management.\6\ This includes targeting
funding, increasing program flexibilities, launching a new outreach
campaign to promote nutrient management's economic benefits, and
expanding partnerships to develop nutrient management plans. Meanwhile,
USDA's Risk Management Agency expanded crop insurance options for
double cropping \7\ to reduce risk for producers raising two crops in
the same year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.farmers.gov/conservation/nutrient-management.
\7\ https://rma.usda.gov/News-Room/Press/Press-Releases/2022-News/
USDA-Makes-It-Easier-for-American-Farmers-to-Grow-Food-Ease-Burdens-
for-American-Families-Next-Year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is also considering a variety of programmatic and
policy actions, informed in part by the recent Request For Information
on Access to Fertilizer: Competition and Supply Chain Concerns which
highlighted a variety of concerns about the limited competition and
dependence of foreign sources for significant amounts of fertilizer.
Question 21. Last Congress, Chairman Thompson, along with 20 other
GOP original cosponsors, introduced the ``Reducing Farm Input Costs and
Barriers to Domestic Production Act,'' which would have required the
Biden Administration to reverse the regulatory barriers harming
domestic agriculture production. This bill included an evaluation of
phosphate and potash, specifically, to be designated as critical
minerals. Secretary Vilsack, is this a policy Congress should consider
when addressing the lack of domestic fertilizer production?
Answer. The proposed review and report in the legislation would be
conducted by the Department of the Interior, but USDA stands ready to
provide expertise and input should such a review occur.
Question 22. The IIJA provided the Forest Service with a new
categorical exclusion (CE) under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) for fuel breaks up to 3,000 acres. It's been over a year and a
half since this law was passed, but to my knowledge the Forest Service
has only used the CE eight times during that period and on very limited
acreage. Why hasn't the Forest Service used this fuel break CE more
often? Can we expect this CE to be used more as the agency identifies
more projects that are being funded by the IIJA and IRA?
Second, the IIJA also authorized the Forest Service to take
``emergency actions'' post fire, but the agency hasn't even issued
guidance on that new authority. The West is truly facing a wildfire
crisis, so when can we expect guidance on the emergency authority?
Answer. The Forest Service is committed to using all of the
authorities provided by Congress to accelerate the wildfire crisis
strategy and post-fire recovery. The Agency has 27 active projects
using the Fuel Breaks CE category (16 projects in environmental
compliance and 11 projects in implementation). As of May 23, 2023,
there are a total of 23,428 acres treated with this CE. The agency is
pursuing robust utilization of all authorities that Congress has
provided, including this one regarding fuel breaks, and it is expected
that this robust utilization will continue.
In December 2022, Secretary Vilsack issued the Western Fireshed
Emergency Action Determination under Section 40807 of IIJA. The
designation invokes emergency authority across the 250 high risk
firesheds and specific post-fire recovery areas addressing the wildfire
crisis on 27.7 million acres of high-risk firesheds, mostly in the
west, as well as specific post-fire recovery areas. As of May 23, 2023,
seven projects are approved to use this authority with over 226,000
acres currently planned for treatment to reduce hazardous fuels and the
risk of catastrophic wildfires. Treatment acres are expected to
increase as the projects become more defined.
Question 23. The Forest Service is moving forward with a plan to
define and identify ``old growth'' and ``mature forests.'' With over
half of the National Forest System already under some kind of protected
status, this proposal is counter-productive, and it seems to me that it
will do little more than prevent management on forests that are
urgently in need of restoration, hazardous fuels reduction and other
fire prevention activities. In your view, how is this old growth
protection proposal compatible with the 10 Year Strategy and the need
to better manage tens of millions of acres of Federal lands?
Answer. The Forest Service has been clear that many mature and old-
growth forests are threatened because of climate-induced stressors and
are in need of science-based restoration. Through a recently released
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we have asked the public to
provide input on how we can best address these threats using a climate-
informed forestry approach. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA), Inflation Reduction Act, and Executive Order (EO) 14072 (which
called for the mature and old-growth inventory) all recognize the need
to continue to manage across all forest successional stages to address
major causes of disturbance. EO 14072 lists these threats as: ``climate
impacts, catastrophic wildfires, insect infestation, and disease . .
.'' and instructs the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to
``. . . seek opportunities, consistent with the IIJA, to conserve our
mature and old-growth forests on Federal lands and restore the health
and vibrancy of our nation's forests by reducing the threat of
catastrophic wildfires through ecological treatments that create
resilient forest conditions using active, science-based forest
management and prescribed fires. . . .''
Question 24. As you know, the Forest Service is under attack by
radical environmental activists over the use of fire retardant
essential for fighting wildfires. What will happen if the Forest
Service is forced to stop using fire retardant and/or be required to
acquire permits for its continued use? It's my understanding that if
the Forest Service is required to get National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act, the
agency will have to acquire them from each individual state, which will
take years and will cost valuable resources and staffing. How important
is fire retardant for the Forest Service to protect lives, homes, and
communities from wildfire?
Answer. On May 26, 2023, Judge Dana L. Christensen issued an order
in the case of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v.
United States Forest Service (case 9:22-cv-00168-DLC). The order states
that the ``USFS is not enjoined from utilizing the aerial deployment of
fire retardant as a tool to fight wildfires.''
Aerial application of fire retardant is part of the Forest
Service's integrated firefighting strategy and is an essential tool
that the Forest Service uses in various situations in support of ground
resources. Fire retardant is intended to slow the rate of fire spread
by cooling and coating fuels, depleting the fire of oxygen, and slowing
the rate of fuel combustion as the retardant's inorganic salts change
how fuels burn. Retardant has a lasting capability and continues to be
effective when dry to slow or reduce fire behavior. This gives
firefighters time to get in place, safely and effectively engage a
fire, and meet the goals and objectives for the incident. When the
Forest Service deems the use of retardant appropriate, firefighters
strategically place retardant in locations that give ground resources
and other aerial resources time to engage, which gives them a much
higher probability of success. The Forest Service prioritizes the use
of retardant to keep new fires small (initial attack fires) and to
protect high values at risk (communities and high value lands).
We are working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
develop a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System general
permit which is expected to take over 2 years.
Question 25. The 2018 Farm Bill maintained $50 million in mandatory
funding per year for the Rural Energy for American Program (REAP), plus
an additional discretionary funding authorization of $20 million per
year, making it a $350 million program over 5 years. However, the
Inflation Reduction Act provided REAP with over $2 billion. How does
USDA's Rural Development office plan to administer a 479% increase in
this program?
Answer. The immense increase in funding for the Rural Energy for
America Program presents an enormous opportunity for farmers and rural
small business owners to reduce their energy costs and decarbonize
their operations. Recognizing that REAP is consistently oversubscribed
and the need to act quickly, Rural Development announced $250 million
in Inflation Reduction Act funds alongside $50 million in farm bill
funding in December of 2022. The deadline for this funding was March
31, 2023. Rural Development received well over $300 million in
applications and is processing them now. The agency is also taking the
following steps to ensure efficient processing and obligation of funds:
Hiring additional energy coordinators across state offices
using IRA administrative funds
Supporting state offices with environmental review contracts
to speed up obligations, also using IRA administrative funds
Announcing $1.055 billion in additional REAP funds across
six quarterly cycles to ensure applicants can apply at any time
Building an online application portal to provide applicants
with easy access to apply for the program, and be informed
about the status of their application
Question 26. Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Rural Partners Network
is almost a year old and now covers 31 communities. The idea here is
that communities will receive full-time Federal staff on-the-ground who
provide technical assistance. However, I often here that USDA,
especially USDA's Rural Development Office, experiences its own
challenges staffing here in D.C. What is your strategy to deliver full-
time, Federal staff where it's needed, both in DC and the Rural
Partners Network?
Answer. The Rural Partners Network is a year old and covers 36
community networks. It was important to ensure the staffing support was
provided at the community level and we are happy that every network is
receiving specialized support from our team of Community Liaisons in
the states. While the team at the national level is a small one
supported by four full-time staff and a team of detailed support staff,
it has truly been a team effort through the collaboration with Federal
agency partners and the interaction with the RPN state teams. It is
true that Rural Development is undergoing some difficult strategic
decisions regarding budget, we are thankful to have the funding
necessary to continue this effort and will continue to fill vacant
staff supporting RPN as the opportunities arise.
Question 27. Mr. Secretary, according to a GAO report from May
2022, there are more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies that
fund broadband deployment and development throughout the United States.
From 2015-2020, the Federal Government invested $44 billion into
internet connectivity and, in 2021 alone, Congress authorized and
appropriated another $65 billion for broadband through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, totaling the investment to $109
billion in less than 10 years. What is the Department's strategy to
coordinate with the various Federal agencies to ensure USDA broadband
programs do not duplicate deployment efforts?
Answer. USDA meets regularly and on an ad hoc basis with the FCC/
NTIA/Treasury to ensure that Federal dollars are spent in the most
efficient way possible. Additionally, USDA shares information with our
Federal partners regarding the awards made under our programs to enable
other agencies to take those awards into consideration to ensure
projects do not overlap or overbuild existing services already made
available.
Question 28. Mr. Secretary, the 2018 Farm Bill made significant
improvements to the Department's authorities under the Strategic
Economic Community Development program to encourage communities to work
together on regional economic development activities. How are rural
communities using this program, and how is the Department making
communities aware of the importance and value of regional cooperation
when accessing assistance through the covered programs?
Answer. USDA Rural Development (RD) promotes and supports regional
economic development projects through the Strategic Economic and
Community Development (SECD) process. SECD, while not an authorized
loan or grant program, is the process through which RD covered programs
set aside funding annually for regional projects and score applications
seeking SECD-related priority points. Covered programs for FY 2023 are
Community Facilities, Community Connect, Rural Business Development
Grants and Water and Waste Disposal loan and grant programs. Applicants
must qualify for the underlying program and meet SECD requirements.
Those who do are scored and prioritized for SECD reserved funds under
covered programs. The applications are for a variety of project
purposes, ranging from water and waste infrastructure to public safety
equipment and facilities, business incubators, maker spaces, downtown
development, community facilities such as senior centers, childcare
centers and multi-purpose centers; city halls and other public use
buildings and broadband deployment. Over 90% of SECD applications are
supported by Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS).
Use of SECD
Over the past 5 fiscal years USDA Rural Development has invested
$341 million through Strategic Economic and Community Development
(SECD) set asides and program funds.
SECD Obligations FY 2019 to FY 2023 (as of 5/8/23)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year # Applications $ Requested # Obligated $ Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 as of 5/8/ 72 $108,849,031 9 $44,862,120
23
2022 42 $250,997,370 31 $85,207,477
2021 94 $138,537,711 43 $107,169,134
2020 76 $170,654,141 44 $91,445,252
2019 18 $32,582,650 15 $12,241,650
---------------------------------------------------------
Total..... 302 $701,620,903 142 $340,925,633
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECD Applications Filed by Program--FY 2019 to FY 2023 (as of 5/8/23)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SECD Awareness and Outreach Efforts
RD employs a number of strategies to promote awareness of SECD and
promote regional economic development.
RD actively seeks SECD applications through the publication
of an annual Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) that
identifies covered programs, funds reserved, SECD requirements
and filing instructions.
RD promotes SECD through its nationwide field network, local
and regional partners and state and local agencies. These
include community and economic development organizations and
governmental membership organizations including the National
Association of Development Organizations (NADO) and to the
National Association of Counties NACo.
RD also promotes SECD through our Federal partners, such as
the Economic Development Administration (EDA) and Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).
SECD is included in an EDA and USDA--Rural Development (RD)
Joint Planning Resource Guide that is available on both agency
web sites.
RD hosts SECD webinars to provide guidance and assistance to
potential applicants. The Fiscal Year 2023 external webinar can
be accessed here, SECD FY23 Webinar for Stakeholders--
YouTube.\8\ SECD was also highlighted in FY23 on RD's Community
Connect applicant training webinars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8DuzyeOycA.
SECD is also highlighted in Innovation Matters, a USDA--
Rural Development Innovation Center publication with more than
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25,000 subscriber entities.
In FY 2023 RD produced and published online a SECD video
that highlights three successful SECD projects. Investing in
Rural Communities Through Strategic Economic and Community
Development.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MB0VnEUiAI.
The SECD National Coordinator promotes SECD in regular
funding workstream meeting attended by the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development
and Labor. Other agencies include Economic Development
Administration (EDA), National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), Federal Communications
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission (FCC).
SECD is also promoted through USDA's new Rural Partners
Network.
Question 29. Mr. Secretary, the 2018 Farm Bill established the
Rural Innovation Stronger Economy (RISE) Grant Program, which offers
grant assistance to rural areas to create high-wage jobs, accelerate
business, and support industry clusters. How effective is this program?
What examples can you provide that show this grant funding is creating
a strong workforce and supporting the needs of industry in rural
America?
Answer. The Rural Innovations Stronger Economy program has seen
very strong applications for the $2 million in funding. For example,
the University of Missouri will use their $729,919 grant to target the
agribusiness, food processing, and technology industry cluster in the
five-county region. This Show-Me Jobs project will collaborate with
other community and business support organizations to develop a
regional support system that creates and expands rural business
ventures in this region and expects to create 20 business starts and
150 jobs in this north central region. In Ohio, the Appalachia Ohio
Manufacturers Coalition will use a $16,843 grant to provide technical
assistance to microloan customers of a revolving loan fund through
classes and by offering personal support in subjects such as marketing,
business planning, strategy, and financial management, among other
activities. The RISE program is highly oversubscribed with many high
scoring projects unable to be funded by the $2 million available. The
rural jobs accelerator partnerships funded by RISE are well positioned
to make meaningful, sustainable impact on their targeted rural
economies.
Question 30. Mr. Secretary, the 2018 Farm Bill established the
Council on Rural Community Innovation and Economic Development to
enhance the efforts of the Federal Government to address the needs of
rural areas in the United States by coordinating Federal programs
directed to rural communities. The Council is tasked with maximizing
the impact of Federal investment, promoting economic prosperity and
quality of life in rural communities in the United States, and using
innovation to resolve local and regional challenges faced by rural
communities. What work has the Council undertaken to further its
mandate this past year, and do you have any plans to convene the
Council in the coming year? What issues do you believe the Council
should be working on?
Answer. The activities of the Council on Rural Community Innovation
and Economic Development is being implemented through the Rural
Partners Network (RPN) which focuses on enhancing the efforts of the
Federal Government to address the needs of rural Americans. USDA is
leading the Rural Partners Network as an all-of-government program
coordinated through a Federal-wide multi-agency body known as Rural
Prosperity Interagency Policy Council that helps rural communities
access resources and funding to create jobs, build infrastructure, and
support long-term economic stability on their own terms. Through RPN,
USDA is on the ground working with those in rural America and
responding with technical assistance to access funding and resources.
RPN has more than 800 Federal, state, and local partners that
collaborate to address specific needs in communities that have long
struggled to access government programs and funding. These
collaborations are designed to provide rural communities a single front
door to the broad array of Federal programs, tools, and expertise,
available to them both at the RURAL.gov website and through direct
community assistance; increase access to technical assistance and build
capacity to plan and develop projects; improve delivery of Federal
funding in rural areas and ensure lasting outcomes for local people;
inform program leaders and policymakers about rural opportunities and
priorities; and provide a blueprint for how Federal agencies can better
serve rural communities everywhere.
Question 31. Mr. Secretary, we've heard repeated testimony from
stakeholders about incessant and arbitrary delays in the rural
development programs, including delays in approving applications,
permits, and environmental or historic reviews. What is even more
frustrating is actual Federal dollars are being slowly rolled out to
rural communities who need them most. We've heard testimony about USDA
Rural Development staff in different states demanding different
standards for permit reviews and reaching different conclusions on
substantially similar projects. What can you do to standardize and
streamline the reviews of applications to ensure entities receive
similar treatment no matter which USDA Rural Development staffer
reviews the application? Does Congress need to provide additional
authorities to reach this goal?
Answer. The USDA Rural Utilities Service has been working to
standardize the environmental review practices across all RUS programs.
In the past year we have hired a new National Office Environmental
Director; conducted audits of the program's review process; and formed
working committees that are developing recommendations for a long-term
reorganization of our environmental review process as well as for
updating our current environmental regulations and training efforts.
Our current budget constraints, however, have left our National
Environmental Office short staffed, which is a contributing factor to
delays in project reviews and approvals. To combat this and meet the
needs of our rural communities, over the past 7 months our National
Environmental Office at RUS has been conducting an internal audit of
operations. We are working diligently to standardize our processes and
increase efficiency, develop better methods to track projects, drafting
programmatic agreements, and identify and implement additional
streamlining measures.
Question 32. Farmers and ranchers in my state continue to be
extremely concerned that the new ``waters of the U.S.'' rule (WOTUS)
greatly expands the Federal Government's jurisdictional reach far
beyond the limit that Congress intended under the Clean Water Act. I've
also heard that the exemptions, particularly the Prior Converted
Cropland (PCC) exclusion, are incredibly confusing and difficult to
apply. The agencies have said that the changes they made are to keep
the understanding of PCC consistent with how it is used under the
Swampbuster program.
Answer. The Federal Government is currently reviewing the recent
Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA and determining how it will
impact the recently promulgated WOTUS regulation, including the PCC
exclusion.
Question 33. EPA has adopted USDA's ``change in use'' policy and
unfortunately, it has come to my attention that when stakeholders ask
EPA and the Corps to clarify its meaning, they were provided
conflicting answers. EPA stated that a farmer could change the use of
their land and keep their PCC status, as long as wetland
characteristics had not returned. However, the Army Corps asserted that
a farmer will lose their PCC status if they change the use of the land
out of agricultural production, regardless of returning wetland
characteristics. It is incredible that two government agencies are
reading identical language and coming to two different conclusions. I
realize that this is an EPA/Corps rule, but USDA was part of the
interagency review process, and this exemption is critical to farmers.
With that in mind, can you tell me how you think the PCC ``change in
use'' policy is workable for farmers?
Additionally, how is a farmer supposed to use this exemption when
the government agencies have conflicting interpretations of how it
works?
Answer. USDA has and will continue to work with EPA and the
Department of the Army to ensure that clear and consistent information
is provided to agricultural stakeholders about the WOTUS regulation and
how it is applied to agricultural lands, including the ``change in
use'' policy.
Question 34. The new EPA and Corps of Engineers' ``Waters of the
U.S.'' rule (WOTUS) scales back the 2020 Navigable Waters Rule's
exclusion for ``prior converted croplands'' (PCC). Was USDA consulted
on this change? How might this change impact landowners when PCC
determinations are being made?
Answer. USDA was involved during the rulemaking process and
communicated about the potential impacts of the regulation on U.S.
agriculture. After the Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA on May
25, 2023, the Federal Government is reviewing the decision and how it
impacts their regulations. The EPA and U.S. Army will determine how
that court decision impacts the exclusion for ``prior converted
croplands.''
Question 35. It is expected that the Supreme Court in the coming
months will rule on the pending Sackett v. EPA case, which could have
significant ramifications on the definition of ``Waters of the U.S.''
Do you believe that it is wise that the EPA and the Corps are moving
forward with its new WOTUS rule before the Supreme Court rules on the
Sackett case?
Answer. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision Sackett v. EPA
on May 25, 2023. The Federal Government is reviewing that decision and
determining its impact on the rulemaking that was published in the
Federal Register on January 18, 2023.
Question 36. Mr. Secretary, how much were you involved in the
rewrite of the WOTUS rule?
Penalties for non-compliance with the Clean Water Act can be severe
and extremely expensive. It's my understanding that such penalties can
cost a landowner anywhere from $2,500 to $25,000 to $50,000 or more per
day if EPA assesses such penalties. Outside of the long-standing
agriculture protections in the WOTUS rule--which many of my
constituents do not believe are protection enough--how are you
coordinating with EPA to ensure no farmer is unfairly penalized?
Answer. As the Federal agency that represents farmers and U.S.
agriculture, USDA communicated with EPA and the Department of the Army
to ensure those agencies were aware of the potential impacts their
regulatory system and the WOTUS rule might have on U.S. agriculture.
USDA has and will continue to work with EPA and the Department of
the Army to ensure that accurate and helpful information is provided to
agricultural stakeholders about the WOTUS rule and its implications for
agricultural lands. USDA works to provide farmers with information so
they are aware of their responsibilities under the regulation and can
comply.
Question 37. Mr. Secretary, on March 17, 2022, USDA issued a
Request For Information (RFI) on ``Access to Fertilizer: Competition
and Supply Chain Concerns.'' In January of 2023, USDA released a
``summary of comments'' received through the RFI. Is the RFI ``summary
of comments'' intended to inform or influence USDA's ``Fertilizer
Production Expansion Program''? Is there any connection?
Answer. Yes. USDA's Fertilizer Production Expansion Program is
designed to help new, sustainable, domestic-made, independent
fertilizer producers scale up production. We used the RFI comments,
including those from small and independent fertilizer businesses, to
help us understand the needs of the competitive landscape, identify
risks, and develop new ideas and to inform program design. We received
more than $3 billion in funding requests, showing how much America's
businesses want support to boost domestic fertilizer production. Our
program will push out shovel-ready products as soon as possible and
invest in long term capacity for American fertilizer producers and
farmers.
Question 37a. It is the Committee's understanding that such
summaries are historically used to provide a factual overview and
organization of the key messages or themes from the RFI comments and to
respond to comments related to specific questions.
This summary is not responding to any questions. Rather, USDA
appears to cherry-pick comments without context and give
disproportionate weight to the sheer number of comments submitted, only
in footnotes acknowledging form letter campaigns. A review of the RFI
comments indicates that close to 90% of the comments come from just two
organizations.
Answer. Multiple staff completing this comment review followed
standard practices. They read each comment, analyzed key themes, and
produced a summary that is consistent with the factual overview of
comments submitted.
We received over 1,400 comments. These comments typically included
farmers' unique stories that we thought were relevant and therefore
were referenced in the document.
Question 38. The purpose of USDA's summary of comments on ``Access
to Fertilizer: Competition and Supply Chain Concerns'' remains unclear.
The apparent selective manner in which certain comments are highlighted
raises questions. Is there any precedence for this process and how will
this summary be used moving forward?
Answer. Multiple staff completing this comment review followed
standard practices. They read each comment, analyzed key themes, and
produced a summary that is consistent with the factual overview of
comments submitted.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, according to an Environmental Impact
Statement from the United States Forest Service, ``it is estimated that
less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of fire retardant drops may reach the 300
or larger buffer'' for restricted zones of aerial fire retardant use.
Despite the minuscule amount of fire retardant that goes near
waterways, and it's safety record, fire retardant is under attack by
radical activists who, through the courts, are attempting to force the
Forest Service to obtain NPDES permits per the Clean Water Act and/or
stop its use altogether. It is my understanding that the Forest service
is working with EPA to develop a general permit for aerial fire
retardant; but it will take 2 to 3 years to develop, and 47 states
would issue their own permits, which would add another year to the
process. The West is facing a true wildfire crisis. We no longer have a
fire season, rather than a fire year; and wildfires have only gotten
worse in recent years. We simply don't have years to wait for the
Forest Service to acquire Federal permits for continued use of this
critical tool, when lives, homes, and our forests are at severe risk of
devastating wildfire.
Mr. Secretary, can you comment on fire retardant and the Forest
Service's use of this important tool? How does USDA and the Forest
Service plan to ensure the continued use of fire retardant when EPA is
indicating it will take years to develop a permit? What will happen if
the Forest Service is forced to stop using fire retardant and/or be
required to acquire unnecessary permits for its continued use?
Answer. Aerial application of fire retardant is part of the Forest
Service's integrated firefighting strategy and is an essential tool
that the Forest Service uses in various situations in support of ground
resources. Fire retardant is intended to slow the rate of fire spread
by cooling and coating fuels, depleting the fire of oxygen, and slowing
the rate of fuel combustion as the retardant's inorganic salts change
how fuels burn. Retardant has a lasting capability and continues to be
effective when dry to slow or reduce fire behavior. This gives
firefighters time to get in place, safely and effectively engage a
fire, and meet the goals and objectives for the incident. When the
Forest Service deems the use of retardant appropriate, firefighters
strategically place retardant in locations that give ground resources
and other aerial resources time to engage, which gives them a much
higher probability of success. The Forest Service prioritizes the use
of retardant to keep new fires small (initial attack fires) and to
protect high values at risk (communities and high value lands).
On February 16, 2023, the Forest Service and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency entered into a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement.
The purposes of this agreement are to address the Forest Service's
discharge of pollutants during aerial fire-retardant applications, the
requirement for Forest Service to obtain or seek National Discharge
Elimination System permit coverage for these discharges, and to further
the goals of the Clean Water Act. It is the objective of all provisions
and obligations of this Federal Facility Compliance Agreement to cause
the Forest Service to come into and remain in full compliance with all
applicable Federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the
discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. On May 26,
2023, Judge Dana L. Christensen issued an order in the case of Forest
Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v. United States Forest
Service (case 9:22-cv-00168-DLC). The order states that the ``USFS is
not enjoined from utilizing the aerial deployment of fire retardant as
a tool to fight wildfires.''
In January 2023, the Forest Service requested that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop a general permit for the
aerial discharge of fire retardant into Waters of the United States. On
February 17, 2023, the Forest Service submitted requested information
to the EPA. The agency continues to work with EPA on the permitting
process. On May 26, 2023, Judge Dana L. Christensen issued an order in
the case of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v. United
States Forest Service (case 9:22-cv-00168-DLC). The order states that
the ``USFS is not enjoined from utilizing the aerial deployment of fire
retardant as a tool to fight wildfires.''
The Forest Service relies on fire retardant as an essential tool to
enable safe deployment of ground-based firefighting resources. While we
cannot precisely predict the impact of not being able to use retardant,
we can say that without retardant, our firefighting capability would be
diminished due to safety concerns. As a result, we are likely to have
more severe and larger wildfires and the potential for more impacts to
communities, critical infrastructure, and natural resources. We are
working with the EPA to develop a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System general permit which is expected to take over 2
years. As noted above, the Court in FSEEE v. Forest Service declined to
enjoin the Forest Service from continuing to drop retardant so the
Forest Service will continue to drop retardant while it seeks the
required permits from the EPA.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary this Committee sent a letter to the House
Budget Committee 3 weeks ago which notes, ``Due to the ineffectiveness
of the existing farm bill safety net, Congress has returned to the
cycle of providing unbudgeted ad hoc assistance for both weather and
market related disasters, totaling $93.3 billion over 6 years.'' In
addition to breaking this system of ad hoc support, would you agree to
work with us to find a way to include vital supply chain processing to
our basket of risk management options?
Answer. Farm policy of the last half century established new
commodity programs, Federal purchase of excess product, food aid and
support for export markets, crop insurance, and permanent disaster
assistance programs with the intent to create a safety net to prevent
such a crisis from happening again. And to a point, this has been
successful: America became a more food-secure nation and our exports
feed the world.
Insurance has been and will always be the best protection for
producers against financial losses in the face of natural or man-made
disasters. We need to continue to develop programs like the RMA
Hurricane Wind indemnity program to better respond following incidents
and ensure that producers continue to have access to the insurance
protection they need. In addition, we need to ensure that our producers
have access to tools to mitigate the impacts of natural disasters,
including our working lands conservation programs, our emergency
conservation programs, and our full suite of livestock and crop
disaster assistance programs.
I would be happy to work with this Committee as it examines the ad
hoc programs that USDA has stood up in recent years, along with the
full suite of disaster assistance options at USDA. I will also continue
to stress the importance of providing USDA with the flexibility needed
to best serve all producers impacted by new and emerging natural
disasters. No disaster is the same as the last, but as the impacts of
climate change have an even more intense impact on our agricultural
communities, we must recognize the need to craft unique and targeted
solutions. USDA strives to always find better ways to serve all
producers, and flexibility in program implementation helps us ensure we
reach everyone.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to thank the USDA for their
quick response regarding my inquiries on disaster declarations due to
drought, Section 32 purchasing of tree nuts, and low interest loans.
Besides FSA's Emergency Relief Program, what avenues are available to
deliver direct payments to tree nut growers this growing season to
ensure their operations stay afloat for the next?
Answer. Most tree nut producers have access to Federal crop
insurance. This includes specific programs for almonds, pecans,
pistachios, and walnuts. Federal crop insurance also has a Whole Farm
Revenue Protection, which can cover almost all crops within a single
policy. The programs are reasonably popular with many producers, but
for those unfamiliar, producers can contact a crop insurance agent or
the Risk Management Agency Regional Office in Davis, CA. After a
disaster, producers with crop insurance coverage contact their crop
insurance company to start the claims process and get paid based on
their coverage.
Additionally, for the loss of the tree crop (nuts), producers with
NAP coverage may receive assistance when meeting the loss threshold and
eligibility criteria. FSA expanded NAP by deeming a CCC-860 on file by
underserved producers by applicable NAP filing deadlines to qualify as
a NAP application for basic coverage. This provided NAP coverage for
2022 to underserved producers with a CCC-860 on file by applicable
filing deadlines. Beginning in 2023 crop year, producers filing, or who
have previously filed a CCC-860, by applicable NAP filing deadlines can
automatically receive NAP coverage for eligible crops at no cost for
basic coverage without needing to file a separate NAP application.
Interested producers should contact their local FSA service center. For
losses of the actual tree, FSA administers the Tree Assistance Program,
where a cost-share opportunity exists to replant or rehabilitate the
trees.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Bost, a Representative in Congress
from Illinois
Question 1. I represent over 10,000 producers across 34 counties in
southern Illinois. Ensuring that we have a strong and reliable farm
safety net is absolutely crucial. Throughout the winter, my producers
have gone into their local Farm Service Agency (FSA) office to make
their election between the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price
Loss Coverage (PLC) commodity programs, coinciding with the crop
insurance sales closing date. However, there hasn't been any
improvement in the customer service they receive from FSA. Rather than
just saying you need more money to staff FSA, are there ways that we
can reduce burdens on producers and county office staff during these
types of enrollment and election periods?
Answer. The Farm Service Agency is committed to continued efforts
to streamline application processes for both producers and county
office staff. During the pandemic, FSA was able to quickly adapt
policies and implementation strategies to increase access to programs
through the utilization of digital technologies to communicate with
producers securely, capture digital and e-signatures, and receive
automated applications from producers participating in select programs.
Through the implementation of Emergency Relief Program (ERP) and
Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP), we were able to timely
distribute funding by breaking down agency barriers. More specifically,
in the implementation of ERP Phase 1, we leveraged existing data across
USDA to send producers pre-filled applications that saved staff and
producers over a million hours of work to expediently provide relief to
producers. This represents a 90% reduction in time spent by FSA field
staff relative to the predecessor program. Similarly, ELRP Phase 1
issued automatic payments to eligible participants for feed losses
resulting from drought or wildfire, leveraging data already on file
from the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP).
FSA will use these strategies deployed during emergency relief
implementation where applicable to continue to reduce the burdens on
producers and county office staff during the election and enrollment
periods.
Question 2. While your testimony had an emphasis on providing
resources for small producers, in my opinion the current U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) seems to focus too much of its energy
and time focusing on the small farmer. With today's cost of fuel,
fertilizer, and rising inflation; it's difficult for any farm,
regardless of size to make a profit. As we all know, it will take farms
with adequate economies of scale and efficiencies to feed nine billion
people on the planet in the next 25-30 years. How do we make sure that
not only small farms, but medium-sized family farms are supported by
your Department?
Answer. This is not a small versus large situation. There is
nothing that precludes medium- or large-scale producers from
participating in our programs. This is a situation where 90 percent of
our farmers make more money off the farm than they make on the farm,
and the Department is committed to creating new market and income
opportunities to help producers of all sizes remain on the farm. This
is an issue that has been with us for a while; fortunately, because of
the passage of the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act, we now are in a position to
create seed money to establish multiple ways for farmers to profit that
will provide more opportunity for both small- and mid-sized producers.
I look forward to working with you and your colleagues as we draft
the next farm bill to create more revenue streams beyond the
traditional role of farmers benefiting from the sale of crops and
livestock.
Question 3. I'm hearing from agriculture groups in Illinois about
certain stipulations on funding being distributed by the USDA, via the
Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC) program. While the
agency has been reaching out to ag partners to help offer opportunities
for farmers to initiate conservation practices like no till, cover
crops and reduction of nitrogen inputs, it's my understanding that the
agency is now requiring the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) practice standards on USDA and private matched funds--making new
restrictions on the stacking of practices in the program. How is the
agency looking to encourage innovative ideas for farmers to adopt and
scale conservation practices, while also keeping legacy standards in
place that reduce flexibility, discourage innovation, and reduce the
overall impact that PCSC funds could have on promoting the adoption of
voluntary conservation practices?
Answer. USDA continues to meet with tentative selectees and
partners as appropriate to understand their concerns and help us all to
move forward with a strong agreement that includes a good strategy to
benefit producers; each project proposes the practices and associated
rates. Consistent with the original Partnerships for Climate-Smart
Commodities Funding Opportunity, ``practices and enhancements to
existing practices are not limited to those under existing USDA
practice standards; however, compliance and reporting activities will
likely be more complex for practices without existing standards.'' This
language applies to the project applicant as they need to provide to us
a clear description of the alternative standard that is planned to be
applied, and we need to evaluate if any separate reporting or
additional analysis is needed.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Trent Kelly, a Representative in Congress
from Mississippi
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, my home State of Mississippi, has been a
big user of the Conservation Stewardship Program, or CSP. In the 2018
Farm Bill, statutory changes made to the program impacted the way the
program is delivered in my state. Can you update the Committee on how
the Department plans to utilize the conservation dollars received in
the Inflation Reduction Act to better accommodate producers that can't
get a CSP contract under the current constraints?
Answer. We are focusing IRA dollars not only on past performance,
but promoting outreach to new customers who want to address GHG and
carbon concerns using CSAF practices. We also use a locally led process
to incentivize those concerns of greatest interest based on local
input.
Currently, NRCS is evaluating all 2018 Farm Bill programs in order
to resolve these statutory constraints so that producers who desire to
participate in the Conservation Stewardship Programs (CSP) are afforded
that opportunity. The conservation dollars through the Inflation
Reduction Act have allowed us to reach additional producers that were
impacted by the farm bill's limited amount of CSP funding. We are able
to increase the number of climate-smart conservation practices that are
available under our financial assistance programs. Within CSP, we also
authorized use of climate mitigation enhancement bundles providing
additional program flexibilities to further increase program
participation. We continue to make adjustments to increase program
participation and increase our conservation outcomes across the
country.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, in September 2021, Congress appropriated
$10 billion of ad hoc disaster assistance for crop losses, which
occurred in 2020 and 2021. USDA developed a program called the ERP or
Emergency Relief Program that was rolled out in two separate portions,
Phase 1 and Phase 2. While producers in my district were pleased with
the process for the Phase 1 sign up, I have heard a good bit of
concerns from my constituents over the complexity for Phase 2 sign up.
In December of 2022, Congress approved another infusion of $3.7 billion
of ad hoc disaster assistance to cover 2022 losses. Mr. Secretary, can
you give the Committee an update on the implementation of the 2022 ad
hoc disaster and assure the Committee that the design of this future
program will be less complex to understand that that of the ERP Phase 2
design?
Answer. USDA is committed to continued efforts to streamline
application processes for producers and utilizing the lessons learned
from prior implementation. Enrollment for ERP Phase 2 for disasters
that occurred in 2020 and 2021 is currently open until June 2, 2023,
and is focused on providing assistance to producers who either did not
purchase risk management protection or for whom the existing options
did not take into account the full value of their operations. ERP Phase
2 for 2020 and 2021 also streamlines the process for producers to
access assistance by using tax-year-based certification that utilizes
revenue information readily available from most records. In an effort
to assist producers in their understanding of ERP Phase 2, we expanded
our outreach efforts by working with partner organizations who can
support and assist producers with program applications. We also
developed some robust communication materials and online tools that
walk producers through the program process step by step. We will
continue to build upon our outreach efforts, communications materials,
and training for our field office staff for 2022 ad hoc disaster
programs.
The passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, included
more than $3.7 billion for necessary expenses related to losses of
revenue, quality, or production due to adverse weather events that
occurred in calendar year 2022. USDA estimates that, using the same
parameters of ERP for the 2020 and 2021 losses, the cost would be $10
billion for calendar 2022 losses. The Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2023 provided approximately \1/3\ of that amount to cover all
potentially eligible crop and livestock losses. Therefore, USDA will
cover less of the losses relative to the previous ERP, and a factor of
payments is likely. USDA will be deploying lessons learned from its
development and implementation of ERP to expedite assistance for 2022
losses and carryover the streamlined process to reduce the paperwork
burden based on existing available data. Specifically, the Farm Service
Agency (FSA) and Risk Management Agency (RMA) are once again partnering
to develop and announce the next steps for program implementation.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, in your testimony you addressed the
robust efforts that the Department has made in addressing the local
meat processing capacity. One thing that I hear from small processors
in my district is the issue of workforce and workforce development for
meat processing facilities. I've had small processors tell me that
their business opportunity is strong and demand for their services has
tripled since the pandemic. However, this strong demand and unique
business opportunity is hindered by the issue of labor in these
facilities. They simply can't find and retain people to work in these
jobs. In addition to the work the Department has done for expansion of
capacity for processors and brick and mortar, what is the Department
doing to create incentives for processors to recruit and retain the
needed workers in these facilities?
Answer. Under the Agricultural Marketing Service's recently
announced $75M Local Meat Capacity \10\ grant program, funds are
available to support meat and poultry processing facilities with
certain workforce related needs such as the purchase of equipment to
improve worker safety and training for workers on new processing
equipment or facilities procedures and processes supported through the
program. Providing a safe, productive working environment for employees
is a first step in ensuring workers are engaged and retained in their
jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
2023_LMCG_RFA.pdf.
Question 4. Mr. Secretary, throughout your testimony you focus a
lot of emphasis making sure that USDA resources are available for small
producers. I certainly appreciate the fact that we need to make sure
adequate resources are available to small farms, but in my opinion the
current USDA seems to focus too much of its energy and time focusing on
the small and urban farm. With today's cost of fuel, fertilizer, and
rising inflation; it's difficult for any farm, regardless of size, to
make a profit. As we all know, it will take farms with adequate
economies of scale and efficiencies to feed nine billion people on the
planet in the next 25-30 years. How do we make sure that not only small
farms, but medium-sized family farms are supported by your Department?
Answer. This is not a small versus large situation. There is
nothing that precludes medium- or large-scale producers from
participating in our programs. This is a situation where 90 percent of
our farmers make more money off the farm than they make on the farm,
and the Department is committed to creating new market and income
opportunities to help producers of all sizes remain on the farm. This
is an issue that has been with us for a while; fortunately, because of
the passage of the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act, we now are in a position to
create seed money for the establishment of multiple ways of farmers to
profit that will provide more opportunity for both small- and mid-sized
producers.
I look forward to working with you and your colleagues as we draft
the next farm bill to create more revenue streams beyond the
traditional role of farmers benefiting from the sale of crops and
livestock.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Brad Finstad, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Question 1. Across Minnesota's First district, we are seeing CRP
rates compete with or exceed land values per acre of farm ground,
making it difficult for farmers to secure new ground and maintain
current leases for land.
This issue particularly affects new and beginning farmers, creating
a barrier to entry for those seeking to enter the agricultural
profession and forcing them to compete with the Federal Government for
farmland.
Secretary Vilsack, do you believe the reforms made to CRP in the
2018 Farm Bill are achieving their goal of limiting competition against
farmers for productive farmland?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill limited CRP's County average soil rental
rates to 85 percent of the estimated rental rate for general signup
which has contributed to lower interest in the program and discouraged
producers and landowners from offering their most productive land. USDA
used discretionary policy to manage enrollment including a maximum
rental rate which applies to both general and continuous signup and a
25% cropland limitation in each county to ensure that all cropland is
not enrolled into the program. USDA is continuously taking action to
encourage and facilitate the transition of land to the next generation.
Through CRP. TIP continues to be a tool to incentivize landowners to
work with beginning farmers and ranchers. Outside of CRP, USDA has
worked diligently to improve the speed of Farm Loan approvals to lessen
the financial burden of new and beginning farmers and ranchers.
Question 1a. Do you believe the ten percent inflationary adjustment
USDA added to both General and Continuous CRP contracts to, quote:
``increase program payments to encourage more land enrollment''
incentivizes farmers to take high-quality farmland out of production?
Answer. The inflationary adjustment is just that--an inflationary
adjustment that is meant to support continued strong program
participation. It is also important to note that Continuous CRP
practices specifically target land that provides the greatest threat to
the environment and natural resources, including water quality and
wildlife habitat and often consists of buffers and small strips that
leave the majority of the field available for production. Similarly,
the most significant increase in CRP acreage in recent years has been
in the working lands grasslands program, which keeps all of the land in
production.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, throughout your tenure as Secretary of
Agriculture, two main areas you and your team have focused on are
innovation and competition. So much so that in your remarks at the 99th
USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum, you said, ``I think we have to ask
ourselves a serious question. Whether we want a system that continues
to see further consolidation, and the impact that that has on farmers
and on rural communities, or whether we're innovative enough to figure
out a different way and expand opportunity.''
No one benefits more from competition and innovation than our
farmers working to feed and fuel the world. To meet the demands of
today and the goals of tomorrow, the development of new and innovative
products that address farmers' productivity challenges, consumer
demands, and increased weather concerns is critical. However, it seems
that this Administration is more concerned about who makes these
products rather than addressing the process of how these products are
made.
Secretary Vilsack, in your March 6 USDA Report on seed competition,
one of the key topics is around enhancing innovation and promoting
competition. On average, in order to bring a seed trait to market, it
costs north of $100 million and 10-15 years of rigorous review
throughout the regulatory process, and that is just in the U.S.
Coupling the process to get approvals in countries like Mexico, Europe,
China, the R&D costs and timelines increase exponentially. After
looking through the report, the goals focus more on increasing
government oversight and adding layers of bureaucracy rather than
addressing regulatory burdens that result in higher capital costs which
directly limits opportunities for small/venture capital/startups. Do
you agree that addressing regulatory costs will benefit small/venture
capital/startups and bring more competition? Additionally, how big of a
market does USDA see for these types of companies?
Answer. USDA is committed to promoting competition and innovation
in seeds markets. The report you mention, and our subsequent follow-up
actions were informed by significant engagement with stakeholders. On
March 17, 2022, we requested input from the public on 25 multi-part
questions about competition and market power, intellectual property,
and other business practices in the seed industry that might be
affecting the American farmer's ability to participate in a fair and
competitive market. In addition to that 90 day comment period, we also
hosted a public listening forum to ensure as many perspectives as
possible were represented in our report. Many commenters expressed
specific concerns about applicability of intellectual property rights
and seed technologies, the need for publicly-supported and accessible
research on seed varieties, and support for maintaining robust domestic
supply chains to support the seed sector.
As a result of this work, USDA announced that we would create a new
Farmer Seed Liaison role to help farmers, seed breeders, and the seed
industry navigate issues related to competition in seeds markets; form
a working group with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to enhance
understanding of farmer and seed breeder issues and support further
collaboration; and enhance transparency for farmers by requiring the
disclosure of kind and variety on seed labels.
Additionally, USDA also recently published its revised plant
biotechnology rule (7 CFR part 340), SECURE rule. The revised rule
capitalizes on experience, science, and advances in technology and
risk-proportionate oversight to provide a clear pathway to
commercialization for products of agricultural biotechnology. By
eliminating the one-size-fits all data package requirements and right-
sizing requirements based on the characteristics of the modified plant,
USDA's regulatory approach has opened the door to innovative
agricultural products and small- and medium-sized developers.
APHIS built its regulatory framework in a way that allows USDA to
keep pace with advances in science and technology to ensure regulatory
requirements do not grow antiquated.
This process has also opened the door to novel crop types that
previously could not absorb regulatory costs associated with the legacy
regulations, such as specialty crops. So far, USDA has received product
submissions for 13 novel plant types (like teff, poplar and loblolly
pine trees, mustard, hemp, pennycress, and blackberry).
Question 2a. As a follow-up, the report spends a great deal
explaining how the seed industry protects its investments via patents,
plant variety protection certificates (PVPs), license agreements, and
others. However, the report paints a picture that large seed companies
benefit from the current structure and calls for stricter conditions in
order to obtain germplasm patents, and that USDA will work with USPTO
on recommendations. I think we both agree that an effective
intellectual property regulatory system reinforces the value and
importance of scientific and technological innovations while balancing
dynamic markets and the competition within the markets. With that, if
USPTO makes processes like obtaining germplasm patents much harder to
obtain, how does this help small/venture capital/start-ups protect
their investments and actually compete?
Answer. I agree that an effective intellectual property regulatory
system reinforces the value and importance of scientific and
technological innovations as well as promoting competition. The report
defined three key topic areas in which the Executive Order's ``whole of
government'' approach to promoting competition can be used to address
these challenges:
1. ensure robust and reliable Intellectual Property (IP) rights that
enhance innovation and promote competition
2. ensure that IP owners exercise their rights within the scope of
fair competition provided by law, and
3. rebuild critical national infrastructure for variety development
and the provision of seed and other planting stock to
create resilient seed supply chains.
The report made recommendations for the U.S. Government to promote
fair competition and innovation, focused on actions available to the
executive branch and leaders of involved Federal agencies, including
USDA, the Patent and Trademark Office, the Department of Justice, and
the Federal Trade Commission. Our goal is to improve fair competition
in the seed industry, enhance the resiliency of America's food and
agricultural supply chains, and provide economic opportunity and choice
for America's agricultural communities. USDA will continue working with
our Federal partners on these issues.
Smaller companies and start-ups are best served by a system that
appropriately balances patents and open competition. These companies
need access to the elite seed germplasm so that any innovations on
traits they may develop can be competitive in the market. And, those
companies also need appropriately robust patent protections on their
innovations. This is a balance that is best served by staying true to
the purposes and design of the patent system: Patents promote
innovation and competition when they are robust--that is, they reward
genuinely new and useful products. As a government-granted time-limited
monopoly, care must be taken that they not be granted improvidently. I
am pleased that USDA, with our knowledge resources and access to
agricultural stakeholders, is able to partner with the USPTO to bring
transparency and the farmer's and plant breeder's voices into the
patent process. The goal is to support USPTO's patent examiners access
to the prior art necessary for them to conduct an appropriately
comprehensive patent examination, and in doing so help ensure that
USPTO can be successful in recognizing genuinely new, useful, and non-
obvious innovations deserving of protections in the complex and
extremely important area of seeds.
Question 3. Secretary Vilsack, the EPA has proposed a ``Set''
rulemaking that is required by consent decree to be finalized by June
14, 2023. Unfortunately, the EPA proposed to set biomass-based diesel
and advanced biofuel volumes that are lower than current lending levels
AND lower than increased capacity that is coming on-line in 2023 alone.
The EPA's volumes are inconsistent with every credible estimate of
production capacity and would put about $5B of announced investments to
increase crush capacity at risk. At the heart of EPA's thinking there
appears to be a failure to acknowledge current market data on the
availability of feedstock to support significant increases in the
proposed volumes for advanced biofuels and biomass-based diesel fuels.
USDA is the repository of the Federal Government's expertise on
agricultural markets. What actions is USDA taking to provide EPA with
more accurate information regarding feedstock availability for advanced
and biomass-based diesel fuels? Is USDA input being considered by EPA
in the rulemaking process?
Answer. The Office of the Chief Economist in conjunction with the
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute authored a white paper
containing an empirical analysis using the latter's commodity market
modeling system of how increasing the biomass-based diesel mandate
beyond the proposed rule may impact agricultural markets. The analysis
indicates that increases in biomass-based diesel production could occur
without significant disruptions on agricultural commodity markets. USDA
sent the white paper to EPA for their consideration and has responded
to follow-up questions from EPA regarding the analysis.
Question 5. Over the last year, $5 billion in investments in rural
America to increase crush capacity for soybeans have been announced,
driven by the EPA's implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard as
Congress intended since President Biden took office. Additionally,
ethanol producers continue to invest in new technologies to increase
their yields of distillers corn oil, another important low-carbon
feedstock for biomass-based diesel fuels. Unfortunately, the EPA has
diverted from its strong record in the last several years with its
``Set'' proposal for advanced biofuels and biomass-based diesel--by
proposing volumes lower than current blending levels and lower than
increased capacity coming online in 2023 alone. If these numbers stand,
the $5 billion in crush capacity investments will be at significant
risk.
How would an increase of this magnitude in crush capacity increase
feedstock availability? Do you believe the EPA took these announced
investments in crush capacity and enhanced corn oil recovery into
account when putting together its Set proposal? Can you speak to what
it would mean for rural communities across the country to see an influx
of this type of investment and conversely, what the consequences would
be of losing this investment?
Answer. The American Soybean Association states that U.S. crushing
capacity was 2.2 billion bushels per year as of November 2022. If all
announced projects are completed, capacity will increase by 753 million
bushels per year by the end of 2026. This is enough to produce an
additional 1.1 billion gallons of renewable diesel, which would
generate 1.8 billion additional D4 RINs. Through the 2022 compliance
year, EPA has preferred to reduce the advanced biofuel requirement by
the same amount that it has been obliged to reduce the cellulosic
biofuel requirement, which limits the opportunity for growth in non-
cellulosic advanced biofuels. If these capacity investments do not move
forward, rural communities will lose potential construction jobs and
operations jobs at completed facilities.
Questions Submitted by Hon. John W. Rose, a Representative in Congress
from Tennessee
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, in addition to record inflation and
crippling input costs facing the cattle producers of my district,
depredation by predatory birds likes black vultures has taken a real
financial toll on our producers. According to USDA-APHIS, nearly \1/3\
of calf loss to predators each year in Tennessee is attributable to
predatory birds, vultures being chief among them. These scavengers are
a nuisance to livestock producers, and they take a significant chunk
out of agriculture's bottom line each year. What tools and
flexibilities does USDA provide to farmers and ranchers to deal with
this issue?
Answer. USDA's Wildlife Services staff help producers by providing
technical information on how to reduce damage or keep birds off their
property. They also work directly with producers to complete U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Depredation Permit applications,
and document vulture damage. Agricultural producers can also have APHIS
staff conduct operational damage control on their farms and ranches on
a reimbursable basis.
Question 2. If more legislative flexibility was given to USDA's
Wildlife Services to address this issue, would you direct the agency to
expand their efforts to control and take species that are currently
listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, including the black
vulture?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the
management authority for implementation of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and is responsible for ensuring that everyone complies with these
international obligations. APHIS' role is mainly to assist producers
with completing the proper permit applications and providing technical
assistance to producers. Any additional work that the Wildlife Services
program would perform would have to comply with these regulations and
would require funding. In response to producer concerns, USFWS has
developed additional permit flexibilities to shorten permit issuance
timeframes and provide additional support for producers, which have
seemingly worked well.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Mary E. Miller, a Representative in
Congress from Illinois
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, as you know there has been a growing
concern about foreign purchases of farmland, especially when it comes
to the Chinese Communist Party. Can you tell me what USDA is currently
doing to enforce the Agriculture Foreign Investment Disclosure Act and
what you are doing to investigate foreign purchases that have not been
reported?
Answer. USDA is using its available authorities under the
Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA). Section
3 of AFIDA provides authority to impose civil penalties and section 4
provides the authority to monitor compliance with the requirements of
AFIDA. In addition, USDA undertakes numerous activities to ensure that
foreign persons (individuals and entities) required to file are aware
of their reporting obligations. These activities occur at both the
local and at the Headquarters levels.
The Farm Service Agency's AFIDA handbook (1-AFIDA) requires local
USDA offices to periodically send an informational letter to remind
local real estate agents, real estate attorneys, and mortgage lenders
of reporting requirements. In addition, these local offices annually
publicize reporting requirements in local news media and include
information about reporting requirements in newsletters or via other
communications.
Staff in the Headquarters office responsible for AFIDA in the Farm
Production and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center review business
publications, including the Wall Street Journal and, the New York
Times, for situations where foreign companies have made acquisitions
that may involve the purchase or long-term leasing of U.S. agricultural
land. These companies, who we may also learn about by other means, are
sent a letter to inform them of AFIDA filing requirements. Foreign
companies who have been informed of their requirements by AFIDA
Headquarters staff and subsequently filed include ShuangHui (now WH
Holdings and associated with the Smithfield acquisition); Harvest Texas
LLC (a Chinese-owned company); Brazos Highland LP (a Chinese-owned
company); Fufeng USA (a Chinese-owned company); and Fondomonte LLC.
Given that many long-term leases associated with the energy
industry are foreign-held, the Headquarters office has worked to
identify companies in this sector. Companies that we can identify in
the wind and solar industries which are not in our AFIDA database will
be sent letters informing them of AFIDA reporting requirements. Not all
of these companies may be foreign-held to the third tier of ownership;
our approach aims to capture as many potential filers in this industry
as we can identify and provide them with information.
Question 2. Secretary Vilsack, on March 2nd, I sent you a letter
outlining concerns with Brazil's beef imports after they were late to
report an atypical case of BSE. Given Brazil's repeated history of
failing to report diseases and failing to meet international standards,
what steps are you taking to ensure beef from Brazil does not pose a
risk to U.S. consumers?
Answer. I appreciate your concern, but I am confident that
Brazilian beef does not pose a risk to U.S. consumers.
The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) requires member
countries to report listed diseases within 24 hours of confirmation,
not sampling. Brazil sends its samples to Canada for confirmation and
consistently reports its testing results within the timeframe of its
international obligations.
In 2022, the U.S. Chief Veterinary Officer reached out to her
Brazilian counterpart to discuss the importance of this issue and to
urge them to reduce the time between sample collection and
confirmation. Since that time, Brazil has reduced their reporting
timeframe. Another important consideration is that these cases of BSE
are atypical, which is a spontaneously occurring form of the disease
that is not believed to be infectious but is associated with advanced
age in cattle. WOAH guidance indicates that atypical BSE cases should
not affect a country's risk status recognition. Like Brazil, the United
States has also reported atypical BSE cases. We would not expect other
countries to impose trading restrictions for those detections either.
Question 3. My constituents are concerned with Mexico's import ban
of GM corn from the U.S. I was happy to hear that the U.S. Trade
Representative requested technical consultations earlier this month.
Can you talk more about what happens after the technical consultations
and if USDA would encourage the White House to bring a dispute?
Answer. The United States Department of Agriculture continues to
press Mexico to follow a science-based approach to all biotech products
and to avoid any disruption in trade. The United States continues to
consider all options, including taking further steps to enforce U.S.
rights under the USMCA. We continue to work with the Office of the
United States Trade Representative (USTR) on these issues. Please refer
further questions to USTR, including questions related to next steps.
Question 4. The EPA continues to create overburdensome regulations
for farmers especially as it relates to pesticides. What is your
message and the message of USDA towards the EPA when it comes to over-
regulation of crop protection tools?
Answer. EPA regulates pesticides as part of its mission, and our
job at USDA is to help make sure those decisions have as little impact
on farmers as possible. USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy
represents the voice of growers in discussions with EPA around
pesticides and pesticide policy. OPMP's goal is to ensure that risk
assessments and decisions are based on real-world use practices and
that all options for mitigation are considered so that final regulatory
decisions have the least possible impact on growers while still
allowing EPA to meet its mission.
Question Submitted by Hon. Max L. Miller, a Representative in Congress
from Ohio
Question. Agriculture is one of Ohio's largest industries, and a
top contributor to our state's. Volatile commodity markets, rising
fertilizer and crop inputs, regulatory uncertainty, threats from animal
disease, instable trading markets, and other issues continue to
pressure the farm safety net, impacting Ohio agriculture. I look
forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, as well as Members of this
Committee on the upcoming farm bill policies to provide an opportunity
to address the broad range of challenges to the farmers and livestock
producers in my Congressional district and throughout the country.
While international trade is a critical market component impacting
Ohio agricultural producers, I understand the U.S. Department of
Agriculture forecasts U.S. agricultural exports to be $5.5 billion less
than had been forecasted back in November. (USDA, Economic Research
Service, February 23, 2023) Ohio ranks 7th in the nation in pork
production and with 25 percent of pork goods exported, threats relating
to foreign animal diseases are a constant concern. USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service's detection, prevention and rapid
response tools remain critical to address any potential animal disease
outbreak such as African Swine Fever and others. Please share how USDA
is working with state, veterinary and industry partners to ensure
resources and processes are in place to address Foreign Animal Disease
outbreaks, which have capacity to cripple the agricultural sector if
not prepared?
Answer. State and industry partners play a key role in USDA APHIS's
foreign animal disease prevention and response efforts. For example,
during the current outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, we
have worked closely with our state partners in affected states to
rapidly detect and respond to the virus. We have worked hand-in-hand
with our industry partners, sharing information about the outbreak and
enlisting their help in spreading the importance of biosecurity.
The farm bill's animal health programs have further strengthened
these partnerships. The National Animal Disease Preparedness and
Response Program (NADPRP) provides funding to states, universities,
industry organizations, Tribal partners, and other eligible entities
for projects to help identify and fill in gaps in our existing
preparedness and response capabilities and help prevent and prepare for
the most serious animal diseases. And the additional support for the
National Animal Health Laboratory Network helps us partner with states
and universities in building diagnostic capacity and technical
knowledge so that we can rapidly detect foreign animal diseases.
Question Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Question. Can you explain why USDA's conservation programs
incentivize the use of manure lagoons and biogas production at
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations despite growing evidence of
their impacts on the environment, public health, and local communities?
Answer. USDA conservation programs offer resources to help farmers
environmental and public health footprint of lagoons. For instance,
lining lagoons can lead to water quality improvements. Biogas
production is typically associated installing an anaerobic digester.
Anaerobic digesters can help reduce several environmental impacts of
CAFO's, including methane emissions, odor, water quality, and
pathogens.
Each farm has a site-specific evaluation to identify resource
concerns; this evaluation is used to identify the best conservation
practices for that site. Lagoons can be an effective component of a
manure management system. For those manures that are more liquid, like
dairy or swine manures, a liquid manure management system is typically
more efficient. Drying manure takes a lot of energy, much of which
would come from fossil fuels. Adding an impermeable cover to an
anaerobic lagoon can help reduce greenhouse gases and odors and allow
for the production of biogas, which offsets the use of fossil fuels.
Lagoons don't all have to be anaerobic. There are aerobic lagoons that
can reduce emissions of methane, hydrogen sulfide, and odors, but they
have their own design challenges, including additional energy input for
aerated lagoons. USDA realizes that an anaerobic lagoon by itself may
not always be the best option, but we do have the ability to mitigate
some of the issues associated with lagoons and provide an additional
revenue stream for producers while reducing greenhouses gases and
addressing our climate issues at the same time.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Donald G. Davis, a Representative in
Congress from North Carolina
Question 1. Do you believe that the total Fertilizer Production
Expansion Program funding is sufficient to bring fertilizer production
back home so that our farmers can feed and clothe Americans without
breaking the bank? If not, what other tools do we have at our disposal?
Answer. There was significant demand for the $500 million
Fertilizer Production Expansion Program with $3 billion in applications
received from more than 350 independent businesses from 47 states and
two Territories for the two rounds of the new grant program. This
demonstrates significant interest from producers in adding to domestic
fertilizer production. The support provided to the producers receiving
grants will contribute to increased competition in the fertilizer
industry and help address demand, key factors contributing to recent
high fertilizer prices.
The Department is considering a variety of programmatic and policy
actions, informed in part by the recent Request For Information on
Access to Fertilizer: Competition and Supply Chain Concerns which
highlighted a variety of concerns about the limited competition and
dependence of foreign sources for significant amounts of fertilizer.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, can you give me a sense of what criteria
are used to determine these cost-share requirements and what, if any,
procedures are in place at USDA to regularly review these requirements?
Answer. The design of the Fertilizer Production Expansion Program,
including match requirements, was informed by the more than 1,500
comments in response to the Request for Information on Access to
Fertilizer: Competition and Supply Chain Concerns. These resulted in
differing match requirements based on project size. Specifically, grant
requests of less than $5 million had a matching fund requirement of 40
percent of the total eligible project cost; requests between $5 million
and $15 million had a 75 percent match requirement. These requirements
will be reviewed in the event of additional funding for another FPEP
application round.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/fair-competitive/rfi
https://www.regulations.gov/document/AMS-AMS-22-0027-0001
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/03/11/usda-
announces-plans-250-million-investment-support-innovative
[all]