[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]