    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING
                           TESTIMONY FROM THE HONORABLE
                        BROOKE L. ROLLINS, SECRETARY, U.S.
                            DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 11, 2025

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 119-7

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                             agriculture.house.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    62-625 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2026

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                     GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
    Chairman                             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JIM COSTA, California
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice
    DON BACON, Nebraska                  Ranking Minority Member
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
    DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
    JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
    TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
    RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
    BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
    JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ADAM GRAY, California
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
    MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama
    ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
    DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         JOSH RILEY, New York
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             JOHN W. MANNION, New York
    TONY WIED, Wisconsin                 APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
    ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr.,            CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
    Pennsylvania                         SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
    DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio

                                     ______

                         Parish Braden, Staff Director

                     Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North
      Carolina:
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
        Submitted letter.............................................   107
    Carbajal, Hon. Salud O., a Representative in Congress from
      California, submitted press release............................   156
    Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
      submitted letters..............................................   105
    Craig, Hon. Angie a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
      opening statement..............................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Jackson, Hon. Jonathan L., a Representative in Congress from
      Illinois, prepared statement...................................     7
    Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
      Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Vindman, Hon. Eugene Simon, a Representative in Congress from
      Virginia, submitted articles...................................   108

                                    Witness

    Rollins, Hon. Brooke, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
        Submitted questions..........................................   157

                       HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING
                           TESTIMONY FROM THE HONORABLE
                        BROOKE L. ROLLINS, SECRETARY, U.S.
                            DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2025

                              House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room
    1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Thompson, Lucas, Austin
    Scott of Georgia, Crawford, DesJarlais, LaMalfa, Rouzer, Kelly,
    Bacon, Bost, Johnson, Baird, Mann, Feenstra, Miller, Moore,
    Finstad, Rose, Jackson of Texas, De La Cruz, Nunn, Van Orden,
    Newhouse, Wied, Messmer, Harris, Taylor, Craig, David Scott of
    Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Adams, Hayes, Brown, Davids of
    Kansas, Salinas, Davis of North Carolina, Tokuda, Budzinski,
    Sorensen, Vasquez, Jackson of Illinois, Gray, McDonald Rivet,
    Figures, Vindman, Riley, Mannion, McClain Delaney, and
    Carbajal.
        Staff present: Justin Benavidez, Laurel Lee Chatham, Austin
    DeBerry, Luke Franklin, Justina Graff, Harlea Hoelscher, Sofia
    Jones, Joshua Maxwell, Josie Montoney, Thomas Newberry, Sam
    Rogers, Patricia Straughn, Joshua Stull, John Konya, Britton
    Burdick, Suzie Cavalier, Kate Fink, Clark Ogilvie, Michael
    Stein, and Jackson Blodgett.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                       CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Welcome,
    and thank you all for joining today's hearing where we will
    hear from Secretary Rollins from the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture. After brief opening remarks, Members will receive
    testimony from our witness today, and then the hearing will
    open to questions.
        So once again, good morning, everyone. I would like to
    welcome you all to today's hearing and extend a special thanks
    to the Honorable Brooke Rollins for joining us for her first
    appearance before this Committee as our 33rd Secretary of
    Agriculture. I am proud to call her a friend and deeply
    appreciative of the leadership she has shown in just a few
    short months on the job. Madam Secretary, we are truly grateful
    to have you with us today.
        This Committee is dedicated to the prosperity and long-term
    sustainability of rural America. Our nation's farmers,
    ranchers, and foresters are the fundamental piece of America's
    number one industry which clothes and feeds millions of
    American families and billions around the world.
        And that is why Congress came together at the end of last
    year to provide meaningful relief with $21 billion to address
    weather-related losses in 2023 and 2024 and another $10 billion
    to help offset sustained economic losses impacting producers. I
    am grateful to Secretary Rollins for the work she has done and
    will continue to do to get those dollars out the door and
    ensure that help reaches the producers who need it most.
        Largely thanks to these investments and a renewed emphasis
    on expanding global markets, recent USDA forecasts show net
    farm income stabilizing for 2025. Those dollars, while not
    enough to make producers whole, were enough for many to keep
    the lights on and obtain credit to farm another year. However,
    input costs remain high and commodity prices continue to soften
    and forecast margins, working capital, and debt loads continue
    to deteriorate.
        Our work to support America's farmers and ranchers is not
    yet complete. Over the past several years, the producers we
    represent have withstood an unprecedented mix of adversity, a
    global pandemic, record inflation, supply chain disruptions,
    animal disease, and natural disasters, and yet they have
    continued to deliver the safest, most abundant, and most
    affordable food supply in the world. While that is not
    something that we take for granted, it is something we must
    support through sound policy, stable markets, and a strong
    USDA.
        That said, we have plenty to discuss this morning, Madam
    Secretary. We are eager to hear your plans to make USDA more
    efficient, particularly as it relates to reorganization
    efforts, ensuring that there is not a disruption to customer
    service. We are also interested in your strategy to support
    producers with today's challenging trade environment and animal
    health risks. As you and the President work to lower barriers
    and open new markets and we navigate these issues together, I
    trust you will continue to keep the interests of the American
    agriculture front and center.
        We are turning the page to a new chapter for American
    agriculture, one where new scientific breakthroughs and
    technology will work hand in hand with tradition, stewardship,
    and grit to address the challenges at hand and build on the
    legacy of resilience and innovation driven by our farmers and
    ranchers.
        As part of that new chapter, it is incumbent on Congress to
    do our job. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. 119-21) is
    a critical down payment on meaningful change for America, but
    it is just the beginning. We must also deliver a full farm bill
    reauthorization that provides certainty and long-term support
    for our producers. Once we complete the reconciliation process,
    we will build on that foundation with a comprehensive farm bill
    later this year.
        Secretary Rollins, I know that you bring to this role a
    deep belief in the power of rural America and the American
    farmer. We share that belief. I know that we are aligned in our
    commitment to the people in this country who produce, as well
    as those who consume. As we begin this conversation today, I
    want to underscore my hope and expectation that the
    relationship between this Committee and the Department of
    Agriculture will be a strong, productive partnership. The
    future of our food supply, our environment, and our economy
    depends on it.
        With that, I thank you again, Secretary Rollins, for your
    service and your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
                               from Pennsylvania
        Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you all to today's
    hearing and extend a special thanks to the Honorable Brooke Rollins for
    joining us for her first appearance before this Committee as our 33rd
    Secretary of Agriculture.
        I'm proud to call her a friend and deeply appreciative of the
    leadership she has shown in just a few short months on the job. Madam
    Secretary, we're truly grateful to have you with us today.
        This Committee is dedicated to the prosperity and long-term
    sustainability of rural America. Our nation's farmers, ranchers, and
    foresters are the fundamental piece of America's number one industry,
    which clothes and feeds millions of American families, and billions
    around the world.
        That is why Congress came together at the end of last year to
    provide meaningful relief with $21 billion to address weather-related
    losses in 2023 and 2024, and another $10 billion to help offset
    sustained economic losses impacting producers.
        I'm grateful to Secretary Rollins for the work she has done and
    will continue to do to get those dollars out the door and ensure help
    reaches the producers who need it most.
        Largely thanks to these investments and a renewed emphasis on
    expanding global markets, recent USDA forecasts show net farm income
    stabilizing for 2025. Those dollars, while not enough to make producers
    whole, were enough for many to keep the lights on and obtain credit to
    farm another year.
        However, input costs remain high, commodity prices continue to
    soften and forecast margins, working capital, and debt loads continue
    to deteriorate.
        Our work to support America's farmers and ranchers is not yet
    complete.
        Over the past several years, the producers we represent have
    withstood an unprecedented mix of adversity: a global pandemic, record
    inflation, supply chain disruptions, animal disease, and natural
    disasters.
        And yet, they've continued to deliver the safest, most abundant,
    and most affordable food supply in the world. That's not something we
    take for granted. It is something we must support--through sound
    policy, stable markets, and a strong USDA.
        That said, we have plenty to discuss this morning, Madam Secretary.
    We're eager to hear your plans to make USDA more efficient,
    particularly as it relates to reorganization efforts and ensuring there
    is not a disruption to customer service. We're also interested in your
    strategy to support producers with today's challenging trade
    environment and animal health risks.
        As you and the President work to lower barriers and open new
    markets and we navigate these issues together, I trust you'll continue
    to keep the interests of American agriculture front and center.
        We are turning the page to a new chapter for American agriculture--
    one where new scientific breakthroughs and technology will work hand-
    in-hand with tradition, stewardship, and grit to address the challenges
    at hand and build on the legacy of resilience and innovation driven by
    our farmers and ranchers.
        As part of that new chapter, it is incumbent on Congress to do our
    job. The One Big Beautiful Bill is a critical down payment on
    meaningful change for America--but it's just the beginning.
        We must also deliver a full farm bill reauthorization that provides
    certainty and long-term support for our producers.
        Once we complete the reconciliation process, we will build on that
    foundation with a comprehensive farm bill later this year.
        Secretary Rollins, I know that you bring to this role a deep belief
    in the power of rural America and the American farmer.
        We share that belief. I know we are aligned in our commitment to
    the people in this country who produce as well as those who consume.
        As we begin this conversation today, I want to underscore my hope--
    and expectation--that the relationship between this Committee and the
    Department of Agriculture will be a strong, productive partnership.
        The future of our food system, our environment, and our economy
    depends on it.
        With that, I thank you again, Secretary Rollins, for your service
    and your testimony. I now yield to Ranking Member Craig from the great
    State of Minnesota for her opening remarks.

        The Chairman. I now yield to Ranking Member Craig from the
    great State of Minnesota for her opening remarks.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                        CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

        Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to welcome Secretary Rollins to our Committee
    hearing today. She reminded me in the back room that she spent
    every summer in Minnesota, so she has a deep connection to my
    home state as well.
        Doing right by our family farmers requires working across
    the aisle. That has been a trademark of this Committee over
    time, and that is how successful farm bills usually function.
    Traditionally, USDA has reflected that commitment as well by
    supporting our family farmers as they grow food that feeds our
    country and the world, ensuring our food is safe to eat,
    stopping the spread of animal disease, and innovating the
    future of food and agriculture.
        However, I am genuinely concerned that under this
    Administration, agricultural policymaking has become more
    partisan and polarized. This reckless push to cut nearly $300
    billion in funding to a title of the farm bill instead of
    prioritizing getting a 12 title, 5 year farm bill across the
    finish line is of particular concern to this Committee, and it
    has put the bipartisan farm bill in jeopardy.
        In addition, DOGE has been given essentially a free pass to
    damage program integrity and undermine the USDA's ability to
    carry out its core functions and provide key services that
    America's farmers rely on.
        Madam Secretary, your agency has fired and then had to
    rehire agency employees because of uninformed and reckless
    decisions over the course of the past few months. Our trade
    deficit is increasing. Retaliatory tariffs are coming.
    Countries are already moving to buy commodities from other
    nations instead of America's farmers. Input costs are
    stubbornly high. The bird flu remains a concern. Food banks
    have been defunded. Billions of dollars in farm programs remain
    frozen. School cafeterias have been cut off from sourcing
    locally grown food. Food safety and animal health experts have
    been fired or forced out. Nutrition assistance programs are
    being decimated. The farm bill is in jeopardy. The USDA
    Inspector General who rooted out fraud, waste, and abuse was
    fired. And the MAHA Commission, which USDA signed off on, is
    issuing reports with made-up science and fake citations without
    talking to family farmers.
        I grew up in farm country. My grandfather was a farm
    foreman. And I now have the opportunity and honor of
    representing corn, soybean, pork, and turkey producers, among
    others, in Minnesota's 2nd District. They are tough people.
    They want markets, not farm income from more government
    handouts because their government's policies are hurting their
    farms.
        So yes, Madam Secretary, we are grateful that you have come
    to testify in front of us today, and we have a lot to talk to
    you about. Thank you for being here.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
                                 from Minnesota
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to welcome the Secretary to our Committee hearing today. We
    have a lot to cover--and thank you for being here.
        Doing right by our family farmers often requires working across the
    aisle. That's been a trademark of this Committee over time. And that's
    how successful farm bills usually function.
        Traditionally, USDA has reflected that commitment as well. By
    supporting our family farmers as they grow food that feeds our country
    and the world, ensuring our food is safe to eat, stopping the spread of
    animal-borne disease and innovating the future of food and agriculture.
        However, I am genuinely concerned that under this Administration,
    agricultural policymaking has become much more partisan and polarized.
    This reckless push to cut nearly $300 billion in funding to a title of
    the farm bill--instead of prioritizing getting a full 12 title, 5 year
    farm bill across the finish line--is of particular concern. And has put
    a bipartisan farm bill in jeopardy.
        In addition, DOGE has been given essentially a free pass to damage
    program integrity and undermine the USDA's ability to carry out its
    core functions and provide key services that America's farmers rely on.
    Your agency has fired and then had to rehire agency employees because
    of uninformed and reckless decisions over the course of the past few
    months.
        Our trade deficit is increasing. Retaliatory tariffs are coming.
    Countries are already moving to buy commodities from other nations
    instead of American farmers. Input costs are stubbornly high. The bird
    flu remains a concern. Food banks have been defunded. Billions of
    dollars in farm programs remain frozen. School cafeterias have been cut
    off from sourcing locally grown food. Food safety and animal health
    experts have been fired or forced out. Nutrition assistance programs
    are being decimated. The farm bill is in jeopardy. The USDA Inspector
    General, who rooted out fraud, waste and abuse, was fired. The MAHA
    Commission is issuing reports with made-up science and fake citations
    without talking to family farmers.
        I grew up in farm country. My grandfather was a farm foreman. And I
    now have the honor of representing corn, soybean, pork and turkey
    producers, among others, in Minnesota's 2nd District. They're tough
    people; they want markets, not farm income from more government
    handouts because their government's policies are hurting their farms.
        So yes--we have a lot we want to talk to you about today. Thank you
    for being here.
        I yield back.

        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. She yields back.
        The chair would request that other Members submit their
    opening statements for the record so our witness may begin her
    testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for questions.
        [The prepared statements of Ms. Adams and Mr. Jackson of
    Illinois follow:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
                              from North Carolina
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank Secretary Rollins for
    being here, and I look forward to your testimony and the opportunity to
    have a conversation.
        Today, we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, where
    American families are living paycheck to paycheck, and I am deeply
    concerned about the actions from the White House.
        So far, we have seen . . .
        The Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement was
    terminated. The Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program
    was canceled. These programs provided nearly $30 million to North
    Carolina for these vital community partnerships and distribution of
    local, healthy foods.
        The 1890 National Scholars Program, suspended. I am pleased that
    the USDA lifted the suspension. However, for this program to truly
    thrive, scholars and institutions need assurance that it won't face
    sudden suspensions again. I heard directly from representatives of 1890
    Institutions, and they shared how deeply concerning this pause was for
    them and their students--many of whom were left uncertain about their
    financial stability and educational futures. That is why I introduced
    the Land-Grant Institution Parity Act, which protects Federal funding
    for our land-grant colleges and universities, including the country's
    19 land-grant HBCUs, commonly referred to as 1890 Institutions.
        The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), frozen. The
    University of North Carolina at Charlotte has been a recipient of a
    nearly $63,000 grant from NIFA.
        The Emergency Food Assistance Program, canceled.
        Despite court orders and the rescission of the initial memo, key
    USDA programs remain stalled, and uncertainty and confusion remain
    among families, farmers, and universities as they await the
    disbursement of funds and question whether programs will be frozen
    again or canceled in the future.
        In fact, Nourish Up, a food pantry network in my district of
    Mecklenburg County that strives to provide help to the more than
    200,000 people with food insecurity in the community, feels whiplash.
        After freezes, terminations, and proposed cuts to food assistance
    programs were revealed several months ago, staff at the food pantry
    noted that the uncertainty about available funds has added a layer of
    unpredictability to planning for nonprofits and other safety net
    organizations that often operate on lean budgets.
        I am also deeply concerned of the White House's desire to have this
    `One Big Beautiful' bill--I will tell you. there is nothing beautiful
    about it. And it is not an exaggeration to say that this budget bill is
    the single biggest threat to food security in generations.
        In my district, we have 46,000 households that receive SNAP
    benefits every month. That's one out of every seven.
        The average SNAP benefit in North Carolina is only $5.70 per person
    per day. That's already not enough to put food on the table anymore.
        Reducing it further would cause food insecurity to grow in our
    region and our state.
        Four in five North Carolina families receiving SNAP benefits have
    either a child, a senior, or an adult with a disability in their
    household.
        Whether it's a reduction in benefits or reducing the number of
    recipients, both would lead to severe harm for food security in
    Charlotte.
        On top of SNAP cuts, the Republican budget bill would also add even
    harsher work requirements on anyone trying to access the program.
        To be clear, SNAP already has work requirements. It's estimated
    that these requirements would threaten the food security of 375,000
    North Carolinians.
        Rather than help support the basic needs of their constituents,
    Republicans want to kick more people off SNAP so they can fund their
    tax breaks for billionaires.
        It's unacceptable.
        And, from the President's Budget and House Republican Agriculture
    Appropriations bill, both want slash WIC's cash value benefit, which
    allows families to purchase fruits and vegetables as part of their WIC
    food package.
        Let me be clear--these cuts don't happen in isolation--they target
    the same low-income families who rely on SNAP, Medicaid, public
    education, and other critical services. Slashing multiple supports at
    once intensifies hardship and deepens poverty.
        These actions will also harm American farmers who will no longer
    see proceeds from producing this food.
        I've spoken with farmers in my district about SNAP and they are
    overwhelmingly supportive of this program.
        Kim, a farmer in Charlotte, told me that, ``I support SNAP because
    we are a farm located in a `food desert' within the City of Charlotte.
    How can we feed our most vulnerable if we are unable to take these
    benefits at our farmstand?''
        Wendy, a farmer also from Charlotte, told me, ``We support SNAP
    because it brings people to our farm who otherwise wouldn't have the
    chance. We support SNAP because it gives small farms like ours a way to
    serve the community while staying sustainable.''
        We must work together to ensure that families and farmers across
    the country are able to thrive. At the end of the day, these are not
    red issues or blue issues--they are red, white, and blue issues--
    American issues.
        Thank you for being here, I look forward to your testimony, and I
    yield back.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Jonathan L. Jackson, a Representative in
                             Congress from Illinois
        Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Thank you, Ranking Member Craig, and
    thank you, Secretary Rollins, for appearing before this Committee
    today.
        Last year, this Administration declared war. Not on the New World
    screwworm advancing on our southern border, not on the corporate
    consolidation squeezing our family farmers, but on an idea: the idea of
    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. And in doing so, it has created a
    crisis of competence and confidence at the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture.
        We are here today to examine whether the Secretary's actions--the
    termination of over 3,600 contracts and the cancellation of nearly a
    thousand employee trainings--are rooted in sound policy and the rule of
    law, or in a politically motivated purge that has left this nation's
    agriculture and food supply more vulnerable.
        The Secretary has made ``merit'' her North Star. Yet, she has done
    so while ignoring the legal definition of merit that has governed our
    civil service for nearly half a century--the Merit System Principles,
    codified at 5 U.S.C.  2301. These principles were not designed to be
    ``woke''; they were designed to prevent the very thing we are
    witnessing: the replacement of a professional, experienced civil
    service with one based on political loyalty.
        If Congress does nothing, a dangerous precedent will be set. An
    agency head will be allowed to disregard binding legal frameworks like
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on a secret, unwritten definition of
    what they find politically objectionable. This is not oversight; it is
    an assault on the rule of law itself.
        I have significant concerns that I hope to address today. The
    Secretary's crusade has been waged without providing this Committee, or
    the American public, with a single, consistent definition of the ``woke
    DEI initiatives'' she is so determined to eliminate. Agency action
    cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
        We will ask the Secretary to define her terms. We will ask how
    eliminating training on preventing sexual harassment makes our food
    safer. And we will ask if her own appointment meets the rigorous
    standards of ``merit'' she seeks to impose on others, especially when
    compared to the vast experience of her predecessor in this role.
        The central question today is one of staggering hypocrisy. Can a
    leader who rails against programs designed to create opportunity, while
    seemingly being the beneficiary of a system that prizes political
    connection over proven experience, be trusted to lead with integrity?
        This is not an academic debate. This is about our nation's ability
    to function. It's about the stability of the agency that ensures the
    food on our tables is safe. It's about whether we will honor the legacy
    of cases like Pigford v. Glickman and ensure the USDA serves all
    farmers, not just a select few.
        We have an opportunity to get answers today. The American people
    deserve to know if their Department of Agriculture is being led based
    on evidence and law, or on political whim and prejudice.
        Thank you, and I yield back.

        The Chairman. I am pleased to welcome to the Committee our
    witness for today, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins. Madam
    Secretary, thank you for joining us, and we are now going to
    proceed to your testimony. You will have 5 minutes. Thank you
    for your written testimony that you have submitted. All of our
    Members have a copy of that written testimony. The timer in
    front of you will count down to zero, at which point your time
    has expired.
        Secretary Rollins, please begin when you are ready.

    STATEMENT OF HON. BROOKE ROLLINS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                     AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Secretary Rollins. Well, thank you, Chairman Thompson,
    Ranking Member Craig, and distinguished Members of this
    Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
    highlight what the U.S. Department of Agriculture has
    accomplished since the start of our new Administration just a
    short few months ago.
        Under the Trump Administration, the hardworking Americans
    who feed, fuel, and clothe our nation and the world are at the
    center of everything we do at USDA. Our USDA is putting farmers
    first and taking bold action every single day. The following is
    a quick list of just a few of those highlights over the last
    118 days.
        First, tackling the avian bird flu outbreak and lowering
    the price of wholesale eggs by more than 65 percent, with
    retail prices following at 25 percent and gaining every week.
        Second, taking action to respond to foreign disease
    outbreaks like the New World screwworm because food security is
    national security. I am sure we will get into that today.
        Third, we have kicked off a comprehensive effort to
    identify and to rectify politically motivated lawfare
    originating and against our family farms, such as the Maude
    family of South Dakota.
        Fourth, we are streamlining unnecessary regulations and
    cutting red tape for poultry farmers and other producers, for
    example, by extending line speed waivers and removing
    duplicative data collection.
        Number five, USDA moved out the Emergency Commodity
    Assistance Program in record time, and a lot of leadership in
    this Committee to get that money there, and aid, have already
    sent out aid to more than 500,000 farmers in just the last 8
    weeks, with a total of over $7.7 billion out the door to date.
    Additionally, we have issued $1 billion of the emergency
    livestock relief to date and are on track to meet our deadlines
    for the remaining Congressionally authorized disaster programs,
    which are so important, especially since the farm bill was not
    done in the last few years.
        Number six, in the Oval Office yesterday, talking with
    President Trump and the media about the increase of
    productivity and production in our timber industry after being
    decimated over the last few years.
        Seventh, opening up five markets around the world in
    certain parts of the world where new markets have been open and
    our products have moved in, great American farm products.
        And finally, continuing to address waste, fraud, and abuse
    in SNAP and, frankly, all USDA programs that have long
    neglected to put our farmers first. This includes a review of
    thousands, tens of thousands of contracts, grants, employee
    trainings, and DEI programs, resulting in over a savings of
    $5.5 billion.
        Now, let me expand on just a few of those in my remaining 2
    minutes and 11 seconds. My team and I are regularly meeting, as
    I mentioned, with foreign partners, expanding markets around
    the world, promoting agricultural products, which are the best.
    I have already traveled to the UK and to Italy. I am soon to
    leave for Vietnam, Japan, and India, and after that going to
    South America. We are working as hard as we possibly can,
    pushing these aggressive trade deals to put our American
    farmers and producers first.
        In this Administration, it doesn't take more taxpayer
    dollars to boost timber production, to unleash American energy
    dominance, and to balance unfair trade commitments around the
    world. It just takes a President who can harness the strength
    and ingenuity of the American people.
        There is still much work to be done as we realign the
    American and world economy at the service of the American
    people and the American farmer. We are leaving no stone
    unturned as we evaluate the effectiveness of all of our
    programs, and I thank each one of you on both sides of the
    aisle for your collaboration in that effort.
        We are also at a pivotal moment where we can safeguard our
    country from fiscal ruin, and I applaud the steps this
    Committee took, sir, on passing the One Big Beautiful Bill and
    all of the work that that took. This bill leverages a once-in-
    a-generation opportunity, and specifically for our farmers,
    increasing $3.8 billion in income projected, protecting over
    two million of our family farms from the death tax, and cutting
    more than $10 billion in taxes, again, just in our agricultural
    community.
        As the 33rd Secretary of Agriculture, I have the profound
    privilege of seeing firsthand how our nation's farmers serve as
    the very heartbeat of this country. Their unwavering dedication
    and resilience are not merely testaments to hard work, they
    form the bedrock that upholds our national security,
    revitalizes our rural communities, and preserves our cherished
    traditions.
        Our farmers and ranchers do not rest, and neither do we at
    the USDA. I am proud to be at the helm of Abraham Lincoln's
    ``People's Department.'' I am proud to be at the table with
    President Donald Trump and fighting for the very foundation of
    our American way of life.
        Thank you, and I look forward to today's discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Rollins follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Brooke Rollins, Secretary, U.S. Department
                        of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and distinguished Members
    of this Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to
    highlight what the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
    accomplished since the start of the new Administration. President
    Donald J. Trump said it best in his proclamation on National
    Agriculture Day: ``From the earliest days of our Republic, our farmers
    and agricultural communities have been the source of American success--
    enduring the elements and defying hard conditions to cultivate our land
    and feed the people. Farming is indelibly engrained in our history,
    customs, and culture, and stands to this day as the bedrock of our
    economy and way of life.'' As the 33rd Secretary of Agriculture, I have
    the profound privilege of seeing firsthand how our nation's farmers
    serve as the very heartbeat of America. Their unwavering dedication and
    resilience are not merely testaments to hard work; they form the
    bedrock that upholds our food security, revitalizes rural communities,
    and preserves cherished traditions.
        The People's Department is supposed to be the forefront of
    agriculture, natural resources, rural development, food, and nutrition.
    We should help shepherd public policy guided by the best available
    science, laws passed by Congress, and the input of experts across this
    great nation--especially those who tend our lands and livestock.
    However, for too long, the hardworking Americans who feed, fuel, and
    clothe the world have been sidelined in this mission. That changed
    January 20. The President and I share the same goal of making
    agriculture great again, and I personally have and will continue to
    ensure farmers, ranchers, and the constituencies of the USDA have a
    strong voice in the White House and around the world.
        I'd like to start with a short list of what we have accomplished
    before going into greater detail.

      1.  Supported American poultry and egg producers, addressed the avian
                flu,\1\ and lowered the cost of eggs for consumers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/20/
    usda-update-progress-five-pronged-strategy-combat-avian-flu-and-lower-
    egg-prices.

      2.  Taken bold action to respond to foreign disease outbreaks like
                New World screwworm \2\ to strengthen the domestic food
                supply, because food security is national security.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/27/
    update-usda-efforts-fight-new-world-screwworm-mexico.

      3.  Launched a new web portal \3\ for potential victims of ongoing
                lawfare originating under the Biden Administration to
                submit their concerns and experiences.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/30/
    secretary-rollins-hosts-maude-family-washington-after-us-government-
    dropped-lawfare-case.

      4.  Fought for fair trade for all American farmers and ranchers \4\
                by tackling trade barriers, visited two countries with
                plans to visit five more before September 30 to both expand
                market access and support the Trump Administration's trade
                agenda.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/02/
    usda-announces-agricultural-trade-promotion-programs-fy-2026.

      5.  Unleashed American energy dominance \5\ through expanded access
                to mining and drillingon Federal land and releasing a
                biofuels incentive program \6\ to help fuel America.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/25/
    usda-delivers-rural-energy-commitments-provides-path-applicants-
    support-us-energy-independence.
        \6\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/31/
    usda-delivers-rural-energy-commitments-strengthens-us-energy-security-
    and-increases-american-grown.

      6.  Streamlined unnecessary regulations and cutting red tape for
                agricultural producers. This work included sweeping reforms
                to boost timber production, streamline pork and poultry
                processing,\7\ and reduce wildfire risk through public-
                private partnerships.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/04/
    secretary-rollins-announces-sweeping-reforms-protect-national-forests-
    and-boost-domestic-timber.
        \8\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/02/26/
    secretary-rollins-initiates-new-public-private-partnership-reduce-
    wildfire-risk.

      7.  Signed a joint memo \9\ with Secretary Burgum on wildfire
                preparedness, ensuring our two Departments are working in
                close coordination this fire season.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/20/
    secretary-rollins-and-secretary-burgum-sign-joint-fire-memo-ahead-peak-
    fire-season-receive-fire.

      8.  Deployed resources to assist \10\ the wildfire response in
                Canada.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/
    31/usda-sends-fire-resources-assist-canada-wildfire-response.

      9.  Approved a variety of Congressionally authorized fund
                distributions to support communities affected by wind
                storms, drought, and disasters in the agricultural sector--
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                at record speed.

      10. Sought and addressed waste, fraud, and abuse in all USDA
                programs, including, SNAPfraud,\11\ and woke programs \12\
                that have long not put Farmers First.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/
    24/usda-ensures-illegal-aliens-do-not-receive-federal-benefits.
        \12\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/02/
    20/secretary-rollins-releases-first-tranche-funding-under-review.

      11. Reviewed thousands of contracts, grants, and employee trainings
                and DEI programs resulting in terminations totaling over
                $5.5 billion to date. USDA also identified and canceled
                nearly 1,000 employee trainings, more than 750 of which
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                focused on DEI alone.

      12. Led major steps to Make America Healthy Again \13\ (MAHA) through
                prioritizing health in SNAP.\14\ Over the last few weeks, I
                have signed the first food restriction waivers \15\
                submitted by innovative governors in Nebraska, Iowa, and
                Indiana. Each waiver restricts unhealthy foods from SNAP
                and respect the generosity of the American taxpayer. The
                MAHA movement at USDA has also supported the food
                industry's voluntary changes \16\ to make food healthier.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/
    04/hhs-and-usda-hold-first-public-maha-event-outline-vision-healthier-
    america.
        \14\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/
    15/rollins-applauds-arkansas-governor-submitting-snap-waiver-make-
    america-healthy-again.
        \15\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/
    23/secretary-rollins-approves-state-waivers-make-america-healthy-again-
    removing-unhealthy-foods-snap.
        \16\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/
    22/secretary-rollins-applauds-dairy-industry-voluntarily-removing-
    artificial-colors-national-school.

      13. Took leadership to make rural America \17\ prosper again by
                reducing regulations and revitalizing communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/
    04/secretary-rollins-previews-her-vision-restoring-rural-prosperity.

        While USDA is taking bold action, I must also make note that we are
    at a pivotal moment where we can safeguard our country from fiscal ruin
    and I applaud the steps this Committee has taken in passing H.R. 1, the
    One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to
    cut spending, fuel growth, and level the fiscal footing of the American
    economy. This is in addition to much needed funding this Committee
    provides for agricultural producers alongside reforms to cut waste,
    fraud, and abuse in USDA programs--saving billions of dollars. USDA is
    also doing its part to help return to greatness by eliminating wasteful
    spending, promoting efficiencies, cutting regulatory red tape, and
    shifting our mission towards expanding market opportunities for
    farmers, rather than promoting programs that merely cater to special
    interests of Washington D.C. bureaucrats who have never set foot in a
    field or pasture.
        Expanding on the above-mentioned actions, one of the most important
    things we can do to help our nation's producers is to expand new
    markets. After 4 years of inaction by the Biden Administration, which
    caused America's agricultural trade balance to go from a surplus under
    President Trump's first term to a significant deficit under President
    Biden, USDA has now made it a top priority to advocate on behalf of
    American agriculture on the world stage. Last month, I visited the
    United Kingdom after President Trump announced a historic trade deal
    that will lower tariffs, remove trade barriers, increase market access,
    and strengthen cooperation on economic security. Seeing the UK is the
    United States' fourteenth largest agricultural export market, this deal
    can address disproportionately high tariffs, small tariff-rate quota
    volumes, and unjustified non-tariff barriers.
        Additionally, we've recently negotiated a new streamlined facility
    registration process for U.S. dairy products bound for Costa Rica
    providing increased access to a $130 million market. Panama partially
    opened its pork import quota mechanism, which will allow an estimated
    additional $30 million in U.S. pork product exports. South Africa
    restored market access for U.S. microwave popcorn shipments, valued at
    $2 to $3 million. USDA conducted two trade missions to Thailand and
    Guatemala, and hosted USA Pavilions at six global trade shows with a
    combined total of $282 million in projected exports. In the last 2
    months, USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service has worked with India to
    reduce India's tariff on U.S. Bourbon imports by 50 percent, resulting
    in a likely $2 million increase in distilled spirits exports to India
    in 2025. We worked with Japan to lift the mandatory aflatoxin testing
    requirements on U.S. almonds, resulting in a likely eight to ten
    percent increase of U.S. almond exports to Japan annually.
        In April, USDA launched agricultural trade promotion programs for
    Fiscal Year 2026 and is accepting applications for four export market
    development programs. These programs historically total over $250
    million annually. I also plan to travel to India, Vietnam, Japan, Peru,
    and Brazil over the next 4 months. Together with the U.S. Trade
    Representative, and the consummate dealmaking of President Trump, we
    will build new markets, expand current markets, and hold existing
    trading partners accountable to ensure trade is fair and reciprocal and
    that the competitive position of U.S. agriculture reaches new heights.
        Just as important as expanding export markets is protecting the
    United States from foreign animal disease including combating highly-
    pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). I understand the importance of
    animal health issues and the effects they have not just on ranchers and
    producers, but also on trade and the prices for everyday consumers.
    Since my first day, I have been intensely focused on tackling the avian
    influenza crisis, and after USDA's announcement of our five-pronged
    plan to curb avian influenza, I am happy to report that as of today,
    wholesale egg prices have dropped sixty five percent since February 28.
        Even though much of the public attention has been on avian
    influenza, we are also working around the clock to address New World
    screwworm. This pest feeds on livestock and could create an economic
    impact of well over a billion dollars if it enters through our southern
    border. I am in consistent communication with my counterpart in Mexico
    to contain the threat south of the U.S. border. Our goal is to push
    this pest back to the Darien Gap in Panama, and USDA is working daily
    with Mexico to make sure the resources, tactics, and tools are in place
    to do just that. Additionally, USDA recently announced a $21 million
    dollar investment to renovate an existing fruit fly production facility
    in Metapa, Mexico to further that long-term goal. Once operational,
    this facility will produce 60-100 million additional sterile NWS flies
    weekly to help push the population further south. Given the geographic
    spread of NWS, this additional production capacity will be critical to
    our response. Furthermore, we are still exploring many other options
    including domestic facilities to produce sterile flies. In the
    meantime, current restrictions on live animal imports from Mexico
    remain in place, and as previously announced, USDA will continue to
    evaluate the current suspension every thirty days.
        While the threat of foreign animal disease is top of mind for many
    livestock producers, the state of the farm economy is important to all
    rural America. As goes agriculture, so goes rural main streets across
    the country. That's why, upon my confirmation, crafting and
    implementing the Congressionally directed Emergency Commodity
    Assistance Program (ECAP) was preeminently important. On March 19, we
    issued $10 billion in economic assistance for farmers and ranchers
    through ECAP. The program has been extremely efficient, paying farmers,
    on average, within 3 business days of an application submission. A note
    of thanks to all of you for your unwavering support for producers in
    times of economic crisis by passing that important legislation. USDA
    continues to work diligently to deliver Supplemental Disaster Relief,
    over $20 billion. Earlier last month USDA released our projected
    timeline for development and delivery of each of the components that
    comprise the full suite of Supplemental Disaster Assistance for
    agricultural producers. On May 29, USDA released the Emergency
    Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) payments to cover grazing losses due to
    eligible drought or wildfire events in 2023 and 2024. Those emergency
    relief payments are automatically issued for producers who have an
    approved Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) application on file
    for 2023 and 2024 thus producers do not have to contact USDA to receive
    payments. On April 22, USDA dispersed $340 million through the Rural
    Development Disaster Assistance Fund across thirty-one states to
    deliver relief to farmers, ranchers and rural communities impacted by
    natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires that have caused
    devastation across the country.
        Part of making American agriculture more prosperous in a time of
    economic hardship is eliminating the regulatory burdens that hinder its
    growth. Under President Trump's leadership, we are streamlining
    unnecessary regulations and cutting red tape for agricultural
    producers, and other industries under the USDA purview, to allow them
    to feed, fuel, and clothe the world. This includes making sweeping
    reforms to protect national forests and boost domestic timber
    production, ending regulations that have stifled energy and mineral
    development on Federal lands so we may reaffirm America's role as a
    global energy powerhouse, and reducing wildfire risk through public-
    private partnerships and many other actions. I have been fortunate to
    spend time with our wildland firefighters to thank them for their
    heroic service. I value their perspectives and feedback, and I am proud
    of the work they do to save lives and protect our beautiful homeland.
    We will continue to execute President Trump's agenda to make America's
    forests healthy and productive again.
        In March, I announced new action to reduce burdens on the U.S. pork
    and poultry industries, allowing for greater efficiency while
    maintaining food safety standards. We are extending waivers allowing
    existing establishments to maintain higher line speeds and are moving
    towards rulemaking to make these standards permanent for more pork and
    poultry plants. We have also withdrawn overly burdensome proposals
    related to Salmonella in poultry as we reconsider more effective ways
    to achieve public health objectives. These reforms will strengthen U.S.
    food production, reduce costs for producers, and support a more
    resilient supply chain--all without compromising food safety.
        Finally, a major part of my role is overseeing the Department's
    sixteen nutrition programs, on which USDA spends approximately $400
    million a day. While these programs are critical, the American taxpayer
    expects their generosity to be valued and for programs to be executed
    with integrity and accountability. With this in mind, upon my swearing
    in, I sent a letter to states and Tribal, Territory, and local
    government partners noting a suite of guiding principles, each of which
    can serve as catalysts for change, allowing the Department--and the
    American taxpayer--to better serve vulnerable families and communities.
    One of the guiding principles outlined in the letter is to make it
    clear to states that they must ensure Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program (SNAP) benefits are provided with clear expectations that those
    who can work, do. It is important to remind states that under current
    law Congress conditioned the receipt of benefits by able-bodied adults
    without dependents on satisfying work requirements. Many states
    continue to abuse the system by requesting work requirement waivers
    despite a national unemployment rate of 4.2% in April 2025. I applaud
    this Committee for also prioritizing employment and look forward to our
    continued partnership to get able-bodied adults off the sidelines and
    into the world of work.
        Equally important is making certain nutrition benefits are
    preserved for those legally in our great country. The Department has
    reminded all state agencies to enhance identity and immigration
    verification when determining eligibility for programs like SNAP. A
    recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report indicated a
    staggering $10.5 billion in improper SNAP payments were made in Fiscal
    Year 2023 alone. This was about twelve percent of total SNAP payments
    that year, nearly $30 million per day. The inadequate verification of
    an applicant's identity and citizenship by states is specifically
    highlighted as contributing to the improper payments of SNAP funds.
        American agriculture began 4 centuries ago, when neighbors born
    across an ocean came together in a New World to clear fields, build
    homes, and plant crops on the edge of wilderness. That same spirit
    animates us now. Our farmers who tend the fields do not rest from their
    labor--neither do our ranchers and livestock producers who steward
    their lands, herds, and flocks--and neither do the American mothers and
    fathers who rely upon American agriculture to feed their families.
    American agriculture does not rest--and neither will we at USDA. I'm
    proud to be at the helm of the People's Department, at the table with
    President Trump, and fighting for the most American of industries--
    agriculture.

        The Chairman. Thank you for your important testimony today,
    Secretary.
        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 to as many questions as possible,
    and I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
        Madam Secretary, I would like to talk with you about an
    issue that poses an imminent threat to the pork industry and
    livestock production overall. State mandates like California's
    Proposition 12 are misguided, not based in sound science, and
    create arbitrary production standards for pork producers.
        In addition to being burdensome for producers, the final
    pork product is also more expensive for consumers. Pork prices
    in California have risen 20 percent on average since the
    implementation of Prop 12, and the cost of constructing Prop
    12-compliant barns are estimated to be at least $3,400 to
    $4,000 per sow. With costs like these, neither the producer or
    the consumer are winning.
        As we all know, the Supreme Court has weighed in on this
    matter and asked Congress to act. We attempted to do so in the
    Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 (H.R. 8467, 118th
    Congress). The language we included would ensure that livestock
    producers only have to abide by production standards in the
    state in which they reside, protecting both the rights of an
    individual producer and states' rights.
        I know you understand this issue well. Can you talk about
    the negative impact that state mandates like Prop 12 have had
    on the pork industry and the dangerous precedent it sets for
    all livestock production? And what is the risk for both
    producers and consumers if we do not act?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a
    really important question. It is one that came up a lot in my
    confirmation process on the Senate side of the House. And one
    thing I will note is that no one is more of a believer in
    Federalism and the Tenth Amendment and our Founders' vision of
    the states' rights to be able to be their own laboratories of
    innovation. So I will say that first.
        But second, when those ideas and those rules and those laws
    begin to impact other states in such a negative way, that is
    not what our Founders intended. That is not constitutional, and
    it is not okay. The extreme impact of Prop 12, especially on
    our pork producers, I believe this is a bipartisan question. We
    may not all agree in this room, but I think most agree, even on
    the Democratic side of the House, that it cannot stand. So I
    stand in full support of your effort.
        We are also looking at things we could potentially do at
    the Department to mitigate for some of the consequences of this
    rule that, again, California has the right to do what
    California wants to do. But the minute that crosses the border
    and begins to, again, compromise in such a significant way our
    pork producers, we need to act.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you, Secretary. I would like to
    turn to a topic that is of increasing concern for our
    producers, and that is the availability of agricultural labor.
    Last Congress, the Committee convened the Agricultural Labor
    Working Group, led by co-chairs Rick Crawford and Don Davis,
    and they are working on turning their bipartisan
    recommendations into legislation, but a legislative solution
    will not address the immediate needs of the industry.
        I was encouraged by President Trump's comments at the April
    10 Cabinet meeting where he said he would work with the
    agriculture industry and alluded to a process by which there
    would be some sort of flexibility provided to farmers and a new
    process to allow undocumented workers and their jobs to come
    back in legally. However, recent enforcement actions have begun
    to impact and even target agricultural operations, and yet
    there is still a lack of clarity for producers.
        As I am sure you know, these employers have a limited
    ability to question an employee's documentation and are unaware
    of any issues with their status until an I-9 audit is
    conducted. What, if anything, are you, Secretary Chavez-
    DeRemer, and Secretary Noem doing to follow through on the
    President's comments and making sure that enforcement is not
    impacting food security, which I think we both agree is a
    matter of national security?
        Secretary Rollins. No, that is right, sir. And in fact, I
    was with the President yesterday in the Oval Office. I spoke
    with him again this morning. This was one of the issues that we
    spoke about. This President's commitment to ensuring that all
    laws are followed remains paramount, but also combining that
    with understanding the significant challenges to our ag
    producers in finding the labor that is necessary to produce,
    not only for their farms to be able to basically stay in
    business, but also, to your point, this is much bigger than
    that. This is a national security issue. And the moment that
    America is not able to feed ourselves any longer, that is the
    moment that we are no longer the superpower, the preeminent
    superpower in the world. So that is how very seriously I take
    this.
        As you mentioned, on April 10 at our Cabinet meeting, the
    President himself brought this issue up and specifically
    directed Secretary Chavez-DeRemer, who herself is from a
    farming background, who is our Labor Secretary, along with
    myself and Secretary Noem, our DHS Secretary, who also is from
    a farming and ranching background, to ensure that we are doing
    everything we can to make sure that these farmers and ranchers
    have the labor that they need.
        So the President is hyper-focused on that, understanding
    the challenges currently at hand, but please know that we are
    in constant daily communication about how to solve for that
    quickly, while also working in partnership with this Committee.
    And, Mr. Chairman, your leadership on this has been really,
    really important, as have so many sitting in the room today.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary. My time has expired.
        And I will recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota, the
    Ranking Member, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Craig. Thank you so much.
        Over the past several months, I have met dozens of family
    farmers and producers across this country. They have
    represented operations of all different types and sizes.
    Despite their many differences, there was a common theme
    between all these meetings, the lack of certainty. Every
    farmer, grower, rancher, and producer has said that they need
    more certainty. And despite this Administration's promise to
    put farmers first, we have seen that many of the actions are
    actually harming them.
        We have seen trade wars increase instability in farm
    country and surrender market access to our competitors, like
    Brazil. We have seen USDA programs that farmers rely on for
    income frozen or eliminated with little to no explanation. And
    on the ground in districts like mine, local FSA, NRCS, and
    Forest Service staff are being let go. Wait-lists are getting
    longer, and fewer USDA staff are available to help family
    farmers navigate the agency's incredibly popular and impactful
    programs. And the Administration wants to gut a title of the
    farm bill in reconciliation.
        I have three questions, so I may have to reclaim my time
    during some of your answers because I want to make sure to get
    to all of them. Let me start by asking about the agency, Madam
    Secretary. Before the Department moved forward with its layoffs
    restructuring plan, did the Department carefully analyze what
    these folks did and the impact these cuts would have on farm
    country?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, thank you, ma'am, and certainly
    had a great visit to your state, Sugar Beet Farm, recently.
        The bottom line is this, that no one has been fired. There
    were 15,000 USDA employees who took the resignation, the
    deferred resignation, but no one was fired, so I think that is
    really important. In a normal year, Madam, we will have 8,000
    to 10,000 attrition rates. So while I think there is a big
    narrative about how these important people have been fired,
    that was not the case.
        What we have done, and yes, to answer your question, is a
    very careful review. Yesterday in the Oval Office we talked
    about our wildland firefighters. They are at 96 percent full,
    meaning we are ahead of where the Joe Biden USDA was last year
    at this time to prepare for wildfire season.
        To your point on the FSA offices, what I have asked every
    Member to do--and I know you have my cell phone. I welcome
    every Member, Republican or Democratic, to call me directly
    with specific examples, and we can get on that right away
    because that forward-facing part of USDA with our rural
    communities and with our farmers is a priority to me.
        Ms. Craig. Thank you.
        Secretary Rollins. So if you could help us solve for that I
    would appreciate that.
        Ms. Craig. Thank you. I am going to go to my second
    question. Thank you so much. Look, just to be clear, if you had
    reviewed this, you would have made sure that folks who are
    trying to stop bird flu in our country weren't allowed to
    retire. In fact, I ran a big business for a lot of years before
    I came to Congress, and voluntary retirements, often, exactly
    the wrong people retire. That is why you make a more thorough
    review of these things before you just say everybody who wants
    to retire, retire.
        But nonetheless, let's go on to trade. Forty percent of my
    district is covered in corn and soy every summer. Since we are
    losing market access in China, what markets are you targeting
    to help U.S. soy producers compensate for the market access
    that they have lost?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I appreciate that question. And I
    know in your comments you mentioned the farmers in trade and
    the uncertainty, and we certainly realize that. We are very
    aggressively, specifically on our row croppers, but to soy, for
    example, really working to expand the markets. Last week, I was
    in Italy. Interestingly, Italy, of course, the Government of
    Giorgia Meloni is very aligned with President Trump. They are
    very open. But Italy, again, as an example, imports about $75
    billion in agriculture products. Only $1.7 billion comes from
    our American farmers and ranchers, and this is one of our best
    friends around the world.
        So we had great conversations, specific to soy, on how we
    get--which is the number one import but not nearly enough--how
    we get more of that into Italy, into the EU, into Japan, into
    India, into Vietnam----
        Ms. Craig. Madam Secretary, I am sorry, I have 40 seconds.
        Secretary Rollins.--and we will continue to do that.
        Ms. Craig. I am going to reclaim my time.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Craig. China represents 50 percent of the U.S. soybean
    market. I am not going to ask, but I believe it would have been
    a better strategy to go get these markets before you do an
    across-the-board trade war that decimates 50 percent of the
    market.
        Secretary Rollins. About 1 hour ago the President announced
    a deal with China, so that is being solved.
        Ms. Craig. So that is not a question.
        And then, last question really is about HPAI. Do you
    support--look, I have a bunch of turkey growers in Minnesota.
    Don't even get me started on the MAHA report, Secretary
    Kennedy. Do you support developing a robust vaccine strategy,
    and will you commit to using vaccines to combat animal disease?
        Secretary Rollins. We are looking at all of the above. We
    have $100 million committed. We have 417 applications, Ranking
    Member Craig, that we are currently working through. Vaccines,
    therapeutics, we are looking at everything across the board.
        Ms. Craig. Thank you, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Secretary Rollins, thank you for taking time to testify
    before the Committee today and discuss the issues that are
    affecting our farmers back home.
        Last week, I chaired a Subcommittee hearing to discuss
    voluntary conservation programs in the farm bill and the
    improvements Congress can make to ensure that these programs
    truly work for producers that they are intended to benefit.
        I heard from a variety of witnesses representing both
    producers and technical assistance providers, and they agreed
    with reinvesting the unobligated Inflation Reduction Act (Pub.
    L. 117-169) funds into the baseline of the farm bill without
    the climate sideboards is a necessary step to ensure that these
    programs reach more producers.
        To that end, Madam Secretary, I have heard from many of my
    producers back home that the Climate-Smart Commodities Grant
    process under the Biden Administration was confusing and left
    little room for producer choice. Can you share with the
    Committee what you are doing at USDA to revamp this program and
    to streamline the application process for producers?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir. Thank you. That remains a top
    priority for us. We have already made announcements on how to
    make it easier, cleaner, and better, and to put our producers
    first. We have asked several applicants to reapply based on
    that as a priority in driving that forward. If you hear
    anything different, Congressman, please let us know. It is
    those anecdotes that help us get better. But yes, sir, we are
    solving for that every day at USDA.
        Mr. Lucas. It sounds like the Advancing Markets for
    Producers Initiative is focused on making sure producers come
    first and that USDA is a partner alongside producers rather
    than a dictator. Does that sound like an accurate assessment of
    what you and the Department are attempting to do?
        Secretary Rollins. That is accurate. We have asked people
    to reapply if and when they have at least 65 percent of their
    application focused on producers.
        Mr. Lucas. In my remaining time, I wanted to take a moment
    to thank you for the Emergency Livestock Relief Program funds
    that went out the door last month. Oklahoma has experienced
    several severe fires in recent years that have impacted
    hundreds of producers across the state. And under the Biden
    Administration, it took an average of 13 months for disaster
    funds to reach producers.
        However, Congress passed the American Relief Act of 2025
    (Pub. L. 118-158) in December, and producers have received ELRP
    assistance in May. That is a significant improvement, and I
    know my constituents are grateful. Madam Secretary, have you
    received any immediate feedback on the rollout of these funds?
        Secretary Rollins. We have been so grateful--realizing it
    is imperfect, but we have been so grateful at the response. I
    just want to say this morning at 6:00 a.m., I was on a
    conference call with the team talking about the next round of
    funds, 6:00 a.m. Last night at 10:30, I was on a call with a
    couple of other Congressmen talking about it. We are so
    committed to working 20 hours a day, sometimes more, to ensure
    that this money moves as quickly and as efficiently as
    possible. And I am really proud of the team for being able to
    execute on that. And by the way, these are both politicals and
    careers, which I just want to lift up.
        Mr. Lucas. And I want to thank you for increasing funding
    to reimburse states for food safety inspections. Oklahoma
    administers top-notch food safety inspections, and I know my
    constituents back home view it as a great example of the
    Federal Government working in tandem with the state. Madam
    Secretary, what additional steps do you think Congress needs to
    take to ensure that state food inspection programs run smoothly
    and that the funds USDA released are--and of course, the funds
    are greatly appreciated, but there is a role here in Congress
    to ensure the longevity of cooperative partnerships and state
    programs.
        Secretary Rollins. I think that it continues to be of
    paramount importance, especially, as I mentioned in my opening
    remarks, I think as Ranking Member Craig mentioned, I think as
    Chairman Thompson mentioned, that food security is national
    security. And just last week, if you weren't tracking, we
    arrested someone that potentially had come in across the
    borders with some agroterrorism products that could potentially
    have really disrupted our food supply. So the food safety
    inspection system specific to the states continues to be a
    priority.
        And again, anecdotally, if you see something different or
    have suggestions, please let me know, top of the list for us.
        Mr. Lucas. And my last thought is thank you for the very
    aggressive approach on the screwworm flies.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. Being a livestock producer in Oklahoma, not that
    far from your stomping grounds, we are really close to the
    problem right now.
        Secretary Rollins. We are really close. I will be making a
    major announcement next week on the very next step, which will
    be probably more aggressive than anyone in recent history on
    the New World screwworm. And I think you and hopefully the
    entire Committee will be very pleased.
        Mr. Lucas. I and my constituents say thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Mr. David Scott from Georgia for 5 minutes.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, you have advocated stopping the funding
    going to the 1890s African American colleges and universities.
    Do you realize the damage, backwardness, and evil that you have
    done?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, first of all, your premise is
    completely wrong. In the last Administration, I was in
    President Trump's West Wing, and fully funding the HBCUs was my
    project. I stood in the Oval Office when that happened. I, to
    date, continue to be, alongside President Trump, one of the
    biggest advocates for our HBCUs and our 1890 projects, so I am
    not sure what information you have, sir, but that is definitely
    not me. And you can look at my long history of supporting those
    efforts. I think they are very important.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. So if I understand you
    correctly, you support this vital program?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. You have not frozen or
    advocated freezing the money?
        Secretary Rollins. No.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. You are full steam ahead?
        Secretary Rollins. Full steam ahead. Now, we are looking at
    every program at USDA, so as part of the larger effort to
    analyze and evaluate, yes. But no, our support is paramount for
    those projects. The President has been unequivocal in his
    support, and we will continue in that direction.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. So in February, you did not
    advocate suspending funding for the 1890s African American
    student scholarship program?
        Secretary Rollins. Not in total, sir. It was part of the
    larger review of every program, including the farming program,
    to ensure that we were using taxpayer dollars to their highest
    and best use.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Okay. The reason that I am very
    concerned about this is that this is the most significant
    bipartisan Democratic and Republican program here. Not only do
    we support it, but this Committee voted to increase the funding
    to $100 million from the $80 million that we got in the last
    farm bill. We need you to help us secure that. This is the most
    important product.
        Let me tell you why this is so important historically.
    There was a general in the Civil War that devastated the South.
    William Tecumseh Sherman went through here and devastated. But
    this same general laid out the program for revitalization of
    the South, and he went to President Lincoln and said, ``In each
    of the Confederate States, we are going to put land-grant
    colleges. It is the land. It is the economy. It is the strength
    of the South. '' And they put forward this program.
        But there was no room for the African American community
    until, in the 1890s, they brought forth the ``separate but
    equal'' doctrine. Everywhere they had put the White land-grant
    schools, they had to put the Black ones. And that is the growth
    of this.
        So I wanted to share with you the history. I am glad that
    you are on our team and helping us. This is great news. Thank
    you.
        Secretary Rollins. Sir, thank you for that. And I will say
    I am a proud graduate of Texas A&M University and spent a good
    amount of time at Prairie View A&M about 45 minutes away. I am
    really proud of that school. In fact, our Vice Chancellor of
    Texas A&M and head of the ag school, Jeff Sable, is here. He
    was my meats professor 30 years ago at Texas A&M, now running
    the whole kit and caboodle. So no, we remain very committed and
    understanding----
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Great. And I am a graduate of
    the great alma mater, Florida A&M University.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. I wouldn't be here if they
    didn't give me that scholarship.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        This Penn State land-grant university graduate recognizes
    Mr. Austin Scott from Georgia for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Madam Secretary, I appreciate your commitment to the
    1890 colleges. That is important to all of us. It has
    historically been done in a very bipartisan manner. And I might
    also mention that my colleague, David Scott, I believe you were
    in school with a Donald J. Trump at one point of your life. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes, at the Wharton School of
    Finance, and he helped to get that scholarship program. It was
    under his Administration that we passed it.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, sir.
        Secretary Rollins. He is very committed.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. All right. I want to bring
    this up, Madam Secretary, and I am asking for your help with
    this. And what I am asking for is transparency in this. And so
    you will recall that in the American Rescue Plan (Pub. L. 117-
    2), there was $3 billion that was put in for people. And if you
    owed any money to the USDA, you were going to receive 120
    percent of whatever your loan balance was. There was one race
    that was excluded from that payment. The courts ruled that it
    was unconstitutional, that you could not discriminate and
    exclude a race from those payments. That money was--I think it
    was four out of four Federal judges said you could not exclude
    based on race.
        So that same money was then transferred into the Inflation
    Reduction Act. And in the Inflation Reduction Act, they did two
    things. One of them was the Farm Loan Borrower's Relief
    Program, and basically how any loan who was more than 60 days
    late got brought current. So if you were 5 years late on your
    farm payment, you got 5 years' worth of payments, plus the next
    payment made. Now, if you cashed in your retirement plan to
    make your farm payment, you didn't get anything. But anyway,
    they brought those loans current and plus 60 days.
        And my understanding is there is questions around the 1099.
    It is clearly taxable income since there was not a bankruptcy,
    and I just want to make sure that we are working with the IRS.
    My understanding is two separate 1099s may have been issued on
    that, and making sure that that is taxable income by law.
        But then there was about $2.2 billion that was paid out,
    and they were discrimination payments. Over 40 percent of those
    payments went to people who had never farmed, and they ranged
    between $5 and $500,000 in the payments. And my understanding
    is a third-party vendor was used to make the determination of
    discrimination or not discriminated against, and that third-
    party vendor no longer exists, nor did they exist prior to the
    program being put in. Fifty percent of the payments went to
    Alabama and Mississippi. Almost 50 percent of the payments went
    to people that never farmed.
        And I just want to make sure that we are looking into this
    and where those payments went to, who they went to, and that it
    is going to be public record who received those payments.
        And so I have met with your people. Just any comments on
    that would be appreciated. But just, again, looking for a
    commitment to continue to work to find out if there was fraud
    in those payments.
        Secretary Rollins. Congressman, what I have seen in the
    last 118 days, since I was sworn in, in mid-February has blown
    my mind. It is stunning the amount of money that was pushed out
    in the last USDA without accountability, without understanding
    of where it was going, just the pure sums are absolutely mind-
    boggling. So we are working feverishly to try to get our arms
    around it, and we will continue to do so. And I would so
    welcome your partnership in that as we are moving that forward.
    But, yes, you have my 100 percent commitment.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. One hundred percent. I want to
    know who was the vendor that got paid the ten percent of that
    money. That is a lot of money that someone got paid.
        Next, can you just give us an update on the block grant
    applications process? I represent the State of Georgia. As you
    know, we were devastated by the storms. But if you could update
    us on the block grants, I would very much appreciate that.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir. The block grants are moving
    forward. Georgia has been at the front of the line. They have
    been extremely efficient. Their leadership has been great,
    Tyler Harper and the whole team there. We have met with your
    team from Georgia four different times. That money is likely to
    move in the next week or 2.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much. And I
    look very much forward to you in making sure that there is no
    fraud or criminal activity in that other payment program.
        Secretary Rollins. Great.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you.
        Secretary Rollins. Sir, we will follow up with that. Thank
    you.
        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 the
    Ranking Member, for this important hearing. Thank you,
    Secretary Rollins, for being here. It is good to see you again
    since the swearing-in. And I want to remind you of that the
    offer I made then and still stands, would like you to come out
    to California and show you some of the most productive
    agricultural land in the country. Last year, $59.5 billion at
    the farm-gate, the largest agricultural state in the nation,
    has been for decades.
        I believe, and I think maybe there is a large consensus in
    this room, that food is a national security issue. It doesn't
    often get treated that way, but it is. I know from a lot of
    perspectives, not only the people that I represent, but I am a
    third-generation family farmer in California. And I think it is
    important to note that California has over 70,000 farms.
    Ranches are remarkably productive. Seventy percent of these
    farms are less than 100 acres. Eighty-nine percent are less
    than 500 acres, yet we produce 50 percent of the nation's
    fruits and vegetables, 80 percent of the citrus production, 20
    percent of the milk supply, and more than 400 different
    agriculture commodities. It is truly an amazing story.
        This food production goes towards supporting nearly five
    million Californians who rely on SNAP, who are food-insecure,
    as part of the 47 million Americans that also rely on SNAP as
    their food safety net. And I think we need to work together if
    we are going to get this farm bill done. That is the bottom
    line. That is what we have always done in years past. And our
    farmers and ranchers want to provide for our neighbors and
    communities, and not cut them off from the dinner table.
        That being said, Madam Secretary, I have a couple
    questions. High-path avian flu hit the entire country. In
    California, the dairy industry and the poultry industry were
    hard hit. We know it is important that we follow science. You
    said that in your testimony. I think it is important for all of
    those impacted by the avian flu that we go forward with a
    production of a vaccine, being mindful of our trading partners.
        I have a bipartisan letter here, Mr. Chairman, I would like
    to submit for the record on the high-path avian flu.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The letter referred to is located on p. 106.]
        Mr. Costa. Thank you. I would like to know whether or not
    you are committed to continuing to work on a vaccination
    program for the dairy industry, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Rollins. I am. One quick clarification to my
    friend from Georgia, the crack team behind me, Mr. Scott, we
    will be finalizing the agreement for Georgia next week. The
    money will move in July, so I just wanted to make sure to
    clarify.
        But yes, sir, we remain wholly, wholly committed to looking
    down every single path, under every single hood, doing
    everything we can on this high-path to try to contain it. It
    obviously has jumped to the dairy industry, could jump again to
    another industry. It is of paramount importance we do that.
        Mr. Costa. Well, and the possibility that it could affect
    humans is a great concern to all of us. Let me go on.
        Secretary Rollins. That is exactly right.
        Mr. Costa. Next question involves market assistance for
    specialty program crops. I have had a number of farmers in my
    area that have applied for that. There has been confusion with
    the FSA offices. They are still reaching out to determine
    whether or not the payments from the market assistance
    specialty crop program are going to take place. Could you
    comment on this?
        Secretary Rollins. I will. I want to make sure I get it
    right. So let me flip in my handy-dandy little folder here.
        We have allocated $2.65 billion to this program, so it is a
    significant priority. That is what I wanted to check.
        Mr. Costa. For the purpose of my time, why don't we follow
    through with your office on these constituents who have been
    calling my office, and we can try to resolve this problem?
        Secretary Rollins. That would be great. We would welcome
    that.
        Mr. Costa. Food for Peace has been an important bipartisan
    effort since its inception in 1954. I am very disappointed on
    what happened with USAID, and I don't know how you folks are
    going to be able to implement the responsibility as the
    President has outlined. Do you agree the program should
    continue for USDA? It not only helps people who are food-
    insecure throughout the world, it helps America's view, and it
    helps American agriculture. What is your position on that?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, well, we are reevaluating all of
    it. I will tell you that we have 14 of the Food for Progress
    projects remain active in 17 countries and funded. So the ones
    that align with the America First agenda, the ones that make
    sense to put America first and for our community, we are
    continuing those. And that is the reorganization and the
    refocus the President asked us to do, and to the American
    people.
        Mr. Costa. Well, more discussion to carry on here. Also,
    research. Research has been an important component with our
    land-grant universities. I will talk to you later and send you
    a letter, but there are important programs at USDA stations
    working together with California agriculture, and I am very
    concerned about the reduction of these research programs. They
    have done so much for so many.
        Secretary Rollins. The research programs continue to be a
    priority. What we are looking at, that the ones that aren't as
    effective, the facilities are behind, they don't make sense, it
    is a waste of taxpayer dollars. But overall, the USDA remains
    extremely committed to the important research that our land-
    grants do and partake. You will see an extension and expansion
    in some of that but ensuring that it makes sense.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Costa. To be continued. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you so much. And look forward to
    connecting with your office specifically on the specialty
    crops.
        The Chairman. I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman
    from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Rollins, for being here today.
        Farmers across Tennessee and the nation want America to be
    healthy and are a critical part of the solution, but are also
    very concerned about the Make America Healthy Again
    Commission's report's potential implications on the agriculture
    industry, specifically relating to pesticides and herbicides.
    Unfortunately, the report sows seeds of doubt about our food
    system and the hardworking farmers who feed the planet.
        On top of that, outside USDA's participation on the
    commission, our boots-on-the-ground farmers weren't included in
    the development of the report. Do you have plans to remedy this
    and make certain farmers are not only included but are at the
    center of the discussion and decisions moving forward?
        Secretary Rollins. My commitment is just that. And I have
    worked and have been unequivocal on the record how important
    these crop protection programs are, pesticides specifically,
    glyphosate and others more specifically, and the President has
    as well. So we will continue that. There is no doubt that we
    could do better on the next report, and my commitment is to do
    everything I can to ensure that our ag community is better
    represented.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Well, I know that will make Tennessee Farm
    Bureau very happy, as well as many other farm bureaus and
    farmers, so thank you for that.
        There is probably no industry with more uncertainty than
    agriculture, but there is one certainty in this Committee.
    There will always be vigorous and lively debate over the SNAP
    program. And I have been trying to get answers to a question
    for years now about SNAP eligibility for non-citizens. And your
    USDA manual has a list of 15 criteria for non-citizen groups
    such as refugees, individuals granted asylum, Cuban, Haitian
    entrants, all children under 18.
        So we are often told that it is very difficult to be a
    recipient of SNAP if you are not a legal citizen, but according
    to USDA's own policy, that would appear that that is not
    necessarily the case. A number that we hear, and I am sure it
    is a moving target, is about 42 million Americans are on SNAP.
    Is that still a good number?
        Secretary Rollins. That is the correct number.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. And can you tell me roughly what
    percentage of non-American citizens are on the SNAP program?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, it should be zero. If it is not,
    we are moving that direction. About a month ago, we put out a
    very significant statement on this. This is news to me. We are
    running it down right now, and we will circle back.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. I am sure that you can see the copy
    of the eligibility, and it is immediate eligibility with no
    waiting period for the group. And there are 15--I didn't read
    them all. And I guess I just want to know where that money
    comes from because we have to create a farm bill.
        I am an advocate of the SNAP program. When I bring this up,
    people think I am anti-SNAP. That is not true. Don't want
    anyone to go hungry. I want everybody who needs to be fed to be
    fed. I think one issue we have argued over during
    reconciliation was able-bodied people who can work, with many
    exceptions. And I think it was misrepresented who those people
    were because we make it pretty clear that if you are disabled,
    if you are a pregnant mother, if you have young children, if
    you are elderly this doesn't apply to you.
        But it is an issue that is pretty well received across all
    political spectrums, whether you are Democratic, Independent,
    or Republican. Roughly about 80 percent of all those groups
    think that able-bodied people who can work should work. And I
    hope that that is something we can get in the farm bill.
        But I would actually like to see a number. If all children
    under 18 that are in this country illegally, and we had 20
    million people cross the border in the past 4 years, I don't
    know what, maybe 25 percent were under 18. According to these
    guidelines, they are eligible without a waiting period on SNAP.
    So I would really like to get some clarity as we write a farm
    bill and try to budget for the nutrition program, just what
    part of the pie that consumes.
        Secretary Rollins. Sir, I am told that that language you
    are reading is Congressional language out of the Congressional
    statute. So that is something that would need to be fixed by
    this body. But we are obviously looking at it, and certainly
    within our own USDA, ensuring that American taxpayer dollars
    support Americans.
        Mr. DesJarlais. And I would like to think that most people
    would like to see their American tax dollars go to American
    citizens. And then if there is some other solution to deal with
    the immigration problem we now face, then we need to know what
    that is. But we need to know what those numbers are as we plan
    our farm bill.
        Secretary Rollins. One other thing I think is important
    just because this is such an important conversation is that we
    did ask for the first time of any Republican or Democratic USDA
    for the exact data that you are asking for from the states
    because the states are implementing this. So hopefully we will,
    for the first time, be able to answer that question.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
    McGovern, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
        Madam Secretary, I have to be honest. I am deeply troubled
    by what this Administration and this Congress are doing to so
    many programs that help vulnerable people and small farms. We
    live in the richest country in the history of the world. We
    have 47 million Americans who are hungry or food-insecure. That
    is a scandal. And hunger is getting worse under this
    Administration.
        We actually spent a few years developing a roadmap for
    ending hunger in this country. The Biden-Harris Administration
    hosted the second-ever bipartisan White House conference on
    Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. And out of it came a national
    strategy that called upon every sector of society to do their
    part to end hunger once and for all.
        And now Congressional Republicans are cutting food programs
    indiscriminately with apparent support from the Trump
    Administration. I mean, the Administration has already taken
    $500 million away from food banks. And President Trump's budget
    goes after WIC, slashing the food budgets of pregnant women,
    breastfeeding moms, and young kids.
        Meanwhile, your Department has cut farmer programs, too,
    like the Local Food for Schools Program, Local Food Purchase
    Assistance Program, and the Leahy Farm to School Program. Your
    Department has frozen funds obligated to farmers, canceled
    signed contracts, and purged career staff who work directly
    with our farmers.
        And internationally, this Administration is torching our
    global food security programs like Food for Peace and the
    McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
    They are both eliminated in the White House budget. You said
    that food security is national security. It is mind-boggling
    that the Administration would cut those programs. And China is
    filling the void. The bottom line is that these cuts are
    hurting people. They are hurting consumers, hungry people, our
    local economy, and hurting our farmers.
        And so, Madam Secretary, I would urge you to read the
    national strategy that came out of the White House Conference
    on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. And I hope I can persuade you
    to make meaningfully combating hunger a priority because things
    are going in the wrong direction.
        But today, I need to talk about what small farmers in my
    State of Massachusetts are up against. We have been losing
    family farms in America over the last 50 years. And there are a
    lot of reasons for it, and it is complicated. But what should
    not be complicated is whether USDA has a responsibility to do
    something, to try to stop it. Over the years, we have heard
    from Secretaries of Agriculture like Earl Butz, who said, ``Do
    farmers get big or get out?'' Or your predecessor, Sonny
    Perdue, who said, ``In America, the big get bigger and the
    small go out.'' I couldn't believe he said that. I guess a
    simple yes or no question. Do you agree with that
    characterization?
        Secretary Rollins. No, sir----
        Mr. McGovern. Okay.
        Secretary Rollins.--I do not agree with that. And in fact,
    we rolled out a significant small family farm program 3 weeks
    ago, across the board, ensuring that these farmers can survive
    and thrive----
        Mr. McGovern. Well----
        Secretary Rollins.--like never before.
        Mr. McGovern. I am relieved to hear you say that you don't
    share that philosophy because right now, small farmers in New
    England are counting on you, right? Appropriations Ranking
    Member Rosa DeLauro and I teamed up at the end of last year to
    craft a disaster supplemental package specifically targeted to
    help small specialty crop farmers in our region, plus Alaska
    and Hawaii, who need to be made whole after catastrophic
    infrastructure and crop losses in the last few years. We have
    had unprecedented floods, freezes, and storms, and our farmers
    are at risk of losing everything. The modern farm safety net
    does not catch them. It was woven for farms that are much
    bigger or only grow a few crops.
        Traditional diversified operations, meaning local fruit and
    veggie farms that feed their communities, do not have any
    safety net because the Federal Government has never adequately
    created one for them. When disaster strikes, they are on their
    own. That is why we created this Farm Recovery and Support
    Block Grant to finally change that.
        I am terribly concerned right now with how your Department
    has been making decisions about the rollout of the program so
    far, and I hope that you would agree that farmers and not
    bureaucrats or politicians in Washington should be deciding on
    which disaster relief programs best meet their needs.
        I know there is ongoing conversations between state
    agriculture commissioners and the Department, but I would urge
    you to listen to the ag commissioners, and I would just ask you
    to, this is not a trick question. Will you commit to working
    with us and our state agriculture commissioners to make sure we
    don't leave our small farmers behind? Because this is a really
    big concern in Massachusetts and throughout New England.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir, and I have had multiple
    conversations with Congresswoman DeLauro and your ag
    commissioners. We have met with your state eight different
    times on this, and we will be rolling that out very, very
    quickly.
        Mr. McGovern. Yes. I think there is a concern based on some
    of these conversations that the USDA is not quite understanding
    the uniqueness of some of these smalls in New England, and a
    lot of them are afraid that they will not qualify for any
    relief. And again, we passed this in the supplemental bill. We
    put it in the supplemental bill to address the needs of these
    small farmers.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks for joining us, Madam Secretary. I
    appreciate you being here, and we have a lot to do.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. As you know, we have very large and
    destructive wildfires all over the West, especially in my
    districts in California. The Paradise Fire, the Dixie Fire, 1
    million acres, it is on and on. So we know the overgrowth of
    fuel and the declining forest health due to the overcrowding of
    the tree population is a big part of that. So where does the
    overgrowth of fuel come from? Lack of management.
        What we also have as an issue is unkept roads on Federal
    lands make it basically where you can't even enter, whether it
    is private lands or Forest Service roads. We have the problem
    with these blocked roads. One of the areas I would highlight or
    lowlight is the Mendocino National Forest in northern
    California. In the last couple decades, 97 percent of that unit
    has burned. Think about that a moment, 97 percent of a given
    forest has burned in a not that long period of time.
        So what the issue is, is they are not maintaining their
    roads, so therefore, private parties can't get on their land.
    Forest Service, if they decide they are going to do any work,
    can't get on the land. And they will tell us that, well, we
    don't have enough money in the pot to maintain the roads, but
    they have the money in the rest of the pots to do other things
    that they can't do. So maybe they need to move the money from
    the other pot to getting the roads fixed first so we can even
    enter the lands. So that is some of the frustration there.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Last Congress, we were told in a field hearing
    by the Forest Service, we have more money than we have ever had
    after some of the spending programs under the Biden
    Administration. Yet in the same sentence say, we need more
    money in order to process a particular sale that is being
    talked about. So do we have any idea where the money is going
    to be spent overall to do catastrophic fire prevention in
    Forest Service? Do you see much happening there?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, 100 percent. And I was in the Oval
    Office yesterday with the President talking about this very
    issue. You will see something else coming out tomorrow from the
    White House on this very issue. We are 96 percent full on our
    hiring for the fire season, which, again, is ahead of where
    Biden was a year ago. So if there is a narrative that we are
    not fully funding, it couldn't be more wrong. We already have
    an 8+ percent timber increase in production with a goal of
    getting to 4 billion acre-feet over the next few years, which
    will solve for so much of this.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Good.
        Secretary Rollins. So this President is--I am very
    encouraged by his interest in this, and I think we are going to
    be able to really make some real progress for the first time in
    30 years.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks so much. We really, really need it
    because we are way behind on 193 million acres that Forest
    Service has under their purview, and that some of these units
    are proud of a few loads of firewood, not the amount of boards
    we need to be moving.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes. That is right.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Let me talk about specialty crops real quick
    here, too. In California, we have lots of almonds, walnuts,
    prunes, peaches. Many things that are grown in California
    aren't grown anywhere else in the U.S. or in any significant
    number. So I am really pleased that the Marketing Assistance
    for Specialty Crops, that you are boosting that significantly,
    which means a lot for helping move these products, since if we
    don't grow them in California, we are probably going to have to
    import them somewhere.
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. LaMalfa. So how is the timeline going for the continued
    rollout of the MASC program?
        Secretary Rollins. We are moving very, very quickly. Of
    course, everything is under review in partnership with the
    White House, and so we are currently in review phase, but
    hopefully very soon that second tranche will begin to move,
    understanding how important this is, especially for the smaller
    farms, which really reflect the specialty crop industry.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, I am excited for that tranche, thank
    you.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, you are welcome.
        Mr. LaMalfa. One final thought here. On the north coast
    just above the Bay Area, there is this Point Reyes Seashore
    National Park. I am pretty sure you are aware of what is going
    on there.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
        Mr. LaMalfa. We have had long-time, multi-, five or six
    generation farmers and ranchers there that were approached in
    about 1960 because the government wanted their land to form a
    park. They finally struck a deal, say, hey, we will sell after
    a lot of browbeating and threat of eminent domain. They said,
    ``Okay, we will sell you the land, but we would like to lease
    it back and farm it and ranch it for dairies, beef, and like
    that.'' And these are organic growers. These are very
    responsible growers that are taking care of that land.
        They have been, over the decades, worn down and finally are
    being kicked off the land unless folks in the Administration
    can help prevent this from happening. And so I beg you, and
    working with Secretary Burgum on that, to help preserve these
    dairies and beef operations because they actually maintain the
    land. I have seen talk where the Park Service, as soon as they
    have accomplished kicking them off, they are going to have to
    hire somebody to graze the land, like their own manager to
    graze it anyway. It makes no sense. So we have them drifting
    out by lawsuit after lawsuit because they have to get NEPAs and
    things.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
        Mr. LaMalfa. They used to get 20 year leases from the Park
    Service. The Park Service has got giant issues there. Not
    completely your bailiwick, but I know you want to support.
    Thank you for helping with that and for helping make sure
    agriculture can thrive as these responsible folks are doing.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, just
    let me say I have just become very aware of this issue in the
    last month and am very focused on it. I had a briefing on it
    yesterday. I would love to talk to you maybe tomorrow and get a
    full download, as I would like to get out to California very
    soon and go meet with them.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks so much. We would love to have you out.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Ms. Adams from North Carolina for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for being here. And let me just say how delighted I
    was to hear about your support for HBCUs. I am HBCU strong. I
    am a proud graduate twice of North Carolina A&T State
    University, an 1890, the largest public HBCU in the nation, so
    I am happy to hear what you said about that, and we will look
    forward to your support.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Adams. But the House Republicans' budget proposes
    shifting SNAP benefit and administrative costs to states. I
    served in the State House of North Carolina for 20 years, so I
    know the challenges that they have. So the CBO anticipates that
    these cuts could lead states to cut all or some food assistance
    for 1.3 million Americans due to the cost shift. Is that right?
    Yes or no?
        Secretary Rollins. I am sorry, ma'am----
        Ms. Adams. Well, that is a yes or no.
        Secretary Rollins. You are talking about the----
        Ms. Adams. That the shifting might cause states to cut all
    or some food assistance.
        Secretary Rollins. Oh, currently under consideration. Well,
    the partnership and the idea of the states, we spend $400
    million a day----
        Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, want I want to----
        Secretary Rollins.--at USDA, and that partnership I think
    is really important, and that is what the leadership of this
    Committee led.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. Let me do this. I have a series of
    questions, and they are pretty much yes or no. So are you in
    support of these unfunded mandates?
        Secretary Rollins. I am in support of the most fiscally
    responsible effort to ensure that we are delivering the right
    amount of aid to the people who need it.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. So let me just say that the CBO has
    confirmed that this is an unfunded mandate, and the states have
    confirmed it, as well as our counties.
        And Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a
    letter from the North Carolina Association of County
    Commissioners that speak to that issue. Madam Secretary----
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you.
        Madam Secretary, are you aware of reports from USDA that
    show that food insecurity has risen 3 years in a row? Yes or
    no?
        Secretary Rollins. Ma'am, we have $42 million on the SNAP
    program. At this point of employment and unemployment, the last
    time, we had $17 million so that program has exponentially
    grown.
        Ms. Adams. Okay.
        Can you give me a yes or no? Okay. well, my time is--let me
    just move on then. Okay. So are you aware that recent USDA
    reports show that grocery prices are expected to increase by
    3.3 percent this year?
        Secretary Rollins. Inflation has gone down for the first
    time since the last Trump Administration was here, so that will
    directly reflect on groceries.
        Ms. Adams. I want a yes or no, but I don't suppose I am
    going to get one. But anyway, listen, we should not be taking
    food assistance from families, revenue from our farmers and
    rural economies at any time, but especially not as costs are so
    high and expected to rise further. SNAP is an effective
    economic stabilizer during downturns, with every dollar
    generating as high as a $1.80 economic impact during these
    downturns. So shifting costs to the states removes that
    economic stabilizing impact because states will see their tax
    base decrease substantially at exactly the moment when more
    spending is most needed.
        So my next question--it is a yes or no if you can do that--
    are you in favor of removing this economic benefit, especially
    for rural and small town cities and the farmers who benefit
    from the sale of their produce in these towns?
        Secretary Rollins. No one in America should go hungry, so
    of course I am in support of programs that are effectively run
    that fill that gap.
        Ms. Adams. All right. I am not sure if you are saying yes
    or no. But anyway, let me just say this. States already--and I
    have heard so many people talk about the skin in the game, and
    states do have skin in the game already through the 50/50
    administrative cost-share and the current monetary penalty that
    they face for a too-high payment error rate. In fact,
    Pennsylvania was sanctioned $40 million last year for having a
    high error rate.
        So let me ask one last question. So with fewer staff--we
    have suggested, for example, that we know that there have been
    cuts, right? So with fewer staff and reduced resources, will
    the USDA be able to endure timely and effective support for
    state agencies as they handle complex policy changes, waivers,
    and investigations into instances of scheming theft and
    technical assistance requests?
        Secretary Rollins. To this, I can say yes.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you.
        Secretary Rollins. You are welcome.
        Ms. Adams. So giving ongoing unfunded and understaffing in
    states causing delays in SNAP application processing, is the
    USDA taking action to help states process applications more
    quickly? Can you say yes or no, ma'am?
        Secretary Rollins. I would need to look into that, but my
    assumption is yes, that we are doing everything we can to help
    move that quickly.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you very much. The USDA's 1890
    scholars----
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia [presiding.] I am sorry, ma'am,
    your time has expired.
        Ms. Adams. Am I out of time?
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Adams. Why is the clock still ticking here? Okay.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Adams. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. All right.
        Ms. Adams. I yield back, and thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, ma'am.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. It is all good, Ms. Adams.
        Mr. Crawford, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary, thank you for being here. I appreciate you
    joining us today.
        A lot of important issues, not the least of which is
    national security for our nation's food supply and our
    producers. Before the recent news of two Chinese nationals
    smuggling what many believe to be a weapon of agroterrorism, I
    had a conversation with DNI Gabbard about getting USDA office
    opened and staffed with ICE personnel to begin working with you
    and others to address matters like this when they come up, and
    hopefully before they ever make it to our borders. I know you
    will work closely with DNI Gabbard as a matter of national
    importance.
        This is a new authority that we tried to get in place under
    the previous Administration. It has actually taken us years to
    get to this point, so I hope that we will be aggressive, and
    these incidents really underscore the need for it.
        Secretary Rollins. Agreed. I will do everything I can.
    Please feel free to call me if you think there is more I can
    do.
        Mr. Crawford. Absolutely. I appreciate that.
        Recently, the National Security Commission on Emerging
    Biotechnology issued a salient report on a multitude of issues
    facing our ag and biotech sector. And when you think about
    areas that need the most attention in our country like our
    supply chains, specialized subject matter expertise, bio-
    surveillance and bioweapons, and the gaps that exist at USDA,
    how do you prioritize those personally, and how can we here in
    Congress help you fill those gaps?
        Secretary Rollins. I think it is of utmost importance. You
    will hear from USDA in the coming week, in fact, in the coming
    couple of days, a renewed, elevated, and amplified focus on
    just that, how we work across this government under Donald
    Trump to ensure we are addressing all of this at warp speed,
    aggressively to solve for it. It really is a national security
    issue, and making sure that people understand what is at stake
    is really important.
        Mr. Crawford. Well, and I am glad we had an opportunity to
    talk about this and make sure that you were aware of that
    authority that does exist in statute that was not acted on in
    the previous Administration. It is most definitely a priority,
    as we have seen in the news lately, and we don't want to get
    caught flat-footed on these incidents of potential
    bioterrorism, agroterrorism.
        Let me shift gears on you just in the remaining 3 minutes
    that I have. I am from Arkansas. You may already know this. I
    represent the largest rice-growing district in the country, in
    addition to lots of soy, corn, wheat, et cetera. Rice farmers
    and rice mills in my district directly benefit from the bulk
    shipments that are part of the Food for Progress program, Pub.
    L. 83-480, and that ships rice, wheat, other commodities in
    bulk in international aid.
        I know the Trump Administration has taken a hard look at
    all foreign aid programs to ensure they are functioning as
    originally intended, which includes serving as a market for
    producers. I was pleased to see the McGovern-Dole applications
    open up a few weeks ago for the 2025 funding. Do you have any
    timeline when we might see Food for Progress, when that might
    be announced?
        Secretary Rollins. I know we have 14 current active Food
    for Progress projects going on right now in 17 countries. Yes,
    you are right, May 9 was the McGovern-Dole announcement. Let me
    find out the exact date on that, sir, probably during the next
    question, and I will respond immediately.
        Mr. Crawford. Perfect. Thank you so much. And I don't have
    any further questions, so I will yield back. Thank you, Madam
    Secretary.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Ms.
    Brown for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ranking
    Member Craig.
        Secretary Rollins, thank you for appearing before the
    Committee today to talk about what has been happening over at
    USDA for the past 6 months.
        I want to start by asking you some questions about the Make
    America Healthy Again movement and the MAHA report that your
    agency, alongside the Department of Health and Human Services,
    released last month. Secretary Rollins, did you personally
    review the MAHA report prior to its publication on May 22nd?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I did.
        Ms. Brown. Okay. Since you reviewed the report before
    publication, did you notice the report cited nonexistent
    studies or that there were a number of missing or broken links
    or that the report misrepresented underlying studies? And if
    so, why did you not ensure they were corrected before the
    report was published? And if not, do you take responsibility
    for the work the agency publishes on your behalf without your
    review?
        Secretary Rollins. Those have all been solved, but thank
    you for the note.
        Ms. Brown. See, what I am concerned about here is making
    sure that our children in our country are actually healthier.
    And I welcome this conversation with my colleagues and the
    Administration. But sound policy actually follows sound
    science.
        Secretary Rollins. I agree.
        Ms. Brown. And right now, we are not all working from the
    same set of facts. So as you move toward the August deadline
    for the second report, I strongly encourage you to follow the
    science, not to jump to conclusions, and to rebuild trust by
    ensuring transparency, accuracy, and meaningfully engaging
    scientists, agricultural, and nutritional stakeholders.
        So turning to another area----
        Secretary Rollins. I agree. Thank you.
        Ms. Brown. You're welcome. Turning to another area of
    concern, I want to talk about the Quarterly Agricultural Trade
    Report. Earlier this year, you indicated the report would be
    released on May 29. Yet, it was ultimately published several
    days late and without the usual explanatory section. It had
    been reported that you delayed the report because it showed an
    increase in the trade deficit in farm goods for later this
    year.
        So Secretary Rollins, why was the report delayed and
    incomplete? And was the delay related to the report showing a
    worsening trade deficit in farm goods?
        Secretary Rollins. I will look into that and get back to
    you. It is my understanding that we wanted to make sure it was
    complete, that the citations were correct, and that the review
    was done in total. Of course, I have only been on the job 118
    days with 100,000 employees, and multiples of these reports
    moving all the time directly out of USDA. But we will look into
    that and circle back.
        Ms. Brown. So did your team remove the explanatory text
    from the report specifically because it attributed to the
    growing trade deficit to the Trump Administration's tariff
    regime?
        Secretary Rollins. It is my understanding that that was not
    the case, but we will look into that. I think the President has
    been very forward-leaning on understanding that we are in some
    time of uncertainty, but as these trade deals continue to get
    done, China announced about an hour ago, the UK 2 weeks ago,
    more coming, that that is going to be a really important part
    of the conversation moving forward. I want to make sure every
    piece of research we move out is the best cited, et cetera, and
    so that is a big part of my portfolio right now is to ensure
    that.
        Ms. Brown. I am glad you mentioned uncertainty because
    economists, farmers, and others rely on reports like this to
    track markets and plan for the future. When you start to insert
    politics into data releases, you harm the reputation of your
    Department and erode the trust the government is trying to
    produce when it has untainted data.
        So Secretary Rollins, will you commit to publishing data
    and reports that are complete and free from tampering of the
    underlying data?
        Secretary Rollins. We just have to make sure our internal
    review process is in place. But yes, we will work around the
    clock to ensure it is the correct data that gets out at the
    right time to make the most impact for our farmers and
    ranchers.
        Ms. Brown. I appreciate that. I expect my colleagues and I
    will continue this conversation because the stakes are simply
    too high for those who fuel and feed our nation. At a time when
    chaos reigns from this Administration, our farmers deserve
    certainty and support from Washington, not uncertainty and
    spin, so thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate
    it.
        Ms. Brown. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman [presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Kelly,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kelly. Madam Secretary, thank you for your time today
    and a sincere thank you to President Trump and your team at
    USDA for putting American farmers back at the heart of our
    national agriculture policy. Under President Trump's
    leadership, we no longer focus on empty rhetoric. We are
    advancing policies that actually deliver real results for
    producers like mine in Mississippi.
        And I hope that when you visit Mississippi in the very near
    future, you will have a chance to go to Mississippi State
    University, which is our great land-grant university, which
    also has a great veterinary program and a lot of ag research
    there.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Kelly. We are trying to make sure we get you up there
    so----
        Secretary Rollins. I met with your President yesterday.
        Mr. Kelly. I know.
        Secretary Rollins. Okay. So yes, we will be there.
        Mr. Kelly. He told me I better put that in or he would not
    support me anymore.
        Secretary Rollins. I have a cowbell to prove it for the
    record, a very loud one.
        Mr. Kelly. I really appreciate--last year, we fought real
    hard on this Committee to get $10 billion, to get it to our
    farmers, to keep many of them from going under this year. I
    really appreciate your rapid response to getting that money out
    and having policy to make sure that our farmers and the lenders
    for our farmers can actually lend.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Kelly. There is another $21 billion in economic
    assistance that is coming through the emergency disaster
    relief. What are your plans to quickly distribute that money?
    Because we are still in dire need in farm country.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, that is going to be, well, we have
    already started moving that. The first $1 billion moved about a
    week ago through the livestock program. The block grants are
    moving right now. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South
    Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia will be in the next 8 or so
    weeks. The rest of those we are negotiating with. Of course,
    the $220 million on the New England States, as our friends on
    the Democratic side have brought up a couple of times, I am in
    constant communication with those ag commissioners.
        If you see something, though, Congressman, that you don't
    believe we are moving quickly enough, you are hearing that it
    is too complicated, please just let me know. We are solving for
    that every day.
        Mr. Kelly. And then I know you have talked plenty about
    this, but unfortunately, I have another Secretary and another
    hearing at the same time, the Secretary of the Navy.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Kelly. But on the screwworm----
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Kelly.--what are we doing to make sure--it is going to
    devastate. I am in Mississippi, and especially in south
    Mississippi, it is rapidly moving. What are we doing to ensure
    that it does not get to our shores? Because we need to stop it
    before it gets here because it would devastate herds if it gets
    here.
        Secretary Rollins. No, there is no doubt. And as you may or
    may not know, but good for the entire Committee to hear, we
    shut down the ports of entry about 2 to 3 weeks ago, much to
    the chagrin of my counterpart in Mexico, Secretary Berdegue,
    and their Administration. We had call after call after call of
    them really asking us to reconsider, reconsider, reconsider.
        But that screwworm had moved from within 1,100 miles of our
    border to 700 miles of our border within a matter of weeks. As
    you know, in the 1950s when it hit, it took 30 years for the
    livestock community to recover from that. I will have a major
    announcement next week on the very next step on putting the
    resources, the time, and the effort into continuing to push it
    back.
        Mr. Kelly. I always say I represent the one percenters, the
    one percent who serve this nation in uniform, and the one
    percent who feed the world, our farmers. And I truly believe
    that because I believe national security is farm security and
    our ability to produce.
        That being said, Madam Secretary, I really appreciate you
    getting after the fraud and abuse in the SNAP programs to kick
    people off who shouldn't be on there that are taking away from
    people who should be, not cutting benefits, but cutting the
    people who shouldn't be getting to start with.
        One thing I hope that you will help us on is our H-2A and
    our H-2B workers are critical to our farms.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Kelly. The process makes it harder than it should be.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Kelly. We get them notice that they are going to get
    these workers long after they can use them, especially when you
    are talking about sweet potatoes or planting or harvesting
    anything.
        What are you going to do to expedite the process so people
    who are legally coming here on H-2As or H-2Bs can get here
    quicker, stay longer, and help our farmers? What are you going
    to do in that area?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, and I would say the fourth thing
    is the expense of it, right? I mean, in Texas, the citrus
    producers who even get the H-2A workers are averaging $23 an
    hour, and a mile across the border, it is $2 an hour. So that
    is a big part of it too.
        But listen, we talked about this a little bit earlier. I
    talked to the President about this, this morning, again
    yesterday. He is acutely aware of the challenges, understanding
    that the leadership from this Committee must continue, that
    Congress has to move forward on a solution, but working with
    Lori Chavez----
        Mr. Kelly. Let me stop real quick, because I have one more
    comment I want to make.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Kelly. This deal where a guy who drives a pickup truck,
    and they made a regulation that he drove a pickup truck, so now
    he is a truck driver and gets a different wage, you need to put
    a stop to all these stupid regulations we got in the last
    Administration.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Kelly. And with that, I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. We are working on it. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has----
        Secretary Rollins. I will be in Mississippi soon, for the
    record.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from Kansas, Ms. Davids, for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
    you to Secretary Rollins for being here today.
        The USDA plays a vital role in Kansas and across the
    country, supporting our rural producers, ensuring affordable
    food, and protecting the safety of our food systems. Americans
    rely on USDA every single day, whether they realize it or not,
    when they fill their grocery carts, when they grab milk from
    the fridge or drive past farmland that feeds their communities.
        And this is why I am deeply alarmed by what I consider to
    be reckless and unjust firings carried out by DOGE and the
    ripple effects that we are seeing in our communities because
    these firings don't just affect Federal workers. They threaten
    food safety, they stall critical research at places like Kansas
    State University, and they leave farmers and ranchers without
    the support that they depend on.
        And we can't talk about shared values of improving
    government efficiency while simultaneously pulling the rug out
    from the very people who keep our food supply running. You
    can't eliminate good-paying skilled jobs in Kansas City at the
    same time that our producers are already facing droughts,
    volatile markets from reckless tariffs, and rising costs.
        And this is not just a policy issue. It is very personal to
    the folks at home. The Kansas City metro is home to about
    30,000 Federal workers, including many of the USDA's Economic
    Research Service and National Institute of Food and
    Agriculture. These are neighbors, they are families, friends,
    and certainly they deserve better than chaos.
        Meanwhile, we are seeing new emerging threats. We have
    already discussed today a bit about the New World screwworm,
    which poses a serious risk to Kansas livestock and even to
    human health. And I am very proud to cosponsor the bipartisan
    STOP Screwworms Act (H.R. 3392, Strengthening Tactics to
    Obstruct the Population of Screwworms Act) because we
    definitely need to be proactive on this.
        And at the same time, I am deeply concerned about the USDA
    staffing cuts at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in
    Manhattan, Kansas. It is the nation's first biosafety level 4
    lab for livestock. It was built to protect us from the worst
    animal diseases. And I understand that 28 employees were fired
    on a single day. Then later, some of those firings were walked
    back. A similar situation unfolded at the Food Safety and
    Inspection Service. That kind of instability certainly shakes
    the foundation of the USDA's mission and puts our food supply,
    our economy, and the public trust at risk.
        So Secretary Rollins, I am curious, were the firings a
    clerical mistake, or did someone have second thoughts about the
    initial decision to fire these specific people at the National
    Bio and Agro-Defense Facility?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, there was a lot there, but let me
    answer that last question first. There were no firings. There
    was a probation period. They were all brought back. I worked
    with the Senators from your state to ensure that was the case.
    So if you were hearing differently, will you please let our
    office know? But it is my understanding that all of that was
    unfrozen almost immediately and put back into place.
        Ms. Davids of Kansas. So I guess the concern is that we
    have heard about the New World screwworm already.
        Secretary Rollins. Right.
        Ms. Davids of Kansas. During that time, I think the bird
    flu was one of the bigger concerns that was being kind of
    mainstream talked about spreading throughout the country. There
    are other potential animal diseases. How could the National Bio
    and Agro-Defense Facility or even like our Food Safety and
    Inspection Service even be part of the chopping block in the
    first place? Was there not any discussion about how those
    decisions were going to be made? The fact that people were at
    the facility on one day, told to leave, and then told to come
    back, especially at these specific facilities that are meant to
    protect us from some of the worst animal diseases that could
    spread to humans, I am just curious how that even happened.
        Secretary Rollins. It clearly was an imperfect process but
    one that we moved to rectify within hours, if not days. One
    thing I want to make sure you understand, though, is when
    President Trump--when we left in the first Administration, USDA
    had about 90,000 employees. When we came back 4 years later, we
    had 112,000 employees, so working again to realign and refocus
    and understanding what the priorities are.
        There is no question that the priority of whether New World
    screwworm or HPAI, keeping our food supply safe and secure for
    the world, ensuring our farmers are put first continues to be a
    priority, and my commitment is to ensure that is so. So if you
    are hearing anything differently, please reach out to me
    directly, and we will work to rectify it, as we have been
    doing.
        Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. She yields back.
        I now recognize Mr. Baird for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
        And Secretary Rollins, we really appreciate you being here.
    It is exciting. It is really exciting to see the things you are
    doing for agriculture.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Baird. And I want to tell you, too, it was great to see
    you yesterday, and thank you for allowing me to be with
    Secretary Kennedy and you and Governor Braun from Indiana and
    Governor Huckabee Sanders from Arkansas. So I really feel the
    work that you are doing, and I appreciate the hard work you are
    doing to make America healthy again.
        But in order to get to the questions that I am interested
    in, one of the areas that I am going to start with--and it was
    mentioned yesterday--later this month, your Department will
    publish the Fiscal Year 2024 SNAP payment error rates. And I
    know for 2023, $13 billion in SNAP payments went out the door
    erroneously. In fact, $1 in every $10 in SNAP that year was in
    an overpayment. So it is unacceptable to this body and to the
    taxpayers, and this behavior should not continue. So I would
    like to have what you are doing and what you can do to help
    alleviate this kind of behavior.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, it was great to have you in my
    office at USDA as well. I would like to invite anyone,
    Republican and Democratic, to come visit any time.
        I think that the error rate, you say $1 in $10, that is
    what we know of. We think it is probably much higher than that.
    That is why these efforts are so important. We just have had
    three stings in just the last couple of weeks, counting for
    tens of millions of dollars, working in concert with the Secret
    Service and other key investigative agencies, including our
    team at USDA. We will not stop until this is rooted out.
        But I think it goes to the bigger question, and that is
    when, again, the last time we had 42 million people--or the
    last time we had this unemployment number in America, which is
    low, the last time we had 17 million people on SNAP. Today,
    with the same unemployment number, we have 42 million people on
    SNAP. So the exponential growth of this program, especially
    over the last 4 years, a 40 percent increase in the last 4
    years is going to bring with it the fraud and the waste and the
    abuse that we have to counter. So I look forward to working
    with you, continuing to work across the U.S. Government to root
    that out.
        Mr. Baird. Well, thank you for that effort. And then my
    other area goes to another area that is of interest to me in
    agriculture, and that is agricultural biotechnology. And in
    that, I include this artificial intelligence, as well as
    quantum computing. But nonetheless, that is really the
    forefront of innovation. It enables farmers and ranchers to
    produce more using less resources. The USDA, through the Animal
    and Plant Health Inspection Service Biotechnology Regulatory
    Service, plays a key role in enabling the innovation to come to
    market.
        So how do we see USDA--how do you feel about helping get
    this kind of innovation quickly to our farmers and producers?
        Secretary Rollins. There is no group of people that have
    been more innovative than our farmers and ranchers over 249
    years, none. And as we have gone and seen this firsthand from
    basically feeding ourselves to now feeding the world, we should
    be so proud and continue to work so hard to lift up and to
    elevate these incredible men and women.
        There is no doubt, and what I have seen firsthand in terms
    of the innovation in agriculture is absolutely mind-blowing. So
    we will continue to work and find partners in that across the
    country, and to ensure that our farmers and ranchers have
    everything they need to continue to be the leaders in
    agriculture around the world.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you very much for that perspective and
    that answer. And, I share the view that you have. Agriculture
    is the foundation of this country and it has been from its very
    beginning, the 249 years you mentioned.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Baird. I really appreciate your perspective and your
    work in the agricultural arena.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon,
    Congresswoman Salinas, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Craig, and thank you, Secretary Rollins, for
    being here today.
        Madam Secretary, food banks across the country are
    responding to consistently increasing demand, and Oregon is no
    exception. Right now, one in eight Oregonians and, even more
    troubling, one in six children, are experiencing food
    insecurity. Last year alone, visits to Oregon food bank sites
    surged to a record 2.5 million. This was a 31 percent increase
    over the previous year. Despite this overwhelming need, USDA
    recently canceled $500 million in funding to The Emergency Food
    Assistance Program, or TEFAP. That decision led to the
    cancellation of about 30 full truckloads of food meant to be
    distributed across our state.
        I recently introduced a piece of legislation, the Farmers
    Feeding America Act of 2025 (H.R. 3784), to provide a
    significant increase to TEFAP. And as the title implies, it is
    critical to remember that Federal nutrition programs also
    benefit our agricultural sector by providing additional revenue
    streams that they may not otherwise be able to attain from
    producers.
        So this is, or was, true of the Local Food Purchase
    Assistance Program and the Local Food for Schools and Child
    Care Programs as well, just as it is for SNAP. These are very
    simple questions, just require a yes or no answer. First, do
    you acknowledge that the demand at food banks is increasing
    year over year, or at least it did over last year?
        Secretary Rollins. I haven't seen the numbers, but I will
    take you at your word.
        Ms. Salinas. Okay. Thank you. And then, do you agree that
    Federal nutrition programs provide an important stream of
    revenue for America's farmers?
        Secretary Rollins. When executed correctly, yes.
        Ms. Salinas. Okay. Thank you. Well, I appreciate your
    acknowledgement of these basic realities. I am puzzled, though,
    why this Administration and my Republican colleagues still seek
    to cancel and defund these programs, despite understanding the
    critical needs for both those who are hungry, as well as for
    our agricultural sector. But again, I do thank you.
        So we have heard a great deal from this Administration
    about mass deportation plans and workplace immigration raids,
    and we are already seeing the chaos these actions cause across
    the country. These operations have swept up not only
    undocumented individuals, but also legal residents, work visa
    holders, and even some U.S. citizens. There have been well-
    documented cases of individuals with legal protections being
    wrongly detained or deported, sowing fear throughout farmworker
    and immigrant communities, including those in Oregon.
        At a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, the President of
    the American Farm Bureau, Zippy Duvall, warned that these mass
    deportation plans could put farms out of business and disrupt
    the food supply at a scale comparable to what we saw during the
    COVID-19 pandemic.
        Similarly, this Committee also held a hearing earlier this
    year on the state of the economy, and I asked the witnesses,
    most of which were called to testify by the Majority, whether
    they thought mass deportations would have the same impact that
    Mr. Duvall outlined, and they agreed.
        In Oregon, we know how real this threat is. Our state's
    agricultural sector, from berries to nursery crops to wineries,
    relies heavily on immigrant labor. And in fact, approximately
    73 percent of Oregon's crop farm workers, the workers who
    actually pick crops, are foreign-born, which mirrors the
    national average. Further, almost half of these workers are
    undocumented, which is also close to the national average.
    Without these workers, Oregon's farms and farms across this
    nation simply cannot function.
        So, given these realities, do you agree with the assessment
    by Mr. Duvall and the witnesses who testified before this
    Committee that mass deportations could upend America's
    agricultural sector?
        Secretary Rollins. The President himself, in a Cabinet
    meeting, discussed this. I talked to him about it this morning.
    There is a recognition that there has to be a balance. He
    remains committed to ensuring that no laws are broken, but
    while realizing that our agriculture community, specifically
    our dairy farmers, a lot of our row croppers, our specialty
    crops, there is a massive labor issue that we have to work to
    solve in partnership with Congress.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you. All right. The Rural Energy for
    America Program, commonly known as REAP, offers grants and loan
    guarantees to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses for
    energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy systems.
    Since its inception in the bipartisan farm bill in 2008, REAP
    has provided grants and loans that have helped more than 21,000
    farms and 32,710 rural small businesses. I have personally
    toured multiple operations in my district that have benefited
    from this program.
        Unfortunately, these beneficiaries, like Oregon Flowers,
    Inc., in Aurora, Oregon, reported that they saw their REAP
    grant funding delayed as part of this Administration's ill-
    advised funding freeze. Fortunately, I have heard that Oregon
    Flowers' grant has been unfrozen, as have those for other
    recipients in the district.
        Given I have seen the impact of these projects in my
    district, I do have a couple of questions. I know Ranking
    Member Craig and her Senate counterpart sent you a letter
    asking for an update on REAP funds at the end of April, but you
    have yet to respond. Are any REAP grants still frozen?
        Secretary Rollins. I am proud to say I think we are
    completely caught up in all the letters, which is sort of
    unprecedented, so that should be solved for. There should be a
    letter on their desks at least as of last night.
        Ms. Salinas. Okay. All right.
        Secretary Rollins. So it may be late. But yes, we have
    fully unfrozen all of those programs. Again, in a commitment to
    the American taxpayer to understand the efficiency, the
    efficacy of all of these programs, we undertook a lot of
    review. But it is important, and those are important to local
    communities and worked with some of the leaders in your state,
    specifically. I remember some phone calls and found them to be
    very valid.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am an equal opportunity critic of Secretary Rollins, as
    people maybe share, but I want to commend you. You have done a
    great job today. I think you are doing a great job as
    Secretary. I think the Administration made a great choice in
    you for Secretary of Agriculture.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Bacon. The first question I want to ask is, it is not
    your doing, the problem, but you can have a hand in helping us
    here. Canada is Nebraska's largest trading partner. It is the
    cornerstone of our agriculture economy. And we have this
    agreement, USMCA, that the President negotiated in his first
    term. They were in compliance. And we talk about tariffs with
    dairy, but that was written into the USMCA deal, and then they
    gave us tariffs on wood. It was meant to be equal. But the
    tariffs are hurting us with Canada.
        Also, the talk of the 51st state from the Administration
    has angered so many Canadians. And I hear from our business
    leaders in Omaha that they are losing business from Canada,
    that they are saying, ``Hey, we don't want to do business with
    you right now.'' So we are paying for this, at least in
    Nebraska, I am sure other states as well. I hope you can help.
    I hope you have a kind of timeline that maybe we can get an
    agreement so we can get trade back going, and we need to repair
    this relationship that is important to not just Nebraska, all
    of the United States.
        I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. Well, sir, I appreciate that. Clearly,
    as I mentioned a little bit earlier, it is an uncertain time.
    Our farmers and producers are the most affected by the
    uncertainty. Remarkably, they have remained very committed. In
    fact, the latest poll shows that the community is actually
    higher in support today than they were even before what we call
    Liberation Day when the President enacted the reciprocal
    tariffs.
        Having said that, I hear you. If you would send specific
    examples, I think that would really help me fully understand as
    these conversations are ongoing and I am at the table.
        Mr. Bacon. Really, I have talked to business leaders in
    Omaha. We have Fortune 500 companies. Canadians are calling
    them saying, we don't want to do business with you right now.
    But I don't really understand the reason for tariffs on Canada
    to begin with when they have been in compliance with an
    agreement that was negotiated by this President. For many of
    us, it doesn't make sense.
        But let me go to question number two. You and I spoke on
    the phone, and I really appreciate you taking my call regarding
    staffing and funding cuts with the U.S. Meat Animal Research
    Center in Nebraska. Do you have any update on efforts to
    restore these critical research positions and sustainable
    funding?
        Secretary Rollins. I don't right in front of me, but I will
    before we conclude today so we will get right back to you.
        Mr. Bacon. Okay.
        Secretary Rollins. I am grateful. It is important to us,
    and we have some great universities trying to work with you.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Bacon. You have already addressed my third question,
    but I just want to say thanks for your candor on the Make
    America Healthy Again and the impacts on farmers. I appreciate
    your feedback and your candor.
        My final question is this. On March 20, the USDA's
    Agricultural Research Service distributed a directive
    restricting the use of more than 100 terms in the evaluation
    agreements. Among these prohibited were ethanol, sustainable
    aviation fuel, water conservation, and groundwater pollution.
    All these things are important to Nebraska. Why do we do that?
    Because a lot of these research areas are important to the
    Midwest. And can you provide an update or a rationale?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, of course. That was fixed almost
    immediately.
        Mr. Bacon. Okay, good.
        Secretary Rollins. So unless you hear differently, we have
    not heard any other issues with that. We solved for that right
    away.
        Mr. Bacon. Okay. Thank you so much. Those are my four
    questions.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Bacon. I will give you back a minute 40.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from Hawaii, Representative
    Tokuda, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to follow up on your response to Ranking Member
    Craig. The USDA did, in fact, fire nearly 6,000 probationary
    employees as part of a government-wide reduction in force. This
    was in addition to the deferred resignations that were
    received. The courts did, in fact, force you to reinstate these
    employees. Do you agree with the court's decision, then, and
    regret your initial decision to DOGE 6,000 of your employees?
    Just a simple yes or no, please.
        Secretary Rollins. I believe that was before I was sworn
    in, but we are undertaking every----
        Ms. Tokuda. Do you believe that the Administration regrets
    a decision, then, to DOGE 6,000 employees?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, I am not going to talk for the
    entire Administration. I think the effort to ensure that every
    tax dollar is spent is a really worthy effort----
        Ms. Tokuda. Okay. One----
        I want to move on because I have a lot of questions.
        Secretary Rollins.--even if it is imperfect.
        Ms. Tokuda. If the courts had not stopped your
    Administration, would you have stood by the firings, and would
    you have pushed for more firings?
        Secretary Rollins. If you and I had had the discussion, you
    would know that I have been so open to these discussions, no
    matter Republican or Democratic, in ensuring that we are doing
    everything we need to do to basically effectuate the USDA's
    mission.
        Ms. Tokuda. Okay.
        Secretary Rollins. So I don't want to speculate in
    hypotheticals.
        Ms. Tokuda. All right. Well, I will just say that there
    were 6,000 firings, of which the courts did have to then make
    you reverse the decision. And I am curious as to how much were
    actually brought back.
        But I do want to move on along this line. In April,
    Secretary Rollins, you stated that the USDA will be optimizing
    and reducing the size of the workforce to become more
    efficient. USDA employees have been told the goal is to cut
    back the workforce to fiscal 2019 levels, which would lead to a
    reduction of around 23 percent of the agency's workforce. Is
    this still your goal, to get to Fiscal Year 2019 staffing
    levels, yes or no?
        Secretary Rollins. Is this not unbelievable, though, to
    you, that USDA under your Administration----
        Ms. Tokuda. Just a simple yes or no answer, please.
        Secretary Rollins.--increased 25 percent by 20,000 people?
        Ms. Tokuda. I have a number of questions. Mr. Chairman if
    you can ask the witness to answer.
        Okay. So I am going to----
        Secretary Rollins. I don't--I mean----
        Ms. Tokuda.--assume your answer is yes, that that is in
    fact still your cut goal. If not, please submit it for you.
        Now, the 15,000 who took the deferred resignation is less
    than 15 percent. So even as we are trying to recruit people
    back, and we have seen this recently because we are vacant in
    certain areas we need, are you still trying to cut by 23
    percent, yes or no? I feel you are not----
        Secretary Rollins. We are working every day----
        Ms. Tokuda.--going to answer this.
        Secretary Rollins.--on behalf of the American people to put
    farmers first and make sure these programs are done with the
    utmost integrity.
        Ms. Tokuda. Farmers need people to help them answer the
    questions they have and provide----
        Secretary Rollins. They don't need 25,000----
        Ms. Tokuda.--the technical assistance they need.
        Secretary Rollins.--new employees based on a crazy
    infusion----
        Ms. Tokuda. Do you think----
        Secretary Rollins.--of spending from the last
    Administration----
        Ms. Tokuda. Okay. Here is a simple question for you----
        Secretary Rollins.--and the American people agree with
    that.
        Ms. Tokuda. Do you feel you are adequately staffed to meet
    your mission?
        Secretary Rollins. We are----
        Ms. Tokuda. Yes or no?
        Secretary Rollins.--adequately staffed to meet our mission.
        Ms. Tokuda. Okay. Well, then this is a question I think you
    need to talk to farmers about as to whether or not they think
    they have staffing at USDA to actually support the programs
    they need.
        Secretary Rollins, you are from Texas, which currently
    leads the nation in rates of food insecurity and hunger. In
    Dallas-Fort Worth, the metropolitan area encompassing where you
    live, childhood hunger, food insecurity rates are at 20.9
    percent. One in five children go to bed hungry. You have been
    an advisor to Governor Rick Perry, cutting the local food
    purchase assistance and Local Food for Schools funding.
        Secretary Rollins. That was 20 years ago.
        Ms. Tokuda. I agree, but you have instinct and knowledge of
    what it is like to have to take care of a state. You cut LFP
    and LFS by $1 billion. Central Texas lost 40 loads of food
    within weeks of the decision. That is 913,000 pounds of food,
    or 716,000 meals. You also cut TEFAP by $500 million.
        Texas is a top recipient of all of these particular funds,
    and with the combined cuts, the Houston Food Bank alone lost
    about 15 percent of their funding from these cuts. That is $11
    million or 500 tractor-trailer loads of food.
        My question is, just even thinking about Texas because you
    have an intimate knowledge and understanding of this area, do
    you think Texan children and families don't need these meals?
        Secretary Rollins. I think that a wholesale review of all
    of these programs is necessary. I don't know if you heard,
    but----
        Ms. Tokuda. But while we review it, are people hungry?
        Secretary Rollins.--the last time we had this number of----
        Ms. Tokuda. Six containers of protein and food----
        Secretary Rollins.--unemployment, we had 17 million
    people----
        Ms. Tokuda.--were turned away from Hawaii.
        Secretary Rollins.--on the SNAP program. Today, we have 42
    million. We spend $400 million----
        Ms. Tokuda. Are you done?
        Secretary Rollins.--a day----
        Ms. Tokuda. Secretary, are you then----
        Secretary Rollins.--$400 million a day----
        Ms. Tokuda.--saying that the food you cut was not needed--
    --
        Secretary Rollins.--on nutrition programs.
        Ms. Tokuda.--by the people who were going to eat them? It
    is a simple question.
        Secretary Rollins. Texas has half the poverty of California
    by having lower taxes and less government programs. We are
    moving people into real jobs and real prosperity----
        Ms. Tokuda. You are then implying that people who are
    receiving----
        Secretary Rollins.--at a rate that states that don't move
    forward----
        Ms. Tokuda.--those food--again----
        Secretary Rollins.--with freedom have.
        Ms. Tokuda.--these are redundant----
        Secretary Rollins. So I will not let you denigrate my state
    that has become the model in the country for the American
    dream, for prosperity----
        Ms. Tokuda. Your state is leading the country----
        Secretary Rollins.--for good jobs, for good health care----
        Ms. Tokuda.--in hunger and food insecurity right now.
        Secretary Rollins.--et cetera. Thank you.
        Ms. Tokuda. And we are talking about the fact that your
    state alone has lost tens of millions, if not more, dollars'
    worth of funding under your lead of this particular department.
        Secretary Rollins. Four hundred million dollars a day----
        Ms. Tokuda. And it is a question----
        Secretary Rollins. --should be plenty----
        Ms. Tokuda. You must ask yourself----
        Secretary Rollins.--to support these programs.
        Ms. Tokuda.--for every dollar you cut, who goes hungry
    throughout this country? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Rollins. In America----
        Ms. Tokuda. I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins.--there will not be a hungry child.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Miller,
    for 5 minutes.
        Secretary Rollins. Hello.
        Mrs. Miller. Hello, Secretary Rollins. It is a pleasure to
    have you join us today, and I am looking forward to working
    with you and President Trump in making American farmers great
    again.
        As you are well aware, we are seeing taxpayer-subsidized
    Chinese solar covering some of the best farm ground in the
    world, class A and class B farm ground. I was proud to
    reintroduce the No Solar Panels on Fertile Farmland Act of 2025
    (H.R. 1080) this Congress, which bans taxpayer funding for
    solar panels, especially those made in China, from being
    installed on America's fertile farm ground.
        I want to publicly applaud your leadership in taking action
    to stop Chinese Communist Party from buying up American
    farmland. Hostile foreign powers should never be allowed to
    control critical American assets like our food production.
        Recently, organizations like the Bezos Earth Fund have
    spent millions of dollars to paint the livestock and
    agriculture industries as drivers of climate change. These
    grants have sparked significant concerns among cattle producers
    because foreign countries who seek to undermine the integrity
    of the Angus breed and our beef industry often target cattle as
    major environmental culprits.
        But I know we are in good hands with you as our Secretary.
    Secretary Rollins, what measures is the USDA taking to ensure
    that fertile farmland remains dedicated to food production and
    isn't repurposed for large-scale renewable energy projects?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, first of all, thank you,
    Congresswoman. Can I note that three of my four kids just
    arrived? Jake Rollins, Anna Rollins, and Lily Rollins, part of
    the government process here, and what a joy to have them.
        Mrs. Miller. That is great.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes. So you and I have discussed this a
    lot. Your leadership on the solar panels and on the Chinese
    threat is so appreciated and so inspiring. We rolled out our
    Small Family Farm Initiative about 3 weeks ago. The solar panel
    piece of that is part of it. We are actually moving regs
    through our system right now. So hopefully, in partnership with
    you and with this Congress as we move this forward, I have
    spoken with the President about it specifically. He too is very
    interested in it.
        Regarding the Angus beef, I would love more information on
    that.
        Mrs. Miller. Okay.
        Secretary Rollins. This is the first time I have actually
    heard of that, but remain acutely aware of the threats at stake
    and what we need to do to begin to solve for that. I have been
    in a lot of meetings about that at the White House.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much. And I would like to say
    that solar and wind is not only taxpayer-subsidized Chinese
    energy, but it is unreliable, and it is increasingly
    unaffordable. And by covering rural America with it, they are
    driving people out of rural America and ruining our beautiful
    landscape. And we know President Trump loves beautiful things
    so----
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, he does. That is exactly right.
        Mrs. Miller. Given the concerns about foreign entities
    acquiring U.S. farmland, how is the USDA collaborating with
    other agencies to monitor and regulate such transactions,
    especially those involving nations hostile to the U.S.?
        Secretary Rollins. We have 400,000 acres of farmland in the
    last decade that has been purchased by the CCCP, 400,000. This
    happened without much because I don't think we knew it was
    happening. Now that we realize what a significant problem it
    is, we are working across the Federal Government. I was, again,
    in a meeting just yesterday about this issue, and we will
    continue to build out the plan to ensure that we are addressing
    this extreme threat to not only our farmland and our American
    way of life, but to our national security.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you. And in light of the significant
    spending by Bezos Earth Fund and other similar groups, what is
    USDA doing to ensure Federal dollars are not being spent to
    push this radical anti-agriculture ideology?
        Secretary Rollins. Obviously, we have been talking about
    this for the last few hours, but every single dollar we are
    spending is under review to ensure that it is being spent with
    the taxpayers in mind, with the President's vision in mind, and
    what he was elected to do last November. And we are making a
    lot of progress.
        But having said that, and I ask this from both sides of the
    aisle, anything that you see or hear differently, please let me
    know. We are not going to be able to do this alone with just
    our staff.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I am so grateful for you, and I
    yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Vindman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Vindman. Thank you, Secretary Rollins, for testifying
    today. Do you support farmers?
        Secretary Rollins. Of course. Yes.
        Mr. Vindman. And how about the families that go to grocery
    stores, do you support them as well?
        Secretary Rollins. I do. I have four children. Three of
    them are here who eat groceries too.
        Mr. Vindman. Wonderful. Glad to see them. Let's talk about
    the trade war. Yes or no, are you aware that farmers need
    inputs that we typically import to grow the crops?
        Secretary Rollins. Which input? Yes, in general, but which
    ones specifically are you talking about?
        Mr. Vindman. Oh, just in general, I am talking about it,
    and yes is the right answer.
        Yes or no, will higher costs of inputs force farmers to
    increase prices for their goods, resulting in higher costs for
    families at the grocery store?
        Secretary Rollins. Mr. Vindman, under the last
    Administration, inputs went up 30 percent here in America, so
    that is the bigger question----
        Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary----
        Secretary Rollins.--not the trade war.
        Mr. Vindman. We are not talking about the previous
    Administration. We are talking about this Administration.
        Secretary Rollins. Well, but that is really important. I
    mean, that is 100 days versus 4 years. That is a 30 percent
    increase in inputs. Under the Biden Administration, a $50
    billion trade deficit that wasn't there----
        Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary, I am aware of that----
        Secretary Rollins.--when the first Trump Administration
    left.
        Mr. Vindman.--but I am asking this----
        Secretary Rollins.--I mean, if you want to talk about----
        Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming----
        Secretary Rollins.--the driving cost of groceries----
        Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time.
        Secretary Rollins.--that is where that is coming from.
        Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir. Please continue.
        Mr. Vindman. So yes or no, will higher costs of inputs
    force farmers to increase their prices?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes----
        Mr. Vindman. Okay.
        Secretary Rollins.--as evidenced under the Biden
    Administration.
        Mr. Vindman. I am glad you agree, and I would like to
    submit for the record an article titled, How Tariffs on Steel
    and Aluminum Could Show Up on Your Grocery Store Bill.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The article referred to is located on p. 154.]
        Mr. Vindman. Trump doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum,
    and so the cost can go up to ten percent more. How much is the
    SNAP benefit per person per day?
        Secretary Rollins. Six dollars is, I believe, the latest
    number.
        Mr. Vindman. Actually, it is $6.20, which when you are
    talking about $6, that 20 actually is meaningful.
        Secretary Rollins. Agreed.
        Mr. Vindman. Yes or no, do you think food being more
    expensive makes life more difficult for families on SNAP?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, I think that is right. That is
    exactly the President's bringing it down. We have a lower
    inflation than we have had since the last time Trump was here.
        Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary, actually----
        Secretary Rollins. The cost of eggs went up 237 percent----
        Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary----
        Secretary Rollins.--under Joe Biden. They are down 65
    percent now so----
        Ms. Davids of Kansas. Reclaiming my time.
        Secretary Rollins.--I don't know if this is the right
    discussion you want to have, but clearly, we are----
        Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time.
        Secretary Rollins.--solving for that. Okay.
        Mr. Vindman. So we just discussed tariffs and the fact that
    tariffs--and we already have this article that I have entered
    into the record--are going to increase the costs.
        So food being more expensive makes life more difficult. We
    already agreed to that. And in only the first 6 months, it
    sounds like this Administration is heading in the opposite
    direction with the tariffs, and your Administration is pushing
    a bill that would tighten people's SNAP benefits even more. Are
    you aware that SNAP recipients shop at the same grocery stores
    as every other American?
        Secretary Rollins. I am aware that we all use the same
    grocery stores, yes. I do believe there is a food desert out
    there in some of rural America that we are working to solve.
        Mr. Vindman. And I agree with that as well, given that----
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Vindman.--I have significant rural parts in my
    district. Yes or no, do you know that in rural counties,
    retailers that have SNAP shoppers will lose income if those
    folks lose their benefits?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, again, $42 million versus $17
    million the last time we were at this unemployment number so--
    --
        Mr. Vindman. It is a straightforward, simple question,
    Secretary. In rural counties, if retailers lose SNAP shoppers,
    will they lose income for these folks?
        Secretary Rollins. Just yesterday, we signed three more
    SNAP waivers of the $111 billion we spend every year on SNAP,
    $27 billion is on sugary drinks and junk food.
        Mr. Vindman. All right.
        Secretary Rollins. We are reforming the SNAP program to
    allow more nutritious foods.
        Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time. I am sorry.
        Secretary Rollins. Please.
        Mr. Vindman. I only have 5 minutes, so I need to move
    through this.
        Secretary Rollins. Well, hopefully, I have a chance to
    answer the questions, but I understand.
        Mr. Vindman. Yes or no, do you know that 27,000 retailers
    in rural areas might have to shut down if SNAP benefits are
    cut, creating even bigger food deserts, the deserts that you
    just referenced, in our country?
        Secretary Rollins. Clearly, that will not be happening as
    we continue to move away from processed foods and sugary drinks
    to a more nutritious menu----
        Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary----
        Secretary Rollins.--for all of our recipients.
        Mr. Vindman.--that sounds like a no, that maybe you don't
    know that, subject to----
        Secretary Rollins. We spend $400 million a day, sir----
        Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time.
        Secretary Rollins.--on these programs, $400 million a day.
        Mr. Vindman. Reclaiming my time. So I would like to submit
    for the record an article titled, SNAP Cuts Are Likely to Harm
    More than 27,000 Retailers Nationwide, from the Center for
    American Progress.
        Secretary Rollins, did you know or did you or did you not--
    --
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The article referred to is located on p. 108.]
        Mr. Vindman. Thank you--that the state of the ag economy is
    perhaps the worst it has been in 100 years?
        Secretary Rollins. The state of the ag economy is indeed
    under a massive challenge, but 30 percent input costs from the
    Biden Administration, a $50 billion----
        Mr. Vindman. Madam Secretary----
        Secretary Rollins.--trade deficit that was not there, that
    is the reason----
        Mr. Vindman. That sounds like a yes.
        Secretary Rollins.--for the farm economy.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Vindman. Thank you. I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I will now recognize the gentleman from Iowa,
    Mr. Feenstra, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank you, Secretary Rollins, for being here
    today. I am so impressed with what you have done in the first
    several months of being in your Administration.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Feenstra. I just think that you are delivering on
    Trump's America first farming agenda, and that is so important.
    I mean, promises made, promises kept by his Administration, and
    you are taking full advantage of what is happening there for
    our families and our communities.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Feenstra. I want to talk about, you came to Iowa. Thank
    you very much.
        Secretary Rollins. I did. It was wonderful.
        Mr. Feenstra. I have the second largest ag district in the
    country. And you probably saw that we are very, very involved
    in biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel. And I would just love to
    ask, where do you see that going, and how can we continue to
    make sure ethanol and biodiesel is successful as we move
    forward? And what can USDA do in those arenas to make sure that
    we protect our farming community and create those markets for
    our farmers?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I had such a great day in Iowa. I
    mean, that part of the country is just so special. I had a
    little comment coming from behind. And it was really
    encouraging. I will note that this President has been, again,
    resolute in his support of the industry.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yep.
        Secretary Rollins. But one thing I want to note, and Mr.
    Vindman brought up the trade war, but--trade recalibration/
    discussion, but the UK deal, the first deal that was just
    struck 3 weeks ago in the Oval Office, ethanol went to a 0
    percent tariff under that deal.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes, that is huge.
        Secretary Rollins. Three days later, I was in the UK
    talking to the leaders there. They were so surprised, first of
    all, to have the Secretary of Ag there because they hadn't seen
    one in a long time.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yep.
        Secretary Rollins. But second, the idea that we can move
    our ethanol around the world in an unprecedented way is so
    tremendously helpful to our farmers in the parts of the country
    that rely on that. So I think the future could not be brighter,
    sir, for your constituents in that part of the country, and I
    am really proud of that.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes, thank you. I am really proud of it, too,
    and where this is going to go and how it is going to grow.
        I do want to talk a little bit about SNAP benefits because
    I want you to answer the question, which is wonderful. I mean,
    what we are trying to do is simply reduce fraud, waste, and
    abuse, and error rates. And some of these states that have
    massive error rates, they don't care literally don't care. And
    that is wrong.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes. We can't even get the data.
        Mr. Feenstra. Right. And we can't even get the data. I
    mean, it is shameful. And that is the story that is never
    talked about.
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Feenstra. And I just want to say what we are doing in
    the Agriculture Committee here is just simple. It is just
    saying, hey, we want to protect the program and reduce ag fraud
    and abuse.
        Secretary Rollins. That is exactly right. And again, I
    can't overstate the amount of money, of taxpayer dollars, that
    was just willy-nilly thrown into the wind in the last
    Administration.
        Mr. Feenstra. That is right.
        Secretary Rollins. It is stunning. And I don't say that as
    a political stunt. I am not trying to get in a back-and-forth
    with the Democrats on this, but it is absolutely astounding
    without really any regard to the taxpayer and how their money
    is being spent in ensuring that these programs are meeting and
    reaching the people----
        Mr. Feenstra. That is right.
        Secretary Rollins.--that really need them, and so that is
    what we are working to do.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes, and thank you for that. I really
    appreciate that. And we have just got to get these error rates
    under control. We absolutely have to. It is fiscal
    responsibility to the taxpayers. The taxpayers are the ones
    that are funding all this.
        I just want to talk one more moment. On our export markets,
    we look at corn and soybeans and things that go bump in the
    night on the commodity prices and stuff like that. What can we
    do to open more markets? You just talked about the UK. Thank
    you very much. Where do you see other markets providing more
    at-market access to some of these commodities?
        Secretary Rollins. I have been so far to UK and Italy,
    talked about those countries, but also the EU. In 2 weeks, 3
    weeks, I am headed to Vietnam, Japan, and India. After that, I
    am headed to Peru and Brazil. I have been really surprised, but
    in the best way, at how excited these countries are for us to
    be there on the ground, how they understand that the 15 percent
    average tariff put on our American agriculture products versus
    the on-average five percent that we put on their products they
    understand that is not sustainable----
        Mr. Feenstra. That is right.
        Secretary Rollins.--that we have to do better in putting
    our American products forward.
        As I mentioned, Italy imports $75 billion in ag products
    every year. Only $1.7 billion of that is from America. This is
    one of our best partners, more aligned----
        Mr. Feenstra. Exactly.
        Secretary Rollins.--with our values than most any other
    country.
        So just being on the road----
        Mr. Feenstra. Yep.
        Secretary Rollins.--working around the clock----
        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you.
        Secretary Rollins.--sending the teams out into the world,
    the President being the chief negotiator, not allowing
    Americans to take a back seat ever again----
        Mr. Feenstra. That is right.
        Secretary Rollins.--this is going to be a gamechanger.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Well, I just want to say thank you,
    Secretary, and I also want to say thank you. I had the largest
    bird outbreak of avian bird flu in my district in the 4th
    District.
        Secretary Rollins. You do.
        Mr. Feenstra. It was awful.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Feenstra. And you stepped right up and you got it done.
    Thank you so much.
        And finally, you have to come to the Iowa State Fair and do
    the governor's steer show. I hope you are there. Thank you.
        Secretary Rollins. I will be there.
        Mr. Feenstra. All right.
        Secretary Rollins. She and I are going to show steers
    against each other.
        Mr. Feenstra. Absolutely.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois,
    Ms. Budzinski, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to
    thank our Ranking Member Craig. Secretary Rollins, thank you
    for taking time to appear before the Committee today.
        My district in central and southern Illinois is home to
    some of the nation's most productive farmland, with some of the
    top corn and soybean-producing counties in the country, as well
    as a wide variety of specialty crops. It is also home to
    facilities for some big names in agricultural industry--ADM,
    Primiant, Kraft, Tillamook--they just opened a factory in
    Decatur--plants like Corteva, Bayer, Nutrien, and a lot more.
    And, of course, it is home to a tremendous amount of
    agricultural research at my alma mater at the University of
    Illinois, but also Southern Illinois University in
    Edwardsville, and many great community colleges throughout my
    district. So I am sure you can understand why I am so thrilled
    to serve on this Committee because the work we do here and the
    work done at USDA matters so much to the district that I
    represent.
        Madam Secretary, can you tell me, do you agree that the
    primary function of the USDA is to serve farmers in our rural
    communities? Just yes or no.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I do have
    some concerns about the way things have been going just over
    these last 6 months. Just to start, the President's budget for
    USDA was abysmal, in my opinion. It kneecaps agricultural
    research; threatens American dominance in international
    development; forces women, infants, and children to go hungry;
    and decimates NRCS.
        Just last week in this Committee, we heard directly from
    farmers about the importance and success of conservation
    programs for their operations. The idea that we would take away
    opportunities to improve farmers' livelihoods and to completely
    eliminate conservation technical assistance, which farmers have
    told this Committee directly that they rely on, I think is
    ridiculous.
        I urge you to be thoughtful about the impacts of the
    suggestions you have made. These are not inconsequential
    programs. There is no backstop. Please consider the farmers
    that you do claim to serve.
        I also want to bring to your attention some changes that
    have been made that have serious issues within my district. The
    elimination of the Local Food Purchase Assistance and the Local
    Foods for Schools programs, they both were incredibly
    important, and it is distressing to my community that they have
    been eliminated, and across Illinois as well share in that
    concern. This program was an incredible opportunity to connect
    farmers with their neighbors in need, as well as local small
    businesses.
        I am lucky to have a great relationship with Sola Gratia
    Farm in Urbana, a vegetable and fruit operation whose primary
    goal is to provide food to local residents, particularly for
    vulnerable populations. LFPA helped them accomplish this goal.
        They also were connected to local small businesses through
    LFPA like Martinelli's Market in Champaign, Illinois. And
    Martinelli's is also dealing with the Administration's tariffs,
    driving up the prices of their ingredients. So the rug was
    pulled out from under them when USDA canceled the LFPA
    contracts, contracts which helped them to buy locally and feed
    our communities. Now tariffs are driving up Martinelli's
    overall prices, and Solo Gratia lost its purchasers.
        This is just an example of the many concerns I have for my
    district, but I want to use my time to draw your attention to
    an opportunity----
        Secretary Rollins. Can I respond to any of that?
        Ms. Budzinski. Let me get through my points, and if we have
    time, then I welcome your comments.
        Secretary Rollins. Okay.
        Ms. Budzinski. Attention to an opportunity. This is an
    opportunity that could be at USDA.
        Secretary Rollins. Love opportunities.
        Ms. Budzinski. With this Administration--yes. So with this
    Administration's shuttering of USAID, Feed the Future labs
    across the country have closed with the exception of one at
    Kansas State University, the Climate Resilient Cereals Lab.
        One lab that was impacted and therefore closed was in my
    district. The Soybean Innovation Lab, or SIL, at the University
    of Illinois, has been conducting critical research for over 12
    years on new varieties of soybeans. This research not only
    supports developing nations, but it supports domestic growers.
    Development of soybean genetics in the United States helps us
    to maintain our global dominance in the soy market, which is
    critical for the farmers in the heartland. It also introduces
    brand new international markets to American products, which I
    know is a mission of this Administration.
        I understand that the majority of USAID activity has been
    moved to the State Department, including programming for the
    Feed our Future Lab at Kansas State. Madam Secretary, I ask you
    to please look into the importance of the Soybean Innovation
    Lab for American agriculture. Is that something that you would
    be willing to take a look at?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I would be very willing to do that
    and follow up that conversation.
        Ms. Budzinski. That would be wonderful.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
        Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Secretary.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
    Rouzer, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for being here. We have had the occasion to meet
    briefly on a couple of occasions.
        Secretary Rollins. There you are.
        Mr. Rouzer. Yep.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Rouzer. And I appreciate your work. USDA is near and
    dear to me. During Bush 43, I was an SES political appointee
    over at USDA Rural Development.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Rouzer. I have great appreciation for the variety of
    missions of the Department and appreciate your service.
        First, I want to begin by thanking you for your work with
    the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer
    Services on their state block grant application for losses from
    Hurricane Helene, obviously a very, very devastating storm.
    And, as you know, this devastation was far beyond just crop
    loss, affecting a broad range of our more than $111 billion
    agriculture economy, including timber, infrastructure,
    agritourism, and aquaculture losses.
        And it is my understanding that our staffs have been
    communicating, and I know you are working really, really
    closely with the state to address these issues and just really
    appreciate your work in that regard, if you want to provide a
    little update on that.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes. We have been in close contact with
    your state and the leaders in your state. I visited North
    Carolina, one of the first states I went to. I think we have
    had five formal meetings, but almost daily conversations. Those
    funds are close to contract and should be released very soon.
        Mr. Rouzer. And you may have mentioned this while I was out
    at another committee meeting, and so my apologies if it is
    redundant. North Carolina is the third most agriculturally
    diverse state in the country, and so we have a lot of specialty
    crops. If you can touch base or just bring us up to date real
    quickly on the Marketing Assistance Specialty Crop rollout for
    economic assistance for specialty crops, I would be most
    interested in that.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, as you may remember, that is a
    significant investment on our end at USDA, about $2.65 billion
    we have announced. Those are moving but still under review. It
    is a significant number that we are working with our partners
    over at the White House on. The first tranche is moved, the
    second tranche is shortly behind. I don't have a specific date
    in front of me, but we will reply back to your office and make
    sure you are fully aware of that.
        Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much. One other quick item, the
    H-2A program, I know the Chairman made reference to this in his
    opening statement. I can't stress enough how critical it is to
    have a good workable program, and that AEWR, the adverse effect
    wage rate, is a real issue for our growers.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Rouzer. In fact, we had a bipartisan working group that
    the Chairman put together. We had a whole list of areas of
    unanimity between Republicans and Democrats, and one of them
    was the need to freeze that AEWR. We have a great Secretary of
    Labor in place. And I remember during the first Trump
    Administration, there were a variety of departments that were
    working together to make some good reforms administratively to
    the H-2A program.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Rouzer. So I just want to underscore just how important
    that is and give you an opportunity to talk about that just a
    minute, if you can.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I am fully aware. In fact, in
    Texas, I went and visited some citrus growers in south Texas,
    and we could look across the border where the average hourly
    rate was $2 in Mexico to produce the same or to basically move
    the same produce through in Texas at $23 an hour. This is
    unsustainable. I have talked to Lori Chavez-DeRemer, our
    Secretary of Labor, about it. I have also spoken to the
    President about it. We remain fully committed to working with--
    obviously, you all are going to be the main movers and shakers
    for real change, but whatever we can do through the government,
    the Executive Branch, please, please, please let us know
    because we realize what a huge problem this is.
        Mr. Rouzer. Well, we look forward to working with you very
    closely on that because it is probably one of the greatest
    needs American agriculture has.
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Rouzer. You can't harvest a crop in many cases,
    particularly specialty crops, if you don't have labor.
        Secretary Rollins. That is exactly right.
        Mr. Rouzer. All right. In my remaining time, I want to put
    in a plug for our food assistance programs. A lot of them are
    administered at USAID, but they really belong under the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, in my opinion. One in particular,
    the McGovern-Dole Food Aid Program, I used to work for U.S.
    Senator Elizabeth Dole in a previous life. I grew very close to
    Senator Dole from Kansas. And when you travel overseas and you
    see--you go in these schools, and the only reason why these
    kids are in school in these third-world countries is basically
    because of the McGovern-Dole food program. It is the only
    nutrition they get during the day. And it provides not only a
    humanitarian aspect, but there is also a diplomatic, long-term
    America-first aspect as well.
        Secretary Rollins. Very quickly, 30 of those programs are
    still moving, and we opened up funding for the next round on
    May 9, just a few weeks ago, understanding it is realigning
    around the President's vision and the countries that help
    America, but we are aware and tracking that.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        At the Minority's request, I am going to recognize Mr.
    Jackson from Illinois for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield to
    Congresswoman Hayes. They wanted us to switch orders.
        The Chairman. Then I don't recognize the gentleman from
    Illinois as Mr. Jackson, okay?
        I recognize the gentlelady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Hayes. I am not sure what is going on. Don't I get my
    own 5 minutes? Thank you.
        Thank you, Secretary Rollins, for being here today.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mrs. Hayes. It is no secret that I am in opposition to the
    Republican bill and the deep cuts to SNAP, and I have been
    vociferous and clear about that. I just want to add, as we are
    talking about the Republican proposals in the Department of
    Agriculture, there are serious concerns that many of the
    actions being taken threaten the bipartisan coalition that has
    helped pass multiple farm bills, and we would be hard pressed
    to get the full Congress to pass a bill that guts billions of
    dollars from our most vulnerable communities.
        But today, my questions are going to be focused on small
    farms in my district. Between 2017 and 2022, Connecticut lost
    roughly 460 farms. Projections by the American Farmland Trust
    estimate that my state will lose 55,000 acres of farmland if we
    do not step in to preserve what remains.
        There are many factors contributing to the loss of farmland
    in New England, as we heard Mr. McGovern talk about earlier.
    One of the most consistent is the failure of farm safety net
    programs. Guardians Farms, a small, first-generation farm in
    Southbury, Connecticut, in my district, began operation in
    2020, and they sell dairy products at farmers' markets on the
    weekends. Two years of heavy rain have resulted in fewer
    visitors to the farm and damage to the pasture, barn, and
    chicken coops. Earlier this year, they requested $50,000 from
    USDA to help make up for lost revenue and to help with repairs.
    As of today, they still have not received any disaster
    assistance.
        Last year, Congress funded two disaster relief programs and
    designed them to work together to ensure all impacted farms
    receive some type of assistance. The Supplemental Disaster
    Relief Program would fund larger operations, and the Farm
    Recovery and Support Block Grant would provide targeted relief
    to smaller farms in smaller states.
        Secretary Rollins, it is my understanding that USDA has
    directed Connecticut to choose between one of two of those
    programs and a small farm block grant, rather than assessing
    both, as Congress intended. What is the justification for
    denying Connecticut farmers the ability to access the relief
    Congress has voted to provide for them?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, first of all, thank you. That is a
    great question. I have been in a lot of conversations on this.
    In fact, my next one is with your colleague, Rosa DeLauro, at 4
    o'clock, once I leave here. We are continuing to assess what
    this means, understanding that this $220 million block grant to
    New England that you all put in the Relief Act at the end of
    last year is different. It is different than Georgia, North
    Carolina, some of the bigger farming communities with the
    bigger farms.
        So we are continuing to look at this. The decision has not
    been released yet, but will be soon. We remain very committed
    and have been working with your ag commissioner from
    Connecticut and across New England for the last few months and
    will continue to do so.
        Mrs. Hayes. Well, I appreciate you explaining what USDA is
    doing as a whole, but my question was about why Connecticut is
    being denied access to both programs. I know that there has
    been concern about double dipping, but there are audit
    processes in place, certification processes in place. And what
    ends up happening is exactly what we anticipated. The smallest
    farmers are left out because they don't have access to these
    programs. And my fear is that Connecticut will be kept waiting
    for relief because the program is not being implemented
    properly.
        Your budget proposal would cut funding for the Farm Service
    Agency by an additional $250 million. I am concerned that
    Connecticut farmers, again, will see diminished capacity from
    USDA to address their needs. How will the USDA deliver payments
    to farmers in a more efficient manner when you are cutting
    resources and the staff who do the work?
        Secretary Rollins. So ma'am, the $10 billion that moved out
    very quickly, the ECAP, you all passed it around Christmas,
    maybe December 20. We moved it out $10 billion in a matter of 6
    to 8 weeks. The longest waiting time was 3 days once that was
    moved out. We have sent the money to 500,000 farmers across
    America. This is months and months and months ahead of where a
    normal USDA moves it out. So I think our track record hopefully
    speaks for itself.
        Mrs. Hayes. Well, again, I hope that there is some
    consideration for the smallest farmers----
        Secretary Rollins. I agree.
        Mrs. Hayes.--who don't have grant writers or access to
    these programs or the ability to reach out and get a response.
        Secretary Rollins. One hundred percent.
        Mrs. Hayes. I appreciate the fact that money is getting out
    the door. My concern, once again, is that it is going to the
    largest farmers in the largest agricultural communities and
    leaving behind the farmers who literally have less than 100
    acres and are doing this work and it is their family business.
        Secretary Rollins. I agree.
        And Congresswoman, what I would ask is when you hear those
    stories and you are called, to call me specifically and say
    this is what is happening in my district, and this is who is
    not getting the attention that they deserve, and that will help
    us solve for that.
        Mrs. Hayes. I appreciate that. I will follow up and make
    sure you have the information on Guardians Farm in Southbury,
    Connecticut.
        Secretary Rollins. That would be great.
        Mrs. Hayes. It is a veteran-owned farm, and they are
    struggling right now.
        Thank you, I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. What was the name again?
        Mrs. Hayes. Guardians Farm.
        Secretary Rollins. Guardians Farm.
        Mrs. Hayes. I will make sure you get the information.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        At the request of the Secretary and in consultation with
    the Minority, we are going to do two more questions and then
    take a 20 minute break and then reconvene. And I will keep an
    order of those in the room at the time of the break so that
    that will be the order when we come back, and I will announce
    what time that is when we see when these next two individuals
    are done.
        So at this point, I recognize Mr. Johnson from South Dakota
    and then in the direction of the Minority, Mr. Jackson from
    Illinois.
        So Mr. Johnson is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, I feel like we are talking to a member of
    your team every week on something or other, so I am----
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Johnson.--going to walk through six issues, and then
    you can comment on any of them that you like.
        First off, I want to thank you for working with us to
    provide some relief to that South Dakota ranching couple, the
    Mauds.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. It should never have gotten to the point it
    did, and thank you to your team for seeing the wisdom forward,
    common sense.
        Number two, I want to affiliate myself with Mr. Costa's
    remarks about high-path avian influenza, still a tremendous
    threat, and as he said, not just to poultry but also to our
    herds as well.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. And then I was grateful to see your five-prong
    plan had vaccines as an important part of it. I think there has
    been some concern that maybe the priority in USDA shifted
    around a little bit, and so I just want to highlight the
    incredible work that a number of companies, including Medgene,
    are doing in developing some really powerful vaccines that I
    think are the long-term solution to this problem.
        Secretary Rollins. Good.
        Mr. Johnson. Not even long-term, I mean just the solution
    here I think sooner than we realize.
        Number three, forestry, Mr. LaMalfa said it well. I mean,
    we have a lot we need to do out in the forest. I mean, a
    managed forest is a healthy forest. We have a million acres of
    National Forest land in the Black Hills, and it has been a long
    time since we have been able to hit the data-driven harvest
    targets.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. We have had mills close, lots of jobs lost.
    When we lose that infrastructure, it is almost impossible to
    ever get it back, which means the forest turns into a
    tinderbox.
        I have confidence in your team. Mr. Schultz, Mr. French, I
    enjoy working with them. So I just want to thank you and ask
    you to continue to back their efforts to approach this issue
    with some real urgency. I think we are making progress, but we
    have a ways to go yet.
        Number four, I want to thank your team for the incredible
    responsiveness they have shown in working with South Dakota
    State University in making some alterations to what is now
    known as the Producers First program. This is going to show us
    the way forward on some resiliency in how we feed and make sure
    that the bison and the cattle can get to market and that
    nutrition is a key part of what they do because we still want
    to discover some research and how to do better.
        Number five, I met with a few dozen dairy producers. And
    ma'am, this is not going to come as any surprise to you. They
    have a real anxiety in farm labor.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. And some folks are not sure how they are going
    to hang on. They view you as a huge leader. They view you as a
    critical--I mean, this problem will not get solved without
    Brooke Rollins. And they believe in you, ma'am. And if there is
    anything I can do to help in developing solutions so we can--
    not just in dairy, of course. This is a bigger problem. But, we
    have to find a solution.
        Secretary Rollins. Right.
        Mr. Johnson. And finally, number six, and then I will shut
    up, trade, just little old South Dakota, we export almost $6
    billion a year overseas in ag. That is $6,000 a year for every
    single South Dakotan every single year. Clearly, this
    Committee, strong believers in MAP, FMD. And I know you are a
    strong believer, and I would just ask you to continue to be a
    strong voice for more trade, which will make America stronger.
    And I know that is where the Administration's headed.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I think----
        Mr. Johnson. What am I missing, ma'am?
        Secretary Rollins. No, I think you covered it very well. I
    just want to start with the last one first on the trade. And I
    am not sure if you were in the room, Congressman, but the
    encouragement that I have received just in these first few
    international trips has been remarkable, in fact, stunning. I
    think that the world is ready to recalibrate. I think that the
    President has been such an effective leader on this. I know the
    uncertain times our producers are feeling. There is no one who
    is operating more on the margins than our farmers and ranchers,
    understand this. The President certainly understands it.
        But I do believe with every fiber of my being that this era
    of unlimited or unprecedented prosperity for our ag community
    is just around the corner because of these trade
    renegotiations. I am just really, really sure of that.
        I also want to comment on the timber piece of this. I was
    just in the Oval Office yesterday with the President talking
    about timber, talking about the firefighting because they are,
    as you know, interwoven inextricably. And I think that we are
    going to have another meeting tomorrow in the Oval Office on
    the issue. The President has been resolute in the increase of
    25 percent in timber production, which, by the way, that will
    be the same number we had 30 years ago in 1994. Since then, our
    entire timber industry, as you know from your state and others,
    has been decimated.
        So the focus, the investment, the putting our timber
    industry back at the front of the line to ensure they are able
    to do and thrive, but also on the back end to mitigate against
    more and unnecessary fires, it continues to be a priority of
    this Administration, and I am really, really proud of that.
        Mr. Johnson. With that, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary and I
    have solved all the problems, and I would yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. I think we are done here.
        Mr. Johnson. And by the way, you are unflappable. I did not
    know that my mean comment about Iowa and Jess would be picked
    up by you. It was mostly for your staff's benefit, but you are
    unflappable. You kept rolling, so thank you. I yield.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I did. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's time
    has expired. Now I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
    Jackson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Honorable Chairman
    Thompson. Thank you, Ranking Member Craig and distinguished
    Members of this Committee. Thank you, Secretary Rollins. I look
    forward to working with you in the months and years to come.
        Secretary Rollins. Me too.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. You are head of a Department with
    a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, over 100,000
    employees, 4,500 offices, 29 different agencies, and so the job
    is enormous.
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. And I come here not to affix blame
    but to seek solutions.
        Madam Secretary, your Department proudly announced in a May
    1 press release that it has terminated over 3,500 contracts and
    grants, totaling over $5.5 billion, and canceled nearly 1,000
    trainings to eliminate ``woke'' DEI initiatives. For the
    record, does the United States Department of Agriculture under
    your leadership have an official written definition of DEI--I
    am a bit confused--one that would withstand legal scrutiny
    under the Administrative Procedures Act that you used as a
    specific uniform standard to justify these cancellations?
        Secretary Rollins. I believe that we do, sir, but let me
    check on that, and I will circle back to your office, and we
    can talk directly.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. Thank you. I have not been
    able to find one. I reached out to the office starting in
    February, so I would simply just assume at this point, for the
    record, that the answer would be written no.
        Under the Administrative Procedures Act, codified in
    section 5, U.S. Code 551, agencies' actions cannot be arbitrary
    and capricious, yet we see some of the terminations of these
    programs without a single written guiding principle, so we have
    to make sure that this is codified into law.
        Under the previous Secretary of Agriculture, we had a
    blueprint, an outline of where the Department was going. I hope
    in the weeks and months to come, this is on the thing. The
    Department of Agriculture has operated consistently by giving
    us a blueprint.
        The second question I would have for you, your department
    has canceled outreach and recruitment in the name of
    eliminating DEI, so I don't know what it is that is being
    eliminated, that is being cut because DEI is very vague. It
    means many things to many people. And so if you exclude the
    longstanding Federal hiring initiatives like the Veterans'
    Recruitment Appointment, authority of the Schedule A hiring, or
    authority for people with disabilities, both of which are
    designed to create a more diverse and inclusive Federal
    workforce, would you agree that is a noble goal?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, the first thing I will say--and I
    really actually appreciate the conversation--is that the
    President clearly has been very clear in his directive. We are
    operating under his Executive Order----
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay.
        Secretary Rollins.--on all of the above----
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Reclaim my time. I appreciate that
    because I fundamentally disagree with the President----
        Secretary Rollins. I understand.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois.--and I can appreciate your
    integrity, but the President is simply wrong on this, and I
    hope more people in the Administration can speak up to him. He
    can make a mistake, but it seems like people get very confused
    around him.
        The Federal definition of diversity explicitly includes
    these groups, the disabled, the rural Americans, which are all
    groups that have faced barriers to Federal employment in the
    past. By canceling many of these programs unintentionally, they
    become collateral damage, and so I would like to make sure that
    we continue to broaden the workforce and pull as many people
    in.
        Also, we have talked about now, I see in this declaration,
    about meritocracy. You say your Department now operates on
    meritocracy.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Are you aware that the nine merit
    system principles codified in section 5 of the U.S. Code 2301
    already exist to ensure fair and merit-based hiring, free from
    political influence? That is already baked into this. I don't
    know why there is new emphasis on saying there is meritocracy.
        Does USDA, under your leadership, have an official written
    policy defining what constitutes merit that supersedes or
    replaces these Congressionally mandated principles? We already
    have them in the documents.
        Secretary Rollins. I am not aware of that, but I am really
    glad, again, for this conversation. My commitment is to look at
    that very closely. Obviously, I am a big believer in the
    President's vision on this and the meritocracy approach, but it
    is a fair question. How do we define that and what does that
    look like?
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. And that will be on section
    5. So these terms that mean woke and so forth, there is another
    term that they have on your website regarding color-blindness
    as a goal that you have. Did someone put into the record that
    color-blindness is a physical impairment, or is there a new
    definition of what color-blindness means? Is that an asset? Can
    you help me define what is color-blindness and the values or
    merits of it?
        Secretary Rollins. My understanding is this is from the
    Executive Order, the President's directive, and that we are
    looking at merit and the best possible employees for the
    American farmers.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. I got you.
        Reclaiming my time. So color-blindness, are we talking
    about having a lack of racial equity, racial justice? Is that
    the code word for it?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. Well, the President, again,
    is wrong because you know the case of Pigford v. Glickman. It
    has already been documented that there has been a history of
    racial discrimination, prejudice, and racism. It has already
    had lawsuits filed and settled by farmers--African American,
    Latino, and indigenous--that did not have fair access to the
    resources of our agency. So I don't want to fix the blame, I
    want to fix the problem. But if some people are willfully
    blind, if he wants people going around the Department of
    Agriculture with mismatched clothes because he is now
    championing blindness, I think that is wrong, and that should
    not be classified.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and thank you for your time.
        Secretary Rollins. I look forward to continuing that
    conversation.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The Committee will stand in recess for 20 minutes, gaveling
    back in at 12:55. And at that time, the Members who have been
    in the room here, I will share with you what I have for order.
    Mann, Davis, Moore, Sorensen, Harris, Vasquez, Taylor, Riley,
    De La Cruz, and Mannion.
        We stand in recess.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. The Committee shall come to order. I note
    that there is a quorum present for the purposes of taking
    testimony and receiving evidence.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mann, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Mann. Welcome back, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Mann. Thank you for being here today, and thank you for
    your leadership in supporting farmers, ranchers, and ag
    producers across the country.
        It was an honor to have you visit the Big First District of
    Kansas during your first week on the job back in February right
    after you were confirmed, and we had a chance, as you recall,
    to participate in a roundtable discussion with ag producers,
    stakeholders. We toured Finney County Feedyard, the Ponderosa
    Dairy. We even met with some local FFAers, which was a huge
    highlight of mine. I know that is something that is near and
    dear to your heart as well.
        One of my first meetings with President Trump, I distinctly
    remember him telling me of his love for the American farmer,
    and I very much appreciate that you also share that passion.
    Over the past few months, you and the President have led the
    way in supporting rural America, and I look forward to
    continuing to work with you for the next 4 years so that we
    make agriculture great again and everything that it possibly
    can be.
        Secretary Rollins. Amen.
        Mr. Mann. A couple questions. First one, Madam Secretary,
    the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a major step forward in the
    future of American agriculture. We are able to strengthen crop
    insurance, raise reference prices, really help our producers.
    We also are able to include historic landmark investments in
    funding for trade promotion programs in the House version.
        After the last Administration's failure to act on expanding
    international markets, I have been really encouraged at your
    efforts to rebalance trade to support the American farmer and
    rancher. In particular, I appreciate that you will be traveling
    on a trade mission to India here in the next few weeks where
    greater market access for crops like sorghum would be a
    gamechanger for our Kansas producers and a clear win for the
    U.S. and India.
        With the significant upgrade in trade promotion resources,
    can you share what you and Ambassador Greer will be pursuing to
    unlock opportunities for U.S. exports commodities like sorghum
    as part of our discussion specifically with India?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, specific to India--and I will
    absolutely, Congressman, circle back to you with a little more
    detail. I have about three countries ahead of India so I
    haven't focused on India just yet even though we are headed
    there very soon.
        Mr. Mann. Yes.
        Secretary Rollins. But I think that India is reflective--to
    your point on sorghum and a lot of our row crops, there is just
    so much opportunity there. We talked a lot this morning about
    national security, agricultural security is national security.
    A lot of that is opening up markets with our friends like India
    and moving away from other markets that clearly are not aligned
    with us on a value-by-value basis.
        What I have found with Ambassador Greer, with Secretary
    Lutnick, with Secretary Bessent, and the ultimate sort of
    dealmaker, President Donald Trump, is they are, we are
    relentless, relentless. And again, I think I mentioned this a
    couple of times, but it is worth repeating, the few countries I
    have already visited, the countries that have already visited
    me, everyone is so anxious to support this vision of opening up
    more American products and decreasing the tariffs while working
    on the non-tariff trade barriers.
        So there is a lot more to come, would love to work with
    you, though, as we are prepping for India and other countries,
    specific to sorghum and other row crops.
        Mr. Mann. Would love to. I think India is a huge
    opportunity for sorghum and other commodities as well.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Mann. Thank you for that.
        Second question, earlier this year, I introduced
    legislation to move back to USDA a program that is not only
    dear to the people of Kansas, but also vital to our ag
    producers in the country. Food for Peace was a program that I
    have long supported, and it has supported American agriculture
    in helping feed millions of people around the world. It was
    originally housed with the USDA when it was created over 70
    years ago. A Kansan came up with the idea years ago. My bill
    would return it back to us, or return it home to the USDA,
    ensuring its long-term sustainability.
        I am optimistic that Congress will soon act to codify this
    move, realigning Food for Peace with USDA where it began. If
    and when that transition takes place, can you commit that the
    Department will continue to fund and operate Food for Peace as
    robustly as it currently has been administered? And welcome any
    thoughts about Food for Peace.
        Secretary Rollins. Sure. And understanding that is moving
    through the system, not wanting to get ahead of President Trump
    specifically, but we stand ready. If that is the Congressional
    direction, we will work with you and your partners to ensure
    the contained sustainability--continued, I should say,
    sustainability and success and changes if necessary.
        Mr. Mann. And great program, right?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Mann. We are shipping commodities grown here in bags
    that say a free gift from the American people. It is good for
    our farmers good for our shippers, good for the mouths that
    receive it.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Mann. I think someone asked you about Food for Progress
    earlier. I might loop back in with your office on that as well.
    But just really appreciate you being here.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Mann. Thank you for all that you are doing for
    agriculture.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you so much. Good to see you,
    Congressman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognized gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Davis,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Secretary Rollins, thank you so much for being with us
    today.
        Secretary Rollins. Good to see you.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. I was looking forward to the
    Committee, I am sure, as we have been excited about you coming.
        I want to share a picture, the best that I can reflect from
    so many conversations, what is taking place in eastern North
    Carolina back home. Farmers are absolutely getting pounded.
    These are, without any doubt, tough times, and they are facing
    many challenges. And between increased labor costs, low
    reference prices, increased input costs, so much uncertainty,
    double-duty drawback for tobacco growers, trade, just
    uncertainty, and in the midst of it all, we still, regardless
    of how we got here, have no farm bill. And let's be clear,
    reconciliation is no substitute for a farm bill.
        Secretary Rollins. I agree.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. In North Carolina, we have out
    west, which I traveled a little over a week ago to the western
    part of the state, and it is a dire situation that is still on
    the ground there as people are trying to pick up the pieces in
    the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. But then out east, which I
    am honored to represent, we have had our fair share of
    challenges as we have been crushed with drought. There is so
    much going on.
        And by the way, I would like to personally welcome you to
    eastern North Carolina.
        Secretary Rollins. I would love that.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. But what we are leaving
    farmers now, we are leaving farmers these options. Option A,
    more debt, take on more debt; or option B, I am going to throw
    my hands up in the air and call it quits.
        Here is the reality. I grew up cropping tobacco and doing a
    lot of hard work that we enjoyed doing as kids, and this is
    part of our heritage. And when you talk in particular, family
    farmers, they want to continue and pass it on to the children,
    the next generation. But how many children want to take on all
    of this right now?
        So my first question is, what is the timeline for getting
    the disaster and economic agriculture assistance out the door
    that is going to help us in North Carolina?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I appreciate the question. God
    bless you. You are welcome. First of all----
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. You took up 5 seconds of my
    time.
        Secretary Rollins. I know.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. That was a big one.
        Secretary Rollins. That was an amazing sneeze.
        The first thing I will say is with ECAP in North Carolina,
    6,389 of your producers received $118 million over the last
    month or 2, so hopefully, that is at least a step in the right
    direction.
        On the emergency livestock relief, which we just released
    in the last week or 2, there is significant numbers going that
    way, 599 producers for 2023, another 423 producers for 2024, a
    total of $1.4 billion, I believe, on that.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. And Madam Secretary, let me
    acknowledge the work that is taking place. I just want to
    really paint the picture. There is still a lot more work to be
    done.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. And if I can shift, can you
    speak on whether you are working with RMA, the Risk Management
    Agency, Administrator Swanson, to defer interest charges on
    crop insurance premiums for the current year?
        Secretary Rollins. I don't have that answer, but by the end
    of the next question, we will have that for you. I am not 100
    percent sure, so I don't want to answer wrongly, but we will
    get that to you right away.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Okay. Super. Thank you. And I
    want to really thank the Chairman because we have really been
    knee-deep in the H-2A program. This is so far an antiquated
    policy that is still out there, and we just got to come
    together and get this done. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    the task force, the working group that we advanced.
        But I want to come in particular with AEWR because I hear
    so much about AEWR, and this is a real legitimate concern. My
    question is, what has been the communication from USDA with
    DOL, as well as DHS, in relation to ensuring there are enough
    workers available to continue to feed, fuel, clothe the
    American people so they can continue to keep the operations
    going?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, as we discussed this morning,
    although, sir, I don't think you were in the room, there is
    obviously a very understandable concern in the agriculture
    market on labor. I spoke with the President about it this
    morning. I had a meeting with both Secretary Noem and Secretary
    Chavez-DeRemer on Monday night. The President, in an April 10
    Cabinet meeting on his own, talked about it.
        There is no doubt that, first of all, significant reform
    needs to happen to the H-2A, H-2B, et cetera, which I know you
    all are leading on in a bipartisan effort, but also the
    importance of our Administration and this President, which he
    does, recognizing that we have a major gap in the labor market
    for our dairy farmers, a lot of our row croppers, and how you
    balance that, obviously, with his commitment to America and to
    the American voters, which we don't all agree on, but to
    address illegal immigration. So please know I am committed to
    working around the clock to solve for that.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Yes.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama,
    Mr. Moore, for 5 minutes.
        Secretary Rollins. Hello.
        Mr. Moore. Over here, Secretary Rollins. How are you?
    Welcome.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you for being here today, and thank you
    for all your work you are doing on negotiating with countries.
    I think reference prices, input costs have been mentioned by
    Mr. Davis. Obviously, that is an issue. We have lost a lot of
    farms, and I think as a result of inflation, obviously. We have
    printed money like drunk sailors in D.C. for the last 4 years,
    and in some cases, that is an insult to drunk sailors. But
    inflation has really caught our producers in a tough, tough
    spot with fuel costs and energy costs, those sort of things.
        But one of the issues I want to kind of breach with you and
    talk a little bit about is we recently have noticed there has
    been some SNAP fraud and card scamming. And just a few weeks
    ago, the DOJ charged a USDA employee and five others in a $66
    million SNAP fraud and bribery scheme in New York. And
    shockingly, this criminal scheme went on for years under the
    prior Administration.
        So Madam Secretary, what action is the Department taking to
    ensure that these sort of egregious levels of fraud are being
    addressed?
        Secretary Rollins. This is at the very top of the list.
    Currently, we can prove $1 of every $10, which is about $34
    million a day is paid out in taxpayer money that is
    fraudulently paid. We have an across-the-government, whole-of-
    government approach right now. The New York case that you
    mentioned is just one of many. There was a sting operation led
    by our Secret Service, interestingly enough, on the West Coast
    within the last month. Many more are coming, working alongside
    Pam Bondi at the DOJ.
        But part of that, sir--and we have talked about it a little
    bit this morning--is the reluctance or refusal of many states
    to turn their data over to us, so it is hard for us to even
    know where that money is going and who it is being paid to. We
    are now directing it, and if they are not willing to do it, we
    are going to start moving through litigation. So we are going
    to force the issue, but it has to stop, and we can't continue
    to pay taxpayer dollars in such a fraudulent way.
        Mr. Moore. Yes, you said earlier, it contains
    sustainability. In some ways, I think you changed how you said
    it, but I think in many ways, with SNAP, that is what we have
    do.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Moore. We want it for the families that need it, right?
    But the fraud is a big issue. And my concern--and I have been
    on Agriculture Committee for 4 years now--is there is a supply
    and demand curve. And, as SNAP, more and more money goes into
    the SNAP programs, yet the producers, the suppliers themselves
    are limited in their resources. Often, when you see that, what
    happens at the grocery stores, the prices go up because the
    demand goes higher and higher with government dollars going on
    SNAP programs, yet we are not securing producers in the market.
    And so, ultimately, the price goes up, and then the tax dollars
    on those SNAP cards don't go nearly as far as they could have.
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Moore. So I think, coupled with the fraud, increasing
    production, certainly, and getting government spending, runaway
    waste under control, helping with inflation, I think there is
    an opportunity for us to certainly help our producers. And I
    appreciate----
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Moore. Again, I have the second largest peanut-
    producing district in the nation, and I know that my farmers
    would appreciate that, and we actually were peanut producers
    until 1980. The drought and the armyworms kind of put us out.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Moore. So it is one of those things, I think we have
    lost 150,000 farms. And so I appreciate the work you are doing,
    the President is doing to try to help food security in this
    country and make sure that we are competing with other nations
    and certainly negotiating with other countries to buy our
    products. And so thank you so much for your work on that.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Moore. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to save
    a little time and yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, Congressman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sorensen,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I love the milk that is in front of you, just saying. Love
    that it is whole milk, it is good.
        Also, let it be known that we had a lunch break. I love
    that.
        Thank you to the Secretary for being with us on one of the
    greatest, if not the greatest, Committee that we have on
    Capitol Hill.
        Secretary Rollins. Amen.
        Mr. Sorensen. Just over the weekend, I drove through
    Winnebago County, Illinois. We are at the very top of Illinois.
    I noticed, being a kid that grew up in a small town, that a lot
    of the fields aren't planted. It is June 11. Some farmers have
    given up on seeing any profit this year. Mr. Davis and Mr.
    Moore touched on input costs going up, just general costs going
    up, but it is also costing our farmers when the USDA extension
    services are reduced or canceled.
        We are failing to open up foreign markets for export. The
    USDA is cutting programs like conservation, rural development,
    technical support. And the result, our smaller hometowns are
    not doing better today, and they are losing faith. Farmers are
    being hit really hard. And back home, those family farmers,
    they don't want a handout from the Administration.
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Sorensen. They want agriculture to work.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Sorensen. I am also struck that the Administration--in
    your testimony, you have omitted any mention of changing
    climate. It is no surprise here. I have studied meteorology for
    the better part of the majority of my life. It is one of my
    life's loves to communicate how our environment is changing.
    And you can't tell farmers that climate change is a hoax
    because they know you are lying to them.
        I have seen the weather records on family farms. It is
    harder to farm today than it ever was before because the game
    is changing for them. So when you fail to acknowledge what they
    are dealing with, and the Administration says it is a hoax, too
    many of our farmers, they can't quit their jobs like I did to
    come to Congress. They quit their life. We are failing to meet
    their needs. And it is not politics, it is science. And you
    can't make farmers stronger or make America healthy by slashing
    the very systems that produce healthy food and homegrown clean
    energy.
        I did want to touch on, and I am very concerned that
    producers may not get their harvest to local schools and food
    banks through the LFPA. This improves our domestic food supply
    chain resilience. It generates revenue for our farmers at a
    time when they can't make a profit. A program that ensures
    healthy food gets to those who need it most.
        The Midwest Food Bank in the heart of Illinois provides
    fresh local food to 288 organizations. The Northern Illinois
    Food Bank provides more than 900,000 meals through their
    program. This Administration's decision to cancel LFPA is a
    blow to local farmers, to families in need, and the
    institutions that serve them.
        In your testimony to Congress, you have mentioned
    repeatedly that this is COVID era. But while the pandemic is
    largely over, we still have this uncertainty in middle America.
    And now rural America is given more uncertainty as farmers see
    these beneficial programs go away.
        Kids nowadays say they get ``the feels'' when something
    feels good. Farmers grow corn and soybeans back home. They
    raise cattle. They are proud of their livelihood, but what
    gives them ``the feels'' is when they provide food for our
    neighbors, helping lift people out of hunger and out of poverty
    through the LFPA.
        So Madam Secretary, yes or no, will you commit to
    establishing a similar program that connects local farmers and
    local schools to food banks to provide healthier meals to
    students, improve food access for families, and reinvest in our
    economy?
        Secretary Rollins. We are really--I know yes or no, but
    forgive me. We are really focused on getting healthy produce
    and local farming into the schools. But very quickly, in
    Illinois, your local food for schools, you all still have $5.5
    million out of $7 million sitting in a bank that has not been
    distributed. And that was one of the reasons why the money
    couldn't move fast enough into the food banks. So I
    understand----
        Mr. Sorensen. Let's put it into a program that works. I am
    all for that.
        I have deep concerns about Make America Healthy Again. As
    you move the President's agenda forward, will you make sure
    that there is a seat at the table for farmers, for ranchers?
    The Agriculture Committee wants to be able to express what they
    support, what they don't.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Sorensen. We need to meet the need for food production,
    nutrition access, and rural economies. Can we get farmers at
    the table?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Sorensen. Thank you. Also, I have very limited time
    left, but last question. How committed are you to making sure
    that our research, like the Peoria Ag Lab, our ag labs across
    the country are fulfilled and that the money is going to them?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, of course. As we have refocused and
    realigned, but we have ensured, other than a handful, that they
    are continuing, they are strong, and that they are doing really
    good work. The ones that we pulled back, we had major deferred
    maintenance issues and a significant cost, so if you are
    hearing differently, though, please call me and let us focus on
    that.
        Mr. Sorensen. Okay. Great.
        Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Sorensen. I appreciate you.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Mr. Harris for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Madam Secretary, what a joy it is to have you here
    today and we are certainly honored to have you.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Harris. And I thank you for your time and your patience
    and endurance through such a long hearing.
        But Madam Secretary, the ongoing avian flu outbreak has led
    to the loss of over 174 million birds since 2022. It has been a
    plague on the industry for too long, and I frankly have heard
    positive feedback from the broilers and layers in my district
    in regards to your five-point plan. In fact, one of the things
    I have heard here from my colleagues, and this being my
    freshman term, is that you are probably the most qualified
    individual to serve as Secretary of Agriculture that we have
    had in the last generation.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Harris. So USDA has outlined $1 billion plan with $500
    million for farm biosecurity and $400 million for producer
    relief. Can you elaborate more on how these funds are being
    targeted to strengthen farm-level preparedness?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I really appreciate that. Thank you
    for those really nice words.
        Since we rolled out the plan, we have done almost 850
    biosecurity assessments, so meaning we go onto the farms and
    help the farmers ensure that the barns are locked down. That is
    clearly the number one and best and most effective way to stop
    the HPAI is the biosecurity. So we have done about 830 of
    those. We have spent a lot of money on indemnity, about $70
    million to repopulate the barns to get the chickens back into
    laying form very, very quickly. We have been importing some
    eggs while we repopulate, which has allowed the prices to come
    down. And then, of course, the $100 million focused on a long-
    term solution, which hopefully we can get to in the short-term.
        I am not sure that there has been anything more
    heartbreaking to me in the 118 days since I was confirmed than
    visiting with some of these egg farmers who have lost their
    life. And I know there is this narrative that, ``Oh, they just
    want the money and the depopulation.'' That is not it. These
    farmers who basically have generational egg-laying farms have
    lost everything.
        And so I remain committed to them. I have visited with a
    lot of them around the country over the last 100+ days. And
    anything they are seeing that is not working, we would love to
    know, but we are proud of the work so far.
        Mr. Harris. Great. Can you share more about how efforts to
    right-size the U.S. agriculture trade imbalance will actually
    aid the industry's recovery and stabilize the egg supply we
    have talked about?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I think that with specifics to
    trade, I was in the first Trump Administration. I was in the
    West Wing with the President every day for the second, third,
    and fourth year. I ran the domestic policy agenda. I obviously
    have always believed in his vision of realigning the world and
    that America has been taken advantage of.
        What I didn't realize until this job is just how big the
    disparity is and how our country has been so taken advantage of
    year after year, decade after decade. And so the President's
    focus for us in the ag community, as, again, uncertain as this
    time is and as hard as it is, especially on some of our row
    croppers, at the end of the day, just around the corner, is a
    new day.
        And when we left the first Trump Administration, there was
    a trade surplus for ag. After 4 years of Joe Biden, it is a $50
    billion trade deficit, money directly out of our farmers'
    pockets. We are going to fix that. When we do, that will
    significantly help all of our ag producers, but certainly the
    ones in your district and the broiler and chicken industry
    hopefully will be just as helped as everybody else.
        Mr. Harris. Got you. And one final question. As you know,
    timely access to credit is essential for producers, especially
    during a downturn in the farm economy. I oftentimes hear from
    both lenders and producers about the length of time it takes to
    process loans. And given the President's strong commitment to
    reducing the size of government and reducing regulations, can
    you share any efforts that the Department is making to kind of
    speed up this process?
        Secretary Rollins. I talk about how the 118 days have been
    filled with a lot of surprises both good and bad.
        Mr. Harris. Right.
        Secretary Rollins. And on the second part of that, the bad
    side is just how stunningly bad this agency has been at
    reacting, at helping, at supporting, and moving out some of
    these programs. Some of those loan programs are at the very top
    of the list. We have brought in a team of formerly private,
    very successful industry bankers, et cetera, that can help us
    recalibrate the whole program. And I think that is really,
    really important. We can't do our job, and we can't do right by
    these farmers under the current situation that we inherited.
        Mr. Harris. Well, thank you again. And again from the 8th
    District of North Carolina, we hear great things and a lot of
    excitement about things moving forward.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Riley for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Secretary, for being here. I see your kids made an escape
    during the break. Is that right?
        Secretary Rollins. They are so happy.
        Mr. Riley. I am sure they are.
        Secretary Rollins. They are like, I think it is time for us
    to go now, Mom.
        Mr. Riley. They looked very engaged.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Riley. I will tell you----
        Secretary Rollins. Eighteen, 17, and 15, yes.
        Mr. Riley. So mine are 5 and 2, about to be 5 and 2, and my
    5 year old--everybody here knows this already. My 5 year old is
    my most senior chief advisor.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Riley. I am new here. And when I asked him what
    committees I should get on, I read him the list of all the
    committees in Congress, tried explaining to a 5 year old what
    Ways and Means does. And at the end of it, he said, you have to
    get on the one with the tractors and the farm animals, and so
    here we are.
        Secretary Rollins. So here you are. Congratulations.
        Mr. Riley. Thank you. When I came here a few months ago, I
    promised that I would work with anyone from any party who wants
    to do right by upstate New York. And I am going to fight
    anybody who is hurting us.
        I think this Committee, one of the things I do like about
    it, there are a lot of opportunities for bipartisanship.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Riley. Earlier today, I was working with my friend Zach
    Nunn on the PLANT Act (H.R. 4014, Preventing Lethal
    Agricultural and National Threats (PLANT) Act) to crack down on
    China. There was some conversation here about cracking down on
    China buying farmland. I think there is room for bipartisan
    agreement on that.
        One of the things I would really like to work on with you
    is lowering grocery bills, and particularly egg prices, which I
    know has been a priority of yours. Back during the Obama
    Administration, they enacted some regulations that are still on
    the books, and they are keeping hundreds of millions of
    perfectly good American eggs off the market. And when you are
    suppressing supply, that is part of what is driving up the
    prices. So Dusty Johnson and I have a bipartisan bill. There
    are ten Republicans, six Democrats on it, and I think eight of
    us on this Committee, evenly divided, are doing that bill. We
    were very creative in naming it the Lowering Egg Prices Act of
    2025 (H.R. 2222). And I was just hoping to get your commitment
    that you will work with us to get that bill done, get it to the
    President's desk, and do some bipartisan relief on grocery
    bills.
        Secretary Rollins. I would love to do that. In fact, if we
    could maybe next week jump on the phone and you could walk me
    through it, that would be great.
        Mr. Riley. Sure.
        Great, I will take you up on that.
        Secretary Rollins. What is the bill number?
        Mr. Riley. That I don't know, but we can find----
        Secretary Rollins. Okay.
        No worries.
        Mr. Riley. Yes. Yes.
        Secretary Rollins. We will find it.
        Mr. Riley. Yes.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Riley. Thank you. I have a follow-up on some questions
    I have asked you in writing previously. I sent you a letter on
    May 20 in which I asked you if you could get me a list of the
    farmers in my district in New York 19, in upstate New York
    whose contracts had been suspended because I want to be able to
    reach out to each of them individually to make sure they are
    getting what they need. I followed up with you on Monday
    because I still had not received the list. And then about 20
    minutes before today's hearing, I got a response from your
    office. It didn't answer my question. It actually raised even
    more questions for me.
        And so, just what do I need to do to get--what I am asking
    for is just a list of the farmers in my district whose
    contracts have been suspended so that I can reach out to them
    and make sure they are getting everything they need.
        Secretary Rollins. They are confirming. It is our
    understanding there is no list because everything is moving at
    this point.
        Mr. Riley. Okay.
        Secretary Rollins. So if you are hearing differently or you
    have someone saying we are not moving here, would you let us
    know?
        Mr. Riley. Well, this----
        Secretary Rollins. But there should be no one that is
    frozen.
        Mr. Riley. No, no, but this is the problem is you are
    putting the burden on farmers who are working 20 hours a day.
        Secretary Rollins. But we don't think there is----
        Mr. Riley. No, no, let me finish.
        Secretary Rollins. But we don't think there is anyone----
        Mr. Riley. Let me finish.
        Secretary Rollins.--that has been frozen.
        Mr. Riley. To come to me and say, I have a problem----
        Secretary Rollins. There is no list.
        Mr. Riley.--whereas our job should be--so you haven't kept
    track----
        Secretary Rollins. No----
        Mr. Riley. You have----
        Secretary Rollins.--we have.
        Mr. Riley. You suspended----
        Secretary Rollins. There is no one that is frozen in your
    district.
        Mr. Riley. That is what I am trying to get at and confirm.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Riley. You are telling me today, every contract that
    had been suspended with a farmer in my district has since been
    unfrozen.
        Secretary Rollins. That is our understanding.
        Mr. Riley. Okay. That is what I am trying to get at.
        And then the last thing I wanted to talk with you about, I
    would love for you to come visit Chobani with me. They are in
    New Berlin in Chenango County doing incredible work. It is an
    all-natural food company. I went and I took a tour a week or 2
    ago. They are hiring thousands of upstate New Yorkers, buying
    millions of gallons of upstate New York milk from upstate New
    York farmers. They have this incredibly exciting expansion that
    is happening across upstate New York. Whether you are a
    Democratic or Republican, regardless of political party, it is
    the thing that like everybody should be excited about, and I
    would love to have you come with me, see it for yourself.
        Secretary Rollins. It is incredible.
        Mr. Riley. A tour----
        Secretary Rollins. I haven't been there, but I have been in
    contact with the CEO a couple of different times now so I am
    very aware.
        Mr. Riley. Good.
        Secretary Rollins. I actually committed to him to come
    visit. I didn't realize that was in your district, but that is
    great.
        Mr. Riley. Good.
        Secretary Rollins. I will be there.
        Mr. Riley. Terrific. Well, he is above my pay grade, so
    since you gave him the commitment, I will just add mine onto it
    and would love to host you.
        Secretary Rollins. We will just follow up. That sounds
    great.
        Mr. Riley. All right.
        Secretary Rollins. That sounds great. Thank you.
        Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Mr. Taylor from Ohio for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    for holding this hearing today, and thank you, Secretary
    Rollins, for being here. It is great to see you again. I
    appreciate all the hard work----
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, you too.
        Mr. Taylor.--you are doing on behalf of the agriculture
    community.
        Across rural America, including in southern Ohio, solar
    panels are being put on some of the best farmland in the world.
    As you pointed out in a recent op-ed, the acquisition of land
    for new farmers has also become increasingly difficult amid
    high costs in real estate development. It is expected that 50
    percent of all farmland will transfer hands in the next 20
    years, and it is essential that that land goes to our next
    generation of family farmers.
        I believe farmers should have every right to do what they
    want with their land, but the Federal Government should not be
    incentivizing the most productive land being taken out of
    production. That is why I introduced the Protecting American
    Farmland Act (H.R. 3313) to prohibit all Federal funds, grants,
    loans, tax credits, you name it, from going towards solar
    panels converting prime farmland, and I have been thrilled to
    see your proactiveness on this issue.
        Could you talk a little bit about how solar panels on prime
    farmland are making it more difficult for the next generation
    of farmers to get started in the business, and for the peace of
    mind of new farmers, can you commit that USDA funding won't go
    towards putting solar panels on prime farmland in the future?
        Secretary Rollins. One hundred percent, I can commit to
    that. I will also say that I have spoken to the President about
    this. I will also say that we are moving regulations through
    USDA relative to this as much as we can within the Executive
    Branch. Obviously, you all have the lead on that, and I will
    support you in whatever way I can.
        The final thing I will say is I spent my summers on our
    family's row crop farm in Minnesota, and we would fly from
    Texas to St. Paul every summer when I was growing up, working
    up there, take the hour drive from St. Paul up to Clear Lake,
    Minnesota, through the most beautiful farmland you have ever
    seen. And in the, well, 53 years that I have been making that
    drive, watching the solar panels take over all of that farmland
    in that 72 mile drive is heartbreaking.
        And so not only is it important for national security, not
    only is it important for the preservation of our smaller family
    farms, not only is it important for our row croppers where that
    land is being taken off, but it is important for the fabric of
    America that we are not selling away this farmland for solar
    panels funded by some interesting things. So yes, I am 100
    percent on board. Anything I can do to help on that, I am at
    your beck and call.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much. As I travel around
    southern Ohio, the most common thing I hear from farmers is the
    need to protect the farm safety net, specifically crop
    insurance and commodity programs. That is why in the One Big
    Beautiful Bill that the House recently passed, we included the
    much-needed investment in our farm safety net. These provisions
    are one of the many reasons we need to put this bill on the
    President's desk as quickly as possible. Secretary Rollins,
    could you talk a little bit about the importance of including
    farm safety net provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill to our
    farmers and rural communities?
        Secretary Rollins. I got the call for this job from
    President Trump on Saturday, November 23rd. I was the last
    Cabinet, one of at least the larger spots left. He called me
    Saturday morning. We were driving in our motorhome from Fort
    Worth to Auburn, Alabama, for a football game, and hung up the
    phone, obviously extremely honored, the honor of a lifetime.
    And then the very next thought in my head was how are we going
    to get a farm bill passed? And the reason is understanding the
    margins that these farmers have been operating under and
    understanding that the few times that we tried to get--we--I
    should say I wasn't part of the last 4 years, but it was tried
    to move a farm bill that was unsuccessful for a lot of reasons.
    A lot of people were hurting because of that, but no one hurt
    more by that than our farmers and those who rely on these
    reference prices.
        So I can't say enough and have been making this case to
    anyone that will listen that this Big Beautiful Bill is
    important for a lot of reasons, the President's tax cuts being
    permanent, creating more jobs, keeping the death tax out of our
    family farms, et cetera, et cetera. But I am not sure from my
    perspective and this job that there is anything more important
    than updating those reference prices, so I am very proud of
    that. And hopefully, it goes to the finish line.
        Mr. Taylor. Amen. Your lips to God's ears. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from New
    Mexico, Mr. Vasquez, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Secretary, for being here today. And I am up here next to the
    Chairman.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, okay, I see you. Bad eyes.
        Mr. Vasquez. Madam Secretary, I am glad that you have come
    before our Committee today. I represent one of the largest and
    most rural districts in the country, a district that elected
    both me and President Trump. Farmers, ranchers, food banks, and
    wildfire crews in my district rely on a properly staffed and
    functioning USDA, not just for support, but for survival.
        But right now, many of them feel that the USDA is failing
    them. As an example, in Silver City, New Mexico, the Frontier
    Food Hub, which is the only food pantry for hundreds of miles,
    had its Community Food Project grant abruptly frozen halfway
    through its 4 year term. Frontier Food Hub isn't just feeding
    families. It is an organization that is supporting small-scale
    rural producers in the region. Now, they spent those funds in
    good faith, built partnerships, and hired local workers. But
    when USDA turned off their contract with no warning and no
    explanation and no opportunity to appeal or correct course, it
    put their entire operation and the food security of the region
    in jeopardy.
        Secretary Rollins, as you can see, this is a critical
    program in a place like Silver City, New Mexico. Would you
    commit to upholding funding for rural communities in places
    like Silver City that provide these services?
        Secretary Rollins. Are you talking about the local food,
    the LFPA, or the Local Food for Schools, the local food
    purchases? There are so many. I have a couple different
    thoughts, but depending on which one you are talking about.
        Mr. Vasquez. Yes, it is the Community Food Project.
        Secretary Rollins. The Community Food Project. Okay. Okay.
    I understand. So our commitment, and continues to be, that we
    ensure that we are using taxpayer dollars, that the producers
    around those areas, understanding some of the food insecurity,
    continues to be a priority.
        What I would really appreciate--and I have actually been
    talking to Senator Heinrich from New Mexico about a couple of
    other key issues--is that you let us know specifics in what
    that looks like and how it has compromised, potentially, the
    goals of that community in New Mexico.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate that,
    and we will follow up.
        Now, I also represent the Gila and the Lincoln National
    Forest, and we are heading into peak wildfire season.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Vasquez. New Mexico experienced two of its largest
    wildfires just 2 years ago. Yet dozens of our seasoned Forest
    Service firefighters and trail crews have been fired and
    sidelined. In fact, I met with a group of seven members of a
    trail crew who actually are the ones who maintain the trails
    and cut fire lines in the wilderness areas of the forest who
    are just 1 week away from being fired. These are the very
    people that we rely on to protect our communities, to clear our
    trails, and to manage our forests. And without them, this
    wildfire season could be more dangerous, deadly, and disastrous
    than the one we recently saw.
        We are now in fire season. Has the USDA done any analysis
    on how these cuts impact public safety in fire-prone rural
    communities?
        Secretary Rollins. We have. We are 96 percent operational.
    We are way ahead--not way ahead, we are ahead of where the
    Biden Administration was a year ago in preparation for fire
    season. We have more firefighters on the ground and ready to
    go. I actually have been in conversations about this also with
    your Senator from New Mexico, specifically talking about the
    New Mexico challenges. So we are aware and leaned in, but
    again, please send any information to me that you see that is
    different from what I am understanding for New Mexico.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate that.
    And where a lot of the work happens, again, is with the trail
    crews who have a function within the larger preventative
    control of these forest fires, and so we definitely need
    firefighters to respond to a fire incident, but we also need
    the folks who are out there cutting those trails that allow
    those firefighters in, so I would suggest that we continue to
    look at those positions as very valuable to the entire
    firefighting ecosystem.
        Secretary Rollins. I agree. And we have invested a lot of
    money in the clearing, so let me get my arms around exactly
    what that looks like for New Mexico and we will follow up.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
        Now, every Member of this Committee has shared similar
    stories involving food pantries left in the dark, trail crews
    cast aside, producers that the USDA has promised to support. I
    introduced the Honor Farmer Contracts Act (H.R. 2396), which is
    a bill essentially that would allow USDA to fully pay those
    contracts that have already been executed, some dealing back
    all the way to last year because constituents are holding up
    their end of the deal, but they feel USDA isn't. So I would
    love for you to take a look at that bill and see if it is
    something that you would support.
        Now, I listen to the people on the ground in my district,
    and so I created an agriculture advisory group. Now, in my
    district, we grow pecans, chili, cotton, beef, and so many
    other specialty crops as well. And those local leaders that
    make up my Ag Advisory Committee, which the Chairman here has
    been gracious enough to talk to, would love the opportunity to
    talk with you and even more so to see you in the district. And
    in order to understand these impacts in my local community,
    would you be willing to visit the 2nd district of New Mexico in
    the near future?
        Secretary Rollins. I would. I would.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. De La Cruz,
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary, for being here today.
        I sit before you with immense gratitude and a profound
    sense of hope for our farmers, especially in deep south Texas.
    We are indebted to you for not only focusing and visiting our
    Rio Grande Valley and our deep south Texas, but talking about
    what was the number one issue for us, which was the water
    deliveries that came from Mexico that they were obligated to
    give us due to the 1944 Water Treaty (Treaty Series 994,
    Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of
    the Rio Grande).
        Your tireless effort in putting that at the front of the
    national stage and sitting in the Oval Office many times with
    President Trump and being the voice for south Texas farmers who
    had really lost hope, many of which lost their farms. In fact,
    as you know, we lost our sugarcane industry due to Mexico not
    delivering that water.
        Secretary Rollins. We did.
        Ms. De La Cruz. So thank you from the bottom of my heart
    and from all of south Texas.
        Not only that, but you quickly pushed forward the $280
    million that went to our farms that were affected by the 1944
    Water Treaty. Yesterday, I had one of my farming constituents
    here that I took to dinner, and she said, ``Monica, we received
    our money from the $280 million that were allocated to us, and
    it saved our farm family. Had we waited even a moment longer, I
    would not be able to sit with you today as a farming family.''
        Secretary Rollins. That is amazing.
        Ms. De La Cruz. So I know that it made a profound impact.
    Thank you, thank you, thank you. Your tireless effort has been
    noticed and recognized, and you made a difference in our family
    community and our farming community.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Ms. De La Cruz. That being said, I also want to say that
    the next step for us with the 1944 water treaty is that we work
    together with you, with Secretary Rubio, as well as the Trade
    Secretary to make sure that we get the 1944 water treaty as
    part of the discussion into the USMCA agreement. That will be
    our goal, that the treaty become part of the USMCA agreement so
    that it has teeth for further discussions should Mexico not
    comply again with the 1944 Water Treaty.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Ms. De La Cruz. So can I have your commitment to work with
    us in getting the 1944 water treaty into the USMCA agreement?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Ms. De La Cruz. So now that we have made big strides in
    getting water delivered to our farmers, the next thing is the
    screwworm. That is something that is of great importance to our
    farmers, our ranchers, our cattlemen are very, very worried
    about the screwworm. It is a devastating pest that poses a
    severe risk to our livestock and our wildlife and is
    threatening generational farms and farming families. It could
    have catastrophic consequences to our agricultural economy and
    to our natural ecosystem.
        Recognizing the urgency of this threat, I was proud to
    introduce the New World Screwworm Preparedness Act of 2025
    (H.R. 3806) and believe that this legislation will help bolster
    our defenses and enhance surveillance and ensure that we have
    the necessary resources and infrastructure to prevent and
    respond to potential outbreaks.
        With this in mind, I would like to encourage you to
    consider a sterile fly facility is established here in the
    United States, but consider Moore Air Base in Hidalgo County as
    its potential sites. Would that be something that you would
    consider?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, and we will be in touch on that
    very soon. But you are 100 percent right, Congresswoman, and it
    continues to be my great honor to partner with you. You are
    relentless and just such a great advocate, and I am just really
    honored, first on the water, now working together on the
    screwworm. I know you know this. I am in constant communication
    with my counterpart in Mexico, Secretary Berdegue and the
    Mexican Government. We have to move the screwworm back, and if
    we don't, we will have another 3 decades of trying to recover
    from it. So we will have an announcement very, very soon, and
    you will be hearing from our office on that.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Excellent. Well, thank you. I hope that
    Moore Air Base will be considered since it does have the
    infrastructure available to combat this.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you. I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I will be recognizing Mr. Mannion next, and then that will
    finish up the kind of special order of those who were here when
    we recessed, and then we will resume the regular order on the
    list here.
        So Mr. Mannion is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
    thank you for appearing today and for your service to America's
    farmers. Earlier this year, I wrote a letter expressing deep
    concern about USDA's plan to close dozens of FSA and NRCS
    offices nationwide. In May, I also joined a delegation letter
    about the proposed lease termination of the Syracuse, New York,
    field office that serves my district.
        I appreciate receiving USDA's response to that letter this
    morning, but I remain worried that shutting these front door
    offices will leave rural producers without the help and
    assistance they rely on. So just where are you in terms of USDA
    reorganization and potential office moves?
        Secretary Rollins. And sir, I am sorry, I missed it. Which
    specific offices?
        Mr. Mannion. It was Syracuse, New York.
        Secretary Rollins. The Syracuse, New York, FSA office or
    Rural Development? Do you know which one?
        Mr. Mannion. It is a USDA office, yes.
        Secretary Rollins. Okay. Well, we are going through the
    reorganization. So for example, in some buildings, we have four
    different leases. Our GSA is the one managing all of that. I am
    not aware of any office that is closing. We shouldn't in terms
    of our interfacing with the farmers. But again, if you could
    get more specifics, we can dig into that.
        Mr. Mannion. Sure. Yes.
        Secretary Rollins. And in fact, the team maybe can look at
    that right now.
        Mr. Mannion. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Riley is adjacent to my district. He mentioned our
    dairy community in my conversations with representatives from
    USDA and our farmers, how essential these offices are.
        Secretary Rollins. They are.
        Mr. Mannion. And they appreciate having that easy access
    and can problem solve and assist those that need it.
        Secretary Rollins. I agree.
        Mr. Mannion. I appreciate you looking into that and
    certainly understand that there is a lot going on at these
    points, and I will give more details on the specific division
    that you had requested. We will follow up with your team.
        Just finally, as far as dairy, New York is the fifth
    largest dairy state in the country. I do not have that Chobani
    plant in my district, nor do I have the new proposed $1.2
    billion Chobani plant that will be in Representative Stefanik's
    district.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes. That is right.
        Mr. Mannion. But I share many concerns that have been
    expressed in this hearing. There will need just themselves
    upwards of 180,000 more cows many of whom do exist or will
    exist in my district and neighboring.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Mannion. So I thank you. I ask that you, I am sure,
    will continue to work with the Secretary of Labor and other
    members of this Administration and the legislature to work
    towards a year-round dairy farmer visa.
        Secretary Rollins. That is right. And understanding that
    labor H-2A needs so much work, and this Committee has done
    hero's work on it, but no one is more affected and needs reform
    more than our dairy industry. And so working very closely and
    in concert, I have to try to get that done is of utmost
    priority for me.
        Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Mannion. I yield back.
        Mr. Finstad [presiding.] All right. There is a new sheriff
    in town, so I am going to recognize myself.
        Secretary Rollins. I am so sorry. The lease cancellation
    you are talking about was rescinded so that should be solved.
        Mr. Mannion. Yes. Thank you.
        Secretary Rollins. The Syracuse, New York. You are welcome.
    I am so sorry, sir.
        Mr. Finstad. Already off the rails. Perfect.
        Secretary Rollins. Already breaking the rules.
        Mr. Finstad. Madam Secretary, it is great to have you here.
    I just have to start out by saying you are a breath of fresh
    air, your optimism, your excitement, and the fact that you were
    essentially born and raised just about an hour and a half north
    of where my row crop farm is brings a smile to my face.
        I want to talk a little bit about really the family farm
    and the future of the family farm. I am a fourth-generation
    farmer. I am a farm kid and a product of the 1980s when we had
    some really tough times, and the message to farm country was,
    this is no life for you, get off the farm, we can't make it.
    Interest rates are too high. Commodity prices were too risky.
    You know the routine. And now we fast forward, and I am raising
    the fifth generation.
        And I look at egg trade deficit. I look at the inputs that
    continue to cripple us. I look at a stagnant market. And so as
    I look to what we were able to do in the reconciliation
    package, the Big Beautiful Bill, there are some things that I
    would like to hear your thoughts on. And specifically to me, as
    I get closer to 50 and further away from 40, I start thinking
    about things like what does passing the farm on look like?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Finstad. And farmers of my size really are crippled
    with the fact that if we were to gift or to, God forbid, hit
    the pearly gates early and our kids are left with our farm, do
    they sell land just to pay the tax bill?
        Secretary Rollins. Right.
        Mr. Finstad. And so in the reconciliation package, I am
    really proud of the fact that we were able to take a look at
    the death tax, the estate tax, but more specifically the 199A,
    the 45Z, the 179 deductions, and the permanency that we were
    able to make in that. So I would like to hear your thoughts on
    maybe the business side of farming and what we were able to
    accomplish in the Big Beautiful Bill through the House here and
    maybe give a message of hope to the fifth generation of my farm
    and what it looks like to be a farmer in Minnesota in the
    future.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you for that. And the best
    part about my job in the last 118 days, we have been nonstop on
    the road, been to your amazing state, been to I think 17 or 18
    states at this point, two countries, we will continue, but just
    meeting with the farmers and hearing from them specifically.
    Everywhere I go, I will do two or three roundtables so I can,
    it is not one or two. It is a 15, 20, 25 person roundtable and
    just hearing from people just like you who are third, fourth,
    fifth, sixth, seventh generation farmers. And the number one
    concern that always comes up is how do I preserve this way of
    life for my children and my children's children?
        And that has really struck me as perhaps when I leave,
    hopefully in 3\1/2\ years, but perhaps when I leave, if there
    is one thing I could have done, it would have been to make the
    road smoother for the generations coming behind you and coming
    behind me to stay in this way of life. And so about a month
    ago, I told the team, I said, we have to come up with a--I am a
    policy person at heart. We have to come up with a slate of
    policy that allows this to continue indefinitely.
        And as we hit year 250 for the American dream and the
    American birthday, a country that was founded on farming and
    farmers, that was fought by farmers in the original revolution,
    that the entire fabric of our nation is based on that
    discipline and hard work and love of country, I just can't
    underscore how important this is.
        And so the work that you all did in the Big Beautiful Bill:
    whether it was protecting two million family farms from the
    death tax, whether it was making sure we have $10 billion in
    tax cuts going to our family farmers, whether it was a $3.8
    billion increase in income to our family farmers, whether to
    your point, the 45Z and extending that to 2031, these are
    gamechangers. And I will do whatever I can all day, every day
    to ensure that it moves forward in a significant way.
        Having said all of that, if we don't open up these world
    markets, if we don't bring down the cost of inputs, if we don't
    ensure that our family farms have a prosperous future where
    they are not reliant or mostly reliant on the government
    payout, then we won't get to the next 250 years and be the
    America that we are today. That is how seriously I take this.
    So thank you for your work, and thank you for the opportunity
    to partner on that.
        Mr. Finstad. I appreciate that. And in the few seconds that
    I have left, I mean, I will just tell you that the farmers that
    I have the honor of representing southern Minnesota tell me all
    the time that they want to farm for a market. They don't want
    to farm for the mailbox.
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Finstad. They don't want the government to have to step
    in because they want a market that produces, and they want to
    run their business as a business. So I really appreciate your
    thoughts and appreciate the passion that you bring to this role
    and looking forward to your continued leadership.
        Secretary Rollins. Oh, thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Finstad. You bet. All right. With that, we will go to
    Mr. Gray.
        Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Craig.
    Secretary Rollins, thank you for appearing here today. It is
    nice to see you again. We met at your first day on the job.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, we did.
        Mr. Gray. I came over with the Chairman. You were nice
    enough to give me your cell phone number so we could keep in
    touch.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes. Good to see you.
        Mr. Gray. Nice to see you again. Next time, we will make
    sure we invite.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes. Don't take it personally.
        Mr. Gray. So my district lies in the heart of California's
    Central Valley, a region that feeds the nation and much of the
    world. We produce over $59 billion in agricultural output each
    year, accounting for one in every four bites of food consumed
    by Americans daily. We grow almonds, dairy, citrus, tomatoes,
    cotton, you name it, and we do it with less water, less margin
    for error, and more climate risk than just about anywhere else
    in the country.
        What keeps us competitive and what keeps us resilient is
    research and innovation. My district is home to both UC Merced
    and Merced College, both institutions that are leading the
    country in that respect. At Merced College, the Ag Tech
    Workforce Initiative is redefining how we train and up-skill
    the next generation of agricultural professionals.
    Complementing this effort, we have a 22,000 square foot Ag
    Innovation Center. UC Merced is home to one of the most
    cutting-edge smart farms in the country, all of this supported
    through Federal and state investments, including the $65
    million F3 award benefiting both those institutions and those
    programs.
        These institutions produce the science that allows
    agriculture in the valley to stay ahead of diseases, water
    scarcity, global competitors, and we are not talking about the
    ivory tower theory here. We are talking about cutting-edge,
    applicable, and exciting research happening every day in our
    universities and, more importantly, on our farms. This leads to
    better irrigation systems that stretch every drop of water,
    pest and drought resilient crop varieties, carbon-smart
    techniques that boost soil health and reduce emissions. These
    are the very tools that will shape the future of agriculture,
    not just in California, but throughout the country.
        And yet, the USDA's 2025 budget proposal slashes millions
    in agricultural research and farmer support. While we are
    reducing our investment in American ag research, countries like
    China and Brazil are doubling down. They are building new
    research stations, funding climate-resilient agriculture,
    dominating global markets with lower costs and higher volume.
    If we want American agriculture to remain the global gold
    standard, we cannot afford to fall behind in innovation.
        And let's be clear, food security is national security.
    When USDA cuts research funding, it is not just scientists who
    lose out, it is farmers trying to manage water shortages, it is
    dairy producers investing in affordable feed alternatives or
    methane digesters and other technologies to help them remain
    competitive.
        So Madam Secretary, these cuts send the wrong message that
    rural America is expected to do more with less, that we will
    figure it out without the resources or tools our competitors
    are using to leap ahead. I know budgets are tight, but cutting
    research is both short-sighted and fiscally irresponsible.
        So Secretary Rollins, my question is two-part. One, how do
    you and I collaborate and how do we collaborate here in
    Congress as a body to ensure that this Administration starts to
    prioritize these critical investments that will be the
    foundation of agriculture and farming over this next 100 years?
    And two, can I get a commitment from you that you will come to
    my district and let me show you firsthand the innovation and
    breadth of production that makes up the greatest and largest
    farming valley in the world?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, the last question first, I would be
    honored to come visit. If I could provide a little context
    though because I do think your points are salient and they are
    important, but in the budget, we only cut about seven percent,
    and that went from $2.1 billion with ARS to $1.9 billion, and I
    understand what you are saying, that is still seven percent or
    7.6 percent I think, but that was very specific to some
    outdated facilities that weren't online and weren't producing
    the research that was necessary.
        We remain wholly committed to the research that you
    mentioned, the university that you mentioned. I am a product of
    a land-grant, Texas A&M out of Texas, really believe in the
    work that is being done. And to your point about national
    security, it is more important today than ever before that we
    continue that.
        Mr. Gray. Well, Madam Secretary, I appreciate that
    response, and I look forward to hosting you in Merced and
    throughout the San Joaquin Valley. It is a beautiful place, and
    we do some incredible things there. And, you have said this
    Administration supports agriculture, you have said you want to
    level the playing field for rural producers. I would certainly
    like to work with you----
        The Chairman [presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Gray. Thank you.
        Secretary Rollins. I look forward to that, thank you.
        Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman
    from Texas, Mr. Jackson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Madam Secretary, for being here today. We appreciate your time.
    I just want to tell you, start off by saying the great State of
    Texas is really proud of you. You did a wonderful job. We
    really appreciate it.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. I will say that, during the Biden
    Administration, the USDA was weaponized to push identity
    politics, green energy scams, and lots of other things that
    were the detriment of rural America and our agricultural
    producers. Once again, on behalf of myself and the hardworking
    farmers and ranchers of Texas' 13th Congressional District, I
    want to thank you, Madam Secretary, for returning the USDA to
    its original mission of taking care of all of these that feed
    and clothe our country.
        I have the pleasure, as you know, of representing the
    largest fed cattle district in the United States, and my
    feeders rely on imports of live cattle from Mexico to
    supplement their feedyards and remain competitive in what they
    do.
        I understand that the restriction on live animals was not
    an easy choice and that the USDA made that to protect America's
    herd health. But every day that imports are suspended, my
    constituents, their businesses are severely impacted.
        Madam Secretary, I just wanted to ask you, as you mentioned
    in your testimony, the USDA is currently reviewing the import
    suspension every 30 days. Could you please describe to us, what
    are the metrics the agency would like to reach before resuming
    reentry of live cattle, and what can this Committee do to
    enhance inspection activities at U.S. ports of entry along the
    southern border once the suspension is lifted? We want to do
    everything we can to get this over as quickly as possible.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I hear you, and realize this is a
    significant, significant decision with big, big, big
    consequences for not just Mexico, but for us, for Texans and
    for the industry. The 30 days is our benchmark, but we are
    assessing every single day. The metric that we are looking for
    is to watch the screwworm retreat south. It basically moved
    from about 1,100 miles from the border to 700 miles from the
    border within just a matter of weeks, which again, we hadn't
    seen that kind of movement in decades. I can't underscore
    enough what a dire situation this is. We have put tens of
    millions of dollars into additional sterile fly production
    south of the border. We will have a significant announcement in
    a couple days to continue expanding on that.
        I am in almost daily touch with Secretary Berdegue of
    Mexico. The challenge is that the sophistication of their data
    collection, not surprisingly, south of the border is not up to
    our standards. So they have, I will give them credit, more than
    ever before, at least in our team's partnership, have been more
    open and more willing to allow our team on the ground to
    ourselves assess the situation. But please know, please know,
    that every day we are on this and we understand the consequence
    of this decision and are working so hard to be able to open
    those ports back up.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you. I appreciate that. And
    obviously, the sterile fly facility is going to help with
    dealing with this from the long-term so that we don't get, like
    you said, in a situation where it plagues us for the next 30
    years.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. But yes, anything we can do on the
    short-term, that is going to be key for the folks that I
    represent right now.
        I also wanted to applaud your leadership in quickly and
    effectively delivering desperately needed economic assistance
    for America's farmers and ranchers. While the last
    Administration delayed critical disaster assistance to promote
    identity politics, which, just was unthinkable, your agency is
    working to swiftly deliver support to producers that will help
    them remain in operation. As we continue to move towards the
    implementation of the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program, how
    are you ensuring that our farmers who suffered from indemnified
    losses and shallow losses are compensated in a timely fashion?
        Secretary Rollins. I am really proud of this. I think
    relative to--and not to throw the last Administration
    completely under the bus, I think this is true of many of the
    Administrations before us, but we have moved more quickly than
    even most people thought possible. The ECAP, of course, went
    out ahead of time, and you send your paperwork in. Within 3
    days, we turn the funding around. The next tranche is the $20
    billion. The $10 billion was the first tranche. The $21
    billion, we have already begun to move that out. You probably
    are tracking the livestock piece was the first piece.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Yes.
        Secretary Rollins. In Texas alone, 41,000 producers, 2023
    losses; 13,000 producers, 2024 losses. That money is moving. We
    have already begun distribution and should be finished in the
    next 30 to 60 days with all of it. There are some hangups with
    the Northeast block grant, but for Texas and the livestock, it
    is moving very quickly.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. I
    think you are doing a great job. It is much faster than it used
    to be, and it hasn't been so much the ability to get the relief
    approved, but to get it delivered to those who need it, so
    thank you for what you are doing.
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Alabama,
    Mr. Figures, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Rollins, pleasure to meet you. My feelings are
    hurt that I was not one of the cool kids that got to come over
    in the early days of you coming on board.
        Secretary Rollins. We will fix that.
        Mr. Figures. But I appreciate you being here, also
    appreciate your staff getting you ready for this. I have been
    in their shoes before in preparing an Executive Branch
    official, a Cabinet agency head for this sort of testimony.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes. It is a lot of work.
        Mr. Figures. It is.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Figures. It is indeed. I represent Alabama, the 2nd
    Congressional District of Alabama, which includes Mobile,
    Montgomery, Tuskegee, Troy, Phoenix City, and a bunch of other
    places I am sure you have never heard of. But within it is
    Tuskegee, formerly the Tuskegee Institute, now Tuskegee
    University, one of the land-grant colleges.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Figures. We also have Alabama A&M University in the
    State of Alabama, another land-grant college. And given USDA's
    history, particularly in the State of Alabama, one of my
    colleagues earlier mentioned how about 50 percent of the Black
    farmer litigation settlement money is coming to Alabama. There
    is a sensitivity there----
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Figures.--just given historical race relations with
    USDA--obviously, that predated you, in how USDA treats minority
    communities, particularly in the State of Alabama. And so
    through that lens, the suspension of the land-grant scholars
    program was something that resonated a little bit differently
    for us in Alabama. And just in looking at a timeline--look,
    trust me, I want to grill you on the things that I think you
    are fully responsible for and praise you for things as well.
        Secretary Rollins. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Figures. But looking at the timeline, I kind of doubt
    it was you that made that full decision and pushed that full
    process, just given when you were confirmed, when the
    suspension was announced, when the suspension was reversed. And
    so I want to get to a little bit of the bottom of how we got
    there because that really impacted a lot of students across the
    country, especially at Tuskegee University. And that university
    has done a lot in terms of ag. We know the history of George
    Washington Carver and what they have meant.
        So my question to you is, first, twofold. One, the 1862
    schools also have the same land-grant scholar program. Is that
    correct?
        Secretary Rollins. I believe that is correct, but I want to
    confirm that.
        Mr. Figures. All right. Thank you. And it is also my
    understanding that when the 1890 land-grant scholar program was
    paused, that funding was paused, that it was not paused for the
    1862 schools. Is that your understanding of it?
        Secretary Rollins. I need to research that. I am so sorry.
    I don't have that off the top of my head.
        Mr. Figures. Got it, no problem. Media reports and what was
    uploaded on the website indicates as much.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Figures. And so given that history that I just alluded
    to, it feels bad. We have had some people talk about identity
    politics, but it feels that, when you have the 1862 schools,
    which are the Texas A&Ms and the LSUs, historically White----
        Secretary Rollins. Auburn.
        Mr. Figures.--when they were established, segregated
    institutions, their funding is not touched. But then you have
    the 1890s, which were all historically Black colleges that are
    post-Civil War. Their funding was stopped. That feels
    problematic based on identity. And that was something that we,
    obviously, took issue with, and it was reversed within 5 days.
    But I feel like looking at that timeline, that that was
    something that was already in motion before you were confirmed.
    And so my question is, was that a product of DOGE, or was that
    the product of--like how did we get there, I guess, is the
    first question.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, and I wish I knew the answer to
    that because it was before my time. But I will say this, that I
    was in the first Trump Administration. We were the first
    Administration to guarantee full funding for the HBCUs.
        Mr. Figures. And I am not questioning your commitment to
    them.
        Secretary Rollins. No, but I want----
        Mr. Figures. I just want to make sure----
        Secretary Rollins. I think it----
        Mr. Figures.--that we don't end up there with some future
    funding----
        Secretary Rollins. Yes----
        Mr. Figures.--that----
        Secretary Rollins. No, sir, I appreciate that, and I take
    it to heart. And I understand the optics. I do. And I think it
    is important to note that this Administration is very committed
    to those universities and have been unequivocal in saying so.
        Mr. Figures. I appreciate it. And I don't want to cut you
    off.
        Secretary Rollins. The early days were imperfect.
        Mr. Figures. I just want to capitalize on my last 45
    seconds here.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, sorry.
        Mr. Figures. But thank you for that, and definitely want to
    work towards making sure that that does not happen again
    because it feels very racially motivated when the----
        Secretary Rollins. I can promise you it was not racially
    motivated. I think it was just an imperfect process that was
    happening.
        Mr. Figures. Well, I can appreciate that. I can appreciate
    that.
        Last thing that I have time for, and I will follow up with
    you on some other things because I would love to sit down with
    you is rural hospitals in my district are among the worst in
    the country.
        Secretary Rollins. I would welcome that.
        Mr. Figures. We have 26 rural hospitals in the State of
    Alabama that have been rated at risk of closure. We have 22
    that are rated at immediate risk of closure. We have several in
    my district that are month to month. They have to go borrow
    money or get money from the city council or county commission
    every single month just to be able to make payroll.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Figures. We need help with that to keep these
    communities open. They support our farmers. They support the
    industries that are left in our rural communities. And I really
    want to sit down with you and figure out ways we can leverage
    the programs that you guys have to support rural hospitals to
    keep them open in my district and across the state in this
    country.
        Secretary Rollins. I can't tell you how important I think
    that is. And we talk a lot about farming and agriculture that
    is the driver, but the rural piece of this and having thriving
    rural communities, you can't do that without the hospitals, the
    housing, the childcare, et cetera, so I am very focused on this
    for the long term.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
    recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member
    Craig, for holding this vital hearing today. And thank you,
    Secretary Rollins, for your testimony and joining us today.
        I want to begin by applauding the Trump-Vance
    Administration on the nomination of now-Secretary Rollins to
    lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture and guide the backbone
    industry of our country.
        Secretary Rollins, I appreciate your diligent work thus far
    delivering on a new and empowering era for our farmers and look
    forward to working with you to secure a prosperous future for
    all of rural America. As a fellow former State FFA officer and
    a former commissioner of agriculture and a fierce conservative,
    I am confident the Department will continue to thrive under
    your leadership. And I would be remiss if I didn't say I was
    not excited about your newly confirmed deputy secretary,
    Stephen Vaden----
        Secretary Rollins. From Tennessee, yes.
        Mr. Rose.--from our own State of Tennessee. He is a dear
    friend and I know will be a capable ally and----
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, he will.
        Mr. Rose.--assistant to you.
        Secretary Rollins, thank you for your swift action in
    suspending the implementation of the previous Administration's
    overreaching and impractical rule, the Horse Protection Act
    amendments. As the Department engages with qualified
    individuals to restructure the rule, can you highlight details
    of the Administration's plan to ensure a new rule has not only
    longevity and remains practical for equestrian industries,
    specifically the Tennessee Walking Horse industry?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, I think the first conversation I
    ever had with Stephen Vaden, who I did not know before this
    process began about 6 months ago, was about this rule. So you
    have no greater advocate. I would like to say I am going to be
    the greatest advocate. I am a horse girl. I grew up showing
    horses, but I don't think I beat Stephen Vaden. So listen, our
    commitment is that we are here for 4 years. We are going to do
    everything we can to do right by our agriculture community,
    including our horse community. But if it all whiplashes back
    the day that we leave, then it perhaps is for naught. And so
    ensuring that we can do this in an intentional way with
    longevity is of utmost importance, so we really look forward to
    your partnership in that.
        Mr. Rose. Well, thank you, Secretary Rollins. And I don't
    want to speak too much for the Chairman, but he has enjoyed
    riding a Tennessee Walking Horse himself----
        Secretary Rollins. I love it.
        Mr. Rose.--and invite Ranking Member Craig to come down and
    experience that. And I think anyone who rides a Tennessee
    Walking Horse will understand what has made them so popular
    through the years, so thank you for that commitment.
        I am proud of the investments in production agriculture
    Republicans secured in the House version of the One Big
    Beautiful Bill Act that passed recently on the House side.
    However, we are still on the clock, you might say, to pass a
    farm bill with robust provisions that strengthen rural America.
        Madam Secretary, as we turn our focus to passing a new farm
    bill, can you highlight some of the titles and programs
    Congress should prioritize from your perspective to ensure that
    this legislation provides the necessary tools to bolster
    farmers and landowners?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, I think that a lot of that,
    obviously, is in the Big Beautiful Bill hopefully will stay in
    to the finish line. But if not, or if so, the continued effort
    on reference prices is so important for the viability and
    continuing work.
        Obviously, the rural prosperity part of this, we will see
    what that looks like, but I will be rolling something out on
    that very soon in partnership.
        The lot of what we are already talking about, of course,
    SNAP reform is a major, major issue. We have talked a lot about
    that today. Of course, that is 85 percent of the farm bill
    depending on how you slice the cheese. So there is a lot that
    we can prioritize, but ultimately, continuing to put our
    farmers first, moving toward a new era of prosperity, opening
    up markets, bringing down inflation and the cost of inputs,
    ensuring we have the crop protection tools that we need, all of
    the above is important. I am not sure there is, frankly, a more
    important effort once we get through this reconciliation bill
    and effort than the farm bill will be in just a little while.
        Mr. Rose. Well, thank you. And you mentioned opening
    markets. In my lifetime--and we are not that far apart in age--
    thankfully, for most of my lifetime, the U.S. has enjoyed a
    trade surplus with respect to agricultural products. But we saw
    during the prior Administration that change to a considerable
    trade deficit. And I think that is driven by a number of
    factors, but first among them is the lack of focus by the prior
    Administration on opening markets. So in the last 20 seconds,
    if you could speak to what you can do as Secretary and what the
    Administration will do to open markets for U.S. agricultural
    products abroad.
        Secretary Rollins. We will be relentless, and we will not
    sleep until those markets are open. And I think you see an all-
    of-government approach. And I have mentioned this, but let me
    repeat quickly because I know we are out of time. Just in my
    first two trips, first to the UK, second to Italy, headed to
    Vietnam, Japan, and India in a couple of weeks, then down to
    Peru and Brazil and others, the encouragement, the meetings I
    have had, not just with the government, the important piece of
    this is with the private-sector as well. In Italy, a week and a
    half ago, I was meeting with the soybean buyers, the Italian
    soybean buyers. And they are so excited. I am meeting with them
    again in a week. They are coming to America to talk about this,
    that the sky, I believe, is the limit for this new era for our
    farmers and ranchers.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Maryland,
    Mrs. McClain Delaney for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. So thank you, Secretary Rollins. I
    really appreciate your deep preparation today. You are diving
    into the figures and really having the ability and receptivity
    to following up with each of our offices.
        It really makes a difference.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. I did watch your children. They were
    very patiently waiting. And I, too, have an 18 year old
    daughter, and she is headed to Texas for college in the fall.
        Secretary Rollins. Oh, that is--well, where in Texas?
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. TCU.
        Secretary Rollins. Oh, that is my hometown. At least you
    didn't say Texas. If you said the University of Texas, that
    would have been tough. But no, that is great.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. Oh, my gosh.
        Secretary Rollins. That is a great place.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. I have four daughters. So anyway----
        Secretary Rollins. Oh, congratulations.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney.--I grew up in a farming family in
    Buhl, Idaho. I would have been a fourth-generation farmer had I
    not moved to Maryland. But I really appreciate farm country and
    rural America.
        But I represent the 6th District of Maryland, and it
    stretches from the tech hubs of Montgomery County to the
    orchards and farms of Frederick and Allegany and Garrett and
    Washington Counties. And I love the conversation about the
    dairy farmers because we have a lot of dairy farms in
    Washington County.
        But Maryland has over 12,000 farms, and we support over
    83,000 jobs, and it generates billions a year. But when I spoke
    with all of our five farm bureaus and our farmers and our
    ranchers, they are really very concerned about cuts to
    agricultural education and research, the tariffs, obviously,
    and unstable markets. And it is a tsunami of challenges.
        I will follow up with some questions at the end because I
    won't get through to all of them, but I have two key concerns
    from my constituents. One is about rural broadband access, and
    one is about staffing challenges at the Farm Service agencies.
    And they just really want kind of a roadmap on what is ahead.
        So I did listen to your confirmation hearing, and you were
    very articulate. But you did say, when farmers prosper, rural
    America prospers. And I so agree with that because you pledged
    to do everything in your power to help farmers, ranchers, and
    our communities thrive. But I believe that access to
    affordable, high-speed broadband ensures that rural America
    thrives. And I had the privilege of serving at NTIA and helping
    roll out the broadband.
        The President's budget slashes rural broadband funding at
    USDA and freezes the ReConnect Program entirely. And I also saw
    the NTIA budget would be cut by 19 percent. This is really
    concerning to me. If broadband is the backbone of economic
    opportunity, as I believe it is, how do you intend to ensure
    that our farmers and ranchers aren't left behind? And do you
    have a clear roadmap or strategy about coordination of USDA
    funds with other funding streams? Because it is really
    important that we get this done.
        Secretary Rollins. I couldn't agree with you more. I will
    look into--I am going to make a note to myself--that specific
    program you mentioned, the ReConnect. The President has been,
    again, resolute in his commitment to ensuring that all of rural
    America is connected. In the last Administration that I served
    with him, this was a big part of our effort. So let me look
    into that specifically and get back to you. I think that is
    really important.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. The USDA freezes too, as well.
        Secretary Rollins. The USDA freezes specifically. And then,
    of course, as innovation changes with satellite and others,
    there may be better ways for that connectivity, but would
    really look forward to working with you and potentially
    identifying what that looks like.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. Yes, and I would love to follow up on
    that because I did a lot in the satellite and fiber arena.
    There are a lot of challenges along that area.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. And then the second is really
    something that was brought up by our five farm bureaus, and it
    is a pressing problem. There are ongoing staff shortages at
    Maryland's Farm Service Agency, and it is really risking delays
    in services for our farmers. Right now, the state office lacks
    a state executive director, and filling this leadership role is
    really urgent. Maryland already has a qualified candidate ready
    to step into the role and provide this assistance. And,
    obviously, with 15 percent of USDA having left, it is really
    important to have expertise within the states and fill these. I
    just wanted to know if we could follow up with you and if you
    had any insights into that.
        Secretary Rollins. That would be great. I know we have
    moved out a lot of those state directors. Obviously, you would
    know--if you haven't heard we have done Maryland, then we
    probably haven't, but let me check on that and get back to you.
    I honestly am really looking forward in this next sort of month
    or 2 to lean into this FSA question.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. Really important.
        Secretary Rollins. I want to understand where all the
    states are, where the offices are, the 4 hour wait times I keep
    hearing about from people calling in. They are only open
    Tuesday and Thursday until noon.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. Yes, I am hearing about it too, so
    yes, that would be great.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, that is unacceptable. And so
    whatever we need to do, we will solve for that. I have not had
    the time yet to do it, but that is next so----
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. Great. Okay. And I will just say, in
    closing, I will be submitting a couple of questions for the
    record, including about our Maryland University research and ag
    innovation research, nutrition assistance, and then your
    Supplemental Disaster Relief Program because we had historic
    flooding in Allegany County. So thank you.
        Secretary Rollins. Okay. I would welcome that. You got a
    good basketball coach from Texas A&M, by the way.
        Mrs. McClain Delaney. I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. He is very good. Yes.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I now recognize Mr. Nunn from Iowa.
        Mr. Nunn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Rollins, again, for joining us here. You came as one
    of the first states to the great State of Iowa, which is a
    large leader in corn, soybean, hogs, and eggs, and thank you
    for bringing down the price of eggs. It seems like a small
    thing, but when you are a dad of six kids, it matters, and to
    this country, it matters. Your leadership made that happen.
    Thank you very much.
        While you are there, I want to say thanks, first and
    foremost, for learning about biofuels in a really meaningful
    way and what this Committee and this team on both sides of the
    aisle have done to make this a priority. You came to the Mann
    Family Farm and you saw what it means to be able to have a
    generational family farm.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Nunn. You are a daughter of the farmland, as it were,
    and you helped make it a priority for other families to have
    the same success.
        I also want to say thank you for your quick work. When we
    looked at actions here in D.C. having consequences, we were in
    danger of Iowa State losing some of those frontline folks who
    were providing treatments and vaccines and protection for
    turkey flocks that were culled by \1/2\ million. And because of
    your work, we were able to save not only those jobs that were
    important, but they were critical for USDA security on the
    frontline of agricultural health.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Nunn. Last, I want to talk about one of the things that
    was a top issue for so many of our farmers when you came to our
    farm forums. It is about finding new markets.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Nunn. Challengingly, for the last 4 years, the Biden
    Administration left us with zero new trade deals. We went from
    trade equity in ag to a $50 billion deficit. That is real money
    out of family farms, and that is real hardship going forward
    for every one of us who enjoys paying a reasonable price at the
    grocery store.
        I am so proud that with our Chairman, we were able to move
    forward $285 million for permanent, mandatory, year-over-year
    funding for trade promotion that this Committee on both sides
    secured in the reconciliation bill. Now, funding is critical,
    but so is follow-through.
        You heard from farmers at our roundtable that they don't
    want a handout. They want to be able to sell their product. And
    I want to say thank you so much for the trade work that you
    have already taken because when you left Iowa, you took the
    leadership role to go see the world. And we have heard about
    trips to Europe, trips to Southeast Asia. You will be working
    with India and Brazil. These are all great and important
    opportunities for America to not only help feed and fuel the
    world, but to make sure we are strong right here at home, so a
    salute to you, Secretary Rollins.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Nunn. I do want to raise a concern that we have
    experienced. In Iowa, we have seen Chinese theft of
    intellectual property, literally Chinese nationals coming into
    Iowa and taking corn seed out of the ground to take back to
    China. Now, the FBI caught them, but that was in 2011.
        Just this week, we have seen three different scenarios of
    Chinese nationals who have pledged loyalty to the Chinese
    Government bringing pathogens into the United States, including
    fungus, that could decimate our crops. Had these biological
    actions been taken, it would have devastated----
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Nunn.--not only our ability to grow, but potentially
    loss of life here in the U.S.
        That is why I am proud to be working with Mr. Riley here
    from New York on a bipartisan bill. It is called the PLANT Act,
    Prevent Lethal Agriculture and National Threats Act. The
    reality here is that we have a very high standard, and I am
    asking for USDA's help in this in making sure that our Federal
    agents close these dangerous loopholes that allow things like
    this to enter our country. As it stands now, Federal
    prosecutors must prove an intent to commit terrorism to bring
    charges, and the reality is these guys are a clear threat
    today.
        Madam Secretary, would you agree that we need to strengthen
    our legal tools to hold these individuals accountable for the
    threats they are bringing to the United States?
        Secretary Rollins. Absolutely, yes. And as we look to
    release, build, implement, execute a national security plan in
    the agriculture world, this is going to be a very important
    part of that.
        Mr. Nunn. One of the things that we would like to do is
    also encourage you not only to identify the threat that is
    coming in, but what they potentially could do here. We have a
    real scenario in which the bioterrorism and the agroterrorism
    that is coming in here will have impact far greater, so I
    appreciate not only your support in that, but your leadership.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Nunn. Madam Secretary, we just want to also say thank
    you so much for taking time in Iowa. I am going to be showing
    cattle this year at the Iowa Charity Steers.
        Secretary Rollins. I think we are going to be competitors,
    aren't we?
        Mr. Nunn. I think you are going to be competitors with me.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Nunn. I encourage you, you can take on my daughters,
    they are showing sheep, and the youngest one is showing a
    Persian cat, so if you want to bring it to the field you are
    welcome.
        Secretary Rollins. Of course, the Persian cat.
        Mr. Nunn. You are welcome to the Iowa State Fair any time.
        Secretary Rollins. My steer showers have now left, but yes,
    they are all Hereford cattle showers too.
        Mr. Nunn. Well, we are very grateful for the work you have
    done on both sides of the aisle here.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Nunn. This is a bright future for Iowa's farm families
    and they have you to really thank for opening up those new
    markets.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Carbajal, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Secretary Rollins.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal. First of all, let me just say thank you for
    seeing the light and reopening the eight out of the nine USDA
    offices in California that you closed and then realized it was
    creating a lot of chaos for many of our farmers and would have
    a really negative impact. You have reopened those, and I want
    to thank you for that.
        I represent the Central Coast of California where
    agriculture is the number one industry, and a wide range of
    specialty crops are grown. When I meet with growers back in my
    district, one of the major issues they mention is the labor
    shortage. I am sure you are aware the Administration has
    intensified its deportation efforts, which have created
    significant fear and uncertainty within California's
    agriculture labor force. In fact, yesterday, a Farm Bureau in
    my district publicly voiced concerns over the impact of these
    enforcement actions.
        And Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous consent
    to submit for the record the Ventura County Farm Bureau
    statement if I may do so.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The press release referred to is located on p. 156.]
        Mr. Carbajal. I am going to give you that.
        Madam Secretary, given the uncertainty of this immigration
    climate as it relates to agriculture labor, what specific steps
    is the Department of Agriculture taking to support both farmers
    and the workforce?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, thank you, and let me be clear. I
    think it was a lease confusion with GSA. I don't think it was a
    USDA question, but neither here nor there. I am glad those
    offices are open for our farmers again.
        The labor question is a significant one. It is one that is
    perhaps maybe not the very top of the list, but for some they
    would say the very top of the list. We feel it. I mentioned
    earlier that in Texas, the citrus producers on the Texas side
    of the border on average pay labor $23 if they can even get the
    labor. On the other side at the Mexican border, it is $2 an
    hour. This is unsustainable, and our ag community cannot
    continue to do what they need to do under the current effort.
        Clearly, the President has a vision that I support of
    ensuring that we have legal immigrants in this country, but he
    also recognizes--I spoke with him this morning and yesterday--
    the shortages in the labor market, especially in the
    agriculture community. On April the 10th, at our second or
    third Cabinet meeting, he spoke in front of the cameras on this
    and said to Lori Chavez-DeRemer, also herself from a farming
    background from Oregon, but also California farming roots, our
    Labor Secretary, in concert and partnership with this Committee
    and Congress, we have to fix the H-2A program and ensure that
    we can make certain that these producers have the labor that
    they need to feed not only America, but the world.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Well, they are creating a lot of
    fear and uncertainty, and a lot of this limited workforce is
    quite frankly not showing up to harvest on our farms. Just
    yesterday, we had some immigration raids on some of the farms
    that are within my district, thus the statement that I just
    submitted.
        Secretary, I know some of my colleagues here today have
    brought up the issue with H-2A, and during your testimony
    before the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee last
    month, you mentioned that you were working with the Department
    of Labor and the White House to reform the H-2A program. Can
    you provide an update on the progress of those efforts, and
    would the Administration support the bipartisan legislation
    such as the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2023 (H.R.
    4319, 118th Congress), which is one bipartisan, Secretary
    Chavez-DeRemer was one of the coauthors of that, and I want to
    just draw that to your attention.
        One, would you support that? And for your awareness,
    current Secretary Chavez-DeRemer, again, is a cosponsor, and I
    would appreciate your response to that.
        Secretary Rollins. Well, clearly, the real reform has to
    come from Congress. I mean, I don't mean to pass the buck, that
    is not it at all, but I have had lots of conversations, can we
    do this, can we do that, can we do this, without Congressional
    authorization. To your point, I think that the leadership
    currently, our Administration realizes these significant
    challenges and are open and welcome to trying to help however
    we can to solve that, including the President, so I will
    continue that effort.
        Now, within the Labor Department, with Lori Chavez-DeRemer,
    she is very focused on this issue. We have met about it
    multiples of times. I think you will be hearing more about that
    very, very soon. But you have our commitment. We are doing
    everything we can to work to solve for that as much as we can.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Can you explain how proposed cuts
    to nutrition programs like TEFAP and SNAP benefit growers,
    especially when it is farmers who produce the fruits and
    vegetables for these programs?
        Secretary Rollins. Well, so on the one hand, you are
    talking about the food bank programs, on the other, you are
    talking about SNAP, so I will talk about SNAP first. We spend,
    at just USDA, across 16 nutrition programs, about $400 million
    a day on those nutrition programs. That is just alone. By any
    given number, up to 30 percent of that is fraud, waste, and
    abuse. At this time of unemployment, we were at 17 million, we
    are now at 42 million people on the SNAP program, so there is a
    lot of room to do better, and that is what we are going to do.
        Mr. Carbajal. I am out of time, but let me just say, fraud
    is one percent or less.
        Secretary Rollins. There----
        Mr. Carbajal. There is other--that is----
        Secretary Rollins. Sir, that is not the case.
        Mr. Carbajal. That is absolutely false, so I just want you
    to know----
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Secretary Rollins. We can't even get the data----
        Mr. Carbajal. You are falsifying information.
        Secretary Rollins. That is not--that is--please send what
    you have, and then let me compare it to what we have because
    that is----
        Mr. Carbajal. Well, you could send me what you have, and we
    will both compare what we have.
        Secretary Rollins. Okay.
        Mr. Carbajal. Okay.
        Secretary Rollins. I will be happy to do that.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman----
        Secretary Rollins. But one percent is--yes, okay. We will
    do that. We will keep the conversation going.
        The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Wied, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Wied. Well, Madam Secretary, thank you so much for your
    willingness to be here today and answer questions about the
    ongoings of the USDA. And, well, happy National Dairy Month as
    well.
        Secretary Rollins. That is right.
        Mr. Wied. As you most certainly know, as America's dairy
    land, it cannot be overstated how important agriculture and the
    entire dairy industry is to my constituents, which is
    Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District. We rank fourth in the
    country in dairy production, and the entirety of the industry,
    from milk to our world-famous cheeses, provides a $14 billion
    economic impact. It is a priority of me to support this strong
    tradition that we have in Wisconsin.
        So despite strong growing demand from international
    consumers, certain trading partners refuse to allow our
    products to compete in their markets by erecting unfounded
    barriers to trade. One of the worst offenders is our neighbor
    to the north. Canada has continued to ignore its obligations
    under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement to provide the dairy
    market access that they had agreed to in 2020.
        Since then, the Canadian Government has administered their
    dairy import quotas in a manner that intentionally limits our
    ability to reach Canadian consumers, leaving many of the quotas
    largely unfilled at the end of the year. So Wisconsin dairy
    exporters have an easier time exporting to countries on the
    other side of the world than to our next-door neighbor.
        To add insult to injury, Canada continues to offload its
    nonfat milk solids at artificially low prices on the global
    market, undercutting our producers and circumventing its USMCA
    commitments on dairy protein exports, of course, in the
    process.
        So Secretary Rollins, with the USMCA review coming up next
    year, will you commit to working with your interagency partners
    to ensure that Wisconsin dairy farmers receive the full
    benefits of the trade deal as the negotiators intended?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I really look forward to that. I
    think it is such a--the dynamic is so different in the best way
    this time with this Administration, not that we weren't getting
    a lot of good things done in the first Trump Administration,
    but this Cabinet is so aligned and so hand-in-glove together
    that my partners, Lutnick, Bessent, Greer, all of the above,
    the President as the negotiator-in-chief, I think that we are
    going to see some really big wins. And yes, so putting cheese
    and our dairy farmers at the top of the list is great.
        Mr. Wied. Well, that is refreshing. Thank you.
        So in Wisconsin, many multi-generational farms are at a
    crossroads. Aging farmers are ready to retire, but younger or
    beginning farmers often face steep barriers, as we know,
    limited access to capital, limited land availability, and
    economic uncertainty. Without meaningful support, farmland
    risks being lost to non-agriculture uses. What is USDA doing to
    support successful farm transitions, particularly in dairy,
    which is a big part of our district, where high capital costs,
    narrow margins, and labor challenges make it difficult for the
    next generation to take over?
        Secretary Rollins. And I mentioned this earlier, so forgive
    me for those who are having to hear it again, but in the 17
    states that I have visited so far, more states coming,
    Wisconsin being right there, the best part, but also the most
    challenging part, has been meeting with the farmers, and
    sitting in a barn or a warehouse, at a roundtable with 20 or
    30, hearing from them their biggest challenges and what we can
    do to help that. And almost every one of them is a second or
    third or fourth or fifth generation, some new farmers, too, and
    that is a different discussion. And all of them say, ``I am
    just so scared I am not going to be able to pass this on to my
    kids and my kids to their kids.''
        And so, about a month ago, we launched our Small Family
    Farm Initiative, a slate of policy items that we can work
    alongside states, ag commissioners, with you all in Congress,
    that the executive can do himself through EOs, et cetera, to
    ensure that we have just that.
        I think what is in the Big Beautiful Bill is really
    important. I think the work that you all did is just--you
    should be so commended. The death tax now not applying to the
    two million smaller farms, the additional tax cuts to our
    farmers, the $3.8 billion in additional income to our farmers,
    these are things that make a difference. But ultimately,
    expanding the market, bringing down the cost of inputs,
    protecting our crop protectants, et cetera, is just going to
    continue to be at the top of the list, and we have just got to
    do better, and that is what I am hoping to do.
        Mr. Wied. So I know farmers and processors often have
    different opinions on milk pricing, but one area of agreement
    relates to having better data across the board. So in that
    context, I have cosponsored a bipartisan bill to require USDA
    to conduct dairy manufacturing cost surveys every 2 years to
    help make sure that all stakeholders have the same data going
    forward. I am thrilled that we are able to include funding, of
    course, in this Big Beautiful Bill, in this reconciliation
    package to implement this process. So when and if this is
    enacted, will you work with us on this Committee to help get
    this up and running as quickly as possible?
        Secretary Rollins. One hundred percent, I will look forward
    to that.
        Mr. Wied. Okay, great. Well, thank you again for your
    leadership.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Wied. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Rollins, for being here this afternoon.
        Madam Secretary, let me start by thanking you for your
    timely response to the avian influenza and screwworm issues.
    Each have been of particular concern to the producers in my
    district, and I am pleased to see mitigation efforts quickly
    implemented.
        With that said, I want to pivot on our focus to the
    tremendous opportunity of biobased products industries. This
    sector is quickly becoming a new, strong market for the farmers
    in my district, but as the industry continues to grow, it is
    important we clarify terminology. The inconsistent and
    sometimes interchangeable use of terms like biobased, plant-
    based, and bio-attributed creates customer confusion that can
    undermine innovation in these markets. Would you and your staff
    at USDA commit to partnering with me as I work to establish
    clear, uniform definitions to provide clarity to farmers, bio-
    manufacturers, and consumers, along with the biopreferred value
    chain?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, we would look forward to doing
    that.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. We will be in touch.
        Madam Secretary, farmers in my district were hit hard
    during 2020 and 2021. When the USDA provided emergency relief
    assistance, they applied and were accepted, but due to
    incredible delays and programmatic errors, the agency failed to
    hold up its end of the deal, leaving farmers that were reliant
    on this lifeline high and dry without the aid they were
    rightfully due. I have spoken to your team, and if there is a
    solution to that problem, but unfortunately, those funds have
    been completely depleted.
        Now, that was a previous Administration, and I am very
    pleased with the efforts you have put forth to ensure aid is
    going to our farmers, real farmers, in a timely manner and
    efficient manner. I know you have shared success stories today,
    but can you specifically explain how you are working to ensure
    that relief distributed under your leadership is free of the
    flaws that plagued the last Administration and that the USDA
    holds true to the promises it makes to our farmers?
        Secretary Rollins. I appreciate that. And while we are not
    going to be perfect, I do believe, based on what I have seen,
    not just from the past Administration, but previous ones as
    well, that we moved more quickly and with great intentionality.
    Part of that was it was important to me to bring back some of
    the team from the first Trump Administration who had lived this
    before under Secretary Perdue and knew what they were doing.
    And so as they built the ECAP program out and moving that
    money, again, within 3 days, within just a couple months of the
    appropriation from you all I think was record speed. We are now
    into the second tranche. I believe that is record speed as
    well. We have already moved $1 billion out on that second
    piece, and we have more coming in the next days.
        This next tranche is more complicated because it requires a
    state-by-state agreement that has to be negotiated, versus ECAP
    was just data, you plug into a formula, and you move the money,
    but I am really proud of the team. If you hear differently,
    please let us know, but we have the smartest people working on,
    again, both politicals and careers. I don't want to take all
    the credit. Our team sitting here is incredible, but we have
    some amazing careers back at USDA, too, that are working 7 days
    a week to move that out. I mentioned we had a 6:00 a.m.
    conference call this morning. I was on the phone at 10:00 last
    night on these issues just to ensure that we are moving as
    quickly as we can for these farmers.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. The farmers in my district will
    appreciate that.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Messmer. And pardon me, I know you have heard this many
    times today, but it is important to the farmers in my district,
    and so allow me to beat the drum one more time for fixes to the
    ag labor issue.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Messmer. One of the issues I have been completely
    flooded with in my inbox since getting here is farm labor.
    Right now, Hoosiers pay just under $20 an hour for H-2A labor,
    and on top of that is housing and transportation.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Messmer. But the wage isn't just unworkable, it is
    inequitable. The only thing separating farmers in Mount Vernon,
    Indiana, from farmers in Uniontown, Kentucky, is a river that
    is less than a mile wide apart, and our Kentuckian neighbors
    pay $3 an hour less in farm labor than those in Indiana. With
    farm input costs skyrocketing, margins aren't nearly wide
    enough to allow for this flawed wage calculation system.
        Secretary, can we look at the USDA as a partner with myself
    and the colleagues in Congress to seek a wage freeze in that ag
    labor rate and enact expansive functional improvements to the
    H-2A program?
        Secretary Rollins. I would really welcome that partnership
    and look forward to hopefully solving this for our ag
    community.
        Mr. Messmer. Well, love to be----
        Secretary Rollins. It is a beast, yes.
        Mr. Messmer. Love to be part of those discussions if
    possible.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Messmer. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Got to get our Indiana plugs in here. Indiana ranks number
    one in the nation in commercial duck production, number two in
    tomato and pumpkin production, number three in egg production
    and spearmint production, number four in soybean and turkey
    production--and probably the bulk of that turkey production
    happens in my county--number five in corn production, and
    number six in watermelon production. Each of those activities
    combined contribute $35 billion to the economy of Indiana. But
    to remain an incubator for ag innovations, these industries
    need reliable and affordable access to labor.
        Thank you, Chairman. I yield back my time.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you. Thank you so much.
        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.
        Madam Secretary, thank you for being here.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. I mean, you are truly a breath of fresh air.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. It is just, your optimism is electric.
        Secretary Rollins. Oh, thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. I want to take a second before I get into
    this to apologize for one of my colleagues who was sitting here
    berating you. So I am just going to ask you a few questions in
    the vein that took place here.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. Are rocks heavy? Are trees made of wood? Is
    gravity real? Yes? Okay.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes. Thank you, yes.
        Mr. Van Orden. Did the radical out-of-control government
    spending by Joe Biden, who increased a massive amount of
    liquidity to a market with scarcity, cause inflation to spike
    and input costs to spike?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Van Orden. Those are all true statements. Okay. Thanks.
        Hey, I want to thank you. I am done with that. That is just
    silly. Badger you like that in front of your kids?
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Van Orden. Your kids need to know you are a baller.
    Tell them to watch this. A baller is a word that old people
    use, and it means awesome.
        Secretary Rollins. I will.
        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you for getting the Dairy Business
    Initiative back online.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Van Orden. Incredibly important. I know that when we
    got this stuff going on and there is like a big hand, little
    map taking place and we are going to skip a couple of beats, I
    got that, but I think--I sent you a note, and you got that
    turned back around like 94 hours later.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. And it is right into my farmers and they are
    so excited about it.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. You are welcome, ma'am.
        So I do want to talk to you about agriculture labor because
    I think we have an 80 percent solution. My office has been
    working on this really since we started our Agricultural Labor
    Working Group. And what we are going to do is just acknowledge
    reality. The fact that the agriculture industry, the
    construction industry, and hospitality industry are really
    being floated by a lot of people that are here unlawfully. And
    we are going to just say it out loud, and we are going to
    address it in the most meaningful way.
        It is not a pathway to citizenship. These people are going
    to have to pay a fine. They are going to have to leave the
    United States of America to return to send the message across
    the world, if you are going to get a job here in the United
    States, you are going to enter this country legally. The
    employer's going to have to pay a fine, and they are going to
    be able to come back here. And when they enter the United
    States again, that is their born-again date. They are not
    skipping anybody. It doesn't matter if they are here for 50
    years. And we want to make sure that our farmers have a
    continuous flow for agriculture labor. More to follow on that.
    I am not even looking at H-2A because it is a broken, horrible
    program.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Van Orden. So we are going to put that over here, and
    if I can work with you on that I would love that.
        Secretary Rollins. That sounds great.
        Mr. Van Orden. The last thing that I want to talk to you
    about really is milk labeling. Like what is milk, right? And
    this is going to have a profound effect on my dairy farmers.
    Here is what milk is according to you, ma'am. Milk is--on my
    phone and I am over 50. Okay. There you go. Milk is the lacteal
    secretion practically free from colostrum obtained by the
    complete milking of one or more healthy cows. Milk that is in
    its final package form for beverage use shall have been
    pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized and shall contain not less
    than 8.25 percent milk solid, not fat, and not less than 3.25
    percent milk-fat. None of that comes from an almond or an oat.
    So yes, go ahead. Messmer, I will give you a dollar if you can
    milk an oat, right? So all I am asking is that the USDA follow
    their own definition.
        And I spoke to Secretary Kennedy about this, and he is all
    on board.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        Mr. Van Orden. Milk, whole milk is one of the most
    nutritious things that our young people and aging people such
    as myself could consume. But if you go to the store and you buy
    almond milk, it ain't milk, bunch of sugars and stuff in there
    and oats. So I really would like to talk to you about this to
    get this done. We introduced a bill in the last Congress that
    didn't get through the Senate. But, I am all for doing this
    through initial executive action following up with some type of
    legislation because it will have a profound effect on our dairy
    industry.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes, I hear you, and I couldn't agree
    more. And, one of the vehicles that is coming soon is the
    Dietary Guidelines which Secretary Kennedy and I are working on
    together.
        Mr. Van Orden. Oh, yes.
        Secretary Rollins. And that is not due until October, but
    you will see that way before October. And hopefully we can
    continue the momentum toward the vision that you have that I
    agree with.
        Mr. Van Orden. Yes, ma'am. And so we can label milk skim
    milk, one percent milk, two percent milk, and then we call it
    whole milk. The whole milk, the fat content in whole milk is
    3.25 percent, and people think they are drinking butter. And I
    asked the person in the previous Administration who was
    responsible for drawing up these Dietary Guidelines, I asked
    her what the milk-fat content of whole milk was, and she said,
    I don't know, six percent. That ain't it. So I am super excited
    once again to be working with you hand in glove. I am very
    proud of your work.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. Your kids need to know you are awesome.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Orden. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you so much.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Before we adjourn today, I invite the Ranking Member to
    share any closing comments that she might have.
        Ms. Craig. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary Rollins, for being here, for
    testifying in front of us and giving us so much of your time.
        There was a lot of talk today about how the Trump
    Administration is putting America's farmers first. But as I go
    around my state and I ask many of the farmers, ranchers, and
    producers, I think at this point, they would say that they are
    a little bit less certain than that. The farmers I know and
    speak to talk to me about uncertainty. They say they are not
    sure whether they can make it another season. They are worried
    about handing the farm over to their children, something
    America's family farmers strive for and take pride in, but are
    struggling to do under these economic conditions and
    uncertainty. They tell me they want us to help develop markets,
    not more government handouts or government income.
        Since January, farm country has been dealt one blow after
    another: trade wars that increase cost and eliminate markets;
    USDA layoffs that impact farm program enrollment; the
    elimination of oversubscribed USDA programs that farmers rely
    on to help their bottom lines; contracts they have signed,
    ignored; catering to an HHS Secretary who cites, believes, and
    promotes fake science.
        And Secretary Rollins, what my farmers would love to see is
    you to stand up for them and against his fake science. You will
    have to excuse me and my colleagues if we don't quite believe
    the putting-farmers-first rhetoric. There is no doubt in my
    mind that you are working hard. What I just said about the
    problems in farm country I heard you say over and over again
    today. But we shouldn't be pushing trade partners away from
    America's soybean farmers and toward soy-grown products in
    Brazil and Argentina. We should be working to increase market
    access rather than watching our competitors eat into ours.
        You have mentioned China agreed to a trade deal a few times
    today. But if you look under the hood, it is not more market
    access. It appears we have just re-agreed to move forward with
    the previous tentative framework that was agreed to last month
    in Geneva. So as we still sit here today, we still have the
    concepts of a plan.
        In addition, we shouldn't be signing onto and lending what
    is left of USDA's credibility to MAHA Commission reports that
    aim to take away the tools our American farmers use to grow our
    food. We shouldn't be going along with the mismanagement of
    USDA programs and personnel that Elon Musk and his DOGE kids
    raided during the agency's early days. We have heard near
    silence from the Cabinet during that period of time.
        The current course on reconciliation is threatening the
    farm bill coalition. And we should have been here trying to
    pass a 5 year, 12 title farm bill rather than cutting SNAP by
    $300 billion, putting the stability and income it provides to
    family farmers in jeopardy.
        When I became the Ranking Member of this Committee, I
    promised to go anywhere and talk to anyone to improve life for
    our family farmers. I have always called it like I see it. You
    can ask the Biden Administration about that. I thought they
    ought to be out there looking for more trade deals. And today,
    as I look under the hood, this Administration so far is
    creating the chaos that is failing them.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        Madam Secretary, I just want to thank you. Thank you for
    your leadership, your vision, your partnership. You are the one
    that described our relationship as a partnership, and it truly
    is. One hundred and eighteen days on the job, and to step in
    when we have had 4 years that our farm country was abandoned
    under the previous Administration, where 2 years of those 4
    years it took until the Biden Administration named two of the
    top key trade individuals for agriculture trade, Assistant
    Secretary for Foreign Agriculture and Trade at USDA left open
    for 2 years, half the term. At USTR, 2 years where they didn't
    name somebody as a Chief Agriculture Negotiator. So American
    farmers were left in a hole. They were paid no attention to.
        The previous Secretary, who I worked very hard to develop a
    good relationship with, had no use for the Legislative Branch,
    and took and used money, created programs that they clearly
    said were temporary, and now my colleagues are complaining that
    a temporary program created by the previous Administration
    obviously ceases. Temporary is temporary.
        Now, I see value in some of that. If Secretary Vilsack
    would have come to us and really wanted to work with the
    Legislative Branch, we could have worked on that. I think we
    are looking at those things as we move forward. We can find the
    monies to be able to fund it. We don't have jurisdiction over
    the farmers to schools. That is a different Committee. But the
    farmers to the food banks makes a lot of sense to me. I wish he
    would have come to me. We could have legislated it, and then it
    would still be in place. But that is on the previous
    Administration. That is not on you, and that is not on
    President Trump.
        Again, that number I come back to is 118 days. I am so
    impressed. In 118 days, this Committee, it was very partisan,
    unfortunately, and I get it, reconciliation, no matter what
    party is in the Majority, it is always partisan.
        Secretary Rollins. Yes.
        The Chairman. But, some of my colleagues missed the
    opportunity to vote for all the things that we put together
    under the Farm, Food, and National Security Act in terms of the
    safety net. In 118 days, we have actually incorporated into
    legislation the investments in Title I, which is the reference
    prices. Doing that, and our Senate counterparts, Senate
    Republicans are working on this, but a 10 to 20 percent
    increase based on what they need, now not exactly maybe what
    they wanted because there is a difference there. We did our due
    diligence and looked at what they needed. Adding base acres for
    the first time in generations, modernizing the Dairy Margin
    Coverage Program, making investments in crop insurance but also
    include specialty crops, all of that.
        And some people call it the One Big Beautiful Bill, and
    that is the official name of it. It is a little odd, but that
    is okay. I call it Farm Bill 1.0. It really is Farm Bill 1.0.
    With making crop insurance more affordable for everyone because
    it is the most popular program that we found traveling the
    country of 42 states, one Territory, about 115 listening
    sessions, that is what we heard.
        Making investments, as you heard today, in trade, in
    research, in animal health, in Secure Rural Schools, which
    expires for those school districts that are located within
    National Forests. And so much more that is there.
        So I am really proud of what we did with Farm Bill 1.0. I
    like what I am hearing, actually, over on the Senate side. I
    also like the fact that we, wherever it winds up in terms of
    state share, the problem has not been what Congress has passed
    in terms of our nutrition programs. Those are really good. The
    problems have been in the states' execution and administration
    of them.
        It is the old adage, ``If you are spending somebody else's
    money, you don't care, you are reckless.'' Well, we are not
    asking much over there, and that number might even go down, we
    will see. But I expect that results will go up. The error rates
    are unacceptable. They hurt the people that those programs are
    designed for.
        So there is so much more I can't--I am really excited about
    where we are at in 118 days. We have done that part with the
    Agriculture Committee. We have a Farm Bill 2.0 we need to
    finish up. We know that. That price tag will be much less. But
    there are important--and the pieces of legislation that are
    pending that didn't fit in reconciliation, most of those fit in
    the category of--I mean, I think that the Farm, Food, and
    National Security Act overall had 40 measures that were just
    introduced by a Democratic, 140 measures were introduced by a
    Republican and a Democratic, and then a fair amount that were
    introduced by just a Republican. So it is a basis for a great
    bipartisan, very affordable Farm Bill 2.0.
        And then I am just so impressed with your written
    testimony. The support for American poultry and egg producers,
    addressing the avian flu, bold action to respond to foreign
    disease outbreaks like the New World screwworm, launching that
    new web portal for potential victims of ongoing lawfare,
    fighting for fair trade for our farmers and ranchers,
    unleashing American dominance, which includes biofuels, which
    is so important as a market, but even more than that because
    farming is energy-intensive, the cost of that diesel fuel, the
    cost of that propane.
        Streamlining unnecessary regulations, cutting you used to
    have red tape. We are cutting red and green tape, actually. So
    working with Secretary Burgum on wildfire preparedness,
    deploying resources for wildfire responses, just a long list of
    the outcomes in just 118 days.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. So I am looking forward to continuing that
    partnership. Quite frankly, I think we are well on our way to
    making agriculture great again in this country.
        Secretary Rollins. Let's go.
        The Chairman. So thank you so much.
        Secretary Rollins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Under the Rules of the Committee, the record
    of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to
    receive additional material and supplementary written responses
    from the witness to any questions posed by a Member.
        This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    Submitted Letters by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
                                   California
                                    letter 1
            on behalf of agricultural council of california, et al.
    March 17th, 2025

      Hon. Brooke Rollins,
      Secretary,
      U.S. Department of Agriculture,
      Washington D.C.

      Re: Unified CA Bird Flu Strategy

        Dear Secretary Rollins:

        We want to begin by expressing our appreciation for the priority
    the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has placed on
    reducing the impacts of H5N1 Bird Flu on our food supply. This virus
    poses a threat to American farming that requires a united front to
    overcome. The work currently addressing prevention, response, recovery,
    and research is showing tangible results and actionable findings.
        There is one issue, however, that we would like to bring to your
    attention for further discussion. Many states, including California,
    are just emerging from the most devastating outbreak of bird flu in
    poultry and livestock in our country's history. There is a national
    desire to enhance readiness so that the 2024-2025 outbreak is not
    repeated. If this virus circulates long enough in dairies without
    additional mitigation, leading to impacts on beef breeds as well as
    dairy breeds, the stakes will get even higher.
        The points outlined in the current USDA plan will go a long way
    toward prevention, but we encourage USDA to continue work that supports
    dairy herd immunity through dairy vaccination, only to be used when the
    benefits outweigh the costs. We know that even the best poultry or
    dairy biosecurity may not work if the amount of bird flu virus in the
    surrounding area is too high. Both migrating waterfowl and infected
    dairies contribute to the threat to poultry. In major dairy production
    states like California, this past year most poultry introductions came
    from dairies, not wild birds. These high viral loads occur when bird
    flu exponentially multiplies in herds without immunity for weeks to
    months, as is currently the case with most dairy infections. We also
    know that cattle must move between herds and states daily, resulting in
    constant introduction of animals without immunity that may perpetuate
    infection. Finally, when it comes to continuing dairy exposure to
    virus, the role of wild birds is still not fully understood. Bird flu
    devastates dairy families struggling with infected herds, but it is a
    death sentence to neighboring poultry flocks who will die from this
    virus and are therefore euthanized before further spread can occur.
        For these reasons, while we support a cautious approach to vaccine
    use, we strongly encourage continued Federal efforts to develop avian
    influenza H5N1 vaccines for dairy cows, including research and
    development support, safety and efficacy evaluations, use strategies,
    export market management and consumer outreach. We recognize that use
    of vaccination in dairy cows will require careful consideration and may
    not come to pass if shown to be unnecessary, but we strongly urge USDA
    to support vaccine development now because immunity through viral
    exposure as experienced in 2024 carries unsustainable negative
    consequences, and these initial preparation steps take time. We cannot
    afford to delay preparedness.
        The undersigned livestock community in California support the
    continued prioritization of this next preparedness step related to
    establishing herd immunity and reducing virus on dairy farms,
    recognizing that actual use of vaccine will depend on the result of
    these activities and real-time evaluation of costs and benefits.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       [Agricultural Council   [Milk Producers                       [California Grain and
                   of California]             Council]Feed Association]

                                                      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          [California Dairy Campaign]          [California Farm Bureau]

                                         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Western States Dairy Producers Association]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          [California Veterinary Medical       [California Cattlemen's
                Association]                        Association]

                                         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Pacific Egg and Poultry                    [Association of California Egg
                Association]                            Farmers]

                                         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Western United Dairies]                [Dairy Institute of California]

                                    letter 2
    June 11, 2025

      Hon. Brooke Rollins,
      Secretary,
      U.S. Department of Agriculture,
      Washington D.C.

        Dear Secretary Rollins:

        As Members representing the Central Valley of California, we write
    to express our appreciation for the ongoing collaboration between
    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of
    Health and Human Services (HHS) towards combating H5N1, or bird flu.
    The spread of this virus continues to pose a threat to our nation's
    protein supply chain and agriculture industry across the nation.
    Combating this virus will continue to require a united front. The
    nonstop work by our dedicated researchers and veterinarians throughout
    the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) continues to
    demonstrate tangible results, presenting opportunities to take further
    action.
        The State of California is ground zero for conducting research to
    understand the impacts of this disease. It is only in 2025 that our
    constituents are starting to emerge from the most devastating outbreak
    of bird flu in poultry and livestock in our nation's history. Our
    producers, both dairy and poultry, are in unison and prepared to
    enhance readiness to avoid another 2024-2025-style outbreak. As our
    producers continue to monitor the situation, research has shown the
    longer the virus circulates in dairies without additional mitigation,
    there could be devastating impacts on dairy cattle, and the stakes will
    continue to rise on impacts to beef cattle.
        We appreciate the continued progress on USDA's Five-Pronged
    Strategy, and we encourage USDA to also prioritize the important work
    that must be completed before adding dairy vaccination for H5N1 as a
    food defense option in the United States. Dairy vaccination may be the
    most effective way to protect cattle and consequently protect poultry
    in many regions of the country, including California. Creating and
    sustaining dairy herd immunity will lessen the amount virus generated
    by infected cows without the negative impacts of disease. We know that
    H5N1 disease impacts are severe for dairy cows without any immunity,
    but when the virus spreads from cows to poultry, the impacts are
    catastrophic. Poultry biosecurity is a critical tool within the Five-
    Pronged Strategy, however without sustained dairy herd immunity,
    infected cows may continue to exponentially generate high viral loads
    in environments often surrounding poultry flocks, rendering the best
    biosecurity ineffective. The unknowns around wild birds and other
    mechanisms of viral spread remain as research continues, but many
    suspected disease vectors know no boundaries, making the potential for
    reintroduction or spread to unaffected flocks and herds a significant
    risk. Finally, dairy cattle and calves must move between farms and
    often across state lines daily to optimize care and sustain food
    production, and the risk of spreading virus with these movements will
    be reduced if sufficient numbers of dairy cows have some level of
    immunity to H5N1 via a vaccine option.
        As Members of Congress representing the Central Valley of
    California, we support the unified message from our dairy, poultry, and
    livestock constituents in urging USDA to take a cautious approach
    towards an avian influenza H5N1 vaccine for dairy cattle, but with
    continued research and development support toward creation of a
    vaccine. We additionally support continued dedication of resources
    towards cooperative agreements between the state and Federal Government
    for human and animal health.
        It is critical as well that our trading partners are kept apprised
    should any action be taken as California's dairy industry provides 20%
    of our nation's milk supply and exports $3.2 billion in dairy products.
    Thank you for your consideration of this letter and we stand ready to
    work with you on this important health and food security matter.
                Sincerely,

                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Hon. Jim Costa,                      Hon. David G. Valadao,
    Member of Congress                   Member of Congress

                                         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Hon. Josh Harder,        Hon. Vince Fong,         Hon. Adam Gray,
    Member of Congress       Member of Congress       Member of Congress

                                     ______

     Submitted Letter by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
                              from North Carolina
    June 7, 2025

      Hon. Thom Tillis,
      Senator,
      Washington, D.C.

      Re: SNAP Funding Reductions/Administrative Burden on Counties

        Dear Senator Tillis,

        I am writing on behalf of North Carolina's 100 counties to urge you
    to preserve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at its
    current level, to oppose funding cuts to SNAP, and to oppose changes to
    SNAP work requirements that would result in a financial shift of
    administrative functions to counties. To be clear, counties support
    ensuring that taxpayer-funded programs are operated with integrity and
    fiscal responsibility. What they oppose are unfunded mandates.
        As you know, North Carolina is unique in that we are one of ten
    states where counties administer SNAP and Medicaid eligibility
    functions. Changes to application or redetermination processing for
    these programs will have a direct impact on county functions and
    further strain county budgets. Throughout your tenure of public
    service, you have cautioned against ``shift and shaft'' tactics from
    the Federal and state levels of government--sending unfunded mandates
    to local governments. The proposed changes included in H.R. 1--the
    ``One Big Beautiful Bill Act''--would have that effect, specifically
    related to the SNAP provision. These sections will double the work in
    our county social service offices but send no funding to pay for it.
        Beyond the county impacts mentioned above, SNAP is an important
    program in our state, allowing low-income families with children, older
    adults, and people with disabilities to be able to afford nutritious
    food. The program is lean, with average benefits of about $5.70 per
    person per day, and already includes work requirements plus stringent
    audit processes to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. SNAP improves health
    outcomes and decreases health care costs; recipients are admitted to
    hospitals and emergency rooms less frequently and save Medicaid over
    $2,000 annually.
        By reducing Federal funding and shifting administrative costs to
    state and local governments, Congress would force North Carolina and
    its counties to replace tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue,
    either by generating new funds through increased taxes or redirecting
    them from other essential programs. Should the state be unwilling or
    unable to replace the SNAP benefit reductions, individual counties will
    be forced to choose between diverting funds from their own programs,
    raising local taxes, or watching their residents go without this
    important safety net. Local governments are most disadvantaged to
    replace SNAP funding; the best way to ensure our residents receive this
    benefit is to preserve Federal funding.
        Our state's recovery efforts post-Helene are a vivid reminder of
    the external pressures that counties must face while still providing
    essential services. Twenty-five counties are still working to restore
    infrastructure and economic opportunities for their residents--cutting
    SNAP and implementing more stringent work requirements will drastically
    increase the workload on county staff, leading to higher turnover,
    missed deadlines, and more frequent errors, all of which will cause
    further delays in service. Adding further pressure on county staff
    reduces their ability to react in a timely manner during natural
    disasters or other unforeseen events.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request and input. As
    always, we appreciate all you do for North Carolina, our counties, and
    the people who call North Carolina home.
                Sincerely,

                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Kevin Leonard,
    Executive Director,
    North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC)

    CC:

    NCACC Board of Directors
    North Carolina County Commissioners
    Matt Chase, NACo Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director
    Sharnese Ransome, NCACDSS Executive Director
                                     ______

     Submitted Articles by Hon. Eugene Simon Vindman, a Representative in
                             Congress from Virginia
                                   article 1

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.americanprogress.org/article/snap-cuts-are-likely-to-harm-
    more-than-27000-retailers-nationwide/]

    May 8, 2025
    SNAP Cuts Are Likely To Harm More Than 27,000 Retailers Nationwide
    By Kyle Ross,\1\ Kennedy Andara \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.americanprogress.org/people/ross-kyle/.
        \2\ https://www.americanprogress.org/people/kennedy-andara/.

        A new analysis shows that 27,000 retailers in areas with the
    highest shares of SNAP participants would be the most likely to bear
    the brunt of proposed drastic cuts to food assistance.
    More than 27,000 retailers in largely rural counties have the highest
            risk of being harmed by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
            Program (SNAP) cuts
    Percentage of people who received SNAP benefits, by county, 2022

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: this is an interactive graphic. It displays
            information concerning each county.
              Notes: The authors measured the SNAP retailers per 1,000 SNAP
            participants ratio as an indicator of food access for people
            who receive assistance through SNAP. Retailers within counties
            that were below the median ratio and in the top ten percent of
            counties with the highest SNAP participation were marked as
            being most at risk of being harmed by cuts in food assistance.
            Because the SNAP retailers data does not account for
            Connecticut's transition from counties to planning regions,
            retailer addresses were crosswalked using ZIP codes. However,
            the crosswalk is not exact since some ZIP codes cross planning
            region boundaries.
              Source: For a list of definitions for the included store
            types, see U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``SNAP Store Type
            Definitions'' \3\ (last accessed April 2025). U.S. Department
            of Agriculture, ``SNAP Retailer Location Data'' \4\ (last
            accessed April 2025); U.S. Census Bureau, ``SAIPE Model Input
            Data: County SNAP Benefits Data,'' \5\ December 16, 2024; U.S.
            Census Bureau, ``Annual Resident Population Estimates,
            Estimated Components of Resident Population Change, and Rates
            of the Components of Resident Population Change for States and
            Counties: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2024,'' \6\ March 12, 2025;
            U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``2023 Rural-Urban Continuum
            Codes'' \7\ (last accessed April 2025); CT Data Collaborative,
            ``Connecticut ZIP to Planning Region Crosswalk,'' \8\ September
            13, 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/store-definitions.
        \4\ https://usda-snap-retailers-usda-fns.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/
    USDA-FNS::snap-retailer-location-data/about.
        \5\ https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/saipe/
    model-tables.html.
        \6\ https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/
    2020s-counties-total.html#v2024.
        \7\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-
    codes.
        \8\ https://github.com/CT-Data-Collaborative/zip-to-planningregion/
    blob/main/README.md.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Map: Center for American Progress.

                                                         Table 1
     Retailers in more than 300 counties have the highest risk of being harmed by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
                                                   Program (SNAP) cuts
                         (SNAP participation rates and the number of SNAP retailers, by county)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               SNAP
                                                            %                                retailers
       State        County      # of SNAP  Population   receiving    Rural or    # of SNAP   per 1,000   Higher-risk
                               recipients                 SNAP        urban      retailers     SNAP        county
                                                        benefits                            recipients
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama      Autauga Co.        8,029      59,736       13.4%  Urban                48         6.0
    Alabama      Baldwin Co.       20,790     246,577        8.4%  Urban               226        10.9
    Alabama      Barbour Co.        6,082      24,722       24.6%  Rural                42         6.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Bibb Co.           3,434      21,983       15.6%  Urban                23         6.7
    Alabama      Blount Co.         6,483      59,491       10.9%  Urban                49         7.6
    Alabama      Bullock Co.        2,738      10,126         27%  Rural                15         5.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Butler Co.         5,062      18,652       27.1%  Rural                34         6.7  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Calhoun Co.       20,707     115,744       17.9%  Urban               141         6.8
    Alabama      Chambers Co.       6,956      34,093       20.4%  Rural                45         6.5
    Alabama      Cherokee Co.       3,628      25,334       14.3%  Rural                29         8.0
    Alabama      Chilton Co.        7,672      45,856       16.7%  Urban                61         8.0
    Alabama      Choctaw Co.        3,199      12,420       25.8%  Rural                17         5.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Clarke Co.         5,832      22,545       25.9%  Rural                35         6.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Clay Co.           1,832      14,198       12.9%  Rural                10         5.5
    Alabama      Cleburne Co.       2,779      15,353       18.1%  Rural                28        10.1
    Alabama      Coffee Co.         7,968      54,769       14.5%  Rural                59         7.4
    Alabama      Colbert Co.        7,707      58,023       13.3%  Urban                74         9.6
    Alabama      Conecuh Co.        2,943      11,220       26.2%  Rural                19         6.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Coosa Co.          1,970      10,283       19.2%  Rural                 9         4.6
    Alabama      Covington          7,604      37,508       20.3%  Rural                65         8.5
                  Co.
    Alabama      Crenshaw Co.       3,141      13,096         24%  Rural                22         7.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Cullman Co.        9,208      90,597       10.2%  Rural                90         9.8
    Alabama      Dale Co.           9,811      49,472       19.8%  Rural                59         6.0
    Alabama      Dallas Co.        13,915      36,772       37.8%  Rural                50         3.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      DeKalb Co.        13,831      72,046       19.2%  Rural                98         7.1
    Alabama      Elmore Co.         9,906      89,566       11.1%  Urban                88         8.9
    Alabama      Escambia Co.       8,173      36,620       22.3%  Rural                47         5.8
    Alabama      Etowah Co.        17,014     102,821       16.5%  Urban               133         7.8
    Alabama      Fayette Co.        3,383      16,041       21.1%  Rural                10         3.0
    Alabama      Franklin Co.       5,202      31,947       16.3%  Rural                34         6.5
    Alabama      Geneva Co.         5,017      26,787       18.7%  Urban                38         7.6
    Alabama      Greene Co.         2,498       7,412       33.7%  Urban                12         4.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Hale Co.           3,959      14,613       27.1%  Urban                18         4.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Henry Co.          2,983      17,638       16.9%  Urban                17         5.7
    Alabama      Houston Co.       21,100     108,063       19.5%  Urban               134         6.4
    Alabama      Jackson Co.        7,372      52,842         14%  Rural                60         8.1
    Alabama      Jefferson        106,140     665,543       15.9%  Urban               548         5.2
                  Co.
    Alabama      Lamar Co.          2,655      13,628       19.5%  Rural                15         5.6
    Alabama      Lauderdale        10,877      95,903       11.3%  Urban                95         8.7
                  Co.
    Alabama      Lawrence Co.       5,632      33,182         17%  Urban                30         5.3
    Alabama      Lee Co.           18,529     181,044       10.2%  Urban               118         6.4
    Alabama      Limestone          7,217     110,926        6.5%  Urban                86        11.9
                  Co.
    Alabama      Lowndes Co.        3,578       9,778       36.6%  Urban                17         4.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Macon Co.          4,400      18,561       23.7%  Urban                22         5.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Madison Co.       36,551     404,155          9%  Urban               308         8.4
    Alabama      Marengo Co.        4,922      18,790       26.2%  Rural                22         4.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Marion Co.         5,427      29,171       18.6%  Rural                32         5.9
    Alabama      Marshall Co.      14,050      99,570       14.1%  Rural               120         8.5
    Alabama      Mobile Co.        84,919     411,291       20.6%  Urban               490         5.8
    Alabama      Monroe Co.         3,869      19,403       19.9%  Rural                26         6.7
    Alabama      Montgomery        53,608     226,554       23.7%  Urban               256         4.8  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Alabama      Morgan Co.        16,516     124,218       13.3%  Urban               122         7.4
    Alabama      Perry Co.          3,514       7,893       44.5%  Rural                12         3.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Pickens Co.        3,654      18,780       19.5%  Urban                22         6.0
    Alabama      Pike Co.           6,572      32,998       19.9%  Rural                37         5.6
    Alabama      Randolph Co.       5,075      22,442       22.6%  Rural                28         5.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Russell Co.       11,919      58,522       20.4%  Urban                61         5.1
    Alabama      St. Clair         11,561      93,879       12.3%  Urban                79         6.8
                  Co.
    Alabama      Shelby Co.        12,405     230,140        5.4%  Urban               150        12.1
    Alabama      Sumter Co.         3,298      11,894       27.7%  Rural                15         4.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Talladega         13,782      80,674       17.1%  Rural                97         7.0
                  Co.
    Alabama      Tallapoosa         7,514      40,910       18.4%  Rural                48         6.4
                  Co.
    Alabama      Tuscaloosa        26,766     237,995       11.2%  Urban               189         7.1
                  Co.
    Alabama      Walker Co.        10,573      64,408       16.4%  Urban                65         6.1
    Alabama      Washington         2,970      15,098       19.7%  Rural                16         5.4
                  Co.
    Alabama      Wilcox Co.         4,246      10,124       41.9%  Rural                14         3.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Alabama      Winston Co.        3,418      23,741       14.4%  Rural                23         6.7
    Alaska       Aleutians            187       3,453        5.4%  Rural                 4        21.4
                  East
                  Borough
    Alaska       Aleutians            136       5,115        2.7%  Rural                 6        44.1
                  West Census
                  Area
    Alaska       Anchorage         34,763     287,520       12.1%  Urban               118         3.4
                  Municipalit
                  y
    Alaska       Bethel             8,493      18,272       46.5%  Rural                47         5.5  8Higher-
                  Census Area                                                                            risk0
    Alaska       Bristol Bay           83         877        9.5%  Rural                 2        24.1
                  Borough
    Alaska       Chugach              400       6,910        5.8%  Rural                 5        12.5
                  Census Area
    Alaska       Copper River         417       2,607         16%  Rural                 8        19.2
                  Census Area
    Alaska       Denali               105       1,583        6.6%  Rural                 2        19.0
                  Borough
    Alaska       Dillingham         1,527       4,716       32.4%  Rural                 8         5.2  8Higher-
                  Census Area                                                                            risk0
    Alaska       Fairbanks          6,820      95,749        7.1%  Urban                37         5.4
                  North Star
                  Borough
    Alaska       Haines               185       2,079        8.9%  Rural                 3        16.2
                  Borough
    Alaska       Hoonah-              380       2,282       16.7%  Rural                 5        13.2
                  Angoon
                  Census Area
    Alaska       Juneau City        2,806      31,742        8.8%  Rural                12         4.3
                  and Borough
    Alaska       Kenai              6,859      60,631       11.3%  Rural                47         6.9
                  Peninsula
                  Borough
    Alaska       Ketchikan          1,942      13,719       14.2%  Rural                11         5.7
                  Gateway
                  Borough
    Alaska       Kodiak               955      12,655        7.5%  Rural                11        11.5
                  Island
                  Borough
    Alaska       Kusilvak           5,400       8,196       65.9%  Rural                24         4.4  8Higher-
                  Census Area                                                                            risk0
    Alaska       Lake and             343       1,375       24.9%  Rural                10        29.2
                  Peninsula
                  Borough
    Alaska       Matanuska-        11,768     113,505       10.4%  Urban                51         4.3
                  Susitna
                  Borough
    Alaska       Nome Census        3,530       9,804         36%  Rural                24         6.8  8Higher-
                  Area                                                                                   risk0
    Alaska       North Slope        1,076      10,789         10%  Rural                12        11.2
                  Borough
    Alaska       Northwest          2,557       7,401       34.5%  Rural                21         8.2  8Higher-
                  Arctic                                                                                 risk0
                  Borough
    Alaska       Petersburg           428       3,381       12.7%  Rural                 3         7.0
                  Borough
    Alaska       Prince of          1,100       5,655       19.5%  Rural                 4         3.6
                  Wales-Hyder
                  Census Area
    Alaska       Sitka City           605       8,370        7.2%  Rural                 4         6.6
                  and Borough
    Alaska       Skagway               33       1,096          3%  Rural                 1        30.3
                  Municipalit
                  y
    Alaska       Southeast            872       7,039       12.4%  Rural                11        12.6
                  Fairbanks
                  Census Area
    Alaska       Wrangell             218       2,071       10.5%  Rural                 2         9.2
                  City and
                  Borough
    Alaska       Yakutat City          54         685        7.9%  Rural                 2        37.0
                  and Borough
    Alaska       Yukon-             1,503       5,165       29.1%  Rural                27        18.0
                  Koyukuk
                  Census Area
    Arizona      Apache Co.        22,161      65,470       33.8%  Rural                52         2.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Arizona      Cochise Co.       22,107     125,497       17.6%  Urban               126         5.7
    Arizona      Coconino Co.      16,895     144,326       11.7%  Urban               116         6.9
    Arizona      Gila Co.          10,261      53,927         19%  Rural                54         5.3
    Arizona      Graham Co.         5,721      38,802       14.7%  Rural                33         5.8
    Arizona      Greenlee Co.         639       9,321        6.9%  Rural                 9        14.1
    Arizona      La Paz Co.         3,138      16,555         19%  Rural                41        13.1
    Arizona      Maricopa Co.     467,705   4,564,457       10.2%  Urban             2,755         5.9
    Arizona      Mohave Co.        33,135     220,947         15%  Urban               211         6.4
    Arizona      Navajo Co.        27,154     108,771         25%  Rural               123         4.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Arizona      Pima Co.         144,026   1,059,412       13.6%  Urban               688         4.8
    Arizona      Pinal Co.         54,992     465,476       11.8%  Urban               205         3.7
    Arizona      Santa Cruz        10,891      48,801       22.3%  Rural                34         3.1
                  Co.
    Arizona      Yavapai Co.       20,101     246,266        8.2%  Urban               171         8.5
    Arizona      Yuma Co.          44,864     209,538       21.4%  Urban               138         3.1
    Arkansas     Arkansas Co.       1,635      16,458        9.9%  Rural                20        12.2
    Arkansas     Ashley Co.         2,521      18,318       13.8%  Rural                17         6.7
    Arkansas     Baxter Co.         2,953      42,378          7%  Rural                38        12.9
    Arkansas     Benton Co.         8,814     303,558        2.9%  Urban               165        18.7
    Arkansas     Boone Co.          3,200      38,254        8.4%  Rural                34        10.6
    Arkansas     Bradley Co.        1,262      10,167       12.4%  Rural                14        11.1
    Arkansas     Calhoun Co.          362       4,703        7.7%  Rural                 3         8.3
    Arkansas     Carroll Co.        1,614      28,667        5.6%  Rural                30        18.6
    Arkansas     Chicot Co.         2,001       9,836       20.3%  Rural                16         8.0
    Arkansas     Clark Co.          1,914      21,136        9.1%  Rural                18         9.4
    Arkansas     Clay Co.           1,362      14,229        9.6%  Rural                13         9.5
    Arkansas     Cleburne Co.       1,838      25,272        7.3%  Rural                26        14.1
    Arkansas     Cleveland            602       7,471        8.1%  Rural                 6        10.0
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Columbia Co.       2,647      22,316       11.9%  Rural                26         9.8
    Arkansas     Conway Co.         1,827      21,091        8.7%  Rural                21        11.5
    Arkansas     Craighead         10,116     112,828          9%  Urban               102        10.1
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Crawford Co.       5,009      61,084        8.2%  Urban                47         9.4
    Arkansas     Crittenden         6,561      47,031         14%  Urban                64         9.8
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Cross Co.          1,577      16,594        9.5%  Rural                21        13.3
    Arkansas     Dallas Co.           642       6,197       10.4%  Rural                 8        12.5
    Arkansas     Desha Co.          1,823      10,760       16.9%  Rural                17         9.3
    Arkansas     Drew Co.           1,916      16,930       11.3%  Rural                18         9.4
    Arkansas     Faulkner Co.       7,015     127,656        5.5%  Urban                82        11.7
    Arkansas     Franklin Co.       1,362      17,274        7.9%  Rural                15        11.0
    Arkansas     Fulton Co.         1,324      12,354       10.7%  Rural                 8         6.0
    Arkansas     Garland Co.        9,087      99,942        9.1%  Urban                90         9.9
    Arkansas     Grant Co.          1,040      18,127        5.7%  Urban                15        14.4
    Arkansas     Greene Co.         4,506      46,359        9.7%  Rural                35         7.8
    Arkansas     Hempstead          2,097      19,469       10.8%  Rural                19         9.1
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Hot Spring         2,851      33,170        8.6%  Rural                23         8.1
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Howard Co.         1,392      12,583       11.1%  Rural                15        10.8
    Arkansas     Independence       2,935      38,223        7.7%  Rural                33        11.2
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Izard Co.          1,361      14,033        9.7%  Rural                11         8.1
    Arkansas     Jackson Co.        1,941      16,607       11.7%  Rural                19         9.8
    Arkansas     Jefferson          9,438      64,341       14.7%  Rural                73         7.7
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Johnson Co.        2,739      25,997       10.5%  Rural                33        12.0
    Arkansas     Lafayette            815       6,136       13.3%  Rural                 8         9.8
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Lawrence Co.       1,825      16,146       11.3%  Rural                20        11.0
    Arkansas     Lee Co.            1,581       8,373       18.9%  Rural                 9         5.7
    Arkansas     Lincoln Co.        1,175      12,914        9.1%  Rural                 8         6.8
    Arkansas     Little River       1,322      11,811       11.2%  Urban                 9         6.8
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Logan Co.          2,044      21,242        9.6%  Rural                19         9.3
    Arkansas     Lonoke Co.         4,000      75,219        5.3%  Urban                54        13.5
    Arkansas     Madison Co.        1,326      17,493        7.6%  Urban                14        10.6
    Arkansas     Marion Co.         1,380      17,236          8%  Rural                14        10.1
    Arkansas     Miller Co.         4,915      42,484       11.6%  Urban                46         9.4
    Arkansas     Mississippi        6,190      38,829       15.9%  Rural                49         7.9
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Monroe Co.         1,039       6,574       15.8%  Rural                17        16.4
    Arkansas     Montgomery           745       8,531        8.7%  Rural                 7         9.4
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Nevada Co.           826       8,191       10.1%  Rural                 9        10.9
    Arkansas     Newton Co.           706       7,093         10%  Rural                 6         8.5
    Arkansas     Ouachita Co.       2,584      22,010       11.7%  Rural                26        10.1
    Arkansas     Perry Co.            768      10,073        7.6%  Urban                 7         9.1
    Arkansas     Phillips Co.       4,252      15,344       27.7%  Rural                29         6.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Arkansas     Pike Co.           1,176      10,123       11.6%  Rural                16        13.6
    Arkansas     Poinsett Co.       3,181      22,434       14.2%  Urban                29         9.1
    Arkansas     Polk Co.           2,062      19,368       10.6%  Rural                12         5.8
    Arkansas     Pope Co.           4,157      64,023        6.5%  Rural                40         9.6
    Arkansas     Prairie Co.          638       8,038        7.9%  Rural                11        17.2
    Arkansas     Pulaski Co.       36,400     399,886        9.1%  Urban               341         9.4
    Arkansas     Randolph Co.       1,754      18,842        9.3%  Rural                18        10.3
    Arkansas     St. Francis        3,955      22,387       17.7%  Rural                33         8.3
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Saline Co.         5,419     127,419        4.3%  Urban                83        15.3
    Arkansas     Scott Co.          1,492       9,787       15.2%  Rural                13         8.7
    Arkansas     Searcy Co.           731       7,905        9.2%  Rural                11        15.0
    Arkansas     Sebastian         11,622     129,226          9%  Urban               126        10.8
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Sevier Co.         1,524      15,681        9.7%  Rural                21        13.8
    Arkansas     Sharp Co.          2,121      17,790       11.9%  Rural                22        10.4
    Arkansas     Stone Co.          1,296      12,591       10.3%  Rural                11         8.5
    Arkansas     Union Co.          4,084      37,858       10.8%  Rural                29         7.1
    Arkansas     Van Buren          1,419      16,114        8.8%  Rural                12         8.5
                  Co.
    Arkansas     Washington        10,123     257,316        3.9%  Urban               156        15.4
                  Co.
    Arkansas     White Co.          6,764      77,645        8.7%  Rural                68        10.1
    Arkansas     Woodruff Co.         970       6,038       16.1%  Rural                 8         8.2
    Arkansas     Yell Co.           1,652      20,121        8.2%  Rural                25        15.1
    California   Alameda Co.      157,744   1,635,693        9.6%  Urban             1,054         6.7
    California   Alpine Co.           125       1,169       10.7%  Rural                 0         0.0
    California   Amador Co.         3,731      41,486          9%  Rural                32         8.6
    California   Butte Co.         35,438     207,384       17.1%  Urban               209         5.9
    California   Calaveras          5,622      46,544       12.1%  Rural                44         7.8
                  Co.
    California   Colusa Co.         2,471      21,952       11.3%  Rural                28        11.3
    California   Contra Costa      94,421   1,160,296        8.1%  Urban               714         7.6
                  Co.
    California   Del Norte          6,179      26,758       23.1%  Rural                32         5.2  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    California   El Dorado         12,736     193,071        6.6%  Urban               126         9.9
                  Co.
    California   Fresno Co.       237,466   1,017,107       23.3%  Urban             1,044         4.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    California   Glenn Co.          4,055      28,371       14.3%  Rural                43        10.6
    California   Humboldt Co.      26,310     135,013       19.5%  Rural               170         6.5
    California   Imperial Co.      45,820     179,767       25.5%  Urban               171         3.7  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    California   Inyo Co.           2,253      18,745         12%  Rural                19         8.4
    California   Kern Co.         180,911     917,293       19.7%  Urban               975         5.4
    California   Kings Co.         27,816     152,776       18.2%  Urban               135         4.9
    California   Lake Co.          15,399      68,239       22.6%  Rural                76         4.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    California   Lassen Co.         3,848      30,401       12.7%  Rural                33         8.6
    California   Los Angeles    1,504,632   9,748,447       15.4%  Urban             8,477         5.6
                  Co.
    California   Madera Co.        32,255     160,414       20.1%  Urban               179         5.5
    California   Marin Co.         13,848     257,143        5.4%  Urban               125         9.0
    California   Mariposa Co.       2,778      17,095       16.3%  Rural                15         5.4
    California   Mendocino         15,711      90,027       17.5%  Rural               108         6.9
                  Co.
    California   Merced Co.        58,437     292,034         20%  Urban               288         4.9
    California   Modoc Co.          1,797       8,625       20.8%  Rural                15         8.3
    California   Mono Co.             660      13,055        5.1%  Rural                 8        12.1
    California   Monterey Co.      45,586     436,427       10.4%  Urban               314         6.9
    California   Napa Co.           8,172     134,492        6.1%  Urban                75         9.2
    California   Nevada Co.         8,995     102,356        8.8%  Rural                72         8.0
    California   Orange Co.       291,350   3,158,489        9.2%  Urban             2,104         7.2
    California   Placer Co.        20,891     418,439          5%  Urban               241        11.5
    California   Plumas Co.         2,357      19,433       12.1%  Rural                24        10.2
    California   Riverside        293,758   2,479,628       11.8%  Urban             1,890         6.4
                  Co.
    California   Sacramento       249,008   1,588,743       15.7%  Urban             1,316         5.3
                  Co.
    California   San Benito         6,114      67,715          9%  Urban                24         3.9
                  Co.
    California   San              345,028   2,196,029       15.7%  Urban             2,004         5.8
                  Bernardino
                  Co.
    California   San Diego        391,261   3,283,755       11.9%  Urban             2,366         6.0
                  Co.
    California   San               98,175     814,176       12.1%  Urban               602         6.1
                  Francisco
                  Co.
    California   San Joaquin      113,700     795,880       14.3%  Urban               696         6.1
                  Co.
    California   San Luis          22,296     282,535        7.9%  Urban               204         9.1
                  Obispo Co.
    California   San Mateo         32,023     732,485        4.4%  Urban               333        10.4
                  Co.
    California   Santa             52,069     445,286       11.7%  Urban               307         5.9
                  Barbara Co.
    California   Santa Clara      121,312   1,883,653        6.4%  Urban               934         7.7
                  Co.
    California   Santa Cruz        30,230     265,851       11.4%  Urban               172         5.7
                  Co.
    California   Shasta Co.        27,553     180,972       15.2%  Urban               203         7.4
    California   Sierra Co.           329       3,215       10.2%  Rural                 4        12.2
    California   Siskiyou Co.       8,473      43,746       19.4%  Rural                78         9.2
    California   Solano Co.        51,102     449,724       11.4%  Urban               305         6.0
    California   Sonoma Co.        37,290     483,398        7.7%  Urban               373        10.0
    California   Stanislaus        79,816     552,410       14.4%  Urban               579         7.3
                  Co.
    California   Sutter Co.        13,342      98,682       13.5%  Urban                99         7.4
    California   Tehama Co.        11,386      65,269       17.4%  Rural                70         6.1
    California   Trinity Co.        2,594      15,777       16.4%  Rural                24         9.3
    California   Tulare Co.       126,486     478,288       26.4%  Urban               494         3.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    California   Tuolumne Co.       6,044      53,951       11.2%  Rural                46         7.6
    California   Ventura Co.       71,864     835,032        8.6%  Urban               623         8.7
    California   Yolo Co.          24,324     223,338       10.9%  Urban               179         7.4
    California   Yuba Co.          17,446      84,335       20.7%  Urban                89         5.1
    Colorado     Adams Co.         60,533     528,356       11.5%  Urban               289         4.8
    Colorado     Alamosa Co.        4,627      16,593       27.9%  Rural                21         4.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Colorado     Arapahoe Co.      60,505     658,176        9.2%  Urban               346         5.7
    Colorado     Archuleta          1,648      13,987       11.8%  Rural                 9         5.5
                  Co.
    Colorado     Baca Co.             722       3,435         21%  Rural                 8        11.1
    Colorado     Bent Co.             975       5,430         18%  Rural                 6         6.2
    Colorado     Boulder Co.       18,277     328,039        5.6%  Urban               154         8.4
    Colorado     Broomfield         3,035      76,245          4%  Urban                33        10.9
                  Co.
    Colorado     Chaffee Co.        1,643      20,266        8.1%  Rural                19        11.6
    Colorado     Cheyenne Co.         189       1,734       10.9%  Rural                 3        15.9
    Colorado     Clear Creek          550       9,324        5.9%  Urban                 6        10.9
                  Co.
    Colorado     Conejos Co.        1,650       7,560       21.8%  Rural                 7         4.2
    Colorado     Costilla Co.       1,327       3,609       36.8%  Rural                 9         6.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Colorado     Crowley Co.        1,016       5,601       18.1%  Rural                 4         3.9
    Colorado     Custer Co.           453       5,343        8.5%  Rural                 5        11.0
    Colorado     Delta Co.          4,290      31,573       13.6%  Rural                21         4.9
    Colorado     Denver Co.        86,859     714,851       12.2%  Urban               354         4.1
    Colorado     Dolores Co.          300       2,460       12.2%  Rural                 3        10.0
    Colorado     Douglas Co.        7,615     376,462          2%  Urban               118        15.5
    Colorado     Eagle Co.          1,448      55,303        2.6%  Rural                19        13.1
    Colorado     Elbert Co.         1,025      27,817        3.7%  Urban                11        10.7
    Colorado     El Paso Co.       78,360     742,676       10.6%  Urban               376         4.8
    Colorado     Fremont Co.        7,845      49,585       15.8%  Rural                32         4.1
    Colorado     Garfield Co.       4,172      62,388        6.7%  Rural                51        12.2
    Colorado     Gilpin Co.           501       5,910        8.5%  Urban                 4         8.0
    Colorado     Grand Co.            441      15,748        2.8%  Rural                10        22.7
    Colorado     Gunnison Co.       1,027      17,319        5.9%  Rural                13        12.7
    Colorado     Hinsdale Co.           9         773        1.2%  Rural                 1       111.1
    Colorado     Huerfano Co.       1,825       7,077       25.8%  Rural                12         6.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Colorado     Jackson Co.          116       1,314        8.8%  Rural                 3        25.9
    Colorado     Jefferson         33,873     576,635        5.9%  Urban               272         8.0
                  Co.
    Colorado     Kiowa Co.            232       1,430       16.2%  Rural                 4        17.2
    Colorado     Kit Carson           933       7,010       13.3%  Rural                11        11.8
                  Co.
    Colorado     Lake Co.             463       7,356        6.3%  Rural                 9        19.4
    Colorado     La Plata Co.       4,529      56,577          8%  Rural                41         9.1
    Colorado     Larimer Co.       29,323     368,017          8%  Urban               182         6.2
    Colorado     Las Animas         3,323      14,312       23.2%  Rural                15         4.5  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Colorado     Lincoln Co.          786       5,520       14.2%  Rural                 7         8.9
    Colorado     Logan Co.          2,887      20,829       13.9%  Rural                 9         3.1
    Colorado     Mesa Co.          18,935     158,585       11.9%  Urban               105         5.5
    Colorado     Mineral Co.           49         923        5.3%  Rural                 1        20.4
    Colorado     Moffat Co.         1,474      13,172       11.2%  Rural                11         7.5
    Colorado     Montezuma          4,892      26,491       18.5%  Rural                32         6.5
                  Co.
    Colorado     Montrose Co.       5,456      43,845       12.4%  Rural                33         6.0
    Colorado     Morgan Co.         3,847      29,392       13.1%  Rural                31         8.1
    Colorado     Otero Co.          4,689      18,272       25.7%  Rural                26         5.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Colorado     Ouray Co.            211       5,108        4.1%  Rural                 3        14.2
    Colorado     Park Co.           1,367      17,929        7.6%  Urban                 8         5.9
    Colorado     Phillips Co.         469       4,464       10.5%  Rural                 6        12.8
    Colorado     Pitkin Co.           269      16,877        1.6%  Rural                 6        22.3
    Colorado     Prowers Co.        2,731      11,834       23.1%  Rural                14         5.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Colorado     Pueblo Co.        42,097     169,485       24.8%  Urban               123         2.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Colorado     Rio Blanco           764       6,561       11.6%  Rural                12        15.7
                  Co.
    Colorado     Rio Grande         2,429      11,329       21.4%  Rural                20         8.2
                  Co.
    Colorado     Routt Co.            616      25,112        2.5%  Rural                14        22.7
    Colorado     Saguache Co.       1,379       6,632       20.8%  Rural                 8         5.8
    Colorado     San Juan Co.          51         796        6.4%  Rural                 2        39.2
    Colorado     San Miguel           317       8,011          4%  Rural                 7        22.1
                  Co.
    Colorado     Sedgwick Co.         428       2,294       18.7%  Rural                 2         4.7
    Colorado     Summit Co.           719      30,905        2.3%  Rural                18        25.0
    Colorado     Teller Co.         2,444      24,858        9.8%  Urban                21         8.6
    Colorado     Washington           604       4,840       12.5%  Rural                 2         3.3
                  Co.
    Colorado     Weld Co.          32,118     350,610        9.2%  Urban               177         5.5
    Colorado     Yuma Co.           1,267       9,970       12.7%  Rural                11         8.7
    Connecticut  Capitol          122,573     975,591       12.6%  Urban               773         6.3
                  Planning
                  Region
    Connecticut  Greater           42,740     328,131         13%  Urban               203         4.7
                  Bridgeport
                  Planning
                  Region
    Connecticut  Lower             10,746     176,159        6.1%  Urban               105         9.8
                  Connecticut
                  River
                  Valley
                  Planning
                  Region
    Connecticut  Naugatuck         63,091     453,868       13.9%  Urban               349         5.5
                  Valley
                  Planning
                  Region
    Connecticut  Northeastern       9,323      96,169        9.7%  Rural                68         7.3
                  Connecticut
                  Planning
                  Region
    Connecticut  Northwest          8,963     113,289        7.9%  Rural                68         7.6
                  Hills
                  Planning
                  Region
    Connecticut  South             76,429     569,866       13.4%  Urban               437         5.7
                  Central
                  Connecticut
                  Planning
                  Region
    Connecticut  Southeastern      33,788     279,398       12.1%  Urban               226         6.7
                  Connecticut
                  Planning
                  Region
    Connecticut  Western           21,768     625,454        3.5%  Urban               247        11.3
                  Connecticut
                  Planning
                  Region
    Delaware     Kent Co.          31,322     187,819       16.7%  Urban               140         4.5
    Delaware     New Castle        71,285     576,316       12.4%  Urban               478         6.7
                  Co.
    Delaware     Sussex Co.        18,864     256,490        7.4%  Rural               218        11.6
    District of  District of      139,407     676,725       20.6%  Urban               416         3.0
     Columbia     Columbia
    Florida      Alachua Co.       33,655     285,241       11.8%  Urban               217         6.4
    Florida      Baker Co.          4,211      27,781       15.2%  Urban                32         7.6
    Florida      Bay Co.           23,697     185,732       12.8%  Urban               225         9.5
    Florida      Bradford Co.       4,609      27,275       16.9%  Rural                32         6.9
    Florida      Brevard Co.       64,797     631,956       10.3%  Urban               471         7.3
    Florida      Broward Co.      249,980   1,966,237       12.7%  Urban             1,086         4.3
    Florida      Calhoun Co.        2,393      13,462       17.8%  Rural                 9         3.8
    Florida      Charlotte         14,536     203,113        7.2%  Urban               120         8.3
                  Co.
    Florida      Citrus Co.        20,921     162,586       12.9%  Urban               118         5.6
    Florida      Clay Co.          20,651     226,797        9.1%  Urban               140         6.8
    Florida      Collier Co.       20,948     400,510        5.2%  Urban               238        11.4
    Florida      Columbia Co.      13,729      71,941       19.1%  Rural                95         6.9
    Florida      DeSoto Co.         5,501      35,483       15.5%  Rural                30         5.5
    Florida      Dixie Co.          3,607      16,839       21.4%  Rural                21         5.8
    Florida      Duval Co.        159,784   1,021,040       15.6%  Urban               920         5.8
    Florida      Escambia Co.      49,040     324,227       15.1%  Urban               317         6.5
    Florida      Flagler Co.       11,447     126,974          9%  Urban                70         6.1
    Florida      Franklin Co.       1,391      12,491       11.1%  Rural                13         9.3
    Florida      Gadsden Co.        9,970      43,389         23%  Urban                50         5.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Florida      Gilchrist          2,941      19,027       15.5%  Urban                20         6.8
                  Co.
    Florida      Glades Co.         1,404      12,496       11.2%  Rural                 9         6.4
    Florida      Gulf Co.           1,816      15,302       11.9%  Rural                20        11.0
    Florida      Hamilton Co.       2,646      13,216         20%  Rural                22         8.3
    Florida      Hardee Co.         5,446      25,692       21.2%  Rural                28         5.1
    Florida      Hendry Co.         9,165      41,725         22%  Rural                43         4.7
    Florida      Hernando Co.      29,423     207,169       14.2%  Urban               148         5.0
    Florida      Highlands         19,024     105,954         18%  Urban                91         4.8
                  Co.
    Florida      Hillsborough     225,257   1,523,839       14.8%  Urban             1,073         4.8
                  Co.
    Florida      Holmes Co.         4,183      19,324       21.6%  Rural                25         6.0
    Florida      Indian River      15,559     167,698        9.3%  Urban               109         7.0
                  Co.
    Florida      Jackson Co.        8,231      48,294         17%  Rural                50         6.1
    Florida      Jefferson          1,846      15,090       12.2%  Urban                20        10.8
                  Co.
    Florida      Lafayette            970       7,786       12.5%  Rural                 7         7.2
                  Co.
    Florida      Lake Co.          44,167     410,981       10.7%  Urban               265         6.0
    Florida      Lee Co.           91,972     826,567       11.1%  Urban               541         5.9
    Florida      Leon Co.          36,931     298,181       12.4%  Urban               219         5.9
    Florida      Levy Co.           7,252      45,291         16%  Urban                55         7.6
    Florida      Liberty Co.        1,198       7,609       15.7%  Rural                 9         7.5
    Florida      Madison Co.        2,967      17,978       16.5%  Rural                26         8.8
    Florida      Manatee Co.       36,680     430,700        8.5%  Urban               266         7.3
    Florida      Marion Co.        60,561     396,661       15.3%  Urban               343         5.7
    Florida      Martin Co.        11,225     162,379        6.9%  Urban               117        10.4
    Florida      Miami-Dade       604,250   2,713,415       22.3%  Urban             1,358         2.2
                  Co.
    Florida      Monroe Co.         6,422      82,002        7.8%  Rural                78        12.1
    Florida      Nassau Co.         6,644      97,891        6.8%  Urban                74        11.1
    Florida      Okaloosa Co.      17,016     217,115        7.8%  Urban               174        10.2
    Florida      Okeechobee         8,377      40,416       20.7%  Rural                46         5.5
                  Co.
    Florida      Orange Co.       202,121   1,465,146       13.8%  Urban               965         4.8
    Florida      Osceola Co.       71,467     426,556       16.8%  Urban               258         3.6
    Florida      Palm Beach       162,053   1,531,542       10.6%  Urban               805         5.0
                  Co.
    Florida      Pasco Co.         67,782     610,584       11.1%  Urban               379         5.6
    Florida      Pinellas Co.      97,006     964,693       10.1%  Urban               746         7.7
    Florida      Polk Co.         141,934     790,530         18%  Urban               609         4.3
    Florida      Putnam Co.        16,670      74,805       22.3%  Rural                95         5.7
    Florida      St. Johns         12,024     307,837        3.9%  Urban               162        13.5
                  Co.
    Florida      St. Lucie         46,256     359,882       12.9%  Urban               220         4.8
                  Co.
    Florida      Santa Rosa        14,779     198,363        7.5%  Urban               137         9.3
                  Co.
    Florida      Sarasota Co.      26,404     464,067        5.7%  Urban               257         9.7
    Florida      Seminole Co.      42,608     481,084        8.9%  Urban               285         6.7
    Florida      Sumter Co.         8,774     144,978        6.1%  Urban                90        10.3
    Florida      Suwannee Co.       8,749      45,370       19.3%  Rural                58         6.6
    Florida      Taylor Co.         4,867      21,347       22.8%  Rural                33         6.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Florida      Union Co.          2,290      15,490       14.8%  Rural                14         6.1
    Florida      Volusia Co.       75,617     580,481         13%  Urban               442         5.8
    Florida      Wakulla Co.        3,365      35,159        9.6%  Urban                28         8.3
    Florida      Walton Co.         6,155      83,100        7.4%  Urban                64        10.4
    Florida      Washington         3,422      25,426       13.5%  Urban                35        10.2
                  Co.
    Georgia      Appling Co.        3,887      18,479         21%  Rural                35         9.0
    Georgia      Atkinson Co.       1,846       8,236       22.4%  Rural                16         8.7
    Georgia      Bacon Co.          2,491      11,174       22.3%  Rural                18         7.2
    Georgia      Baker Co.            798       2,796       28.5%  Rural                 3         3.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Baldwin Co.        7,816      43,649       17.9%  Rural                64         8.2
    Georgia      Banks Co.          2,344      19,404       12.1%  Rural                20         8.5
    Georgia      Barrow Co.         9,719      89,359       10.9%  Urban                81         8.3
    Georgia      Bartow Co.        14,253     112,805       12.6%  Urban               104         7.3
    Georgia      Ben Hill Co.       4,203      17,055       24.6%  Rural                32         7.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Berrien Co.        3,754      18,238       20.6%  Rural                25         6.7
    Georgia      Bibb Co.          40,989     156,115       26.3%  Urban               212         5.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Bleckley Co.       2,244      12,270       18.3%  Rural                15         6.7
    Georgia      Brantley Co.       3,913      18,196       21.5%  Urban                24         6.1
    Georgia      Brooks Co.         3,621      16,300       22.2%  Urban                25         6.9
    Georgia      Bryan Co.          3,771      48,316        7.8%  Urban                37         9.8
    Georgia      Bulloch Co.       12,921      83,027       15.6%  Rural               103         8.0
    Georgia      Burke Co.          5,775      24,433       23.6%  Urban                35         6.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Butts Co.          4,157      26,745       15.5%  Urban                30         7.2
    Georgia      Calhoun Co.        1,369       5,471         25%  Rural                 7         5.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Camden Co.         6,020      57,036       10.6%  Rural                63        10.5
    Georgia      Candler Co.        2,509      11,000       22.8%  Rural                16         6.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Carroll Co.       18,903     124,564       15.2%  Urban               124         6.6
    Georgia      Catoosa Co.        7,524      68,840       10.9%  Urban                67         8.9
    Georgia      Charlton Co.       1,876      12,781       14.7%  Rural                19        10.1
    Georgia      Chatham Co.       44,807     301,512       14.9%  Urban               319         7.1
    Georgia      Chattahooche         721       8,773        8.2%  Urban                 3         4.2
                  e Co.
    Georgia      Chattooga          5,475      24,921         22%  Rural                31         5.7
                  Co.
    Georgia      Cherokee Co.      13,328     281,455        4.7%  Urban               122         9.2
    Georgia      Clarke Co.        15,853     129,954       12.2%  Urban               122         7.7
    Georgia      Clay Co.             966       2,862       33.8%  Rural                 5         5.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Clayton Co.       73,512     298,862       24.6%  Urban               274         3.7  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Clinch Co.         1,659       6,684       24.8%  Rural                16         9.6
    Georgia      Cobb Co.          62,007     774,162          8%  Urban               441         7.1
    Georgia      Coffee Co.         9,565      43,311       22.1%  Rural                70         7.3
    Georgia      Colquitt Co.      10,459      45,952       22.8%  Rural                68         6.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Columbia Co.      10,346     162,681        6.4%  Urban               101         9.8
    Georgia      Cook Co.           3,882      17,414       22.3%  Rural                29         7.5
    Georgia      Coweta Co.        13,957     153,002        9.1%  Urban               111         8.0
    Georgia      Crawford Co.       2,137      12,197       17.5%  Urban                12         5.6
    Georgia      Crisp Co.          5,959      19,755       30.2%  Rural                47         7.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Dade Co.           1,779      16,114         11%  Urban                32        18.0
    Georgia      Dawson Co.         2,035      30,175        6.7%  Urban                30        14.7
    Georgia      Decatur Co.        7,159      29,038       24.7%  Rural                45         6.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      DeKalb Co.       127,335     764,440       16.7%  Urban               584         4.6
    Georgia      Dodge Co.          4,606      19,903       23.1%  Rural                25         5.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Dooly Co.          2,302      10,639       21.6%  Rural                18         7.8
    Georgia      Dougherty         28,400      82,972       34.2%  Urban               156         5.5  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Georgia      Douglas Co.       23,884     147,690       16.2%  Urban               127         5.3
    Georgia      Early Co.          3,282      10,567       31.1%  Rural                20         6.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Echols Co.           713       3,694       19.3%  Urban                 2         2.8
    Georgia      Effingham          6,411      69,030        9.3%  Urban                53         8.3
                  Co.
    Georgia      Elbert Co.         3,986      19,853       20.1%  Rural                26         6.5
    Georgia      Emanuel Co.        5,976      22,953         26%  Rural                29         4.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Evans Co.          2,427      10,662       22.8%  Rural                24         9.9
    Georgia      Fannin Co.         2,655      25,702       10.3%  Rural                26         9.8
    Georgia      Fayette Co.        6,493     122,150        5.3%  Urban                77        11.9
    Georgia      Floyd Co.         15,996      99,586       16.1%  Urban               119         7.4
    Georgia      Forsyth Co.        7,237     268,075        2.7%  Urban               106        14.6
    Georgia      Franklin Co.       4,066      24,151       16.8%  Rural                35         8.6
    Georgia      Fulton Co.       160,940   1,076,569       14.9%  Urban               684         4.3
    Georgia      Gilmer Co.         3,657      32,413       11.3%  Rural                34         9.3
    Georgia      Glascock Co.         437       2,919         15%  Rural                 5        11.4
    Georgia      Glynn Co.         13,073      85,202       15.3%  Urban               123         9.4
    Georgia      Gordon Co.         7,659      58,909         13%  Rural                73         9.5
    Georgia      Grady Co.          5,117      26,056       19.6%  Rural                33         6.4
    Georgia      Greene Co.         2,520      20,136       12.5%  Rural                29        11.5
    Georgia      Gwinnett Co.      94,116     980,015        9.6%  Urban               581         6.2
    Georgia      Habersham          5,236      47,558         11%  Rural                64        12.2
                  Co.
    Georgia      Hall Co.          19,407     213,126        9.1%  Urban               182         9.4
    Georgia      Hancock Co.        1,679       8,453       19.9%  Rural                15         8.9
    Georgia      Haralson Co.       5,615      31,340       17.9%  Urban                49         8.7
    Georgia      Harris Co.         2,601      36,308        7.2%  Urban                25         9.6
    Georgia      Hart Co.           3,992      26,877       14.9%  Rural                25         6.3
    Georgia      Heard Co.          2,221      11,720         19%  Urban                12         5.4
    Georgia      Henry Co.         35,314     248,559       14.2%  Urban               199         5.6
    Georgia      Houston Co.       22,642     169,791       13.3%  Urban               157         6.9
    Georgia      Irwin Co.          1,908       9,121       20.9%  Rural                11         5.8
    Georgia      Jackson Co.        7,478      84,102        8.9%  Rural                67         9.0
    Georgia      Jasper Co.         2,218      15,985       13.9%  Urban                13         5.9
    Georgia      Jeff Davis         3,441      14,909       23.1%  Rural                19         5.5  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Georgia      Jefferson          3,606      15,318       23.5%  Rural                28         7.8  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Georgia      Jenkins Co.        2,028       8,661       23.4%  Rural                 8         3.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Johnson Co.        1,990       9,255       21.5%  Rural                14         7.0
    Georgia      Jones Co.          3,797      28,514       13.3%  Urban                20         5.3
    Georgia      Lamar Co.          3,550      19,489       18.2%  Rural                14         3.9
    Georgia      Lanier Co.         2,335      10,207       22.9%  Urban                11         4.7  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Laurens Co.       12,147      49,705       24.4%  Rural                90         7.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Lee Co.            4,212      33,699       12.5%  Urban                30         7.1
    Georgia      Liberty Co.       11,126      68,031       16.4%  Urban                75         6.7
    Georgia      Lincoln Co.        1,210       7,872       15.4%  Urban                 7         5.8
    Georgia      Long Co.           3,112      18,409       16.9%  Urban                16         5.1
    Georgia      Lowndes Co.       23,385     119,547       19.6%  Urban               138         5.9
    Georgia      Lumpkin Co.        3,052      34,763        8.8%  Urban                23         7.5
    Georgia      McDuffie Co.       4,868      21,727       22.4%  Urban                36         7.4
    Georgia      McIntosh Co.       2,161      11,190       19.3%  Urban                19         8.8
    Georgia      Macon Co.          2,651      11,778       22.5%  Rural                19         7.2
    Georgia      Madison Co.        4,385      31,447       13.9%  Urban                36         8.2
    Georgia      Marion Co.         1,709       7,464       22.9%  Urban                 9         5.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Meriwether         4,443      20,892       21.3%  Urban                28         6.3
                  Co.
    Georgia      Miller Co.         1,259       5,790       21.7%  Rural                 9         7.1
    Georgia      Mitchell Co.       5,671      21,182       26.8%  Rural                30         5.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Monroe Co.         3,427      29,455       11.6%  Urban                30         8.8
    Georgia      Montgomery         1,597       8,656       18.4%  Rural                12         7.5
                  Co.
    Georgia      Morgan Co.         2,456      21,048       11.7%  Urban                24         9.8
    Georgia      Murray Co.         7,168      40,432       17.7%  Urban                50         7.0
    Georgia      Muscogee Co.      43,076     202,658       21.3%  Urban               213         4.9
    Georgia      Newton Co.        21,953     117,970       18.6%  Urban                86         3.9
    Georgia      Oconee Co.         1,527      43,676        3.5%  Urban                25        16.4
    Georgia      Oglethorpe         1,982      15,532       12.8%  Urban                11         5.5
                  Co.
    Georgia      Paulding Co.      17,858     178,885         10%  Urban                80         4.5
    Georgia      Peach Co.          5,197      28,484       18.2%  Urban                39         7.5
    Georgia      Pickens Co.        3,429      34,817        9.8%  Urban                31         9.0
    Georgia      Pierce Co.         3,744      20,176       18.6%  Rural                23         6.1
    Georgia      Pike Co.           1,921      19,936        9.6%  Urban                17         8.8
    Georgia      Polk Co.           8,473      43,706       19.4%  Rural                53         6.3
    Georgia      Pulaski Co.        1,794       9,953         18%  Rural                16         8.9
    Georgia      Putnam Co.         3,394      22,928       14.8%  Rural                28         8.2
    Georgia      Quitman Co.          592       2,254       26.3%  Rural                 6        10.1
    Georgia      Rabun Co.          1,724      17,292         10%  Rural                18        10.4
    Georgia      Randolph Co.       2,064       6,155       33.5%  Rural                11         5.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Richmond Co.      47,098     206,510       22.8%  Urban               247         5.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Rockdale Co.      16,899      95,016       17.8%  Urban                91         5.4
    Georgia      Schley Co.           839       4,503       18.6%  Rural                 4         4.8
    Georgia      Screven Co.        3,313      13,977       23.7%  Rural                22         6.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Seminole Co.       2,249       9,129       24.6%  Rural                10         4.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Spalding Co.      15,675      69,015       22.7%  Urban                80         5.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Stephens Co.       5,242      26,724       19.6%  Rural                36         6.9
    Georgia      Stewart Co.        1,132       4,634       24.4%  Urban                 8         7.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Sumter Co.         8,748      28,880       30.3%  Rural                40         4.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Talbot Co.         1,258       5,759       21.8%  Urban                 6         4.8
    Georgia      Taliaferro           325       1,600       20.3%  Rural                 3         9.2
                  Co.
    Georgia      Tattnall Co.       4,186      24,012       17.4%  Rural                39         9.3
    Georgia      Taylor Co.         1,834       7,767       23.6%  Rural                 8         4.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Telfair Co.        2,928      12,416       23.6%  Rural                19         6.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Terrell Co.        2,774       8,782       31.6%  Urban                15         5.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Thomas Co.         8,986      45,542       19.7%  Rural                64         7.1
    Georgia      Tift Co.           9,153      41,378       22.1%  Rural                81         8.8
    Georgia      Toombs Co.         6,919      26,881       25.7%  Rural                45         6.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Towns Co.          1,071      12,944        8.3%  Rural                19        17.7
    Georgia      Treutlen Co.       1,679       6,353       26.4%  Rural                10         6.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Troup Co.         14,324      70,297       20.4%  Rural                95         6.6
    Georgia      Turner Co.         2,353       8,842       26.6%  Rural                17         7.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Twiggs Co.         1,693       7,688         22%  Urban                10         5.9
    Georgia      Union Co.          2,124      26,400          8%  Rural                23        10.8
    Georgia      Upson Co.          6,587      28,098       23.4%  Rural                32         4.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Walker Co.        10,159      68,887       14.7%  Urban                80         7.9
    Georgia      Walton Co.        12,380     103,056         12%  Urban                88         7.1
    Georgia      Ware Co.           9,078      35,608       25.5%  Rural                58         6.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Warren Co.         1,394       5,168         27%  Rural                 9         6.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Georgia      Washington         4,343      19,791       21.9%  Rural                26         6.0
                  Co.
    Georgia      Wayne Co.          6,383      30,786       20.7%  Rural                42         6.6
    Georgia      Webster Co.          519       2,351       22.1%  Rural                 3         5.8
    Georgia      Wheeler Co.        1,263       7,307       17.3%  Rural                 8         6.3
    Georgia      White Co.          2,991      28,810       10.4%  Rural                23         7.7
    Georgia      Whitfield         13,651     103,252       13.2%  Urban               136        10.0
                  Co.
    Georgia      Wilcox Co.         1,762       8,747       20.1%  Rural                17         9.6
    Georgia      Wilkes Co.         2,126       9,585       22.2%  Rural                18         8.5
    Georgia      Wilkinson          1,948       8,689       22.4%  Rural                15         7.7
                  Co.
    Georgia      Worth Co.          4,424      20,420       21.7%  Urban                24         5.4
    Hawaii       Hawaii Co.        37,263     206,324       18.1%  Rural               182         4.9
    Hawaii       Honolulu Co.      90,431     995,652        9.1%  Urban               544         6.0
    Hawaii       Kalawao Co.                       81          0%  Urban                 0         0.0
    Hawaii       Kauai Co.          7,807      73,823       10.6%  Rural                70         9.0
    Hawaii       Maui Co.          16,442     164,479         10%  Urban               125         7.6
    Idaho        Ada Co.           23,992     520,788        4.6%  Urban               258        10.8
    Idaho        Adams Co.            287       4,780          6%  Rural                 7        24.4
    Idaho        Bannock Co.        8,988      89,871         10%  Urban                66         7.3
    Idaho        Bear Lake            326       6,751        4.8%  Rural                 5        15.3
                  Co.
    Idaho        Benewah Co.          815      10,301        7.9%  Rural                 6         7.4
    Idaho        Bingham Co.        4,121      49,997        8.2%  Rural                27         6.6
    Idaho        Blaine Co.           406      25,186        1.6%  Rural                14        34.5
    Idaho        Boise Co.            423       8,426          5%  Urban                 7        16.5
    Idaho        Bonner Co.         2,795      51,521        5.4%  Rural                29        10.4
    Idaho        Bonneville        10,053     129,690        7.8%  Urban                84         8.4
                  Co.
    Idaho        Boundary Co.         887      13,377        6.6%  Rural                11        12.4
    Idaho        Butte Co.            260       2,692        9.7%  Urban                 2         7.7
    Idaho        Camas Co.             46       1,168        3.9%  Rural                 1        21.7
    Idaho        Canyon Co.        19,973     251,532        7.9%  Urban               126         6.3
    Idaho        Caribou Co.          346       7,208        4.8%  Rural                 9        26.0
    Idaho        Cassia Co.         2,149      25,625        8.4%  Rural                22        10.2
    Idaho        Clark Co.             52         812        6.4%  Rural                 1        19.2
    Idaho        Clearwater           653       9,034        7.2%  Rural                 8        12.3
                  Co.
    Idaho        Custer Co.           259       4,503        5.8%  Rural                 5        19.3
    Idaho        Elmore Co.         2,171      29,494        7.4%  Rural                16         7.4
    Idaho        Franklin Co.         508      15,172        3.3%  Urban                 6        11.8
    Idaho        Fremont Co.          747      14,048        5.3%  Rural                 6         8.0
    Idaho        Gem Co.            1,393      20,739        6.7%  Urban                12         8.6
    Idaho        Gooding Co.        1,237      15,890        7.8%  Rural                13        10.5
    Idaho        Idaho Co.          1,002      17,670        5.7%  Rural                14        14.0
    Idaho        Jefferson          1,564      33,365        4.7%  Urban                10         6.4
                  Co.
    Idaho        Jerome Co.         2,042      25,228        8.1%  Urban                19         9.3
    Idaho        Kootenai Co.       9,712     183,540        5.3%  Urban               110        11.3
    Idaho        Latah Co.          1,857      41,330        4.5%  Rural                23        12.4
    Idaho        Lemhi Co.            592       8,286        7.1%  Rural                 9        15.2
    Idaho        Lewis Co.            442       3,727       11.9%  Rural                 5        11.3
    Idaho        Lincoln Co.          413       5,365        7.7%  Rural                 3         7.3
    Idaho        Madison Co.        2,494      55,427        4.5%  Rural                12         4.8
    Idaho        Minidoka Co.       1,640      22,202        7.4%  Rural                12         7.3
    Idaho        Nez Perce          3,001      43,003          7%  Urban                36        12.0
                  Co.
    Idaho        Oneida Co.           252       4,740        5.3%  Rural                 4        15.9
    Idaho        Owyhee Co.         1,190      12,644        9.4%  Urban                 9         7.6
    Idaho        Payette Co.        2,426      26,934          9%  Rural                22         9.1
    Idaho        Power Co.            794       8,122        9.8%  Rural                 6         7.6
    Idaho        Shoshone Co.       1,593      13,951       11.4%  Rural                16        10.0
    Idaho        Teton Co.            230      12,553        1.8%  Rural                 5        21.7
    Idaho        Twin Falls         8,010      93,973        8.5%  Urban                58         7.2
                  Co.
    Idaho        Valley Co.           389      12,436        3.1%  Rural                11        28.3
    Idaho        Washington           972      11,198        8.7%  Rural                15        15.4
                  Co.
    Illinois     Adams Co.         11,336      64,526       17.6%  Rural                60         5.3
    Illinois     Alexander          2,090       4,859         43%  Urban                 5         2.4  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Illinois     Bond Co.           2,188      16,716       13.1%  Urban                13         5.9
    Illinois     Boone Co.          7,242      53,084       13.6%  Urban                30         4.1
    Illinois     Brown Co.            611       6,321        9.7%  Rural                 4         6.5
    Illinois     Bureau Co.         4,969      32,862       15.1%  Rural                40         8.0
    Illinois     Calhoun Co.          564       4,335         13%  Urban                 3         5.3
    Illinois     Carroll Co.        2,127      15,553       13.7%  Rural                19         8.9
    Illinois     Cass Co.           2,277      12,672         18%  Rural                14         6.1
    Illinois     Champaign         31,520     208,033       15.2%  Urban               164         5.2
                  Co.
    Illinois     Christian          5,982      33,410       17.9%  Rural                35         5.9
                  Co.
    Illinois     Clark Co.          2,426      15,211       15.9%  Rural                18         7.4
    Illinois     Clay Co.           2,641      13,053       20.2%  Rural                14         5.3
    Illinois     Clinton Co.        3,079      36,987        8.3%  Urban                40        13.0
    Illinois     Coles Co.          9,860      46,708       21.1%  Rural                45         4.6
    Illinois     Cook Co.         966,185   5,133,106       18.8%  Urban             3,492         3.6
    Illinois     Crawford Co.       3,081      18,516       16.6%  Rural                18         5.8
    Illinois     Cumberland         1,349      10,296       13.1%  Rural                 9         6.7
                  Co.
    Illinois     DeKalb Co.        14,710     100,569       14.6%  Urban                78         5.3
    Illinois     De Witt Co.        2,627      15,341       17.1%  Rural                17         6.5
    Illinois     Douglas Co.        2,393      19,702       12.1%  Rural                26        10.9
    Illinois     DuPage Co.        68,290     925,143        7.4%  Urban               520         7.6
    Illinois     Edgar Co.          3,466      16,426       21.1%  Rural                17         4.9
    Illinois     Edwards Co.          919       6,073       15.1%  Rural                 8         8.7
    Illinois     Effingham          3,863      34,336       11.3%  Rural                41        10.6
                  Co.
    Illinois     Fayette Co.        3,617      21,284         17%  Rural                23         6.4
    Illinois     Ford Co.           1,974      13,270       14.9%  Urban                14         7.1
    Illinois     Franklin Co.      10,017      37,226       26.9%  Rural                50         5.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Illinois     Fulton Co.         5,746      33,022       17.4%  Rural                31         5.4
    Illinois     Gallatin Co.       1,145       4,842       23.6%  Rural                 3         2.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Illinois     Greene Co.         2,330      11,643         20%  Rural                14         6.0
    Illinois     Grundy Co.         5,400      53,153       10.2%  Urban                39         7.2
    Illinois     Hamilton Co.       1,327       7,976       16.6%  Rural                 7         5.3
    Illinois     Hancock Co.        2,704      17,250       15.7%  Rural                26         9.6
    Illinois     Hardin Co.         1,029       3,588       28.7%  Rural                 4         3.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Illinois     Henderson            988       6,168         16%  Rural                 7         7.1
                  Co.
    Illinois     Henry Co.          6,809      48,567         14%  Urban                50         7.3
    Illinois     Iroquois Co.       4,545      26,417       17.2%  Rural                34         7.5
    Illinois     Jackson Co.       12,427      53,004       23.4%  Rural                50         4.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Illinois     Jasper Co.         1,178       9,185       12.8%  Rural                 6         5.1
    Illinois     Jefferson          7,739      36,415       21.3%  Rural                42         5.4
                  Co.
    Illinois     Jersey Co.         2,920      21,222       13.8%  Urban                14         4.8
    Illinois     Jo Daviess         1,834      21,863        8.4%  Rural                15         8.2
                  Co.
    Illinois     Johnson Co.        1,993      13,401       14.9%  Rural                11         5.5
    Illinois     Kane Co.          60,984     515,070       11.8%  Urban               284         4.7
    Illinois     Kankakee Co.      21,650     106,221       20.4%  Urban               115         5.3
    Illinois     Kendall Co.       11,392     137,602        8.3%  Urban                67         5.9
    Illinois     Knox Co.          10,238      48,713         21%  Rural                46         4.5
    Illinois     Lake Co.          71,260     712,143         10%  Urban               413         5.8
    Illinois     LaSalle Co.       18,497     108,210       17.1%  Rural               127         6.9
    Illinois     Lawrence Co.       2,633      14,937       17.6%  Rural                12         4.6
    Illinois     Lee Co.            4,605      33,928       13.6%  Rural                34         7.4
    Illinois     Livingston         5,039      35,513       14.2%  Rural                41         8.1
                  Co.
    Illinois     Logan Co.          4,551      27,654       16.5%  Rural                28         6.2
    Illinois     McDonough          4,654      26,965       17.3%  Rural                29         6.2
                  Co.
    Illinois     McHenry Co.       22,111     311,921        7.1%  Urban               164         7.4
    Illinois     McLean Co.        20,862     171,571       12.2%  Urban               133         6.4
    Illinois     Macon Co.         25,674     101,369       25.3%  Urban               117         4.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Illinois     Macoupin Co.       7,519      44,239         17%  Urban                49         6.5
    Illinois     Madison Co.       40,963     263,981       15.5%  Urban               246         6.0
    Illinois     Marion Co.         9,555      36,878       25.9%  Rural                44         4.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Illinois     Marshall Co.       1,662      11,657       14.3%  Urban                19        11.4
    Illinois     Mason Co.          2,465      12,717       19.4%  Rural                15         6.1
    Illinois     Massac Co.         3,794      13,858       27.4%  Urban                12         3.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Illinois     Menard Co.         1,504      12,076       12.5%  Urban                 9         6.0
    Illinois     Mercer Co.         1,794      15,512       11.6%  Urban                18        10.0
    Illinois     Monroe Co.         1,433      35,107        4.1%  Urban                22        15.4
    Illinois     Montgomery         5,253      27,971       18.8%  Rural                42         8.0
                  Co.
    Illinois     Morgan Co.         6,926      32,931         21%  Rural                42         6.1
    Illinois     Moultrie Co.       1,734      14,361       12.1%  Rural                12         6.9
    Illinois     Ogle Co.           6,075      51,437       11.8%  Rural                52         8.6
    Illinois     Peoria Co.        40,422     178,503       22.6%  Urban               168         4.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Illinois     Perry Co.          3,312      20,503       16.2%  Rural                17         5.1
    Illinois     Piatt Co.          1,373      16,678        8.2%  Urban                12         8.7
    Illinois     Pike Co.           2,717      14,492       18.7%  Rural                20         7.4
    Illinois     Pope Co.             703       3,757       18.7%  Rural                 3         4.3
    Illinois     Pulaski Co.        1,801       4,966       36.3%  Rural                 9         5.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Illinois     Putnam Co.           554       5,562         10%  Rural                 6        10.8
    Illinois     Randolph Co.       4,697      30,101       15.6%  Rural                32         6.8
    Illinois     Richland Co.       3,147      15,536       20.3%  Rural                14         4.4
    Illinois     Rock Island       27,405     141,812       19.3%  Urban               149         5.4
                  Co.
    Illinois     St. Clair         53,470     252,947       21.1%  Urban               221         4.1
                  Co.
    Illinois     Saline Co.         6,275      23,141       27.1%  Rural                33         5.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Illinois     Sangamon Co.      36,417     194,483       18.7%  Urban               185         5.1
    Illinois     Schuyler Co.         690       6,755       10.2%  Rural                 7        10.1
    Illinois     Scott Co.            848       4,898       17.3%  Rural                 3         3.5
    Illinois     Shelby Co.         2,719      20,706       13.1%  Rural                26         9.6
    Illinois     Stark Co.            833       5,324       15.6%  Urban                 6         7.2
    Illinois     Stephenson         8,965      43,702       20.5%  Rural                43         4.8
                  Co.
    Illinois     Tazewell Co.      17,498     129,859       13.5%  Urban               113         6.5
    Illinois     Union Co.          3,511      16,901       20.8%  Rural                21         6.0
    Illinois     Vermilion         20,733      72,089       28.8%  Rural                85         4.1  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Illinois     Wabash Co.         1,884      11,061         17%  Rural                14         7.4
    Illinois     Warren Co.         2,866      16,368       17.5%  Rural                20         7.0
    Illinois     Washington         1,347      13,650        9.9%  Rural                14        10.4
                  Co.
    Illinois     Wayne Co.          2,611      15,903       16.4%  Rural                18         6.9
    Illinois     White Co.          2,752      13,636       20.2%  Rural                18         6.5
    Illinois     Whiteside          9,343      54,602       17.1%  Rural                49         5.2
                  Co.
    Illinois     Will Co.          75,734     699,110       10.8%  Urban               422         5.6
    Illinois     Williamson        14,011      66,565         21%  Rural                62         4.4
                  Co.
    Illinois     Winnebago         70,088     282,081       24.8%  Urban               289         4.1  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Illinois     Woodford Co.       2,694      38,254          7%  Urban                28        10.4
    Indiana      Adams Co.          1,753      36,204        4.8%  Rural                20        11.4
    Indiana      Allen Co.         36,934     392,119        9.4%  Urban               330         8.9
    Indiana      Bartholomew        5,724      83,746        6.8%  Urban                66        11.5
                  Co.
    Indiana      Benton Co.           787       8,676        9.1%  Urban                 7         8.9
    Indiana      Blackford          1,421      11,905       11.9%  Rural                16        11.3
                  Co.
    Indiana      Boone Co.          2,097      74,403        2.8%  Urban                49        23.4
    Indiana      Brown Co.            635      15,617        4.1%  Urban                 9        14.2
    Indiana      Carroll Co.        1,098      20,507        5.4%  Urban                19        17.3
    Indiana      Cass Co.           4,021      37,670       10.7%  Rural                38         9.5
    Indiana      Clark Co.          7,738     124,306        6.2%  Urban               106        13.7
    Indiana      Clay Co.           2,403      26,378        9.1%  Urban                28        11.7
    Indiana      Clinton Co.        2,787      32,794        8.5%  Rural                34        12.2
    Indiana      Crawford Co.         880      10,520        8.4%  Rural                12        13.6
    Indiana      Daviess Co.        2,238      33,613        6.7%  Rural                32        14.3
    Indiana      Dearborn Co.       2,919      50,976        5.7%  Urban                33        11.3
    Indiana      Decatur Co.        1,936      26,458        7.3%  Rural                29        15.0
    Indiana      DeKalb Co.         2,483      43,804        5.7%  Rural                33        13.3
    Indiana      Delaware Co.      13,890     112,183       12.4%  Urban               118         8.5
    Indiana      Dubois Co.         1,426      43,550        3.3%  Rural                47        33.0
    Indiana      Elkhart Co.       13,610     207,161        6.6%  Urban               159        11.7
    Indiana      Fayette Co.        3,769      23,342       16.1%  Rural                22         5.8
    Indiana      Floyd Co.          5,668      80,662          7%  Urban                48         8.5
    Indiana      Fountain Co.       1,191      16,601        7.2%  Rural                20        16.8
    Indiana      Franklin Co.       1,256      23,107        5.4%  Urban                21        16.7
    Indiana      Fulton Co.         1,647      20,353        8.1%  Rural                21        12.8
    Indiana      Gibson Co.         2,185      33,004        6.6%  Rural                42        19.2
    Indiana      Grant Co.          9,519      66,020       14.4%  Rural                86         9.0
    Indiana      Greene Co.         2,939      31,076        9.5%  Rural                29         9.9
    Indiana      Hamilton Co.       7,848     366,264        2.1%  Urban               153        19.5
    Indiana      Hancock Co.        3,312      83,119          4%  Urban                54        16.3
    Indiana      Harrison Co.       2,361      39,823        5.9%  Urban                31        13.1
    Indiana      Hendricks          5,876     183,507        3.2%  Urban                84        14.3
                  Co.
    Indiana      Henry Co.          4,658      48,829        9.5%  Rural                54        11.6
    Indiana      Howard Co.        10,824      83,574         13%  Urban                93         8.6
    Indiana      Huntington         2,591      36,799          7%  Rural                30        11.6
                  Co.
    Indiana      Jackson Co.        3,495      46,385        7.5%  Rural                42        12.0
    Indiana      Jasper Co.         2,475      33,280        7.4%  Urban                50        20.2
    Indiana      Jay Co.            1,674      20,137        8.3%  Rural                18        10.8
    Indiana      Jefferson          2,371      32,902        7.2%  Rural                30        12.7
                  Co.
    Indiana      Jennings Co.       2,022      27,468        7.4%  Rural                19         9.4
    Indiana      Johnson Co.        9,200     165,951        5.5%  Urban                92        10.0
    Indiana      Knox Co.           4,181      35,895       11.6%  Rural                36         8.6
    Indiana      Kosciusko          4,109      80,676        5.1%  Rural                67        16.3
                  Co.
    Indiana      Lagrange Co.       1,362      40,865        3.3%  Rural                16        11.7
    Indiana      Lake Co.          61,476     500,065       12.3%  Urban               455         7.4
    Indiana      LaPorte Co.       12,665     111,810       11.3%  Urban               109         8.6
    Indiana      Lawrence Co.       3,349      45,213        7.4%  Rural                36        10.7
    Indiana      Madison Co.       16,338     131,524       12.4%  Urban               135         8.3
    Indiana      Marion Co.       138,645     973,375       14.2%  Urban               906         6.5
    Indiana      Marshall Co.       2,511      46,394        5.4%  Rural                47        18.7
    Indiana      Martin Co.           831       9,808        8.5%  Rural                10        12.0
    Indiana      Miami Co.          3,866      35,562       10.9%  Rural                37         9.6
    Indiana      Monroe Co.         7,650     141,181        5.4%  Urban                80        10.5
    Indiana      Montgomery         2,914      38,345        7.6%  Rural                43        14.8
                  Co.
    Indiana      Morgan Co.         4,756      72,239        6.6%  Urban                49        10.3
    Indiana      Newton Co.         1,206      13,841        8.7%  Urban                17        14.1
    Indiana      Noble Co.          2,145      47,281        4.5%  Rural                42        19.6
    Indiana      Ohio Co.             314       6,089        5.2%  Urban                 5        15.9
    Indiana      Orange Co.         1,696      19,633        8.6%  Rural                19        11.2
    Indiana      Owen Co.           2,008      21,552        9.3%  Urban                19         9.5
    Indiana      Parke Co.          1,577      16,365        9.6%  Rural                15         9.5
    Indiana      Perry Co.          1,508      19,241        7.8%  Rural                14         9.3
    Indiana      Pike Co.             968      12,139          8%  Rural                13        13.4
    Indiana      Porter Co.         9,001     175,014        5.1%  Urban               108        12.0
    Indiana      Posey Co.          1,759      25,111          7%  Urban                20        11.4
    Indiana      Pulaski Co.          993      12,461          8%  Rural                18        18.1
    Indiana      Putnam Co.         2,462      37,300        6.6%  Rural                30        12.2
    Indiana      Randolph Co.       2,526      24,407       10.3%  Rural                27        10.7
    Indiana      Ripley Co.         1,793      29,042        6.2%  Rural                27        15.1
    Indiana      Rush Co.           1,385      16,661        8.3%  Rural                17        12.3
    Indiana      St. Joseph        27,958     272,796       10.2%  Urban               231         8.3
                  Co.
    Indiana      Scott Co.          2,651      24,455       10.8%  Rural                27        10.2
    Indiana      Shelby Co.         3,158      45,213          7%  Urban                37        11.7
    Indiana      Spencer Co.        1,222      19,890        6.1%  Rural                17        13.9
    Indiana      Starke Co.         2,599      23,251       11.2%  Rural                23         8.8
    Indiana      Steuben Co.        1,779      34,731        5.1%  Rural                30        16.9
    Indiana      Sullivan Co.       1,914      20,702        9.2%  Urban                25        13.1
    Indiana      Switzerland        1,022       9,985       10.2%  Rural                11        10.8
                  Co.
    Indiana      Tippecanoe        13,580     189,402        7.2%  Urban               128         9.4
                  Co.
    Indiana      Tipton Co.           800      15,329        5.2%  Urban                15        18.8
    Indiana      Union Co.            605       6,975        8.7%  Rural                 6         9.9
    Indiana      Vanderburgh       18,447     179,725       10.3%  Urban               178         9.6
                  Co.
    Indiana      Vermillion         1,653      15,397       10.7%  Urban                18        10.9
                  Co.
    Indiana      Vigo Co.          13,765     106,066         13%  Urban               113         8.2
    Indiana      Wabash Co.         2,039      30,869        6.6%  Rural                31        15.2
    Indiana      Warren Co.           445       8,492        5.2%  Urban                 4         9.0
    Indiana      Warrick Co.        2,291      65,297        3.5%  Urban                41        17.9
    Indiana      Washington         2,093      28,158        7.4%  Urban                25        11.9
                  Co.
    Indiana      Wayne Co.          8,636      66,337         13%  Rural                64         7.4
    Indiana      Wells Co.          1,454      28,339        5.1%  Urban                15        10.3
    Indiana      White Co.          1,677      24,654        6.8%  Rural                37        22.1
    Indiana      Whitley Co.        1,157      34,600        3.3%  Urban                21        18.2
    Iowa         Adair Co.            466       7,457        6.2%  Rural                 9        19.3
    Iowa         Adams Co.            301       3,602        8.4%  Rural                 4        13.3
    Iowa         Allamakee            945      14,072        6.7%  Rural                17        18.0
                  Co.
    Iowa         Appanoose          1,377      12,135       11.3%  Rural                17        12.3
                  Co.
    Iowa         Audubon Co.          417       5,573        7.5%  Rural                 6        14.4
    Iowa         Benton Co.         1,550      25,756          6%  Urban                26        16.8
    Iowa         Black Hawk        14,372     130,081         11%  Urban               151        10.5
                  Co.
    Iowa         Boone Co.          1,493      26,570        5.6%  Urban                20        13.4
    Iowa         Bremer Co.           983      25,260        3.9%  Urban                24        24.4
    Iowa         Buchanan Co.       1,188      20,700        5.7%  Rural                20        16.8
    Iowa         Buena Vista        1,600      20,651        7.7%  Rural                27        16.9
                  Co.
    Iowa         Butler Co.           822      14,275        5.8%  Rural                18        21.9
    Iowa         Calhoun Co.          684       9,725          7%  Rural                17        24.9
    Iowa         Carroll Co.        1,266      20,565        6.2%  Rural                21        16.6
    Iowa         Cass Co.           1,280      13,125        9.8%  Rural                15        11.7
    Iowa         Cedar Co.            775      18,331        4.2%  Rural                19        24.5
    Iowa         Cerro Gordo        3,788      42,408        8.9%  Rural                48        12.7
                  Co.
    Iowa         Cherokee Co.         640      11,492        5.6%  Rural                 9        14.1
    Iowa         Chickasaw            522      11,755        4.4%  Rural                13        24.9
                  Co.
    Iowa         Clarke Co.           838       9,676        8.7%  Rural                14        16.7
    Iowa         Clay Co.           1,220      16,506        7.4%  Rural                16        13.1
    Iowa         Clayton Co.          890      17,058        5.2%  Rural                22        24.7
    Iowa         Clinton Co.        5,556      46,268         12%  Rural                46         8.3
    Iowa         Crawford Co.       1,184      16,135        7.3%  Rural                14        11.8
    Iowa         Dallas Co.         2,899     108,164        2.7%  Urban                64        22.1
    Iowa         Davis Co.            491       9,158        5.4%  Rural                 8        16.3
    Iowa         Decatur Co.          771       7,822        9.9%  Rural                 9        11.7
    Iowa         Delaware Co.         821      17,590        4.7%  Rural                13        15.8
    Iowa         Des Moines         5,518      38,258       14.4%  Rural                43         7.8
                  Co.
    Iowa         Dickinson            917      18,052        5.1%  Rural                20        21.8
                  Co.
    Iowa         Dubuque Co.        7,531      98,748        7.6%  Urban                85        11.3
    Iowa         Emmet Co.            702       9,197        7.6%  Rural                11        15.7
    Iowa         Fayette Co.        1,966      19,292       10.2%  Rural                17         8.6
    Iowa         Floyd Co.          1,461      15,316        9.5%  Rural                16        11.0
    Iowa         Franklin Co.         729       9,918        7.4%  Rural                13        17.8
    Iowa         Fremont Co.          653       6,465       10.1%  Rural                 8        12.3
    Iowa         Greene Co.           854       8,707        9.8%  Rural                11        12.9
    Iowa         Grundy Co.           512      12,379        4.1%  Urban                12        23.4
    Iowa         Guthrie Co.          742      10,687        6.9%  Urban                15        20.2
    Iowa         Hamilton Co.         864      14,848        5.8%  Rural                21        24.3
    Iowa         Hancock Co.          574      10,664        5.4%  Rural                10        17.4
    Iowa         Hardin Co.         1,365      16,677        8.2%  Rural                24        17.6
    Iowa         Harrison Co.       1,089      14,635        7.4%  Urban                15        13.8
    Iowa         Henry Co.          1,906      20,253        9.4%  Rural                19        10.0
    Iowa         Howard Co.           511       9,502        5.4%  Rural                13        25.4
    Iowa         Humboldt Co.         600       9,545        6.3%  Rural                10        16.7
    Iowa         Ida Co.              495       6,900        7.2%  Rural                13        26.3
    Iowa         Iowa Co.             721      16,491        4.4%  Rural                16        22.2
    Iowa         Jackson Co.        1,530      19,350        7.9%  Rural                21        13.7
    Iowa         Jasper Co.         2,906      37,966        7.7%  Urban                34        11.7
    Iowa         Jefferson          1,533      15,632        9.8%  Rural                16        10.4
                  Co.
    Iowa         Johnson Co.        9,366     156,815          6%  Urban               107        11.4
    Iowa         Jones Co.          1,274      20,960        6.1%  Urban                19        14.9
    Iowa         Keokuk Co.           930       9,895        9.4%  Rural                10        10.8
    Iowa         Kossuth Co.          875      14,462        6.1%  Rural                16        18.3
    Iowa         Lee Co.            4,345      32,793       13.2%  Rural                34         7.8
    Iowa         Linn Co.          20,355     228,947        8.9%  Urban               187         9.2
    Iowa         Louisa Co.           730      10,657        6.8%  Rural                16        21.9
    Iowa         Lucas Co.            821       8,720        9.4%  Rural                 9        11.0
    Iowa         Lyon Co.             453      12,185        3.7%  Rural                10        22.1
    Iowa         Madison Co.          666      17,050        3.9%  Urban                14        21.0
    Iowa         Mahaska Co.        1,939      21,959        8.8%  Rural                20        10.3
    Iowa         Marion Co.         1,772      33,582        5.3%  Rural                32        18.1
    Iowa         Marshall Co.       3,775      39,940        9.5%  Rural                47        12.5
    Iowa         Mills Co.            923      14,572        6.3%  Urban                11        11.9
    Iowa         Mitchell Co.         487      10,557        4.6%  Rural                12        24.6
    Iowa         Monona Co.           790       8,515        9.3%  Rural                11        13.9
    Iowa         Monroe Co.           596       7,524        7.9%  Rural                 9        15.1
    Iowa         Montgomery         1,151      10,210       11.3%  Rural                11         9.6
                  Co.
    Iowa         Muscatine          4,405      42,501       10.4%  Rural                42         9.5
                  Co.
    Iowa         O'Brien Co.          694      14,107        4.9%  Rural                19        27.4
    Iowa         Osceola Co.          355       6,073        5.8%  Rural                 7        19.7
    Iowa         Page Co.           1,338      15,169        8.8%  Rural                15        11.2
    Iowa         Palo Alto            513       8,772        5.8%  Rural                 9        17.5
                  Co.
    Iowa         Plymouth Co.       1,049      25,714        4.1%  Rural                20        19.1
    Iowa         Pocahontas           542       7,090        7.6%  Rural                 8        14.8
                  Co.
    Iowa         Polk Co.          50,523     501,261       10.1%  Urban               449         8.9
    Iowa         Pottawattami      10,860      93,180       11.7%  Urban                77         7.1
                  e Co.
    Iowa         Poweshiek            999      18,521        5.4%  Rural                24        24.0
                  Co.
    Iowa         Ringgold Co.         427       4,692        9.1%  Rural                 5        11.7
    Iowa         Sac Co.              520       9,680        5.4%  Rural                12        23.1
    Iowa         Scott Co.         20,481     173,985       11.8%  Urban               172         8.4
    Iowa         Shelby Co.           811      11,745        6.9%  Rural                12        14.8
    Iowa         Sioux Co.            974      36,231        2.7%  Rural                28        28.7
    Iowa         Story Co.          3,847      99,995        3.8%  Urban                66        17.2
    Iowa         Tama Co.           1,211      16,910        7.2%  Rural                23        19.0
    Iowa         Taylor Co.           538       5,870        9.2%  Rural                 7        13.0
    Iowa         Union Co.          1,301      11,922       10.9%  Rural                12         9.2
    Iowa         Van Buren            615       7,250        8.5%  Rural                10        16.3
                  Co.
    Iowa         Wapello Co.        4,713      35,080       13.4%  Rural                41         8.7
    Iowa         Warren Co.         2,022      54,325        3.7%  Urban                44        21.8
    Iowa         Washington         1,398      22,541        6.2%  Urban                26        18.6
                  Co.
    Iowa         Wayne Co.            522       6,472        8.1%  Rural                 7        13.4
    Iowa         Webster Co.        4,316      36,703       11.8%  Rural                36         8.3
    Iowa         Winnebago            648      10,651        6.1%  Rural                12        18.5
                  Co.
    Iowa         Winneshiek           697      19,915        3.5%  Rural                16        23.0
                  Co.
    Iowa         Woodbury Co.      11,932     105,674       11.3%  Urban                98         8.2
    Iowa         Worth Co.            493       7,316        6.7%  Rural                 6        12.2
    Iowa         Wright Co.           929      12,740        7.3%  Rural                20        21.5
    Kansas       Allen Co.          1,402      12,479       11.2%  Rural                18        12.8
    Kansas       Anderson Co.         460       7,787        5.9%  Rural                 8        17.4
    Kansas       Atchison Co.       1,334      16,091        8.3%  Rural                 9         6.7
    Kansas       Barber Co.           193       4,125        4.7%  Rural                 7        36.3
    Kansas       Barton Co.         2,147      25,055        8.6%  Rural                25        11.6
    Kansas       Bourbon Co.        1,838      14,454       12.7%  Rural                17         9.2
    Kansas       Brown Co.            799       9,371        8.5%  Rural                11        13.8
    Kansas       Butler Co.         3,817      68,264        5.6%  Urban                45        11.8
    Kansas       Chase Co.            128       2,559          5%  Rural                 2        15.6
    Kansas       Chautauqua           368       3,387       10.9%  Rural                 3         8.2
                  Co.
    Kansas       Cherokee Co.       2,053      19,043       10.8%  Urban                20         9.7
    Kansas       Cheyenne Co.          97       2,613        3.7%  Rural                 3        30.9
    Kansas       Clark Co.             88       1,947        4.5%  Rural                 2        22.7
    Kansas       Clay Co.             372       8,048        4.6%  Rural                 9        24.2
    Kansas       Cloud Co.            639       8,937        7.2%  Rural                11        17.2
    Kansas       Coffey Co.           598       8,261        7.2%  Rural                 9        15.1
    Kansas       Comanche Co.          63       1,695        3.7%  Rural                 4        63.5
    Kansas       Cowley Co.         3,972      34,457       11.5%  Rural                30         7.6
    Kansas       Crawford Co.       4,028      39,180       10.3%  Rural                40         9.9
    Kansas       Decatur Co.          156       2,681        5.8%  Rural                 3        19.2
    Kansas       Dickinson          1,066      18,344        5.8%  Rural                22        20.6
                  Co.
    Kansas       Doniphan Co.         431       7,488        5.8%  Urban                 7        16.2
    Kansas       Douglas Co.        4,640     120,053        3.9%  Urban                64        13.8
    Kansas       Edwards Co.          207       2,747        7.5%  Rural                 3        14.5
    Kansas       Elk Co.              214       2,448        8.7%  Rural                 3        14.0
    Kansas       Ellis Co.          1,111      28,868        3.8%  Rural                20        18.0
    Kansas       Ellsworth            280       6,398        4.4%  Rural                 5        17.9
                  Co.
    Kansas       Finney Co.         2,550      37,665        6.8%  Rural                39        15.3
    Kansas       Ford Co.           1,885      33,842        5.6%  Rural                24        12.7
    Kansas       Franklin Co.       1,656      25,994        6.4%  Rural                25        15.1
    Kansas       Geary Co.          2,639      35,525        7.4%  Urban                20         7.6
    Kansas       Gove Co.              68       2,741        2.5%  Rural                 4        58.8
    Kansas       Graham Co.           118       2,395        4.9%  Rural                 3        25.4
    Kansas       Grant Co.            419       7,230        5.8%  Rural                 7        16.7
    Kansas       Gray Co.             123       5,707        2.2%  Rural                 5        40.7
    Kansas       Greeley Co.           45       1,230        3.7%  Rural                 1        22.2
    Kansas       Greenwood            570       5,917        9.6%  Rural                11        19.3
                  Co.
    Kansas       Hamilton Co.         111       2,445        4.5%  Rural                 4        36.0
    Kansas       Harper Co.           407       5,374        7.6%  Rural                 9        22.1
    Kansas       Harvey Co.         2,132      33,710        6.3%  Urban                25        11.7
    Kansas       Haskell Co.          149       3,573        4.2%  Rural                 5        33.6
    Kansas       Hodgeman Co.          68       1,707          4%  Rural                 4        58.8
    Kansas       Jackson Co.          607      13,285        4.6%  Urban                 9        14.8
    Kansas       Jefferson            664      18,344        3.6%  Urban                17        25.6
                  Co.
    Kansas       Jewell Co.           157       2,906        5.4%  Rural                 2        12.7
    Kansas       Johnson Co.       11,650     619,311        1.9%  Urban               273        23.4
    Kansas       Kearny Co.           131       3,854        3.4%  Rural                 9        68.7
    Kansas       Kingman Co.          379       7,184        5.3%  Rural                 5        13.2
    Kansas       Kiowa Co.            125       2,410        5.2%  Rural                 3        24.0
    Kansas       Labette Co.        2,269      19,750       11.5%  Rural                23        10.1
    Kansas       Lane Co.              71       1,552        4.6%  Rural                 3        42.3
    Kansas       Leavenworth        3,617      82,852        4.4%  Urban                40        11.1
                  Co.
    Kansas       Lincoln Co.          144       2,909          5%  Rural                 2        13.9
    Kansas       Linn Co.             814       9,771        8.3%  Urban                10        12.3
    Kansas       Logan Co.            119       2,706        4.4%  Rural                 2        16.8
    Kansas       Lyon Co.           2,132      31,994        6.7%  Rural                29        13.6
    Kansas       McPherson          1,153      30,106        3.8%  Rural                28        24.3
                  Co.
    Kansas       Marion Co.           528      11,800        4.5%  Rural                10        18.9
    Kansas       Marshall Co.         458      10,007        4.6%  Rural                10        21.8
    Kansas       Meade Co.            199       3,905        5.1%  Rural                 8        40.2
    Kansas       Miami Co.          1,503      34,759        4.3%  Urban                22        14.6
    Kansas       Mitchell Co.         268       5,774        4.6%  Rural                 7        26.1
    Kansas       Montgomery         3,696      30,905         12%  Rural                34         9.2
                  Co.
    Kansas       Morris Co.           291       5,376        5.4%  Rural                 3        10.3
    Kansas       Morton Co.           128       2,600        4.9%  Rural                 3        23.4
    Kansas       Nemaha Co.           350      10,151        3.4%  Rural                 8        22.9
    Kansas       Neosho Co.         1,573      15,583       10.1%  Rural                17        10.8
    Kansas       Ness Co.              81       2,671          3%  Rural                 5        61.7
    Kansas       Norton Co.           271       5,322        5.1%  Rural                 6        22.1
    Kansas       Osage Co.          1,008      15,690        6.4%  Urban                17        16.9
    Kansas       Osborne Co.          213       3,488        6.1%  Rural                 5        23.5
    Kansas       Ottawa Co.           239       5,833        4.1%  Rural                 3        12.6
    Kansas       Pawnee Co.           410       6,153        6.7%  Rural                 4         9.8
    Kansas       Phillips Co.         198       4,792        4.1%  Rural                 6        30.3
    Kansas       Pottawatomie         834      26,331        3.2%  Urban                12        14.4
                  Co.
    Kansas       Pratt Co.            361       9,080          4%  Rural                 8        22.2
    Kansas       Rawlins Co.          100       2,531          4%  Rural                 4        40.0
    Kansas       Reno Co.           4,790      61,514        7.8%  Rural                43         9.0
    Kansas       Republic Co.         176       4,638        3.8%  Rural                 5        28.4
    Kansas       Rice Co.             649       9,387        6.9%  Rural                 9        13.9
    Kansas       Riley Co.          2,751      71,618        3.8%  Urban                32        11.6
    Kansas       Rooks Co.            207       4,798        4.3%  Rural                 6        29.0
    Kansas       Rush Co.             182       2,949        6.2%  Rural                 4        22.0
    Kansas       Russell Co.          487       6,726        7.2%  Rural                 5        10.3
    Kansas       Saline Co.         4,163      53,461        7.8%  Rural                47        11.3
    Kansas       Scott Co.            160       5,010        3.2%  Rural                 5        31.3
    Kansas       Sedgwick Co.      51,093     525,488        9.7%  Urban               367         7.2
    Kansas       Seward Co.         1,294      21,326        6.1%  Rural                24        18.5
    Kansas       Shawnee Co.       16,877     177,454        9.5%  Urban               126         7.5
    Kansas       Sheridan Co.         100       2,428        4.1%  Rural                 2        20.0
    Kansas       Sherman Co.          381       5,857        6.5%  Rural                 5        13.1
    Kansas       Smith Co.            160       3,553        4.5%  Rural                 6        37.5
    Kansas       Stafford Co.         252       3,979        6.3%  Rural                 4        15.9
    Kansas       Stanton Co.           51       1,977        2.6%  Rural                 2        39.2
    Kansas       Stevens Co.          191       5,151        3.7%  Rural                 6        31.4
    Kansas       Sumner Co.         1,791      22,384          8%  Urban                20        11.2
    Kansas       Thomas Co.           229       7,882        2.9%  Rural                 9        39.3
    Kansas       Trego Co.             85       2,757        3.1%  Rural                 6        70.6
    Kansas       Wabaunsee            254       7,002        3.6%  Urban                 5        19.7
                  Co.
    Kansas       Wallace Co.           73       1,491        4.9%  Rural                 2        27.4
    Kansas       Washington           183       5,495        3.3%  Rural                 7        38.3
                  Co.
    Kansas       Wichita Co.           86       2,061        4.2%  Rural                 3        34.9
    Kansas       Wilson Co.           846       8,577        9.9%  Rural                11        13.0
    Kansas       Woodson Co.          208       3,122        6.7%  Rural                 6        28.8
    Kansas       Wyandotte         18,267     165,719         11%  Urban               139         7.6
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Adair Co.          3,405      19,089       17.8%  Rural                25         7.3
    Kentucky     Allen Co.          2,567      21,246       12.1%  Urban                17         6.6
    Kentucky     Anderson Co.       1,582      24,279        6.5%  Rural                18        11.4
    Kentucky     Ballard Co.          791       7,633       10.4%  Urban                12        15.2
    Kentucky     Barren Co.         6,325      44,851       14.1%  Rural                60         9.5
    Kentucky     Bath Co.           2,332      12,818       18.2%  Rural                15         6.4
    Kentucky     Bell Co.           7,559      23,514       32.1%  Rural                36         4.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Boone Co.          6,454     139,377        4.6%  Urban                91        14.1
    Kentucky     Bourbon Co.        2,743      20,144       13.6%  Urban                22         8.0
    Kentucky     Boyd Co.           6,871      48,048       14.3%  Urban                52         7.6
    Kentucky     Boyle Co.          3,293      30,854       10.7%  Rural                34        10.3
    Kentucky     Bracken Co.        1,096       8,436         13%  Urban                 8         7.3
    Kentucky     Breathitt          3,927      13,353       29.4%  Rural                21         5.3  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Kentucky     Breckinridge       2,730      20,942         13%  Rural                27         9.9
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Bullitt Co.        5,643      83,901        6.7%  Urban                63        11.2
    Kentucky     Butler Co.         1,885      12,371       15.2%  Urban                14         7.4
    Kentucky     Caldwell Co.       1,633      12,601         13%  Rural                15         9.2
    Kentucky     Calloway Co.       3,026      38,119        7.9%  Rural                28         9.3
    Kentucky     Campbell Co.       5,543      93,305        5.9%  Urban                66        11.9
    Kentucky     Carlisle Co.         582       4,723       12.3%  Urban                 6        10.3
    Kentucky     Carroll Co.        1,559      10,935       14.3%  Rural                19        12.2
    Kentucky     Carter Co.         4,661      26,300       17.7%  Urban                43         9.2
    Kentucky     Casey Co.          2,833      15,893       17.8%  Rural                26         9.2
    Kentucky     Christian          9,038      72,213       12.5%  Urban                70         7.7
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Clark Co.          4,495      37,012       12.1%  Urban                33         7.3
    Kentucky     Clay Co.           6,229      19,884       31.3%  Rural                33         5.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Clinton Co.        2,338       9,140       25.6%  Rural                12         5.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Crittenden           896       8,971         10%  Rural                 9        10.0
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Cumberland         1,431       5,950       24.1%  Rural                14         9.8
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Daviess Co.       10,413     103,373       10.1%  Urban                94         9.0
    Kentucky     Edmonson Co.       1,439      12,300       11.7%  Urban                11         7.6
    Kentucky     Elliott Co.        1,438       7,301       19.7%  Rural                 8         5.6
    Kentucky     Estill Co.         2,857      13,994       20.4%  Rural                17         6.0
    Kentucky     Fayette Co.       27,416     321,505        8.5%  Urban               253         9.2
    Kentucky     Fleming Co.        2,169      15,257       14.2%  Rural                22        10.1
    Kentucky     Floyd Co.          9,101      35,519       25.6%  Rural                63         6.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Franklin Co.       5,017      51,617        9.7%  Rural                51        10.2
    Kentucky     Fulton Co.         1,331       6,389       20.8%  Rural                10         7.5
    Kentucky     Gallatin Co.         738       8,786        8.4%  Urban                 9        12.2
    Kentucky     Garrard Co.        2,026      17,580       11.5%  Rural                15         7.4
    Kentucky     Grant Co.          2,972      25,466       11.7%  Urban                28         9.4
    Kentucky     Graves Co.         4,557      36,532       12.5%  Rural                46        10.1
    Kentucky     Grayson Co.        3,773      26,623       14.2%  Rural                36         9.5
    Kentucky     Green Co.          1,610      11,379       14.1%  Rural                13         8.1
    Kentucky     Greenup Co.        4,155      35,384       11.7%  Urban                41         9.9
    Kentucky     Hancock Co.          865       9,043        9.6%  Rural                 6         6.9
    Kentucky     Hardin Co.         9,780     111,776        8.7%  Urban               102        10.4
    Kentucky     Harlan Co.         8,031      25,610       31.4%  Rural                42         5.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Harrison Co.       2,191      19,085       11.5%  Rural                24        11.0
    Kentucky     Hart Co.           2,867      19,592       14.6%  Rural                29        10.1
    Kentucky     Henderson          5,122      44,017       11.6%  Rural                45         8.8
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Henry Co.          1,453      15,730        9.2%  Urban                22        15.1
    Kentucky     Hickman Co.          652       4,422       14.7%  Rural                 6         9.2
    Kentucky     Hopkins Co.        6,257      44,879       13.9%  Rural                52         8.3
    Kentucky     Jackson Co.        3,431      12,989       26.4%  Rural                19         5.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Jefferson         84,878     777,329       10.9%  Urban               635         7.5
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Jessamine          5,376      54,333        9.9%  Urban                43         8.0
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Johnson Co.        4,793      22,234       21.6%  Rural                34         7.1
    Kentucky     Kenton Co.        12,980     170,413        7.6%  Urban               120         9.2
    Kentucky     Knott Co.          3,846      13,848       27.8%  Rural                20         5.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Knox Co.           9,441      29,734       31.8%  Rural                43         4.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Larue Co.          1,740      15,165       11.5%  Urban                17         9.8
    Kentucky     Laurel Co.        11,592      62,891       18.4%  Rural                93         8.0
    Kentucky     Lawrence Co.       3,492      16,037       21.8%  Urban                24         6.9
    Kentucky     Lee Co.            1,888       7,259         26%  Rural                14         7.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Leslie Co.         2,603      10,044       25.9%  Rural                13         5.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Letcher Co.        5,032      20,792       24.2%  Rural                31         6.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Lewis Co.          2,643      12,924       20.5%  Rural                16         6.1
    Kentucky     Lincoln Co.        3,824      24,392       15.7%  Rural                38         9.9
    Kentucky     Livingston           950       8,960       10.6%  Urban                16        16.8
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Logan Co.          3,359      27,855       12.1%  Rural                31         9.2
    Kentucky     Lyon Co.             506       9,119        5.5%  Rural                 7        13.8
    Kentucky     McCracken          7,877      67,333       11.7%  Urban                71         9.0
                  Co.
    Kentucky     McCreary Co.       4,481      16,788       26.7%  Rural                27         6.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     McLean Co.           891       9,112        9.8%  Urban                12        13.5
    Kentucky     Madison Co.        9,764      95,219       10.3%  Rural                89         9.1
    Kentucky     Magoffin Co.       3,459      11,325       30.5%  Rural                17         4.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Marion Co.         2,693      19,731       13.6%  Rural                22         8.2
    Kentucky     Marshall Co.       2,800      31,766        8.8%  Rural                34        12.1
    Kentucky     Martin Co.         2,650      11,095       23.9%  Rural                28        10.6
    Kentucky     Mason Co.          2,870      16,880         17%  Rural                23         8.0
    Kentucky     Meade Co.          2,453      30,028        8.2%  Urban                24         9.8
    Kentucky     Menifee Co.        1,362       6,215       21.9%  Rural                13         9.5
    Kentucky     Mercer Co.         2,182      22,927        9.5%  Rural                20         9.2
    Kentucky     Metcalfe Co.       1,996      10,401       19.2%  Rural                11         5.5
    Kentucky     Monroe Co.         1,903      11,328       16.8%  Rural                14         7.4
    Kentucky     Montgomery         4,022      28,348       14.2%  Rural                44        10.9
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Morgan Co.         2,336      14,156       16.5%  Rural                23         9.8
    Kentucky     Muhlenberg         4,410      30,684       14.4%  Rural                35         7.9
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Nelson Co.         3,600      47,429        7.6%  Urban                46        12.8
    Kentucky     Nicholas Co.       1,154       7,776       14.8%  Rural                11         9.5
    Kentucky     Ohio Co.           3,151      23,549       13.4%  Rural                29         9.2
    Kentucky     Oldham Co.         1,428      69,506        2.1%  Urban                26        18.2
    Kentucky     Owen Co.           1,287      11,292       11.4%  Rural                15        11.7
    Kentucky     Owsley Co.         1,555       3,941       39.5%  Rural                10         6.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Pendleton          1,579      14,688       10.8%  Urban                14         8.9
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Perry Co.          7,028      27,378       25.7%  Rural                43         6.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Pike Co.          11,736      56,328       20.8%  Rural                82         7.0
    Kentucky     Powell Co.         2,618      13,067         20%  Rural                20         7.6
    Kentucky     Pulaski Co.       10,820      65,776       16.4%  Rural                94         8.7
    Kentucky     Robertson            342       2,254       15.2%  Rural                 2         5.8
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Rockcastle         3,391      16,213       20.9%  Rural                23         6.8
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Rowan Co.          3,677      24,428       15.1%  Rural                38        10.3
    Kentucky     Russell Co.        3,334      18,177       18.3%  Rural                30         9.0
    Kentucky     Scott Co.          4,150      59,413          7%  Urban                33         8.0
    Kentucky     Shelby Co.         2,763      48,884        5.7%  Urban                36        13.0
    Kentucky     Simpson Co.        2,047      19,926       10.3%  Rural                21        10.3
    Kentucky     Spencer Co.          973      20,204        4.8%  Urban                12        12.3
    Kentucky     Taylor Co.         3,958      26,421         15%  Rural                36         9.1
    Kentucky     Todd Co.           1,421      12,431       11.4%  Rural                12         8.4
    Kentucky     Trigg Co.          1,272      14,338        8.9%  Urban                18        14.2
    Kentucky     Trimble Co.          682       8,525          8%  Rural                 8        11.7
    Kentucky     Union Co.          1,559      13,107       11.9%  Rural                20        12.8
    Kentucky     Warren Co.        15,792     140,503       11.2%  Urban               132         8.4
    Kentucky     Washington         2,100      12,062       17.4%  Rural                14         6.7
                  Co.
    Kentucky     Wayne Co.          4,800      19,663       24.4%  Rural                27         5.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Webster Co.        1,518      12,724       11.9%  Rural                20        13.2
    Kentucky     Whitley Co.        8,447      36,950       22.9%  Rural                55         6.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Wolfe Co.          1,976       6,415       30.8%  Rural                14         7.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Kentucky     Woodford Co.       1,728      27,150        6.4%  Urban                22        12.7
    Louisiana    Acadia            14,763      56,812         26%  Urban                73         4.9  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Allen Parish       4,415      22,297       19.8%  Rural                24         5.4
    Louisiana    Ascension         14,200     130,505       10.9%  Urban               110         7.7
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Assumption         4,192      20,482       20.5%  Urban                18         4.3
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Avoyelles         11,021      38,733       28.5%  Rural                58         5.3  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Beauregard         5,723      36,587       15.6%  Rural                33         5.8
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Bienville          3,479      12,627       27.6%  Rural                20         5.7  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Bossier           17,633     129,324       13.6%  Urban               101         5.7
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Caddo Parish      55,989     229,109       24.4%  Urban               219         3.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Louisiana    Calcasieu         31,316     202,664       15.5%  Urban               232         7.4
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Caldwell           2,268       9,508       23.9%  Rural                11         4.9  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Cameron              570       4,907       11.6%  Urban                10        17.5
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Catahoula          2,449       8,625       28.4%  Rural                11         4.5  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Claiborne          3,619      13,825       26.2%  Rural                16         4.4  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Concordia          5,698      18,138       31.4%  Rural                25         4.4  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    DeSoto             5,757      26,883       21.4%  Urban                23         4.0
                  Parish
    Louisiana    East Baton        84,434     451,122       18.7%  Urban               409         4.8
                  Rouge
                  Parish
    Louisiana    East Carroll       2,318       6,966       33.3%  Rural                 7         3.0  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    East               3,005      19,180       15.7%  Urban                15         5.0
                  Feliciana
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Evangeline         9,270      32,084       28.9%  Rural                46         5.0  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Franklin           5,908      19,341       30.5%  Rural                32         5.4  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Grant Parish       3,980      22,022       18.1%  Urban                17         4.3
    Louisiana    Iberia            18,699      68,344       27.4%  Rural                83         4.4  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Iberville          7,496      29,696       25.2%  Urban                26         3.5  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Jackson            3,042      14,859       20.5%  Rural                15         4.9
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Jefferson         66,812     427,739       15.6%  Urban               335         5.0
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Jefferson          6,137      31,971       19.2%  Urban                30         4.9
                  Davis
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Lafayette         40,937     248,145       16.5%  Urban               251         6.1
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Lafourche         15,417      95,717       16.1%  Urban                59         3.8
                  Parish
    Louisiana    LaSalle            2,408      14,799       16.3%  Rural                16         6.6
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Lincoln            7,822      48,056       16.3%  Rural                46         5.9
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Livingston        20,068     148,131       13.5%  Urban               125         6.2
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Madison            3,612       9,492       38.1%  Rural                12         3.3  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Morehouse          7,677      24,435       31.4%  Urban                30         3.9  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Natchitoches       8,793      36,711         24%  Rural                33         3.8  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Orleans           82,225     370,473       22.2%  Urban               274         3.3
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Ouachita          37,296     157,812       23.6%  Urban               168         4.5  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Plaquemines        2,924      22,603       12.9%  Urban                19         6.5
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Pointe             4,178      20,221       20.7%  Urban                24         5.7
                  Coupee
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Rapides           28,060     126,977       22.1%  Urban               124         4.4
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Red River          2,335       7,487       31.2%  Rural                 8         3.4  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Richland           5,254      19,828       26.5%  Urban                28         5.3  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Sabine             5,098      21,984       23.2%  Rural                21         4.1  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    St. Bernard        9,934      44,474       22.3%  Urban                57         5.7
                  Parish
    Louisiana    St. Charles        6,116      51,038         12%  Urban                46         7.5
                  Parish
    Louisiana    St. Helena         3,493      10,814       32.3%  Urban                18         5.2  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    St. James          3,771      19,397       19.4%  Urban                16         4.2
                  Parish
    Louisiana    St. John the       8,849      39,938       22.2%  Urban                47         5.3
                  Baptist
                  Parish
    Louisiana    St. Landry        24,798      81,642       30.4%  Rural               107         4.3  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    St. Martin        11,891      51,260       23.2%  Urban                59         5.0  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    St. Mary          12,773      47,816       26.7%  Rural                54         4.2  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    St. Tammany       26,907     273,494        9.8%  Urban               198         7.4
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Tangipahoa        29,831     136,734       21.8%  Urban               163         5.5
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Tensas             1,241       3,848       32.3%  Rural                10         8.1  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Terrebonne        21,508     104,642       20.6%  Urban               109         5.1
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Union Parish       4,416      20,691       21.3%  Urban                21         4.8
    Louisiana    Vermilion         12,388      56,958       21.7%  Urban                58         4.7
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Vernon             7,009      46,861         15%  Rural                34         4.9
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Washington        12,648      45,002       28.1%  Rural                63         5.0  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    Webster            8,367      35,635       23.5%  Rural                53         6.3  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    West Baton         4,541      28,045       16.2%  Urban                31         6.8
                  Rouge
                  Parish
    Louisiana    West Carroll       2,429       9,482       25.6%  Rural                17         7.0  8Higher-
                  Parish                                                                                 risk0
    Louisiana    West               1,428      15,390        9.3%  Urban                 7         4.9
                  Feliciana
                  Parish
    Louisiana    Winn Parish        2,877      13,305       21.6%  Rural                11         3.8
    Maine        Androscoggin      19,019     113,454       16.8%  Urban               137         7.2
                  Co.
    Maine        Aroostook         12,981      67,250       19.3%  Rural                88         6.8
                  Co.
    Maine        Cumberland        23,730     309,309        7.7%  Urban               251        10.6
                  Co.
    Maine        Franklin Co.       4,382      30,604       14.3%  Rural                40         9.1
    Maine        Hancock Co.        5,128      56,677          9%  Rural                59        11.5
    Maine        Kennebec Co.      17,061     127,143       13.4%  Rural               127         7.4
    Maine        Knox Co.           3,852      41,251        9.3%  Rural                52        13.5
    Maine        Lincoln Co.        3,319      36,263        9.2%  Rural                40        12.1
    Maine        Oxford Co.        10,006      59,539       16.8%  Rural                60         6.0
    Maine        Penobscot         22,312     154,817       14.4%  Urban               167         7.5
                  Co.
    Maine        Piscataquis        3,059      17,383       17.6%  Rural                26         8.5
                  Co.
    Maine        Sagadahoc          2,971      37,402        7.9%  Urban                36        12.1
                  Co.
    Maine        Somerset Co.      10,017      51,027       19.6%  Rural                62         6.2
    Maine        Waldo Co.          5,689      40,212       14.1%  Rural                50         8.8
    Maine        Washington         6,394      31,507       20.3%  Rural                56         8.8
                  Co.
    Maine        York Co.          17,286     217,084          8%  Urban               154         8.9
    Maryland     Allegany Co.      15,523      67,241       23.1%  Rural                60         3.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Maryland     Anne Arundel      46,479     598,751        7.8%  Urban               318         6.8
                  Co.
    Maryland     Baltimore         92,340     848,873       10.9%  Urban               521         5.6
                  Co.
    Maryland     Calvert Co.        7,348      94,652        7.8%  Urban                50         6.8
    Maryland     Caroline Co.       6,262      33,539       18.7%  Rural                35         5.6
    Maryland     Carroll Co.        9,482     175,569        5.4%  Urban                90         9.5
    Maryland     Cecil Co.         13,732     104,939       13.1%  Urban                81         5.9
    Maryland     Charles Co.       15,466     170,376        9.1%  Urban                99         6.4
    Maryland     Dorchester         8,078      32,599       24.8%  Rural                40         5.0  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Maryland     Frederick         18,013     288,316        6.2%  Urban               149         8.3
                  Co.
    Maryland     Garrett Co.        4,195      28,619       14.7%  Rural                43        10.3
    Maryland     Harford Co.       23,317     263,908        8.8%  Urban               144         6.2
    Maryland     Howard Co.        19,610     336,439        5.8%  Urban               120         6.1
    Maryland     Kent Co.           3,045      19,360       15.7%  Rural                20         6.6
    Maryland     Montgomery        63,042   1,061,132        5.9%  Urban               393         6.2
                  Co.
    Maryland     Prince           107,267     953,609       11.2%  Urban               606         5.6
                  George's
                  Co.
    Maryland     Queen Anne's       3,087      51,803          6%  Urban                33        10.7
                  Co.
    Maryland     St. Mary's        11,445     115,001         10%  Urban                60         5.2
                  Co.
    Maryland     Somerset Co.       6,133      24,696       24.8%  Urban                26         4.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Maryland     Talbot Co.         4,332      37,959       11.4%  Rural                41         9.5
    Maryland     Washington        23,344     155,407         15%  Urban               139         6.0
                  Co.
    Maryland     Wicomico Co.      19,662     104,985       18.7%  Urban               114         5.8
    Maryland     Worcester          6,471      54,004         12%  Rural                59         9.1
                  Co.
    Maryland     Baltimore        134,790     570,663       23.6%  Urban               643         4.8  8Higher-
                  city                                                                                   risk0
    Massachuset  Barnstable        24,804     232,571       10.7%  Urban               210         8.5
     ts           Co.
    Massachuset  Berkshire         25,049     129,551       19.3%  Urban               131         5.2
     ts           Co.
    Massachuset  Bristol Co.      123,302     581,201       21.2%  Urban               550         4.5
     ts
    Massachuset  Dukes Co.          1,012      21,033        4.8%  Rural                12        11.9
     ts
    Massachuset  Essex Co.        132,865     810,039       16.4%  Urban               591         4.4
     ts
    Massachuset  Franklin Co.      12,882      71,050       18.1%  Rural               107         8.3
     ts
    Massachuset  Hampden Co.      151,728     461,440       32.9%  Urban               530         3.5  8Higher-
     ts                                                                                                  risk0
    Massachuset  Hampshire         18,104     165,397       10.9%  Urban               154         8.5
     ts           Co.
    Massachuset  Middlesex        140,921   1,629,805        8.6%  Urban               976         6.9
     ts           Co.
    Massachuset  Nantucket            274      14,464        1.9%  Rural                 6        21.9
     ts           Co.
    Massachuset  Norfolk Co.       60,572     728,619        8.3%  Urban               412         6.8
     ts
    Massachuset  Plymouth Co.      69,041     534,297       12.9%  Urban               359         5.2
     ts
    Massachuset  Suffolk Co.      182,113     777,266       23.4%  Urban               714         3.9  8Higher-
     ts                                                                                                  risk0
    Massachuset  Worcester        129,904     865,735         15%  Urban               706         5.4
     ts           Co.
    Michigan     Alcona Co.         1,461      10,375       14.1%  Rural                13         8.9
    Michigan     Alger Co.            786       8,767          9%  Rural                12        15.3
    Michigan     Allegan Co.       10,650     121,262        8.8%  Rural                93         8.7
    Michigan     Alpena Co.         4,231      28,813       14.7%  Rural                30         7.1
    Michigan     Antrim Co.         2,145      24,296        8.8%  Rural                23        10.7
    Michigan     Arenac Co.         2,295      15,115       15.2%  Rural                26        11.3
    Michigan     Baraga Co.         1,065       8,194         13%  Rural                10         9.4
    Michigan     Barry Co.          5,386      63,389        8.5%  Urban                45         8.4
    Michigan     Bay Co.           14,991     102,754       14.6%  Urban               126         8.4
    Michigan     Benzie Co.         1,452      18,336        7.9%  Urban                19        13.1
    Michigan     Berrien Co.       21,819     153,064       14.3%  Urban               156         7.1
    Michigan     Branch Co.         5,547      44,612       12.4%  Rural                49         8.8
    Michigan     Calhoun Co.       24,837     133,475       18.6%  Urban               177         7.1
    Michigan     Cass Co.           6,026      51,409       11.7%  Urban                42         7.0
    Michigan     Charlevoix         1,914      26,117        7.3%  Rural                28        14.6
                  Co.
    Michigan     Cheboygan          3,250      25,946       12.5%  Rural                26         8.0
                  Co.
    Michigan     Chippewa Co.       4,601      36,236       12.7%  Rural                40         8.7
    Michigan     Clare Co.          6,847      31,321       21.9%  Rural                56         8.2
    Michigan     Clinton Co.        5,091      79,652        6.4%  Urban                49         9.6
    Michigan     Crawford Co.       2,143      13,431         16%  Rural                22        10.3
    Michigan     Delta Co.          4,383      36,818       11.9%  Rural                36         8.2
    Michigan     Dickinson          2,626      25,977       10.1%  Rural                26         9.9
                  Co.
    Michigan     Eaton Co.         10,399     108,962        9.5%  Urban               104        10.0
    Michigan     Emmet Co.          2,256      34,204        6.6%  Rural                36        16.0
    Michigan     Genesee Co.       83,208     402,031       20.7%  Urban               471         5.7
    Michigan     Gladwin Co.        3,814      25,667       14.9%  Rural                39        10.2
    Michigan     Gogebic Co.        2,512      14,399       17.4%  Rural                22         8.8
    Michigan     Grand              6,151      96,337        6.4%  Urban                82        13.3
                  Traverse
                  Co.
    Michigan     Gratiot Co.        5,366      41,134         13%  Rural                41         7.6
    Michigan     Hillsdale          6,213      45,714       13.6%  Rural                51         8.2
                  Co.
    Michigan     Houghton Co.       3,445      37,792        9.1%  Rural                46        13.4
    Michigan     Huron Co.          3,627      31,150       11.6%  Rural                43        11.9
    Michigan     Ingham Co.        47,773     284,761       16.8%  Urban               244         5.1
    Michigan     Ionia Co.          7,159      66,774       10.7%  Urban                65         9.1
    Michigan     Iosco Co.          4,568      25,460       17.9%  Rural                44         9.6
    Michigan     Iron Co.           1,813      11,686       15.5%  Rural                15         8.3
    Michigan     Isabella Co.       8,100      64,483       12.6%  Rural                56         6.9
    Michigan     Jackson Co.       21,530     159,828       13.5%  Urban               167         7.8
    Michigan     Kalamazoo         33,415     261,417       12.8%  Urban               216         6.5
                  Co.
    Michigan     Kalkaska Co.       2,272      18,230       12.5%  Urban                24        10.6
    Michigan     Kent Co.          73,041     660,134       11.1%  Urban               565         7.7
    Michigan     Keweenaw Co.         150       2,151          7%  Rural                 3        20.0
    Michigan     Lake Co.           2,650      12,665       20.9%  Rural                20         7.5
    Michigan     Lapeer Co.         8,047      88,701        9.1%  Urban                80         9.9
    Michigan     Leelanau Co.         765      22,891        3.3%  Urban                16        20.9
    Michigan     Lenawee Co.       11,023      98,284       11.2%  Rural                84         7.6
    Michigan     Livingston         8,203     196,083        4.2%  Urban                92        11.2
                  Co.
    Michigan     Luce Co.             934       6,254       14.9%  Rural                10        10.7
    Michigan     Mackinac Co.         938      10,983        8.5%  Rural                13        13.9
    Michigan     Macomb Co.       112,317     875,735       12.8%  Urban               800         7.1
    Michigan     Manistee Co.       3,333      25,334       13.2%  Rural                27         8.1
    Michigan     Marquette          6,424      67,103        9.6%  Rural                55         8.6
                  Co.
    Michigan     Mason Co.          3,992      29,357       13.6%  Rural                37         9.3
    Michigan     Mecosta Co.        5,428      41,424       13.1%  Rural                54         9.9
    Michigan     Menominee          2,335      23,289         10%  Rural                27        11.6
                  Co.
    Michigan     Midland Co.        8,760      83,761       10.5%  Urban                74         8.4
    Michigan     Missaukee          1,935      15,228       12.7%  Rural                21        10.9
                  Co.
    Michigan     Monroe Co.        15,563     155,412         10%  Urban               117         7.5
    Michigan     Montcalm Co.       9,238      67,317       13.7%  Urban                87         9.4
    Michigan     Montmorency        1,359       9,563       14.2%  Rural                11         8.1
                  Co.
    Michigan     Muskegon Co.      34,046     175,526       19.4%  Urban               187         5.5
    Michigan     Newaygo Co.        8,014      50,771       15.8%  Rural                64         8.0
    Michigan     Oakland Co.       92,899   1,275,098        7.3%  Urban               913         9.8
    Michigan     Oceana Co.         4,377      26,964       16.2%  Rural                39         8.9
    Michigan     Ogemaw Co.         3,775      20,890       18.1%  Rural                35         9.3
    Michigan     Ontonagon            684       5,895       11.6%  Rural                12        17.5
                  Co.
    Michigan     Osceola Co.        3,623      23,257       15.6%  Rural                30         8.3
    Michigan     Oscoda Co.         1,493       8,400       17.8%  Rural                12         8.0
    Michigan     Otsego Co.         3,093      25,583       12.1%  Rural                40        12.9
    Michigan     Ottawa Co.        17,199     300,910        5.7%  Urban               169         9.8
    Michigan     Presque Isle       1,543      13,357       11.6%  Rural                15         9.7
                  Co.
    Michigan     Roscommon          4,200      23,711       17.7%  Rural                38         9.0
                  Co.
    Michigan     Saginaw Co.       39,003     188,425       20.7%  Urban               218         5.6
    Michigan     St. Clair         21,437     159,882       13.4%  Urban               167         7.8
                  Co.
    Michigan     St. Joseph         7,406      60,814       12.2%  Rural                70         9.5
                  Co.
    Michigan     Sanilac Co.        5,649      40,536       13.9%  Rural                59        10.4
    Michigan     Schoolcraft        1,133       8,189       13.8%  Rural                 7         6.2
                  Co.
    Michigan     Shiawassee         8,571      67,970       12.6%  Rural                67         7.8
                  Co.
    Michigan     Tuscola Co.        7,518      52,932       14.2%  Rural                59         7.8
    Michigan     Van Buren         11,222      75,690       14.8%  Rural                95         8.5
                  Co.
    Michigan     Washtenaw         27,674     367,947        7.5%  Urban               235         8.5
                  Co.
    Michigan     Wayne Co.        434,357   1,763,011       24.6%  Urban             2,226         5.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Michigan     Wexford Co.        5,732      34,062       16.8%  Rural                41         7.2
    Minnesota    Aitkin Co.         1,309      16,142        8.1%  Rural                18        13.8
    Minnesota    Anoka Co.         21,390     369,479        5.8%  Urban               206         9.6
    Minnesota    Becker Co.         3,487      35,387        9.9%  Rural                38        10.9
    Minnesota    Beltrami Co.       7,916      46,440         17%  Rural                42         5.3
    Minnesota    Benton Co.         3,995      41,570        9.6%  Urban                31         7.8
    Minnesota    Big Stone            438       5,145        8.5%  Rural                 7        16.0
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Blue Earth         5,474      69,681        7.9%  Urban                51         9.3
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Brown Co.          1,599      25,786        6.2%  Rural                23        14.4
    Minnesota    Carlton Co.        2,629      36,501        7.2%  Urban                34        12.9
    Minnesota    Carver Co.         3,065     110,215        2.8%  Urban                47        15.3
    Minnesota    Cass Co.           4,420      31,287       14.1%  Rural                36         8.1
    Minnesota    Chippewa Co.       1,107      12,335          9%  Rural                 9         8.1
    Minnesota    Chisago Co.        2,522      57,918        4.4%  Urban                30        11.9
    Minnesota    Clay Co.           7,855      65,989       11.9%  Urban                37         4.7
    Minnesota    Clearwater         1,067       8,636       12.4%  Rural                11        10.3
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Cook Co.             273       5,732        4.8%  Rural                 9        33.0
    Minnesota    Cottonwood         1,150      11,416       10.1%  Rural                15        13.0
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Crow Wing          4,509      67,862        6.6%  Rural                54        12.0
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Dakota Co.        21,186     443,982        4.8%  Urban               241        11.4
    Minnesota    Dodge Co.          1,122      21,027        5.3%  Urban                16        14.3
    Minnesota    Douglas Co.        2,429      39,665        6.1%  Rural                28        11.5
    Minnesota    Faribault          1,502      13,957       10.8%  Rural                12         8.0
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Fillmore Co.       1,264      21,475        5.9%  Urban                18        14.2
    Minnesota    Freeborn Co.       3,674      30,674         12%  Rural                31         8.4
    Minnesota    Goodhue Co.        2,671      48,055        5.6%  Rural                37        13.9
    Minnesota    Grant Co.            430       6,134          7%  Rural                 6        14.0
    Minnesota    Hennepin Co.     116,411   1,258,981        9.2%  Urban               629         5.4
    Minnesota    Houston Co.          956      18,715        5.1%  Urban                15        15.7
    Minnesota    Hubbard Co.        2,148      21,925        9.8%  Rural                21         9.8
    Minnesota    Isanti Co.         2,396      42,725        5.6%  Urban                30        12.5
    Minnesota    Itasca Co.         4,584      45,258       10.1%  Rural                41         8.9
    Minnesota    Jackson Co.          729       9,905        7.4%  Rural                11        15.1
    Minnesota    Kanabec Co.        1,536      16,465        9.3%  Rural                13         8.5
    Minnesota    Kandiyohi          4,484      43,904       10.2%  Rural                35         7.8
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Kittson Co.          355       4,058        8.7%  Rural                 7        19.7
    Minnesota    Koochiching        1,315      11,846       11.1%  Rural                14        10.6
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Lac qui              470       6,688          7%  Rural                 8        17.0
                  Parle Co.
    Minnesota    Lake Co.             697      10,919        6.4%  Rural                10        14.3
    Minnesota    Lake of the          301       3,902        7.7%  Rural                 4        13.3
                  Woods Co.
    Minnesota    Le Sueur Co.       1,407      29,205        4.8%  Urban                17        12.1
    Minnesota    Lincoln Co.          297       5,626        5.3%  Rural                 6        20.2
    Minnesota    Lyon Co.           2,636      25,513       10.3%  Rural                27        10.2
    Minnesota    McLeod Co.         1,907      36,791        5.2%  Rural                34        17.8
    Minnesota    Mahnomen Co.       1,311       5,354       24.5%  Rural                 8         6.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Minnesota    Marshall Co.         578       8,890        6.5%  Rural                 8        13.8
    Minnesota    Martin Co.         2,068      19,687       10.5%  Rural                19         9.2
    Minnesota    Meeker Co.         1,533      23,526        6.5%  Rural                17        11.1
    Minnesota    Mille Lacs         2,462      27,270          9%  Urban                29        11.8
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Morrison Co.       2,319      34,284        6.8%  Rural                34        14.7
    Minnesota    Mower Co.          4,651      40,174       11.6%  Rural                41         8.8
    Minnesota    Murray Co.           553       8,051        6.9%  Rural                 7        12.7
    Minnesota    Nicollet Co.       2,082      34,381        6.1%  Urban                20         9.6
    Minnesota    Nobles Co.         1,827      22,030        8.3%  Rural                27        14.8
    Minnesota    Norman Co.           699       6,354         11%  Rural                 8        11.4
    Minnesota    Olmsted Co.       13,626     164,151        8.3%  Urban                93         6.8
    Minnesota    Otter Tail         3,871      60,530        6.4%  Rural                45        11.6
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Pennington         1,073      13,832        7.8%  Rural                 9         8.4
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Pine Co.           2,917      29,458        9.9%  Rural                26         8.9
    Minnesota    Pipestone            722       9,320        7.7%  Rural                11        15.2
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Polk Co.           3,814      30,760       12.4%  Urban                17         4.5
    Minnesota    Pope Co.             720      11,429        6.3%  Rural                 7         9.7
    Minnesota    Ramsey Co.        71,933     538,430       13.4%  Urban               342         4.8
    Minnesota    Red Lake Co.         369       3,888        9.5%  Rural                 3         8.1
    Minnesota    Redwood Co.        1,155      15,362        7.5%  Rural                14        12.1
    Minnesota    Renville Co.       1,272      14,540        8.7%  Rural                14        11.0
    Minnesota    Rice Co.           4,105      67,696        6.1%  Rural                41        10.0
    Minnesota    Rock Co.             628       9,596        6.5%  Urban                 7        11.1
    Minnesota    Roseau Co.           962      15,359        6.3%  Rural                16        16.6
    Minnesota    St. Louis         20,122     199,598       10.1%  Urban               156         7.8
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Scott Co.          6,049     154,606        3.9%  Urban                70        11.6
    Minnesota    Sherburne          5,343     100,617        5.3%  Urban                47         8.8
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Sibley Co.           918      14,964        6.1%  Rural                11        12.0
    Minnesota    Stearns Co.       14,725     160,556        9.2%  Urban               126         8.6
    Minnesota    Steele Co.         3,429      37,470        9.2%  Rural                30         8.7
    Minnesota    Stevens Co.          635       9,692        6.6%  Rural                 7        11.0
    Minnesota    Swift Co.            851       9,774        8.7%  Rural                 8         9.4
    Minnesota    Todd Co.           1,759      25,568        6.9%  Rural                30        17.1
    Minnesota    Traverse Co.         468       3,261       14.4%  Rural                 6        12.8
    Minnesota    Wabasha Co.        1,015      21,654        4.7%  Urban                15        14.8
    Minnesota    Wadena Co.         1,691      14,284       11.8%  Rural                12         7.1
    Minnesota    Waseca Co.         1,684      18,884        8.9%  Rural                15         8.9
    Minnesota    Washington        10,183     276,530        3.7%  Urban               113        11.1
                  Co.
    Minnesota    Watonwan Co.         681      11,245        6.1%  Rural                16        23.5
    Minnesota    Wilkin Co.           677       6,363       10.6%  Rural                 2         3.0
    Minnesota    Winona Co.         3,224      49,585        6.5%  Rural                34        10.5
    Minnesota    Wright Co.         5,073     148,218        3.4%  Urban                77        15.2
    Minnesota    Yellow               602       9,484        6.3%  Rural                 8        13.3
                  Medicine
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Adams Co.          4,579      28,558         16%  Rural                36         7.9
    Mississippi  Alcorn Co.         3,818      34,094       11.2%  Rural                35         9.2
    Mississippi  Amite Co.          1,855      12,572       14.8%  Rural                15         8.1
    Mississippi  Attala Co.         2,923      17,529       16.7%  Rural                20         6.8
    Mississippi  Benton Co.         1,388       7,574       18.3%  Urban                10         7.2
    Mississippi  Bolivar Co.        7,411      29,443       25.2%  Rural                47         6.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Mississippi  Calhoun Co.        1,540      12,913       11.9%  Rural                15         9.7
    Mississippi  Carroll Co.        1,034       9,747       10.6%  Rural                 9         8.7
    Mississippi  Chickasaw          2,454      16,870       14.5%  Rural                23         9.4
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Choctaw Co.          806       8,086         10%  Rural                 9        11.2
    Mississippi  Claiborne          2,626       8,599       30.5%  Rural                 9         3.4  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Mississippi  Clarke Co.         2,377      15,212       15.6%  Rural                15         6.3
    Mississippi  Clay Co.           3,458      18,334       18.9%  Rural                33         9.5
    Mississippi  Coahoma Co.        7,387      20,404       36.2%  Rural                31         4.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Mississippi  Copiah Co.         5,630      27,811       20.2%  Urban                41         7.3
    Mississippi  Covington          3,708      18,126       20.5%  Rural                25         6.7
                  Co.
    Mississippi  DeSoto Co.        13,236     191,585        6.9%  Urban               165        12.5
    Mississippi  Forrest Co.       10,048      78,284       12.8%  Urban                98         9.8
    Mississippi  Franklin Co.         950       7,619       12.5%  Rural                 9         9.5
    Mississippi  George Co.         2,889      25,219       11.5%  Rural                21         7.3
    Mississippi  Greene Co.         1,180      13,583        8.7%  Rural                13        11.0
    Mississippi  Grenada Co.        3,075      21,152       14.5%  Rural                28         9.1
    Mississippi  Hancock Co.        4,805      46,047       10.4%  Urban                39         8.1
    Mississippi  Harrison Co.      31,009     210,972       14.7%  Urban               203         6.5
    Mississippi  Hinds Co.         40,024     217,383       18.4%  Urban               238         5.9
    Mississippi  Holmes Co.         4,828      16,147       29.9%  Urban                31         6.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Mississippi  Humphreys          2,819       7,342       38.4%  Rural                14         5.0  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Mississippi  Issaquena            214       1,284       16.7%  Rural                 1         4.7
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Itawamba Co.       1,769      24,034        7.4%  Rural                24        13.6
    Mississippi  Jackson Co.       14,353     145,218        9.9%  Urban               133         9.3
    Mississippi  Jasper Co.         2,530      16,020       15.8%  Rural                20         7.9
    Mississippi  Jefferson          1,704       7,086         24%  Rural                 8         4.7  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Mississippi  Jefferson          1,660      11,086         15%  Rural                11         6.6
                  Davis Co.
    Mississippi  Jones Co.          7,304      66,464         11%  Rural                93        12.7
    Mississippi  Kemper Co.         1,550       8,692       17.8%  Rural                10         6.5
    Mississippi  Lafayette          3,495      58,776        5.9%  Rural                26         7.4
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Lamar Co.          4,114      65,811        6.3%  Urban                39         9.5
    Mississippi  Lauderdale        12,242      71,323       17.2%  Rural                93         7.6
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Lawrence Co.       1,828      11,766       15.5%  Rural                17         9.3
    Mississippi  Leake Co.          2,728      21,279       12.8%  Rural                21         7.7
    Mississippi  Lee Co.            8,071      82,946        9.7%  Rural                96        11.9
    Mississippi  Leflore Co.        7,665      26,938       28.5%  Rural                45         5.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Mississippi  Lincoln Co.        4,564      34,807       13.1%  Rural                39         8.5
    Mississippi  Lowndes Co.        9,680      57,694       16.8%  Rural                74         7.6
    Mississippi  Madison Co.        7,875     111,694        7.1%  Urban                83        10.5
    Mississippi  Marion Co.         3,091      24,142       12.8%  Rural                29         9.4
    Mississippi  Marshall Co.       3,820      33,897       11.3%  Urban                50        13.1
    Mississippi  Monroe Co.         3,625      33,561       10.8%  Rural                30         8.3
    Mississippi  Montgomery         1,684       9,547       17.6%  Rural                15         8.9
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Neshoba Co.        5,765      28,854         20%  Rural                32         5.6
    Mississippi  Newton Co.         2,262      21,017       10.8%  Rural                20         8.8
    Mississippi  Noxubee Co.        3,069      10,019       30.6%  Rural                15         4.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Mississippi  Oktibbeha          5,104      51,661        9.9%  Rural                35         6.9
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Panola Co.         5,333      32,553       16.4%  Rural                44         8.3
    Mississippi  Pearl River        7,217      57,338       12.6%  Rural                71         9.8
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Perry Co.          1,592      11,440       13.9%  Urban                12         7.5
    Mississippi  Pike Co.           7,736      39,592       19.5%  Rural                68         8.8
    Mississippi  Pontotoc Co.       2,563      31,449        8.1%  Rural                28        10.9
    Mississippi  Prentiss Co.       2,462      25,094        9.8%  Rural                22         8.9
    Mississippi  Quitman Co.        1,227       5,683       21.6%  Rural                12         9.8
    Mississippi  Rankin Co.         8,868     158,733        5.6%  Urban               118        13.3
    Mississippi  Scott Co.          3,171      27,710       11.4%  Urban                42        13.2
    Mississippi  Sharkey Co.        1,242       3,483       35.7%  Rural                 6         4.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Mississippi  Simpson Co.        3,210      25,615       12.5%  Urban                33        10.3
    Mississippi  Smith Co.          1,261      14,095        8.9%  Rural                10         7.9
    Mississippi  Stone Co.          2,318      18,834       12.3%  Urban                19         8.2
    Mississippi  Sunflower          6,239      24,314       25.7%  Rural                44         7.1  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Mississippi  Tallahatchie       1,832      11,762       15.6%  Rural                11         6.0
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Tate Co.           3,145      28,372       11.1%  Urban                29         9.2
    Mississippi  Tippah Co.         1,668      21,480        7.8%  Rural                25        15.0
    Mississippi  Tishomingo         1,700      18,626        9.1%  Rural                21        12.4
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Tunica Co.         2,965       9,461       31.3%  Urban                20         6.7  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Mississippi  Union Co.          2,367      28,130        8.4%  Rural                23         9.7
    Mississippi  Walthall Co.       1,878      13,815       13.6%  Rural                14         7.5
    Mississippi  Warren Co.         9,137      42,684       21.4%  Rural                62         6.8
    Mississippi  Washington        12,895      42,490       30.3%  Rural                68         5.3  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Mississippi  Wayne Co.          4,319      19,617         22%  Rural                23         5.3
    Mississippi  Webster Co.        1,407       9,953       14.1%  Rural                11         7.8
    Mississippi  Wilkinson          1,530       8,175       18.7%  Rural                 9         5.9
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Winston Co.        2,933      17,527       16.7%  Rural                23         7.8
    Mississippi  Yalobusha          1,997      12,395       16.1%  Rural                20        10.0
                  Co.
    Mississippi  Yazoo Co.          6,339      24,698       25.7%  Urban                32         5.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Missouri     Adair Co.          2,331      25,155        9.3%  Rural                21         9.0
    Missouri     Andrew Co.           942      18,008        5.2%  Urban                 7         7.4
    Missouri     Atchison Co.         389       5,163        7.5%  Rural                 7        18.0
    Missouri     Audrain Co.        2,731      24,455       11.2%  Rural                26         9.5
    Missouri     Barry Co.          4,836      34,931       13.8%  Rural                48         9.9
    Missouri     Barton Co.         1,508      11,695       12.9%  Rural                16        10.6
    Missouri     Bates Co.          1,605      16,156        9.9%  Urban                18        11.2
    Missouri     Benton Co.         2,389      20,216       11.8%  Rural                20         8.4
    Missouri     Bollinger          1,785      10,510         17%  Urban                 8         4.5
                  Co.
    Missouri     Boone Co.         15,095     187,743          8%  Urban               120         7.9
    Missouri     Buchanan Co.      13,050      82,956       15.7%  Urban                89         6.8
    Missouri     Butler Co.         8,559      42,150       20.3%  Rural                50         5.8
    Missouri     Caldwell Co.         763       8,939        8.5%  Urban                 8        10.5
    Missouri     Callaway Co.       3,848      44,760        8.6%  Urban                37         9.6
    Missouri     Camden Co.         3,449      43,779        7.9%  Rural                47        13.6
    Missouri     Cape               8,937      82,940       10.8%  Urban                51         5.7
                  Girardeau
                  Co.
    Missouri     Carroll Co.          767       8,410        9.1%  Rural                10        13.0
    Missouri     Carter Co.         1,089       5,267       20.7%  Rural                 7         6.4
    Missouri     Cass Co.           6,868     110,345        6.2%  Urban                77        11.2
    Missouri     Cedar Co.          1,925      14,612       13.2%  Rural                14         7.3
    Missouri     Chariton Co.         567       7,395        7.7%  Rural                 9        15.9
    Missouri     Christian          5,706      93,130        6.1%  Urban                64        11.2
                  Co.
    Missouri     Clark Co.            646       6,714        9.6%  Rural                10        15.5
    Missouri     Clay Co.          15,620     257,037        6.1%  Urban               152         9.7
    Missouri     Clinton Co.        1,369      21,339        6.4%  Urban                21        15.3
    Missouri     Cole Co.           7,181      76,977        9.3%  Urban                65         9.1
    Missouri     Cooper Co.         1,436      16,741        8.6%  Urban                21        14.6
    Missouri     Crawford Co.       3,162      22,622         14%  Rural                21         6.6
    Missouri     Dade Co.             826       7,679       10.8%  Rural                11        13.3
    Missouri     Dallas Co.         2,124      17,610       12.1%  Urban                20         9.4
    Missouri     Daviess Co.          698       8,455        8.3%  Rural                10        14.3
    Missouri     DeKalb Co.           649      11,307        5.7%  Urban                 8        12.3
    Missouri     Dent Co.           2,383      14,471       16.5%  Rural                10         4.2
    Missouri     Douglas Co.        1,797      11,967         15%  Rural                10         5.6
    Missouri     Dunklin Co.        8,005      27,444       29.2%  Rural                36         4.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Missouri     Franklin Co.       8,650     105,865        8.2%  Urban                79         9.1
    Missouri     Gasconade          1,166      14,800        7.9%  Rural                12        10.3
                  Co.
    Missouri     Gentry Co.           474       6,291        7.5%  Rural                 9        19.0
    Missouri     Greene Co.        31,753     303,336       10.5%  Urban               245         7.7
    Missouri     Grundy Co.         1,216       9,828       12.4%  Rural                12         9.9
    Missouri     Harrison Co.         917       8,213       11.2%  Rural                11        12.0
    Missouri     Henry Co.          2,857      22,404       12.8%  Rural                29        10.2
    Missouri     Hickory Co.        1,211       8,576       14.1%  Rural                18        14.9
    Missouri     Holt Co.             358       4,265        8.4%  Rural                 5        14.0
    Missouri     Howard Co.           755      10,169        7.4%  Urban                 8        10.6
    Missouri     Howell Co.         7,266      40,612       17.9%  Rural                60         8.3
    Missouri     Iron Co.           1,744       9,411       18.5%  Rural                14         8.0
    Missouri     Jackson Co.       94,319     716,580       13.2%  Urban               560         5.9
    Missouri     Jasper Co.        16,716     123,969       13.5%  Urban               141         8.4
    Missouri     Jefferson         17,053     229,268        7.4%  Urban               142         8.3
                  Co.
    Missouri     Johnson Co.        3,445      54,423        6.3%  Rural                47        13.6
    Missouri     Knox Co.             355       3,777        9.4%  Rural                 7        19.7
    Missouri     Laclede Co.        5,077      36,330         14%  Rural                38         7.5
    Missouri     Lafayette          2,905      32,937        8.8%  Urban                39        13.4
                  Co.
    Missouri     Lawrence Co.       4,687      38,672       12.1%  Rural                34         7.3
    Missouri     Lewis Co.            736       9,888        7.4%  Rural                12        16.3
    Missouri     Lincoln Co.        5,122      63,184        8.1%  Urban                43         8.4
    Missouri     Linn Co.           1,302      11,842         11%  Rural                12         9.2
    Missouri     Livingston         1,274      14,365        8.9%  Rural                15        11.8
                  Co.
    Missouri     McDonald Co.       3,028      23,623       12.8%  Rural                32        10.6
    Missouri     Macon Co.          1,225      15,084        8.1%  Rural                16        13.1
    Missouri     Madison Co.        1,967      12,763       15.4%  Rural                10         5.1
    Missouri     Maries Co.           631       8,434        7.5%  Rural                 6         9.5
    Missouri     Marion Co.         3,564      28,489       12.5%  Rural                38        10.7
    Missouri     Mercer Co.           248       3,469        7.1%  Rural                 5        20.2
    Missouri     Miller Co.         2,778      25,384       10.9%  Rural                26         9.4
    Missouri     Mississippi        2,871      11,683       24.6%  Rural                16         5.6  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Missouri     Moniteau Co.       1,042      15,241        6.8%  Urban                13        12.5
    Missouri     Monroe Co.           731       8,650        8.5%  Rural                11        15.0
    Missouri     Montgomery         1,177      11,463       10.3%  Rural                17        14.4
                  Co.
    Missouri     Morgan Co.         2,658      21,781       12.2%  Rural                31        11.7
    Missouri     New Madrid         3,296      15,686         21%  Rural                25         7.6
                  Co.
    Missouri     Newton Co.         6,994      60,107       11.6%  Urban                64         9.2
    Missouri     Nodaway Co.        1,251      20,690          6%  Rural                16        12.8
    Missouri     Oregon Co.         2,171       8,709       24.9%  Rural                16         7.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Missouri     Osage Co.            640      13,399        4.8%  Urban                13        20.3
    Missouri     Ozark Co.          1,388       8,970       15.5%  Rural                12         8.6
    Missouri     Pemiscot Co.       4,816      14,880       32.4%  Rural                20         4.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Missouri     Perry Co.          1,550      18,882        8.2%  Rural                17        11.0
    Missouri     Pettis Co.         5,716      43,381       13.2%  Rural                42         7.3
    Missouri     Phelps Co.         4,649      45,301       10.3%  Rural                38         8.2
    Missouri     Pike Co.           1,888      17,650       10.7%  Rural                21        11.1
    Missouri     Platte Co.         4,262     110,593        3.9%  Urban                52        12.2
    Missouri     Polk Co.           3,732      32,669       11.4%  Urban                26         7.0
    Missouri     Pulaski Co.        4,730      53,824        8.8%  Rural                37         7.8
    Missouri     Putnam Co.           382       4,653        8.2%  Rural                 4        10.5
    Missouri     Ralls Co.            785      10,419        7.5%  Rural                12        15.3
    Missouri     Randolph Co.       3,224      24,619       13.1%  Rural                29         9.0
    Missouri     Ray Co.            2,060      23,119        8.9%  Urban                16         7.8
    Missouri     Reynolds Co.       1,208       5,994       20.2%  Rural                10         8.3
    Missouri     Ripley Co.         2,779      10,699         26%  Rural                14         5.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Missouri     St. Charles       14,695     414,055        3.5%  Urban               209        14.2
                  Co.
    Missouri     St. Clair          1,221       9,581       12.7%  Rural                15        12.3
                  Co.
    Missouri     Ste.               1,296      18,614          7%  Rural                15        11.6
                  Genevieve
                  Co.
    Missouri     St. Francois       9,965      66,938       14.9%  Rural                62         6.2
                  Co.
    Missouri     St. Louis        101,334     991,881       10.2%  Urban               640         6.3
                  Co.
    Missouri     Saline Co.         2,618      23,016       11.4%  Rural                23         8.8
    Missouri     Schuyler Co.         359       4,016        8.9%  Rural                 6        16.7
    Missouri     Scotland Co.         289       4,653        6.2%  Rural                 6        20.8
    Missouri     Scott Co.          7,403      37,869       19.5%  Rural                35         4.7
    Missouri     Shannon Co.        1,784       7,223       24.7%  Rural                10         5.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Missouri     Shelby Co.           594       6,004        9.9%  Rural                 9        15.2
    Missouri     Stoddard Co.       4,330      28,366       15.3%  Rural                29         6.7
    Missouri     Stone Co.          2,770      32,137        8.6%  Rural                35        12.6
    Missouri     Sullivan Co.         677       5,828       11.6%  Rural                 7        10.3
    Missouri     Taney Co.          6,516      56,736       11.5%  Rural                67        10.3
    Missouri     Texas Co.          3,221      25,298       12.7%  Rural                23         7.1
    Missouri     Vernon Co.         2,769      19,608       14.1%  Rural                17         6.1
    Missouri     Warren Co.         2,873      37,292        7.7%  Urban                23         8.0
    Missouri     Washington         4,520      23,389       19.3%  Rural                29         6.4
                  Co.
    Missouri     Wayne Co.          2,308      10,807       21.4%  Rural                17         7.4
    Missouri     Webster Co.        3,639      40,369          9%  Urban                37        10.2
    Missouri     Worth Co.            159       1,943        8.2%  Rural                 3        18.9
    Missouri     Wright Co.         3,131      19,108       16.4%  Rural                28         8.9
    Missouri     St. Louis         62,509     286,292       21.8%  Urban               269         4.3
                  city
    Montana      Beaverhead           540       9,742        5.5%  Rural                 8        14.8
                  Co.
    Montana      Big Horn Co.       3,219      12,858         25%  Rural                14         4.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Montana      Blaine Co.           968       6,956       13.9%  Rural                 8         8.3
    Montana      Broadwater           322       7,787        4.1%  Urban                 6        18.6
                  Co.
    Montana      Carbon Co.           510      11,241        4.5%  Urban                 8        15.7
    Montana      Carter Co.            22       1,402        1.6%  Rural                 1        45.5
    Montana      Cascade Co.        8,699      84,908       10.2%  Urban                55         6.3
    Montana      Chouteau Co.         263       5,917        4.4%  Rural                 4        15.2
    Montana      Custer Co.           848      12,005        7.1%  Rural                 7         8.3
    Montana      Daniels Co.           53       1,644        3.2%  Rural                 1        18.9
    Montana      Dawson Co.           548       8,801        6.2%  Rural                 7        12.8
    Montana      Deer Lodge           851       9,541        8.9%  Rural                10        11.8
                  Co.
    Montana      Fallon Co.           112       3,047        3.7%  Rural                 2        17.9
    Montana      Fergus Co.           611      11,669        5.2%  Rural                 8        13.1
    Montana      Flathead Co.       6,492     111,783        5.8%  Rural                71        10.9
    Montana      Gallatin Co.       2,450     124,733          2%  Urban                62        25.3
    Montana      Garfield Co.          22       1,221        1.8%  Rural                 1        45.5
    Montana      Glacier Co.        3,148      13,637       23.1%  Rural                13         4.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Montana      Golden                64         838        7.6%  Rural                 1        15.6
                  Valley Co.
    Montana      Granite Co.          134       3,482        3.8%  Rural                 3        22.4
    Montana      Hill Co.           2,928      16,069       18.2%  Rural                13         4.4
    Montana      Jefferson            586      12,864        4.6%  Urban                 7        11.9
                  Co.
    Montana      Judith Basin          69       2,082        3.3%  Rural                 1        14.5
                  Co.
    Montana      Lake Co.           4,103      32,821       12.5%  Rural                30         7.3
    Montana      Lewis and          5,076      73,681        6.9%  Urban                46         9.1
                  Clark Co.
    Montana      Liberty Co.           96       1,972        4.9%  Rural                 1        10.4
    Montana      Lincoln Co.        2,662      21,485       12.4%  Rural                26         9.8
    Montana      McCone Co.            17       1,712          1%  Rural                 1        58.8
    Montana      Madison Co.          250       9,237        2.7%  Rural                 7        28.0
    Montana      Meagher Co.          103       2,025        5.1%  Rural                 3        29.1
    Montana      Mineral Co.          562       5,037       11.2%  Urban                 6        10.7
    Montana      Missoula Co.       8,554     120,931        7.1%  Urban                75         8.8
    Montana      Musselshell          548       5,188       10.6%  Rural                 4         7.3
                  Co.
    Montana      Park Co.             723      17,783        4.1%  Rural                12        16.6
    Montana      Petroleum             10         520        1.9%  Rural                 1       100.0
                  Co.
    Montana      Phillips Co.         422       4,223         10%  Rural                 5        11.8
    Montana      Pondera Co.          599       6,093        9.8%  Rural                 6        10.0
    Montana      Powder River          53       1,725        3.1%  Rural                 1        18.9
                  Co.
    Montana      Powell Co.           498       7,063        7.1%  Rural                 5        10.0
    Montana      Prairie Co.           58       1,114        5.2%  Rural                 1        17.2
    Montana      Ravalli Co.        2,972      47,177        6.3%  Rural                30        10.1
    Montana      Richland Co.         592      11,191        5.3%  Rural                12        20.3
    Montana      Roosevelt          2,754      10,514       26.2%  Rural                 9         3.3  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Montana      Rosebud Co.        1,322       8,122       16.3%  Rural                12         9.1
    Montana      Sanders Co.        1,343      13,396         10%  Rural                20        14.9
    Montana      Sheridan Co.         195       3,550        5.5%  Rural                 4        20.5
    Montana      Silver Bow         3,844      35,876       10.7%  Rural                33         8.6
                  Co.
    Montana      Stillwater           327       9,194        3.6%  Urban                 7        21.4
                  Co.
    Montana      Sweet Grass          128       3,724        3.4%  Rural                 6        46.9
                  Co.
    Montana      Teton Co.            327       6,349        5.2%  Rural                 4        12.2
    Montana      Toole Co.            311       5,072        6.1%  Rural                 6        19.3
    Montana      Treasure Co.          54         749        7.2%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Montana      Valley Co.           704       7,560        9.3%  Rural                 6         8.5
    Montana      Wheatland            190       2,043        9.3%  Rural                 4        21.1
                  Co.
    Montana      Wibaux Co.            35         924        3.8%  Rural                 1        28.6
    Montana      Yellowstone       12,875     169,817        7.6%  Urban               105         8.2
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Adams Co.          2,615      31,023        8.4%  Rural                21         8.0
    Nebraska     Antelope Co.         326       6,299        5.2%  Rural                 6        18.4
    Nebraska     Arthur Co.            15         427        3.5%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Nebraska     Banner Co.            19         656        2.9%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Nebraska     Blaine Co.            25         448        5.6%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Nebraska     Boone Co.            238       5,366        4.4%  Rural                 9        37.8
    Nebraska     Box Butte          1,109      10,685       10.4%  Rural                 8         7.2
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Boyd Co.              69       1,737          4%  Rural                 3        43.5
    Nebraska     Brown Co.            147       2,894        5.1%  Rural                 5        34.0
    Nebraska     Buffalo Co.        2,955      50,528        5.8%  Rural                42        14.2
    Nebraska     Burt Co.             529       6,790        7.8%  Rural                 7        13.2
    Nebraska     Butler Co.           361       8,432        4.3%  Rural                 5        13.9
    Nebraska     Cass Co.           1,197      27,169        4.4%  Urban                14        11.7
    Nebraska     Cedar Co.            294       8,366        3.5%  Rural                 7        23.8
    Nebraska     Chase Co.            177       3,768        4.7%  Rural                 3        16.9
    Nebraska     Cherry Co.           365       5,495        6.6%  Rural                10        27.4
    Nebraska     Cheyenne Co.         838       9,524        8.8%  Rural                 8         9.5
    Nebraska     Clay Co.             441       6,070        7.3%  Rural                 5        11.3
    Nebraska     Colfax Co.           643      10,645          6%  Rural                11        17.1
    Nebraska     Cuming Co.           391       8,970        4.4%  Rural                 8        20.5
    Nebraska     Custer Co.           570      10,503        5.4%  Rural                10        17.5
    Nebraska     Dakota Co.         1,917      21,253          9%  Urban                21        11.0
    Nebraska     Dawes Co.            662       8,250          8%  Rural                 8        12.1
    Nebraska     Dawson Co.         2,074      24,048        8.6%  Rural                22        10.6
    Nebraska     Deuel Co.            168       1,900        8.8%  Rural                 5        29.8
    Nebraska     Dixon Co.            141       5,522        2.6%  Rural                 4        28.4
    Nebraska     Dodge Co.          3,300      37,130        8.9%  Rural                35        10.6
    Nebraska     Douglas Co.       58,995     587,894         10%  Urban               374         6.3
    Nebraska     Dundy Co.            106       1,601        6.6%  Rural                 2        18.9
    Nebraska     Fillmore Co.         330       5,529          6%  Rural                 9        27.3
    Nebraska     Franklin Co.         219       2,834        7.7%  Rural                 4        18.3
    Nebraska     Frontier Co.         142       2,624        5.4%  Rural                 3        21.1
    Nebraska     Furnas Co.           426       4,573        9.3%  Rural                 9        21.1
    Nebraska     Gage Co.           1,906      21,542        8.8%  Rural                16         8.4
    Nebraska     Garden Co.           238       1,837         13%  Rural                 3        12.6
    Nebraska     Garfield Co.          42       1,783        2.4%  Rural                 3        71.4
    Nebraska     Gosper Co.            90       1,831        4.9%  Rural                 2        22.2
    Nebraska     Grant Co.             24         587        4.1%  Rural                 1        41.7
    Nebraska     Greeley Co.           86       2,237        3.8%  Rural                 2        23.3
    Nebraska     Hall Co.           6,411      62,292       10.3%  Urban                55         8.6
    Nebraska     Hamilton Co.         365       9,439        3.9%  Rural                 7        19.2
    Nebraska     Harlan Co.           131       3,023        4.3%  Rural                 3        22.9
    Nebraska     Hayes Co.             29         864        3.4%  Rural                 1        34.5
    Nebraska     Hitchcock            218       2,611        8.3%  Rural                 2         9.2
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Holt Co.             586      10,069        5.8%  Rural                15        25.6
    Nebraska     Hooker Co.            24         680        3.5%  Rural                 2        83.3
    Nebraska     Howard Co.           315       6,521        4.8%  Urban                 8        25.4
    Nebraska     Jefferson            713       7,151         10%  Rural                 4         5.6
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Johnson Co.          292       5,264        5.5%  Rural                 5        17.1
    Nebraska     Kearney Co.          217       6,708        3.2%  Rural                 5        23.0
    Nebraska     Keith Co.            607       8,205        7.4%  Rural                14        23.1
    Nebraska     Keya Paha             16         801          2%  Rural                 1        62.5
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Kimball Co.          299       3,344        8.9%  Rural                 4        13.4
    Nebraska     Knox Co.             613       8,356        7.3%  Rural                 9        14.7
    Nebraska     Lancaster         26,896     325,252        8.3%  Urban               180         6.7
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Lincoln Co.        3,327      33,619        9.9%  Rural                30         9.0
    Nebraska     Logan Co.             21         691          3%  Rural                 1        47.6
    Nebraska     Loup Co.              20         597        3.4%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Nebraska     McPherson             11         374        2.9%  Rural                 0         0.0
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Madison Co.        2,737      35,427        7.7%  Rural                34        12.4
    Nebraska     Merrick Co.          438       7,709        5.7%  Urban                 7        16.0
    Nebraska     Morrill Co.          521       4,528       11.5%  Rural                 4         7.7
    Nebraska     Nance Co.            141       3,323        4.2%  Rural                 5        35.5
    Nebraska     Nemaha Co.           528       7,028        7.5%  Rural                 6        11.4
    Nebraska     Nuckolls Co.         279       4,076        6.8%  Rural                 3        10.8
    Nebraska     Otoe Co.           1,017      16,243        6.3%  Rural                15        14.7
    Nebraska     Pawnee Co.           191       2,536        7.5%  Rural                 3        15.7
    Nebraska     Perkins Co.           85       2,844          3%  Rural                 2        23.5
    Nebraska     Phelps Co.           468       9,007        5.2%  Rural                 9        19.2
    Nebraska     Pierce Co.           328       7,326        4.5%  Rural                 9        27.4
    Nebraska     Platte Co.         2,024      34,452        5.9%  Rural                24        11.9
    Nebraska     Polk Co.             225       5,234        4.3%  Rural                 6        26.7
    Nebraska     Red Willow           767      10,557        7.3%  Rural                 8        10.4
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Richardson           667       7,736        8.6%  Rural                 9        13.5
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Rock Co.              46       1,234        3.7%  Rural                 2        43.5
    Nebraska     Saline Co.           978      14,621        6.7%  Rural                14        14.3
    Nebraska     Sarpy Co.          8,355     196,606        4.2%  Urban                88        10.5
    Nebraska     Saunders Co.         871      23,159        3.8%  Urban                10        11.5
    Nebraska     Scotts Bluff       4,705      35,798       13.1%  Rural                25         5.3
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Seward Co.           599      17,623        3.4%  Urban                10        16.7
    Nebraska     Sheridan Co.         382       5,015        7.6%  Rural                11        28.8
    Nebraska     Sherman Co.          168       3,000        5.6%  Rural                 4        23.8
    Nebraska     Sioux Co.             11       1,129          1%  Rural                 1        90.9
    Nebraska     Stanton Co.          142       5,748        2.5%  Rural                 3        21.1
    Nebraska     Thayer Co.           310       4,866        6.4%  Rural                 5        16.1
    Nebraska     Thomas Co.            40         667          6%  Rural                 2        50.0
    Nebraska     Thurston Co.       1,586       6,549       24.2%  Rural                 6         3.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Nebraska     Valley Co.           324       4,064          8%  Rural                 6        18.5
    Nebraska     Washington           660      21,175        3.1%  Urban                10        15.2
                  Co.
    Nebraska     Wayne Co.            422       9,898        4.3%  Rural                 7        16.6
    Nebraska     Webster Co.          309       3,334        9.3%  Rural                 5        16.2
    Nebraska     Wheeler Co.           28         784        3.6%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Nebraska     York Co.             900      14,319        6.3%  Rural                14        15.6
    Nevada       Churchill          3,641      25,828       14.1%  Rural                24         6.6
                  Co.
    Nevada       Clark Co.        397,007   2,321,961       17.1%  Urban             1,378         3.5
    Nevada       Douglas Co.        2,342      49,592        4.7%  Rural                29        12.4
    Nevada       Elko Co.           4,990      53,943        9.3%  Rural                47         9.4
    Nevada       Esmeralda             91         744       12.2%  Rural                 0         0.0
                  Co.
    Nevada       Eureka Co.           162       1,862        8.7%  Rural                 4        24.7
    Nevada       Humboldt Co.       1,823      17,262       10.6%  Rural                20        11.0
    Nevada       Lander Co.           508       5,769        8.8%  Rural                 7        13.8
    Nevada       Lincoln Co.          524       4,421       11.9%  Rural                 7        13.4
    Nevada       Lyon Co.           6,302      61,589       10.2%  Urban                49         7.8
    Nevada       Mineral Co.          865       4,538       19.1%  Rural                 6         6.9
    Nevada       Nye Co.           10,285      54,710       18.8%  Rural                42         4.1
    Nevada       Pershing Co.         673       6,446       10.4%  Rural                 6         8.9
    Nevada       Storey Co.           118       4,165        2.8%  Urban                 1         8.5
    Nevada       Washoe Co.        47,255     496,458        9.5%  Urban               335         7.1
    Nevada       White Pine         1,095       8,734       12.5%  Rural                 9         8.2
                  Co.
    Nevada       Carson City        6,919      58,094       11.9%  Urban                49         7.1
    New          Belknap Co.        4,293      64,647        6.6%  Rural                58        13.5
     Hampshire
    New          Carroll Co.        2,528      52,094        4.9%  Rural                45        17.8
     Hampshire
    New          Cheshire Co.       5,154      77,386        6.7%  Rural                72        14.0
     Hampshire
    New          Coos Co.           3,312      31,430       10.5%  Rural                39        11.8
     Hampshire
    New          Grafton Co.        4,384      92,943        4.7%  Rural                92        21.0
     Hampshire
    New          Hillsborough      25,023     426,307        5.9%  Urban               305        12.2
     Hampshire    Co.
    New          Merrimack          8,311     156,241        5.3%  Rural               112        13.5
     Hampshire    Co.
    New          Rockingham         8,113     319,298        2.5%  Urban               196        24.2
     Hampshire    Co.
    New          Strafford          8,038     132,451        6.1%  Urban                93        11.6
     Hampshire    Co.
    New          Sullivan Co.       3,802      43,881        8.7%  Rural                41        10.8
     Hampshire
    New Jersey   Atlantic Co.      37,926     276,111       13.7%  Urban               239         6.3
    New Jersey   Bergen Co.        37,083     957,235        3.9%  Urban               401        10.8
    New Jersey   Burlington        19,790     466,710        4.2%  Urban               267        13.5
                  Co.
    New Jersey   Camden Co.        73,357     525,395         14%  Urban               432         5.9
    New Jersey   Cape May Co.       7,368      95,415        7.7%  Urban                73         9.9
    New Jersey   Cumberland        25,093     151,686       16.5%  Urban               151         6.0
                  Co.
    New Jersey   Essex Co.        124,831     854,738       14.6%  Urban               602         4.8
    New Jersey   Gloucester        16,120     306,936        5.3%  Urban               177        11.0
                  Co.
    New Jersey   Hudson Co.        99,728     708,657       14.1%  Urban               572         5.7
    New Jersey   Hunterdon          3,053     129,977        2.3%  Urban                51        16.7
                  Co.
    New Jersey   Mercer Co.        33,452     382,165        8.8%  Urban               267         8.0
    New Jersey   Middlesex         53,711     866,241        6.2%  Urban               470         8.8
                  Co.
    New Jersey   Monmouth Co.      27,384     644,994        4.2%  Urban               346        12.6
    New Jersey   Morris Co.        13,719     512,685        2.7%  Urban               212        15.5
    New Jersey   Ocean Co.         54,799     656,386        8.3%  Urban               306         5.6
    New Jersey   Passaic Co.       78,154     516,287       15.1%  Urban               505         6.5
    New Jersey   Salem Co.          8,099      65,167       12.4%  Urban                52         6.4
    New Jersey   Somerset Co.       9,828     348,319        2.8%  Urban               140        14.2
    New Jersey   Sussex Co.         3,886     145,638        2.7%  Urban                54        13.9
    New Jersey   Union Co.         42,952     573,600        7.5%  Urban               362         8.4
    New Jersey   Warren Co.         7,176     110,885        6.5%  Urban                62         8.6
    New Mexico   Bernalillo       141,109     673,039         21%  Urban               436         3.1
                  Co.
    New Mexico   Catron Co.           269       3,793        7.1%  Rural                 7        26.0
    New Mexico   Chaves Co.        17,482      63,907       27.4%  Rural                71         4.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Cibola Co.         8,280      26,771       30.9%  Rural                24         2.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Colfax Co.         3,028      12,289       24.6%  Rural                20         6.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Curry Co.         15,544      47,391       32.8%  Rural                53         3.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   De Baca Co.          307       1,697       18.1%  Rural                 6        19.5
    New Mexico   Dona Ana Co.      67,155     223,604         30%  Urban               154         2.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Eddy Co.          12,454      60,221       20.7%  Rural                56         4.5
    New Mexico   Grant Co.          6,939      27,699       25.1%  Rural                22         3.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Guadalupe          1,271       4,324       29.4%  Rural                14        11.0
                  Co.
    New Mexico   Harding Co.           32         627        5.1%  Rural                 2        62.5
    New Mexico   Hidalgo Co.        1,090       4,012       27.2%  Rural                10         9.2
    New Mexico   Lea Co.           18,230      72,300       25.2%  Rural                83         4.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Lincoln Co.        4,109      20,339       20.2%  Rural                28         6.8
    New Mexico   Los Alamos           278      19,259        1.4%  Rural                 8        28.8
                  Co.
    New Mexico   Luna Co.          10,664      25,677       41.5%  Rural                27         2.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   McKinley Co.      26,370      70,084       37.6%  Rural                77         2.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Mora Co.             691       4,142       16.7%  Rural                 5         7.2
    New Mexico   Otero Co.         12,719      68,650       18.5%  Rural                47         3.7
    New Mexico   Quay Co.           2,630       8,536       30.8%  Rural                16         6.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Rio Arriba        12,898      39,986       32.3%  Rural                42         3.3  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    New Mexico   Roosevelt          2,606      18,896       13.8%  Rural                16         6.1
                  Co.
    New Mexico   Sandoval Co.      23,710     153,509       15.4%  Urban                77         3.2
    New Mexico   San Juan Co.      34,265     120,580       28.4%  Urban               125         3.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   San Miguel         8,309      26,899       30.9%  Rural                31         3.7  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    New Mexico   Santa Fe Co.      20,885     155,768       13.4%  Urban                82         3.9
    New Mexico   Sierra Co.         4,627      11,485       40.3%  Rural                18         3.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Socorro Co.        5,199      16,142       32.2%  Rural                20         3.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Taos Co.           7,930      34,594       22.9%  Rural                37         4.7  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Torrance Co.       6,077      15,398       39.5%  Urban                20         3.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New Mexico   Union Co.            224       3,996        5.6%  Rural                 7        31.3
    New Mexico   Valencia Co.      18,808      78,254         24%  Urban                58         3.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New York     Albany Co.        34,556     316,287       10.9%  Urban               281         8.1
    New York     Allegany Co.       5,587      46,850       11.9%  Rural                52         9.3
    New York     Bronx Co.        490,283   1,384,189       35.4%  Urban             2,003         4.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New York     Broome Co.        26,571     197,340       13.5%  Urban               216         8.1
    New York     Cattaraugus       10,959      76,036       14.4%  Rural                62         5.7
                  Co.
    New York     Cayuga Co.         9,215      74,758       12.3%  Rural                57         6.2
    New York     Chautauqua        23,926     125,310       19.1%  Rural               128         5.3
                  Co.
    New York     Chemung Co.       14,109      81,598       17.3%  Urban                98         6.9
    New York     Chenango Co.       6,261      46,301       13.5%  Rural                65        10.4
    New York     Clinton Co.       11,191      77,978       14.4%  Rural                85         7.6
    New York     Columbia Co.       5,546      61,187        9.1%  Rural                82        14.8
    New York     Cortland Co.       5,933      46,133       12.9%  Rural                52         8.8
    New York     Delaware Co.       4,559      44,769       10.2%  Rural                58        12.7
    New York     Dutchess Co.      18,040     298,186          6%  Urban               168         9.3
    New York     Erie Co.         147,427     948,745       15.5%  Urban               905         6.1
    New York     Essex Co.          3,268      36,788        8.9%  Rural                47        14.4
    New York     Franklin Co.       6,693      46,072       14.5%  Rural                52         7.8
    New York     Fulton Co.         8,027      52,245       15.4%  Rural                48         6.0
    New York     Genesee Co.        4,785      57,482        8.3%  Rural                52        10.9
    New York     Greene Co.         4,504      47,388        9.5%  Rural                54        12.0
    New York     Hamilton Co.         266       5,108        5.2%  Rural                 5        18.8
    New York     Herkimer Co.       8,897      59,576       14.9%  Urban                63         7.1
    New York     Jefferson         14,808     115,487       12.8%  Urban               127         8.6
                  Co.
    New York     Kings Co.        606,214   2,596,607       23.3%  Urban             3,284         5.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    New York     Lewis Co.          2,915      26,602         11%  Rural                32        11.0
    New York     Livingston         5,731      61,385        9.3%  Urban                45         7.9
                  Co.
    New York     Madison Co.        6,585      67,062        9.8%  Urban                68        10.3
    New York     Monroe Co.       109,665     751,827       14.6%  Urban               611         5.6
    New York     Montgomery         7,934      49,434         16%  Rural                64         8.1
                  Co.
    New York     Nassau Co.        41,019   1,386,825          3%  Urban               630        15.4
    New York     New York Co.     240,581   1,597,103       15.1%  Urban             1,308         5.4
    New York     Niagara Co.       26,650     210,466       12.7%  Urban               193         7.2
    New York     Oneida Co.        38,703     228,502       16.9%  Urban               271         7.0
    New York     Onondaga Co.      68,796     470,432       14.6%  Urban               455         6.6
    New York     Ontario Co.        9,350     112,509        8.3%  Urban                82         8.8
    New York     Orange Co.        40,035     406,677        9.8%  Urban               273         6.8
    New York     Orleans Co.        5,350      39,329       13.6%  Urban                33         6.2
    New York     Oswego Co.        18,184     118,110       15.4%  Urban               109         6.0
    New York     Otsego Co.         5,864      60,408        9.7%  Rural                76        13.0
    New York     Putnam Co.         2,487      98,274        2.5%  Urban                33        13.3
    New York     Queens Co.       331,319   2,285,640       14.5%  Urban             1,908         5.8
    New York     Rensselaer        15,022     159,530        9.4%  Urban               148         9.9
                  Co.
    New York     Richmond Co.      70,240     492,640       14.3%  Urban               359         5.1
    New York     Rockland Co.      43,843     340,756       12.9%  Urban               159         3.6
    New York     St. Lawrence      14,049     107,043       13.1%  Rural               125         8.9
                  Co.
    New York     Saratoga Co.      13,847     238,491        5.8%  Urban               163        11.8
    New York     Schenectady       22,196     159,846       13.9%  Urban               166         7.5
                  Co.
    New York     Schoharie          3,671      30,062       12.2%  Urban                34         9.3
                  Co.
    New York     Schuyler Co.       2,077      17,591       11.8%  Rural                19         9.1
    New York     Seneca Co.         3,647      32,610       11.2%  Rural                36         9.9
    New York     Steuben Co.       11,459      92,420       12.4%  Rural               101         8.8
    New York     Suffolk Co.      108,364   1,529,565        7.1%  Urban               758         7.0
    New York     Sullivan Co.      13,347      79,768       16.7%  Rural               121         9.1
    New York     Tioga Co.          5,285      47,708       11.1%  Urban                39         7.4
    New York     Tompkins Co.       7,694     105,827        7.3%  Urban                82        10.7
    New York     Ulster Co.        18,039     182,357        9.9%  Urban               154         8.5
    New York     Warren Co.         6,726      65,448       10.3%  Urban                75        11.2
    New York     Washington         6,556      60,764       10.8%  Urban                61         9.3
                  Co.
    New York     Wayne Co.          8,539      90,831        9.4%  Urban                79         9.3
    New York     Westchester       77,237     993,488        7.8%  Urban               567         7.3
                  Co.
    New York     Wyoming Co.        2,513      39,528        6.4%  Rural                33        13.1
    New York     Yates Co.          2,080      24,469        8.5%  Rural                23        11.1
    North        Alamance Co.      26,993     176,544       15.3%  Urban               164         6.1
     Carolina
    North        Alexander          5,085      36,237         14%  Urban                31         6.1
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Alleghany          1,767      11,187       15.8%  Rural                12         6.8
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Anson Co.          6,825      22,346       30.5%  Urban                34         5.0  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Ashe Co.           4,373      27,062       16.2%  Rural                20         4.6
     Carolina
    North        Avery Co.          2,036      17,550       11.6%  Rural                14         6.9
     Carolina
    North        Beaufort Co.       9,809      44,356       22.1%  Rural                57         5.8
     Carolina
    North        Bertie Co.         4,768      16,947       28.1%  Rural                26         5.5  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Bladen Co.         7,969      29,365       27.1%  Rural                45         5.6  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Brunswick         15,744     152,836       10.3%  Urban               139         8.8
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Buncombe Co.      32,097     274,112       11.7%  Urban               198         6.2
     Carolina
    North        Burke Co.         12,977      87,732       14.8%  Urban                99         7.6
     Carolina
    North        Cabarrus Co.      25,878     236,078         11%  Urban               161         6.2
     Carolina
    North        Caldwell Co.      13,755      80,259       17.1%  Urban                84         6.1
     Carolina
    North        Camden Co.           960      11,089        8.7%  Urban                 8         8.3
     Carolina
    North        Carteret Co.       7,124      69,369       10.3%  Rural                72        10.1
     Carolina
    North        Caswell Co.        4,518      22,219       20.3%  Rural                25         5.5
     Carolina
    North        Catawba Co.       23,481     163,286       14.4%  Urban               176         7.5
     Carolina
    North        Chatham Co.        5,349      80,080        6.7%  Urban                49         9.2
     Carolina
    North        Cherokee Co.       4,911      29,431       16.7%  Rural                30         6.1
     Carolina
    North        Chowan Co.         2,785      13,921         20%  Rural                17         6.1
     Carolina
    North        Clay Co.           1,659      11,610       14.3%  Rural                11         6.6
     Carolina
    North        Cleveland         24,030     100,771       23.8%  Rural               139         5.8  8Higher-
     Carolina     Co.                                                                                    risk0
    North        Columbus Co.      12,892      50,027       25.8%  Rural                83         6.4  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Craven Co.        15,184     102,392       14.8%  Rural               106         7.0
     Carolina
    North        Cumberland        81,238     339,068         24%  Urban               318         3.9  8Higher-
     Carolina     Co.                                                                                    risk0
    North        Currituck          2,152      31,011        6.9%  Urban                28        13.0
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Dare Co.           2,748      38,047        7.2%  Rural                48        17.5
     Carolina
    North        Davidson Co.      28,081     172,443       16.3%  Urban               162         5.8
     Carolina
    North        Davie Co.          5,227      44,087       11.9%  Urban                51         9.8
     Carolina
    North        Duplin Co.         9,721      49,072       19.8%  Rural                70         7.2
     Carolina
    North        Durham Co.        38,433     331,568       11.6%  Urban               204         5.3
     Carolina
    North        Edgecombe         16,600      48,481       34.2%  Urban                71         4.3  8Higher-
     Carolina     Co.                                                                                    risk0
    North        Forsyth Co.       63,378     389,519       16.3%  Urban               346         5.5
     Carolina
    North        Franklin Co.      10,172      74,326       13.7%  Urban                56         5.5
     Carolina
    North        Gaston Co.        40,454     234,208       17.3%  Urban               212         5.2
     Carolina
    North        Gates Co.          1,674      10,373       16.1%  Urban                 8         4.8
     Carolina
    North        Graham Co.         1,623       8,052       20.2%  Rural                 6         3.7
     Carolina
    North        Granville          8,047      60,867       13.2%  Rural                60         7.5
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Greene Co.         4,376      20,415       21.4%  Rural                20         4.6
     Carolina
    North        Guilford Co.      98,200     547,195       17.9%  Urban               514         5.2
     Carolina
    North        Halifax Co.       15,773      47,623       33.1%  Rural                90         5.7  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Harnett Co.       21,668     138,583       15.6%  Rural                99         4.6
     Carolina
    North        Haywood Co.        9,129      62,595       14.6%  Rural                47         5.1
     Carolina
    North        Henderson         10,864     118,336        9.2%  Urban                76         7.0
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Hertford Co.       6,078      19,525       31.1%  Rural                34         5.6  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Hoke Co.          10,693      53,759       19.9%  Urban                44         4.1
     Carolina
    North        Hyde Co.             958       4,616       20.8%  Rural                 5         5.2
     Carolina
    North        Iredell Co.       15,517     196,129        7.9%  Urban               146         9.4
     Carolina
    North        Jackson Co.        5,143      43,880       11.7%  Rural                34         6.6
     Carolina
    North        Johnston Co.      29,344     234,762       12.5%  Urban               157         5.4
     Carolina
    North        Jones Co.          2,090       9,243       22.6%  Rural                 8         3.8  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Lee Co.            9,766      65,687       14.9%  Rural                78         8.0
     Carolina
    North        Lenoir Co.        14,975      54,529       27.5%  Rural                76         5.1  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Lincoln Co.       10,683      93,103       11.5%  Urban                79         7.4
     Carolina
    North        McDowell Co.       8,769      44,759       19.6%  Rural                53         6.0
     Carolina
    North        Macon Co.          4,631      37,996       12.2%  Rural                37         8.0
     Carolina
    North        Madison Co.        3,354      21,912       15.3%  Urban                17         5.1
     Carolina
    North        Martin Co.         5,280      21,502       24.6%  Rural                29         5.5  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Mecklenburg      146,750   1,149,349       12.8%  Urban               718         4.9
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Mitchell Co.       2,620      15,051       17.4%  Rural                16         6.1
     Carolina
    North        Montgomery         4,461      25,884       17.2%  Rural                34         7.6
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Moore Co.         10,768     105,548       10.2%  Urban                92         8.5
     Carolina
    North        Nash Co.          18,720      95,922       19.5%  Urban               127         6.8
     Carolina
    North        New Hanover       27,123     236,147       11.5%  Urban               209         7.7
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Northampton        4,986      16,806       29.7%  Rural                30         6.0  8Higher-
     Carolina     Co.                                                                                    risk0
    North        Onslow Co.        23,977     206,718       11.6%  Urban               139         5.8
     Carolina
    North        Orange Co.        11,120     150,744        7.4%  Urban                86         7.7
     Carolina
    North        Pamlico Co.        1,947      12,269       15.9%  Rural                14         7.2
     Carolina
    North        Pasquotank         8,301      40,818       20.3%  Rural                44         5.3
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Pender Co.         8,291      65,697       12.6%  Urban                60         7.2
     Carolina
    North        Perquimans         2,443      13,243       18.4%  Rural                20         8.2
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Person Co.         7,345      39,396       18.6%  Urban                42         5.7
     Carolina
    North        Pitt Co.          37,375     177,090       21.1%  Urban               190         5.1
     Carolina
    North        Polk Co.           2,390      20,006       11.9%  Rural                18         7.5
     Carolina
    North        Randolph Co.      24,316     146,174       16.6%  Urban               134         5.5
     Carolina
    North        Richmond Co.      14,994      42,360       35.4%  Rural                77         5.1  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Robeson Co.       44,708     116,313       38.4%  Rural               205         4.6  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Rockingham        18,131      92,044       19.7%  Urban               118         6.5
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Rowan Co.         22,876     149,514       15.3%  Urban               127         5.6
     Carolina
    North        Rutherford        14,010      64,829       21.6%  Rural                74         5.3
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Sampson Co.       12,935      59,096       21.9%  Rural                60         4.6
     Carolina
    North        Scotland Co.      11,325      33,548       33.8%  Rural                57         5.0  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Stanly Co.         9,538      64,285       14.8%  Rural                72         7.5
     Carolina
    North        Stokes Co.         6,550      45,137       14.5%  Urban                45         6.9
     Carolina
    North        Surry Co.         12,523      71,489       17.5%  Rural                99         7.9
     Carolina
    North        Swain Co.          2,281      13,968       16.3%  Rural                16         7.0
     Carolina
    North        Transylvania       4,016      33,668       11.9%  Rural                29         7.2
     Carolina     Co.
    North        Tyrrell Co.          677       3,469       19.5%  Rural                 6         8.9
     Carolina
    North        Union Co.         19,786     249,714        7.9%  Urban               144         7.3
     Carolina
    North        Vance Co.         14,312      42,258       33.9%  Rural                70         4.9  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Wake Co.          90,918   1,174,107        7.7%  Urban               662         7.3
     Carolina
    North        Warren Co.         4,476      18,700       23.9%  Rural                29         6.5  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    North        Washington         3,174      10,798       29.4%  Rural                18         5.7  8Higher-
     Carolina     Co.                                                                                    risk0
    North        Watauga Co.        2,640      55,404        4.8%  Rural                44        16.7
     Carolina
    North        Wayne Co.         24,575     118,185       20.8%  Urban               129         5.2
     Carolina
    North        Wilkes Co.        12,700      65,801       19.3%  Rural                86         6.8
     Carolina
    North        Wilson Co.        17,111      78,838       21.7%  Rural               114         6.7
     Carolina
    North        Yadkin Co.         5,092      37,539       13.6%  Urban                37         7.3
     Carolina
    North        Yancey Co.         3,023      18,790       16.1%  Rural                12         4.0
     Carolina
    North        Adams Co.            117       2,106        5.6%  Rural                 3        25.6
     Dakota
    North        Barnes Co.           609      10,743        5.7%  Rural                 7        11.5
     Dakota
    North        Benson Co.         1,519       5,794       26.2%  Rural                 7         4.6  8Higher-
     Dakota                                                                                              risk0
    North        Billings Co.          35       1,022        3.4%  Rural                 0         0.0
     Dakota
    North        Bottineau            432       6,372        6.8%  Rural                 5        11.6
     Dakota       Co.
    North        Bowman Co.           121       2,892        4.2%  Rural                 5        41.3
     Dakota
    North        Burke Co.             51       2,133        2.4%  Rural                 1        19.6
     Dakota
    North        Burleigh Co.       3,997     100,436          4%  Urban                46        11.5
     Dakota
    North        Cass Co.           9,906     193,670        5.1%  Urban               111        11.2
     Dakota
    North        Cavalier Co.         142       3,616        3.9%  Rural                 2        14.1
     Dakota
    North        Dickey Co.           221       4,941        4.5%  Rural                 6        27.1
     Dakota
    North        Divide Co.            73       2,174        3.4%  Rural                 2        27.4
     Dakota
    North        Dunn Co.             170       4,005        4.2%  Rural                 3        17.6
     Dakota
    North        Eddy Co.             230       2,311         10%  Rural                 3        13.0
     Dakota
    North        Emmons Co.           171       3,267        5.2%  Rural                 6        35.1
     Dakota
    North        Foster Co.           193       3,377        5.7%  Rural                 4        20.7
     Dakota
    North        Golden                62       1,746        3.6%  Rural                 3        48.4
     Dakota       Valley Co.
    North        Grand Forks        3,959      72,103        5.5%  Urban                58        14.7
     Dakota       Co.
    North        Grant Co.            163       2,248        7.3%  Rural                 5        30.7
     Dakota
    North        Griggs Co.           127       2,268        5.6%  Rural                 5        39.4
     Dakota
    North        Hettinger            141       2,425        5.8%  Rural                 4        28.4
     Dakota       Co.
    North        Kidder Co.           116       2,396        4.8%  Rural                 3        25.9
     Dakota
    North        LaMoure Co.           94       4,061        2.3%  Rural                 4        42.6
     Dakota
    North        Logan Co.             68       1,849        3.7%  Rural                 2        29.4
     Dakota
    North        McHenry Co.          359       5,208        6.9%  Urban                 7        19.5
     Dakota
    North        McIntosh Co.         130       2,503        5.2%  Rural                 4        30.8
     Dakota
    North        McKenzie Co.         412      13,905          3%  Rural                12        29.1
     Dakota
    North        McLean Co.           290       9,851        2.9%  Rural                 7        24.1
     Dakota
    North        Mercer Co.           284       8,333        3.4%  Rural                 6        21.1
     Dakota
    North        Morton Co.         2,124      33,741        6.3%  Urban                18         8.5
     Dakota
    North        Mountrail            408       9,255        4.4%  Rural                15        36.8
     Dakota       Co.
    North        Nelson Co.           159       3,011        5.3%  Rural                 4        25.2
     Dakota
    North        Oliver Co.            58       1,858        3.1%  Urban                 3        51.7
     Dakota
    North        Pembina Co.          300       6,764        4.4%  Rural                 7        23.3
     Dakota
    North        Pierce Co.           215       3,944        5.5%  Rural                 3        14.0
     Dakota
    North        Ramsey Co.         1,006      11,552        8.7%  Rural                10         9.9
     Dakota
    North        Ransom Co.           207       5,648        3.7%  Rural                 5        24.2
     Dakota
    North        Renville Co.          73       2,267        3.2%  Urban                 4        54.8
     Dakota
    North        Richland Co.         924      16,577        5.6%  Rural                17        18.4
     Dakota
    North        Rolette Co.        3,477      11,889       29.2%  Rural                17         4.9  8Higher-
     Dakota                                                                                              risk0
    North        Sargent Co.          171       3,823        4.5%  Rural                 5        29.2
     Dakota
    North        Sheridan Co.          82       1,285        6.4%  Rural                 1        12.2
     Dakota
    North        Sioux Co.          1,177       3,697       31.8%  Rural                 4         3.4  8Higher-
     Dakota                                                                                              risk0
    North        Slope Co.             39         684        5.7%  Rural                 0         0.0
     Dakota
    North        Stark Co.          1,891      32,762        5.8%  Rural                16         8.5
     Dakota
    North        Steele Co.            96       1,782        5.4%  Rural                 3        31.3
     Dakota
    North        Stutsman Co.       1,290      21,518          6%  Rural                15        11.6
     Dakota
    North        Towner Co.           135       2,060        6.6%  Rural                 3        22.2
     Dakota
    North        Traill Co.           339       7,958        4.3%  Rural                 8        23.6
     Dakota
    North        Walsh Co.            714      10,468        6.8%  Rural                 9        12.6
     Dakota
    North        Ward Co.           4,485      68,831        6.5%  Urban                45        10.0
     Dakota
    North        Wells Co.            302       3,916        7.7%  Rural                 5        16.6
     Dakota
    North        Williams Co.       1,321      38,012        3.5%  Rural                23        17.4
     Dakota
    Ohio         Adams Co.          5,605      27,449       20.4%  Rural                31         5.5
    Ohio         Allen Co.         12,430     101,086       12.3%  Urban               113         9.1
    Ohio         Ashland Co.        3,928      52,010        7.6%  Rural                42        10.7
    Ohio         Ashtabula         17,221      96,987       17.8%  Urban               110         6.4
                  Co.
    Ohio         Athens Co.         8,813      61,029       14.4%  Rural                61         6.9
    Ohio         Auglaize Co.       2,791      45,949        6.1%  Rural                32        11.5
    Ohio         Belmont Co.        8,186      65,495       12.5%  Urban                64         7.8
    Ohio         Brown Co.          5,960      43,707       13.6%  Urban                44         7.4
    Ohio         Butler Co.        39,943     390,689       10.2%  Urban               306         7.7
    Ohio         Carroll Co.        2,778      26,677       10.4%  Urban                18         6.5
    Ohio         Champaign          3,934      38,712       10.2%  Rural                25         6.4
                  Co.
    Ohio         Clark Co.         22,572     134,686       16.8%  Urban               123         5.4
    Ohio         Clermont Co.      14,272     210,906        6.8%  Urban               145        10.2
    Ohio         Clinton Co.        5,164      41,902       12.3%  Rural                40         7.7
    Ohio         Columbiana        13,973     100,537       13.9%  Rural               114         8.2
                  Co.
    Ohio         Coshocton          5,450      36,583       14.9%  Rural                27         5.0
                  Co.
    Ohio         Crawford Co.       6,368      41,532       15.3%  Rural                42         6.6
    Ohio         Cuyahoga Co.     208,105   1,239,720       16.8%  Urban             1,125         5.4
    Ohio         Darke Co.          4,032      51,526        7.8%  Rural                36         8.9
    Ohio         Defiance Co.       3,825      38,183         10%  Rural                33         8.6
    Ohio         Delaware Co.       5,991     227,008        2.6%  Urban                99        16.5
    Ohio         Erie Co.           9,117      74,563       12.2%  Urban                75         8.2
    Ohio         Fairfield         14,673     163,166          9%  Urban                96         6.5
                  Co.
    Ohio         Fayette Co.        4,210      28,856       14.6%  Rural                34         8.1
    Ohio         Franklin Co.     162,610   1,327,687       12.2%  Urban             1,049         6.5
    Ohio         Fulton Co.         2,920      42,083        6.9%  Urban                31        10.6
    Ohio         Gallia Co.         5,986      29,014       20.6%  Rural                40         6.7
    Ohio         Geauga Co.         2,623      95,552        2.7%  Urban                64        24.4
    Ohio         Greene Co.        12,667     169,380        7.5%  Urban               109         8.6
    Ohio         Guernsey Co.       5,709      38,069         15%  Rural                39         6.8
    Ohio         Hamilton Co.     105,524     826,970       12.8%  Urban               663         6.3
    Ohio         Hancock Co.        5,764      74,793        7.7%  Rural                57         9.9
    Ohio         Hardin Co.         3,415      30,400       11.2%  Rural                29         8.5
    Ohio         Harrison Co.       2,032      14,351       14.2%  Rural                16         7.9
    Ohio         Henry Co.          1,387      27,517          5%  Rural                25        18.0
    Ohio         Highland Co.       6,277      43,396       14.5%  Rural                48         7.6
    Ohio         Hocking Co.        5,453      27,843       19.6%  Urban                24         4.4
    Ohio         Holmes Co.         1,012      44,380        2.3%  Rural                26        25.7
    Ohio         Huron Co.          7,243      58,256       12.4%  Rural                65         9.0
    Ohio         Jackson Co.        6,283      32,634       19.3%  Rural                43         6.8
    Ohio         Jefferson         11,954      64,286       18.6%  Urban                68         5.7
                  Co.
    Ohio         Knox Co.           5,327      63,186        8.4%  Rural                39         7.3
    Ohio         Lake Co.          16,294     231,968          7%  Urban               186        11.4
    Ohio         Lawrence Co.      12,196      56,571       21.6%  Urban                63         5.2
    Ohio         Licking Co.       17,287     181,899        9.5%  Urban               135         7.8
    Ohio         Logan Co.          4,861      46,040       10.6%  Rural                48         9.9
    Ohio         Lorain Co.        34,993     316,616       11.1%  Urban               243         6.9
    Ohio         Lucas Co.         67,195     427,154       15.7%  Urban               417         6.2
    Ohio         Madison Co.        4,031      43,613        9.2%  Urban                34         8.4
    Ohio         Mahoning Co.      43,488     226,104       19.2%  Urban               224         5.2
    Ohio         Marion Co.        10,484      64,576       16.2%  Rural                62         5.9
    Ohio         Medina Co.         9,044     183,520        4.9%  Urban               117        12.9
    Ohio         Meigs Co.          4,497      21,971       20.5%  Rural                28         6.2
    Ohio         Mercer Co.         1,804      42,403        4.3%  Rural                29        16.1
    Ohio         Miami Co.          8,872     110,245          8%  Urban                79         8.9
    Ohio         Monroe Co.         1,679      13,225       12.7%  Rural                17        10.1
    Ohio         Montgomery        79,438     534,355       14.9%  Urban               467         5.9
                  Co.
    Ohio         Morgan Co.         2,102      13,648       15.4%  Rural                11         5.2
    Ohio         Morrow Co.         2,976      35,317        8.4%  Urban                28         9.4
    Ohio         Muskingum         14,802      86,114       17.2%  Rural                92         6.2
                  Co.
    Ohio         Noble Co.          1,329      14,364        9.3%  Rural                12         9.0
    Ohio         Ottawa Co.         3,077      39,984        7.7%  Urban                34        11.0
    Ohio         Paulding Co.       1,912      18,763       10.2%  Rural                18         9.4
    Ohio         Perry Co.          6,075      35,483       17.1%  Urban                36         5.9
    Ohio         Pickaway Co.       6,473      59,987       10.8%  Urban                41         6.3
    Ohio         Pike Co.           6,845      26,991       25.4%  Rural                44         6.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Ohio         Portage Co.       14,155     161,924        8.7%  Urban               131         9.3
    Ohio         Preble Co.         3,681      40,557        9.1%  Rural                37        10.1
    Ohio         Putnam Co.         1,752      34,331        5.1%  Rural                19        10.8
    Ohio         Richland Co.      18,785     125,268         15%  Urban               126         6.7
    Ohio         Ross Co.          12,374      76,479       16.2%  Rural                75         6.1
    Ohio         Sandusky Co.       5,495      58,591        9.4%  Rural                55        10.0
    Ohio         Scioto Co.        18,383      72,312       25.4%  Rural                88         4.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Ohio         Seneca Co.         6,293      54,563       11.5%  Rural                53         8.4
    Ohio         Shelby Co.         3,822      47,723          8%  Rural                39        10.2
    Ohio         Stark Co.         47,512     373,008       12.7%  Urban               316         6.7
    Ohio         Summit Co.        76,084     536,582       14.2%  Urban               473         6.2
    Ohio         Trumbull Co.      31,445     200,716       15.7%  Urban               209         6.6
    Ohio         Tuscarawas         9,479      92,030       10.3%  Rural               101        10.7
                  Co.
    Ohio         Union Co.          2,724      66,927        4.1%  Urban                31        11.4
    Ohio         Van Wert Co.       2,428      28,806        8.4%  Rural                21         8.6
    Ohio         Vinton Co.         3,146      12,585         25%  Rural                15         4.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Ohio         Warren Co.         9,526     250,298        3.8%  Urban               130        13.6
    Ohio         Washington         7,447      58,883       12.6%  Rural                69         9.3
                  Co.
    Ohio         Wayne Co.          9,048     116,609        7.8%  Rural                87         9.6
    Ohio         Williams Co.       3,346      36,621        9.1%  Rural                38        11.4
    Ohio         Wood Co.           6,683     131,821        5.1%  Urban                89        13.3
    Ohio         Wyandot Co.        1,741      21,574        8.1%  Rural                21        12.1
    Oklahoma     Adair Co.          5,965      19,513       30.6%  Rural                26         4.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Alfalfa Co.          528       5,697        9.3%  Rural                 6        11.4
    Oklahoma     Atoka Co.          2,482      14,311       17.3%  Rural                20         8.1
    Oklahoma     Beaver Co.           443       5,044        8.8%  Rural                 4         9.0
    Oklahoma     Beckham Co.        4,198      21,990       19.1%  Rural                35         8.3
    Oklahoma     Blaine Co.         1,679       8,477       19.8%  Rural                19        11.3
    Oklahoma     Bryan Co.          7,538      48,229       15.6%  Rural                51         6.8
    Oklahoma     Caddo Co.          5,751      26,282       21.9%  Rural                39         6.8
    Oklahoma     Canadian Co.      13,207     169,507        7.8%  Urban               105         8.0
    Oklahoma     Carter Co.         9,831      48,488       20.3%  Rural                76         7.7
    Oklahoma     Cherokee Co.       8,490      48,058       17.7%  Rural                56         6.6
    Oklahoma     Choctaw Co.        4,151      14,416       28.8%  Rural                21         5.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Cimarron Co.         245       2,229         11%  Rural                 5        20.4
    Oklahoma     Cleveland         29,600     299,950        9.9%  Urban               184         6.2
                  Co.
    Oklahoma     Coal Co.           1,056       5,309       19.9%  Rural                10         9.5
    Oklahoma     Comanche Co.      22,255     122,390       18.2%  Urban               120         5.4
    Oklahoma     Cotton Co.         1,014       5,473       18.5%  Urban                11        10.8
    Oklahoma     Craig Co.          2,595      14,180       18.3%  Rural                19         7.3
    Oklahoma     Creek Co.         12,294      72,698       16.9%  Urban                62         5.0
    Oklahoma     Custer Co.         4,284      28,075       15.3%  Rural                35         8.2
    Oklahoma     Delaware Co.       6,422      41,491       15.5%  Rural                47         7.3
    Oklahoma     Dewey Co.            555       4,387       12.7%  Rural                 8        14.4
    Oklahoma     Ellis Co.            396       3,693       10.7%  Rural                 6        15.2
    Oklahoma     Garfield Co.      10,107      61,990       16.3%  Urban                77         7.6
    Oklahoma     Garvin Co.         5,361      25,793       20.8%  Rural                39         7.3
    Oklahoma     Grady Co.          6,924      56,700       12.2%  Urban                56         8.1
    Oklahoma     Grant Co.            453       4,124         11%  Rural                 4         8.8
    Oklahoma     Greer Co.          1,147       5,548       20.7%  Rural                 7         6.1
    Oklahoma     Harmon Co.           663       2,428       27.3%  Rural                 5         7.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Harper Co.           304       3,176        9.6%  Rural                 6        19.7
    Oklahoma     Haskell Co.        2,962      11,644       25.4%  Rural                22         7.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Hughes Co.         2,919      13,421       21.7%  Rural                22         7.5
    Oklahoma     Jackson Co.        4,274      24,671       17.3%  Rural                28         6.6
    Oklahoma     Jefferson          1,502       5,428       27.7%  Rural                11         7.3  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Oklahoma     Johnston Co.       2,372      10,328         23%  Rural                17         7.2  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Kay Co.            9,485      43,726       21.7%  Rural                52         5.5
    Oklahoma     Kingfisher         1,491      15,313        9.7%  Rural                15        10.1
                  Co.
    Oklahoma     Kiowa Co.          2,149       8,437       25.5%  Rural                17         7.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Latimer Co.        2,612       9,580       27.3%  Rural                17         6.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Le Flore Co.      11,088      49,004       22.6%  Rural                67         6.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Lincoln Co.        5,590      34,153       16.4%  Urban                42         7.5
    Oklahoma     Logan Co.          4,433      52,029        8.5%  Urban                45        10.2
    Oklahoma     Love Co.           1,616      10,184       15.9%  Rural                12         7.4
    Oklahoma     McClain Co.        5,052      45,422       11.1%  Urban                41         8.1
    Oklahoma     McCurtain          8,252      30,892       26.7%  Rural                57         6.9  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Oklahoma     McIntosh Co.       4,493      19,419       23.1%  Rural                31         6.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Major Co.            807       7,558       10.7%  Rural                10        12.4
    Oklahoma     Marshall Co.       2,697      15,947       16.9%  Rural                23         8.5
    Oklahoma     Mayes Co.          7,514      39,593         19%  Rural                54         7.2
    Oklahoma     Murray Co.         2,010      13,677       14.7%  Rural                15         7.5
    Oklahoma     Muskogee Co.      16,693      66,293       25.2%  Rural                91         5.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Noble Co.          1,359      10,861       12.5%  Rural                15        11.0
    Oklahoma     Nowata Co.         1,768       9,447       18.7%  Rural                16         9.0
    Oklahoma     Okfuskee Co.       2,511      11,230       22.4%  Rural                14         5.6
    Oklahoma     Oklahoma Co.     167,747     805,165       20.8%  Urban               723         4.3
    Oklahoma     Okmulgee Co.       8,700      36,937       23.6%  Urban                46         5.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Osage Co.          3,288      45,799        7.2%  Urban                41        12.5
    Oklahoma     Ottawa Co.         7,521      30,366       24.8%  Rural                36         4.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Pawnee Co.         2,964      15,695       18.9%  Urban                19         6.4
    Oklahoma     Payne Co.          9,808      83,029       11.8%  Rural                68         6.9
    Oklahoma     Pittsburg          8,446      43,517       19.4%  Rural                66         7.8
                  Co.
    Oklahoma     Pontotoc Co.       7,260      38,074       19.1%  Rural                40         5.5
    Oklahoma     Pottawatomie      14,758      73,403       20.1%  Rural                85         5.8
                  Co.
    Oklahoma     Pushmataha         2,377      10,728       22.2%  Rural                16         6.7
                  Co.
    Oklahoma     Roger Mills          422       3,366       12.5%  Rural                 3         7.1
                  Co.
    Oklahoma     Rogers Co.         9,431      99,103        9.5%  Urban                63         6.7
    Oklahoma     Seminole Co.       6,042      23,484       25.7%  Rural                30         5.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Sequoyah Co.      10,193      39,756       25.6%  Urban                51         5.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Stephens Co.       8,097      43,674       18.5%  Rural                52         6.4
    Oklahoma     Texas Co.          2,161      20,635       10.5%  Rural                19         8.8
    Oklahoma     Tillman Co.        1,627       6,968       23.3%  Rural                12         7.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oklahoma     Tulsa Co.        111,027     679,212       16.3%  Urban               524         4.7
    Oklahoma     Wagoner Co.        8,215      86,755        9.5%  Urban                51         6.2
    Oklahoma     Washington         8,558      53,289       16.1%  Rural                48         5.6
                  Co.
    Oklahoma     Washita Co.        2,011      10,715       18.8%  Rural                14         7.0
    Oklahoma     Woods Co.            873       8,602       10.1%  Rural                10        11.5
    Oklahoma     Woodward Co.       2,725      20,054       13.6%  Rural                24         8.8
    Oregon       Baker Co.          3,897      16,933         23%  Rural                22         5.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oregon       Benton Co.        11,252      97,406       11.6%  Urban                66         5.9
    Oregon       Clackamas         48,407     423,217       11.4%  Urban               251         5.2
                  Co.
    Oregon       Clatsop Co.        7,150      41,595       17.2%  Rural                51         7.1
    Oregon       Columbia Co.       9,079      53,589       16.9%  Urban                39         4.3
    Oregon       Coos Co.          16,957      65,135         26%  Rural                67         4.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oregon       Crook Co.          5,397      26,393       20.4%  Urban                19         3.5
    Oregon       Curry Co.          5,249      23,614       22.2%  Rural                25         4.8
    Oregon       Deschutes         24,089     206,491       11.7%  Urban               118         4.9
                  Co.
    Oregon       Douglas Co.       28,573     112,226       25.5%  Rural               153         5.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oregon       Gilliam Co.          386       2,012       19.2%  Rural                 4        10.4
    Oregon       Grant Co.          1,453       7,221       20.1%  Rural                13         8.9
    Oregon       Harney Co.         1,731       7,537         23%  Rural                14         8.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oregon       Hood River         2,947      24,028       12.3%  Rural                25         8.5
                  Co.
    Oregon       Jackson Co.       47,599     222,153       21.4%  Urban               190         4.0
    Oregon       Jefferson          7,048      25,319       27.8%  Urban                27         3.8  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Oregon       Josephine         24,973      87,786       28.4%  Urban                96         3.8  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Oregon       Klamath Co.       20,025      70,404       28.4%  Rural                80         4.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oregon       Lake Co.           1,949       8,365       23.3%  Rural                10         5.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oregon       Lane Co.          74,726     386,187       19.3%  Urban               333         4.5
    Oregon       Lincoln Co.       10,662      50,756         21%  Rural                64         6.0
    Oregon       Linn Co.          29,129     130,516       22.3%  Urban               122         4.2
    Oregon       Malheur Co.        8,742      31,868       27.4%  Rural                40         4.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Oregon       Marion Co.        69,381     349,388       19.9%  Urban               284         4.1
    Oregon       Morrow Co.         2,399      12,257       19.6%  Rural                18         7.5
    Oregon       Multnomah        142,603     795,960       17.9%  Urban               650         4.6
                  Co.
    Oregon       Polk Co.          15,327      89,986         17%  Urban                53         3.5
    Oregon       Sherman Co.          475       1,953       24.3%  Rural                 9        18.9
    Oregon       Tillamook          4,898      27,516       17.8%  Rural                38         7.8
                  Co.
    Oregon       Umatilla Co.      16,724      79,732         21%  Rural                86         5.1
    Oregon       Union Co.          5,778      26,167       22.1%  Rural                31         5.4
    Oregon       Wallowa Co.        1,115       7,647       14.6%  Rural                 8         7.2
    Oregon       Wasco Co.          5,517      26,535       20.8%  Rural                33         6.0
    Oregon       Washington        61,063     600,229       10.2%  Urban               315         5.2
                  Co.
    Oregon       Wheeler Co.          219       1,434       15.3%  Rural                 3        13.7
    Oregon       Yamhill Co.       16,832     107,817       15.6%  Urban                78         4.6
    Pennsylvani  Adams Co.          7,846     106,017        7.4%  Urban                67         8.5
     a
    Pennsylvani  Allegheny        162,096   1,233,821       13.1%  Urban               955         5.9
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Armstrong         10,490      64,664       16.2%  Urban                58         5.5
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Beaver Co.        24,562     165,682       14.8%  Urban               145         5.9
     a
    Pennsylvani  Bedford Co.        6,816      47,395       14.4%  Rural                51         7.5
     a
    Pennsylvani  Berks Co.         59,589     432,281       13.8%  Urban               371         6.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  Blair Co.         23,012     120,796       19.1%  Urban               121         5.3
     a
    Pennsylvani  Bradford Co.       8,600      59,800       14.4%  Rural                79         9.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  Bucks Co.         40,764     645,871        6.3%  Urban               361         8.9
     a
    Pennsylvani  Butler Co.        15,269     197,422        7.7%  Urban               149         9.8
     a
    Pennsylvani  Cambria Co.       25,333     131,432       19.3%  Urban               121         4.8
     a
    Pennsylvani  Cameron Co.          962       4,406       21.8%  Rural                 5         5.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  Carbon Co.         9,084      65,466       13.9%  Urban                48         5.3
     a
    Pennsylvani  Centre Co.         8,145     157,992        5.2%  Urban                79         9.7
     a
    Pennsylvani  Chester Co.       28,416     547,248        5.2%  Urban               255         9.0
     a
    Pennsylvani  Clarion Co.        5,357      37,280       14.4%  Rural                43         8.0
     a
    Pennsylvani  Clearfield        13,062      77,881       16.8%  Rural                74         5.7
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Clinton Co.        5,637      37,873       14.9%  Rural                33         5.9
     a
    Pennsylvani  Columbia Co.       8,897      65,347       13.6%  Rural                63         7.1
     a
    Pennsylvani  Crawford Co.      13,395      82,380       16.3%  Rural                81         6.0
     a
    Pennsylvani  Cumberland        23,130     268,740        8.6%  Urban               186         8.0
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Dauphin Co.       51,368     289,049       17.8%  Urban               282         5.5
     a
    Pennsylvani  Delaware Co.      76,753     577,040       13.3%  Urban               401         5.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  Elk Co.            3,790      30,453       12.4%  Rural                30         7.9
     a
    Pennsylvani  Erie Co.          55,717     269,112       20.7%  Urban               272         4.9
     a
    Pennsylvani  Fayette Co.       30,484     125,622       24.3%  Urban               141         4.6  8Higher-
     a                                                                                                   risk0
    Pennsylvani  Forest Co.           647       6,621        9.8%  Rural                 7        10.8
     a
    Pennsylvani  Franklin Co.      18,032     157,017       11.5%  Urban               113         6.3
     a
    Pennsylvani  Fulton Co.         2,016      14,557       13.8%  Rural                10         5.0
     a
    Pennsylvani  Greene Co.         6,977      34,566       20.2%  Rural                36         5.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  Huntingdon         5,744      43,303       13.3%  Rural                39         6.8
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Indiana Co.       11,969      82,901       14.4%  Rural                71         5.9
     a
    Pennsylvani  Jefferson          6,439      43,725       14.7%  Rural                49         7.6
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Juniata Co.        2,506      23,290       10.8%  Rural                23         9.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  Lackawanna        40,565     215,797       18.8%  Urban               204         5.0
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Lancaster         53,654     556,991        9.6%  Urban               369         6.9
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Lawrence Co.      16,677      84,800       19.7%  Urban                93         5.6
     a
    Pennsylvani  Lebanon Co.       17,633     144,003       12.2%  Urban               112         6.4
     a
    Pennsylvani  Lehigh Co.        57,391     377,019       15.2%  Urban               296         5.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  Luzerne Co.       66,488     326,892       20.3%  Urban               309         4.6
     a
    Pennsylvani  Lycoming Co.      17,562     113,223       15.5%  Urban                92         5.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  McKean Co.         7,472      39,791       18.8%  Rural                46         6.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  Mercer Co.        19,020     109,115       17.4%  Rural               107         5.6
     a
    Pennsylvani  Mifflin Co.        7,350      45,993         16%  Rural                46         6.3
     a
    Pennsylvani  Monroe Co.        23,010     167,437       13.7%  Rural               127         5.5
     a
    Pennsylvani  Montgomery        58,592     865,848        6.8%  Urban               459         7.8
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Montour Co.        1,615      18,122        8.9%  Rural                17        10.5
     a
    Pennsylvani  Northampton       32,625     318,044       10.3%  Urban               206         6.3
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Northumberla      16,763      90,093       18.6%  Rural                82         4.9
     a            nd Co.
    Pennsylvani  Perry Co.          4,612      46,214         10%  Urban                41         8.9
     a
    Pennsylvani  Philadelphia     474,962   1,570,554       30.2%  Urban             1,669         3.5  8Higher-
     a            Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Pennsylvani  Pike Co.           6,719      60,647       11.1%  Rural                31         4.6
     a
    Pennsylvani  Potter Co.         2,422      16,203       14.9%  Rural                19         7.8
     a
    Pennsylvani  Schuylkill        23,611     143,205       16.5%  Rural               149         6.3
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Snyder Co.         3,502      39,525        8.9%  Rural                37        10.6
     a
    Pennsylvani  Somerset Co.      10,722      72,613       14.8%  Rural                77         7.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  Sullivan Co.         597       5,892       10.1%  Rural                 7        11.7
     a
    Pennsylvani  Susquehanna        4,815      38,115       12.6%  Rural                27         5.6
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Tioga Co.          6,082      40,954       14.9%  Rural                43         7.1
     a
    Pennsylvani  Union Co.          3,400      42,745          8%  Rural                31         9.1
     a
    Pennsylvani  Venango Co.        9,191      49,695       18.5%  Rural                49         5.3
     a
    Pennsylvani  Warren Co.         5,844      37,843       15.4%  Rural                32         5.5
     a
    Pennsylvani  Washington        26,989     209,962       12.9%  Urban               167         6.2
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Wayne Co.          6,268      51,132       12.3%  Rural                45         7.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  Westmoreland      44,664     352,054       12.7%  Urban               282         6.3
     a            Co.
    Pennsylvani  Wyoming Co.        3,716      26,034       14.3%  Urban                23         6.2
     a
    Pennsylvani  York Co.          54,195     461,385       11.7%  Urban               338         6.2
     a
    Rhode        Bristol Co.        2,648      50,388        5.3%  Urban                26         9.8
     Island
    Rhode        Kent Co.          16,135     171,523        9.4%  Urban               134         8.3
     Island
    Rhode        Newport Co.        6,029      84,851        7.1%  Urban                54         9.0
     Island
    Rhode        Providence       109,988     662,209       16.6%  Urban               655         6.0
     Island       Co.
    Rhode        Washington         7,469     130,527        5.7%  Urban                79        10.6
     Island       Co.
    South        Abbeville          3,426      24,407         14%  Rural                25         7.3
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Aiken Co.         22,477     174,075       12.9%  Urban               179         8.0
     Carolina
    South        Allendale          2,241       7,508       29.8%  Rural                10         4.5  8Higher-
     Carolina     Co.                                                                                    risk0
    South        Anderson Co.      25,205     210,069         12%  Urban               236         9.4
     Carolina
    South        Bamberg Co.        3,203      12,966       24.7%  Rural                24         7.5  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    South        Barnwell Co.       5,194      20,469       25.4%  Rural                36         6.9  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    South        Beaufort Co.      11,129     195,932        5.7%  Urban               129        11.6
     Carolina
    South        Berkeley Co.      20,598     245,249        8.4%  Urban               166         8.1
     Carolina
    South        Calhoun Co.        2,268      14,200         16%  Urban                11         4.9
     Carolina
    South        Charleston        33,488     419,952          8%  Urban               333         9.9
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Cherokee Co.       9,424      56,186       16.8%  Rural                70         7.4
     Carolina
    South        Chester Co.        6,570      31,972       20.5%  Urban                41         6.2
     Carolina
    South        Chesterfield       8,212      43,722       18.8%  Rural                65         7.9
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Clarendon          6,659      30,976       21.5%  Rural                46         6.9
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Colleton Co.       7,864      38,618       20.4%  Rural                57         7.2
     Carolina
    South        Darlington        13,648      62,434       21.9%  Urban                97         7.1
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Dillon Co.         8,050      27,766         29%  Rural                51         6.3  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    South        Dorchester        14,781     166,029        8.9%  Urban               124         8.4
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Edgefield          3,490      27,347       12.8%  Urban                33         9.5
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Fairfield          4,439      20,430       21.7%  Urban                32         7.2
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Florence Co.      25,145     136,860       18.4%  Urban               184         7.3
     Carolina
    South        Georgetown         8,317      64,753       12.8%  Rural                82         9.9
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Greenville        45,798     548,447        8.4%  Urban               473        10.3
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Greenwood         11,071      69,290         16%  Rural                87         7.9
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Hampton Co.        3,954      18,147       21.8%  Rural                31         7.8
     Carolina
    South        Horry Co.         35,549     383,372        9.3%  Urban               395        11.1
     Carolina
    South        Jasper Co.         4,581      31,988       14.3%  Urban                38         8.3
     Carolina
    South        Kershaw Co.        8,927      67,917       13.1%  Urban                68         7.6
     Carolina
    South        Lancaster         10,445     104,795         10%  Urban                99         9.5
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Laurens Co.       10,567      68,109       15.5%  Urban                82         7.8
     Carolina
    South        Lee Co.            4,128      16,119       25.6%  Rural                29         7.0  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    South        Lexington         30,188     305,147        9.9%  Urban               317        10.5
     Carolina     Co.
    South        McCormick          1,242       9,741       12.8%  Rural                 7         5.6
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Marion Co.         7,962      28,494       27.9%  Rural                47         5.9  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    South        Marlboro Co.       6,209      26,003       23.9%  Rural                40         6.4  8Higher-
     Carolina                                                                                            risk0
    South        Newberry Co.       5,637      38,343       14.7%  Rural                45         8.0
     Carolina
    South        Oconee Co.         8,275      80,223       10.3%  Rural                92        11.1
     Carolina
    South        Orangeburg        18,573      83,165       22.3%  Rural               142         7.6
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Pickens Co.       10,672     134,405        7.9%  Urban               116        10.9
     Carolina
    South        Richland Co.      52,322     421,693       12.4%  Urban               363         6.9
     Carolina
    South        Saluda Co.         2,738      19,086       14.3%  Urban                23         8.4
     Carolina
    South        Spartanburg       39,298     346,455       11.3%  Urban               360         9.2
     Carolina     Co.
    South        Sumter Co.        19,768     104,068         19%  Urban               124         6.3
     Carolina
    South        Union Co.          5,110      26,787       19.1%  Urban                42         8.2
     Carolina
    South        Williamsburg       7,671      30,164       25.4%  Rural                41         5.3  8Higher-
     Carolina     Co.                                                                                    risk0
    South        York Co.          22,599     294,057        7.7%  Urban               195         8.6
     Carolina
    South        Aurora Co.            84       2,772          3%  Rural                 5        59.5
     Dakota
    South        Beadle Co.         2,223      19,356       11.5%  Rural                22         9.9
     Dakota
    South        Bennett Co.          868       3,339         26%  Rural                 7         8.1  8Higher-
     Dakota                                                                                              risk0
    South        Bon Homme            332       7,088        4.7%  Rural                 8        24.1
     Dakota       Co.
    South        Brookings          1,269      35,442        3.6%  Rural                21        16.5
     Dakota       Co.
    South        Brown Co.          2,522      37,915        6.7%  Rural                23         9.1
     Dakota
    South        Brule Co.            358       5,324        6.7%  Rural                 8        22.3
     Dakota
    South        Buffalo Co.          723       1,848       39.1%  Rural                 3         4.1  8Higher-
     Dakota                                                                                              risk0
    South        Butte Co.            910      10,788        8.4%  Rural                10        11.0
     Dakota
    South        Campbell Co.          53       1,367        3.9%  Rural                 1        18.9
     Dakota
    South        Charles Mix        1,553       9,237       16.8%  Rural                19        12.2
     Dakota       Co.
    South        Clark Co.            105       3,945        2.7%  Rural                 3        28.6
     Dakota
    South        Clay Co.           1,012      15,277        6.6%  Rural                 9         8.9
     Dakota
    South        Codington          1,719      28,756          6%  Rural                19        11.1
     Dakota       Co.
    South        Corson Co.         1,334       3,797       35.1%  Rural                 2         1.5  8Higher-
     Dakota                                                                                              risk0
    South        Custer Co.           325       9,024        3.6%  Urban                 9        27.7
     Dakota
    South        Davison Co.        1,573      20,025        7.9%  Rural                16        10.2
     Dakota
    South        Day Co.              387       5,478        7.1%  Rural                10        25.8
     Dakota
    South        Deuel Co.            135       4,357        3.1%  Rural                 3        22.2
     Dakota
    South        Dewey Co.          1,692       5,078       33.3%  Rural                11         6.5  8Higher-
     Dakota                                                                                              risk0
    South        Douglas Co.           53       2,797        1.9%  Rural                 2        37.7
     Dakota
    South        Edmunds Co.          130       4,103        3.2%  Rural                 2        15.4
     Dakota
    South        Fall River           500       7,373        6.8%  Rural                11        22.0
     Dakota       Co.
    South        Faulk Co.             69       2,117        3.3%  Rural                 2        29.0
     Dakota
    South        Grant Co.            306       7,535        4.1%  Rural                 8        26.1
     Dakota
    South        Gregory Co.          262       3,993        6.6%  Rural                 9        34.4
     Dakota
    South        Haakon Co.            72       1,830        3.9%  Rural                 4        55.6
     Dakota
    South        Hamlin Co.           202       6,395        3.2%  Rural                 4        19.8
     Dakota
    South        Hand Co.              66       3,123        2.1%  Rural                 3        45.5
     Dakota
    South        Hanson Co.            71       3,461        2.1%  Rural                 1        14.1
     Dakota
    South        Harding Co.           34       1,329        2.6%  Rural                 1        29.4
     Dakota
    South        Hughes Co.         1,420      17,674          8%  Rural                10         7.0
     Dakota
    South        Hutchinson           294       7,375          4%  Rural                 9        30.6
     Dakota       Co.
    South        Hyde Co.              40       1,196        3.3%  Rural                 3        75.0
     Dakota
    South        Jackson Co.          657       2,833       23.2%  Rural                 6         9.1
     Dakota
    South        Jerauld Co.           51       1,645        3.1%  Rural                 2        39.2
     Dakota
    South        Jones Co.             31         870        3.6%  Rural                 2        64.5
     Dakota
    South        Kingsbury            166       5,282        3.1%  Rural                 4        24.1
     Dakota       Co.
    South        Lake Co.             494      10,945        4.5%  Rural                 6        12.1
     Dakota
    South        Lawrence Co.       1,405      27,234        5.2%  Rural                18        12.8
     Dakota
    South        Lincoln Co.        1,235      71,156        1.7%  Urban                42        34.0
     Dakota
    South        Lyman Co.            611       3,717       16.4%  Rural                 5         8.2
     Dakota
    South        McCook Co.           198       5,775        3.4%  Urban                 4        20.2
     Dakota
    South        McPherson             82       2,401        3.4%  Rural                 3        36.6
     Dakota       Co.
    South        Marshall Co.         158       4,354        3.6%  Rural                 3        19.0
     Dakota
    South        Meade Co.            965      30,679        3.1%  Urban                19        19.7
     Dakota
    South        Mellette Co.         572       1,867       30.6%  Rural                 4         7.0  8Higher-
     Dakota                                                                                              risk0
    South        Miner Co.             85       2,289        3.7%  Rural                 2        23.5
     Dakota
    South        Minnehaha         14,515     203,675        7.1%  Urban               179        12.3
     Dakota       Co.
    South        Moody Co.            248       6,366        3.9%  Rural                 4        16.1
     Dakota
    South        Oglala             5,794      13,482         43%  Rural                10         1.7  8Higher-
     Dakota       Lakota Co.                                                                             risk0
    South        Pennington         9,781     114,269        8.6%  Urban                91         9.3
     Dakota       Co.
    South        Perkins Co.           89       2,807        3.2%  Rural                 3        33.7
     Dakota
    South        Potter Co.            50       2,450          2%  Rural                 6       120.0
     Dakota
    South        Roberts Co.        1,556      10,157       15.3%  Rural                13         8.4
     Dakota
    South        Sanborn Co.           85       2,413        3.5%  Rural                 1        11.8
     Dakota
    South        Spink Co.            228       6,232        3.7%  Rural                 6        26.3
     Dakota
    South        Stanley Co.           93       3,014        3.1%  Rural                 4        43.0
     Dakota
    South        Sully Co.             16       1,478        1.1%  Rural                 1        62.5
     Dakota
    South        Todd Co.           4,563       9,256       49.3%  Rural                11         2.4  8Higher-
     Dakota                                                                                              risk0
    South        Tripp Co.            596       5,548       10.7%  Rural                 9        15.1
     Dakota
    South        Turner Co.           394       8,890        4.4%  Urban                 5        12.7
     Dakota
    South        Union Co.            490      17,083        2.9%  Urban                12        24.5
     Dakota
    South        Walworth Co.         496       5,266        9.4%  Rural                 9        18.1
     Dakota
    South        Yankton Co.        1,633      23,407          7%  Rural                15         9.2
     Dakota
    South        Ziebach Co.        1,031       2,369       43.5%  Rural                 0         0.0  8Higher-
     Dakota                                                                                              risk0
    Tennessee    Anderson Co.       9,218      79,016       11.7%  Urban                85         9.2
    Tennessee    Bedford Co.        6,692      52,088       12.8%  Rural                57         8.5
    Tennessee    Benton Co.         2,552      16,001       15.9%  Rural                19         7.4
    Tennessee    Bledsoe Co.        2,345      14,769       15.9%  Rural                16         6.8
    Tennessee    Blount Co.         9,835     139,789          7%  Urban               110        11.2
    Tennessee    Bradley Co.       12,412     110,814       11.2%  Urban               124        10.0
    Tennessee    Campbell Co.       7,803      39,578       19.7%  Urban                46         5.9
    Tennessee    Cannon Co.         1,830      14,797       12.4%  Urban                13         7.1
    Tennessee    Carroll Co.        3,856      28,431       13.6%  Rural                37         9.6
    Tennessee    Carter Co.         7,263      56,531       12.8%  Urban                55         7.6
    Tennessee    Cheatham Co.       3,025      41,742        7.2%  Urban                38        12.6
    Tennessee    Chester Co.        2,205      17,599       12.5%  Urban                14         6.3
    Tennessee    Claiborne          5,073      32,400       15.7%  Rural                39         7.7
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Clay Co.           1,374       7,635         18%  Rural                10         7.3
    Tennessee    Cocke Co.          7,101      36,786       19.3%  Rural                56         7.9
    Tennessee    Coffee Co.         7,738      59,663         13%  Rural                75         9.7
    Tennessee    Crockett Co.       1,885      13,862       13.6%  Urban                13         6.9
    Tennessee    Cumberland         6,919      63,537       10.9%  Rural                71        10.3
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Davidson Co.      68,951     711,280        9.7%  Urban               566         8.2
    Tennessee    Decatur Co.        1,621      11,546         14%  Rural                16         9.9
    Tennessee    DeKalb Co.         2,920      21,013       13.9%  Rural                21         7.2
    Tennessee    Dickson Co.        5,194      55,793        9.3%  Urban                61        11.7
    Tennessee    Dyer Co.           6,595      36,392       18.1%  Rural                47         7.1
    Tennessee    Fayette Co.        4,300      43,296        9.9%  Urban                36         8.4
    Tennessee    Fentress Co.       3,610      19,336       18.7%  Rural                24         6.6
    Tennessee    Franklin Co.       4,269      44,156        9.7%  Rural                53        12.4
    Tennessee    Gibson Co.         6,958      50,855       13.7%  Urban                58         8.3
    Tennessee    Giles Co.          3,548      30,560       11.6%  Rural                43        12.1
    Tennessee    Grainger Co.       3,251      24,191       13.4%  Urban                26         8.0
    Tennessee    Greene Co.         7,830      71,279         11%  Rural                97        12.4
    Tennessee    Grundy Co.         2,942      13,813       21.3%  Rural                28         9.5
    Tennessee    Hamblen Co.        8,116      65,263       12.4%  Urban                83        10.2
    Tennessee    Hamilton Co.      38,976     375,861       10.4%  Urban               392        10.1
    Tennessee    Hancock Co.        1,864       6,838       27.3%  Rural                 8         4.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Tennessee    Hardeman Co.       3,245      25,493       12.7%  Rural                30         9.2
    Tennessee    Hardin Co.         4,295      27,240       15.8%  Rural                33         7.7
    Tennessee    Hawkins Co.        7,866      57,915       13.6%  Urban                55         7.0
    Tennessee    Haywood Co.        3,843      17,470         22%  Rural                22         5.7
    Tennessee    Henderson          4,008      27,907       14.4%  Rural                31         7.7
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Henry Co.          4,650      32,328       14.4%  Rural                32         6.9
    Tennessee    Hickman Co.        3,256      25,479       12.8%  Urban                19         5.8
    Tennessee    Houston Co.        1,137       8,230       13.8%  Rural                 8         7.0
    Tennessee    Humphreys          2,009      19,046       10.5%  Rural                20        10.0
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Jackson Co.        1,836      12,022       15.3%  Rural                12         6.5
    Tennessee    Jefferson          5,780      56,739       10.2%  Urban                53         9.2
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Johnson Co.        2,697      18,044       14.9%  Rural                19         7.0
    Tennessee    Knox Co.          41,450     495,882        8.4%  Urban               401         9.7
    Tennessee    Lake Co.           1,510       6,493       23.3%  Rural                 8         5.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Tennessee    Lauderdale         4,926      24,725       19.9%  Rural                26         5.3
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Lawrence Co.       5,431      45,476       11.9%  Rural                60        11.0
    Tennessee    Lewis Co.          1,778      12,934       13.7%  Rural                18        10.1
    Tennessee    Lincoln Co.        4,173      36,006       11.6%  Rural                43        10.3
    Tennessee    Loudon Co.         3,882      58,255        6.7%  Urban                56        14.4
    Tennessee    McMinn Co.         7,149      54,680       13.1%  Rural                64         9.0
    Tennessee    McNairy Co.        3,753      25,971       14.5%  Rural                25         6.7
    Tennessee    Macon Co.          4,195      26,225         16%  Urban                26         6.2
    Tennessee    Madison Co.       14,422      99,264       14.5%  Urban               104         7.2
    Tennessee    Marion Co.         4,161      29,101       14.3%  Urban                44        10.6
    Tennessee    Marshall Co.       3,301      35,862        9.2%  Rural                32         9.7
    Tennessee    Maury Co.          8,625     108,007          8%  Urban                95        11.0
    Tennessee    Meigs Co.          2,133      13,265       16.1%  Rural                16         7.5
    Tennessee    Monroe Co.         6,109      47,694       12.8%  Rural                64        10.5
    Tennessee    Montgomery        21,430     235,252        9.1%  Urban               166         7.7
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Moore Co.            421       6,715        6.3%  Rural                 4         9.5
    Tennessee    Morgan Co.         2,847      21,176       13.4%  Urban                24         8.4
    Tennessee    Obion Co.          4,503      30,365       14.8%  Rural                39         8.7
    Tennessee    Overton Co.        2,731      22,992       11.9%  Rural                28        10.3
    Tennessee    Perry Co.          1,211       8,702       13.9%  Rural                 9         7.4
    Tennessee    Pickett Co.          742       5,102       14.5%  Rural                 6         8.1
    Tennessee    Polk Co.           2,247      17,799       12.6%  Urban                20         8.9
    Tennessee    Putnam Co.         8,312      82,603       10.1%  Rural                89        10.7
    Tennessee    Rhea Co.           5,207      34,056       15.3%  Rural                43         8.3
    Tennessee    Roane Co.          6,183      55,256       11.2%  Urban                58         9.4
    Tennessee    Robertson          6,180      75,402        8.2%  Urban                71        11.5
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Rutherford        23,216     362,044        6.4%  Urban               261        11.2
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Scott Co.          5,040      22,033       22.9%  Rural                23         4.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Tennessee    Sequatchie         2,612      16,943       15.4%  Urban                23         8.8
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Sevier Co.         7,804      99,318        7.9%  Rural               135        17.3
    Tennessee    Shelby Co.       173,305     918,382       18.9%  Urban               949         5.5
    Tennessee    Smith Co.          2,157      20,485       10.5%  Urban                20         9.3
    Tennessee    Stewart Co.        1,397      14,001         10%  Urban                15        10.7
    Tennessee    Sullivan Co.      19,043     160,891       11.8%  Urban               156         8.2
    Tennessee    Sumner Co.        12,767     204,018        6.3%  Urban               142        11.1
    Tennessee    Tipton Co.         7,508      61,577       12.2%  Urban                47         6.3
    Tennessee    Trousdale          1,144      12,085        9.5%  Urban                14        12.2
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Unicoi Co.         2,148      17,606       12.2%  Urban                21         9.8
    Tennessee    Union Co.          3,097      20,483       15.1%  Urban                21         6.8
    Tennessee    Van Buren            758       6,455       11.7%  Rural                 8        10.6
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Warren Co.         6,302      42,014         15%  Rural                49         7.8
    Tennessee    Washington        13,050     136,339        9.6%  Urban               129         9.9
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Wayne Co.          1,824      16,259       11.2%  Rural                17         9.3
    Tennessee    Weakley Co.        3,925      33,032       11.9%  Rural                41        10.4
    Tennessee    White Co.          3,696      28,004       13.2%  Rural                30         8.1
    Tennessee    Williamson         3,462     261,536        1.3%  Urban               108        31.2
                  Co.
    Tennessee    Wilson Co.         8,115     159,029        5.1%  Urban               114        14.0
    Texas        Anderson Co.       6,576      57,296       11.5%  Rural                47         7.1
    Texas        Andrews Co.        1,643      18,372        8.9%  Rural                16         9.7
    Texas        Angelina Co.      14,097      87,229       16.2%  Rural                85         6.0
    Texas        Aransas Co.        3,287      24,973       13.2%  Urban                23         7.0
    Texas        Archer Co.           557       8,858        6.3%  Urban                 9        16.2
    Texas        Armstrong            102       1,857        5.5%  Urban                 4        39.2
                  Co.
    Texas        Atascosa Co.       9,271      50,935       18.2%  Urban                54         5.8
    Texas        Austin Co.         2,706      31,067        8.7%  Urban                31        11.5
    Texas        Bailey Co.           907       6,853       13.2%  Rural                 8         8.8
    Texas        Bandera Co.        1,805      22,127        8.2%  Urban                18        10.0
    Texas        Bastrop Co.       10,344     106,484        9.7%  Urban                81         7.8
    Texas        Baylor Co.           499       3,476       14.4%  Rural                 5        10.0
    Texas        Bee Co.            5,199      30,995       16.8%  Rural                26         5.0
    Texas        Bell Co.          49,936     387,828       12.9%  Urban               309         6.2
    Texas        Bexar Co.        275,087   2,063,840       13.3%  Urban             1,359         4.9
    Texas        Blanco Co.           533      12,439        4.3%  Rural                 8        15.0
    Texas        Borden Co.            44         581        7.6%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Texas        Bosque Co.         1,919      18,701       10.3%  Urban                31        16.2
    Texas        Bowie Co.         14,331      91,689       15.6%  Urban               107         7.5
    Texas        Brazoria Co.      33,700     388,946        8.7%  Urban               248         7.4
    Texas        Brazos Co.        19,303     242,515          8%  Urban               132         6.8
    Texas        Brewster Co.         705       9,381        7.5%  Rural                12        17.0
    Texas        Briscoe Co.          122       1,441        8.5%  Rural                 4        32.8
    Texas        Brooks Co.         2,377       6,960       34.2%  Rural                12         5.0  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Brown Co.          4,748      38,411       12.4%  Rural                46         9.7
    Texas        Burleson Co.       2,376      18,739       12.7%  Urban                21         8.8
    Texas        Burnet Co.         3,254      52,578        6.2%  Rural                40        12.3
    Texas        Caldwell Co.       5,648      47,920       11.8%  Urban                41         7.3
    Texas        Calhoun Co.        2,668      19,735       13.5%  Rural                24         9.0
    Texas        Callahan Co.       1,567      14,275         11%  Urban                17        10.8
    Texas        Cameron Co.      103,235     425,819       24.2%  Urban               421         4.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Camp Co.           2,048      12,750       16.1%  Rural                15         7.3
    Texas        Carson Co.           358       5,809        6.2%  Urban                 9        25.1
    Texas        Cass Co.           4,887      28,530       17.1%  Rural                33         6.8
    Texas        Castro Co.           866       7,307       11.9%  Rural                 9        10.4
    Texas        Chambers Co.       3,963      51,403        7.7%  Urban                30         7.6
    Texas        Cherokee Co.       7,707      51,666       14.9%  Rural                46         6.0
    Texas        Childress            775       6,834       11.3%  Rural                10        12.9
                  Co.
    Texas        Clay Co.             935      10,484        8.9%  Urban                 9         9.6
    Texas        Cochran Co.          484       2,551         19%  Urban                 4         8.3
    Texas        Coke Co.             322       3,347        9.6%  Rural                 7        21.7
    Texas        Coleman Co.        1,116       7,863       14.2%  Rural                14        12.5
    Texas        Collin Co.        40,869   1,163,724        3.5%  Urban               512        12.5
    Texas        Collingswort         399       2,584       15.4%  Rural                 5        12.5
                  h Co.
    Texas        Colorado Co.       2,288      20,926       10.9%  Rural                24        10.5
    Texas        Comal Co.          8,652     184,799        4.7%  Urban                98        11.3
    Texas        Comanche Co.       1,597      13,903       11.5%  Rural                16        10.0
    Texas        Concho Co.           310       3,371        9.2%  Rural                 5        16.1
    Texas        Cooke Co.          3,859      43,047          9%  Rural                42        10.9
    Texas        Coryell Co.        8,240      84,224        9.8%  Urban                47         5.7
    Texas        Cottle Co.           210       1,317       15.9%  Rural                 4        19.0
    Texas        Crane Co.            449       4,557        9.9%  Rural                 7        15.6
    Texas        Crockett Co.         308       2,952       10.4%  Rural                 6        19.5
    Texas        Crosby Co.         1,176       5,010       23.5%  Urban                10         8.5
    Texas        Culberson            406       2,159       18.8%  Rural                 7        17.2
                  Co.
    Texas        Dallam Co.           472       7,271        6.5%  Rural                10        21.2
    Texas        Dallas Co.       316,124   2,613,712       12.1%  Urban             1,815         5.7
    Texas        Dawson Co.         1,914      12,171       15.7%  Rural                14         7.3
    Texas        Deaf Smith         2,522      18,433       13.7%  Rural                19         7.5
                  Co.
    Texas        Delta Co.            732       5,417       13.5%  Rural                 6         8.2
    Texas        Denton Co.        40,904     980,355        4.2%  Urban               363         8.9
    Texas        DeWitt Co.         3,079      19,783       15.6%  Rural                15         4.9
    Texas        Dickens Co.          210       1,734       12.1%  Rural                 3        14.3
    Texas        Dimmit Co.         2,650       8,377       31.6%  Rural                17         6.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Donley Co.           329       3,275         10%  Rural                 6        18.2
    Texas        Duval Co.          3,124       9,688       32.2%  Rural                19         6.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Eastland Co.       2,441      17,909       13.6%  Rural                33        13.5
    Texas        Ector Co.         20,496     161,480       12.7%  Urban               166         8.1
    Texas        Edwards Co.          279       1,423       19.6%  Rural                 2         7.2
    Texas        Ellis Co.         15,547     212,548        7.3%  Urban               122         7.8
    Texas        El Paso Co.      145,850     868,890       16.8%  Urban               658         4.5
    Texas        Erath Co.          3,238      43,929        7.4%  Rural                35        10.8
    Texas        Falls Co.          2,836      16,958       16.7%  Urban                22         7.8
    Texas        Fannin Co.         3,332      37,237        8.9%  Rural                32         9.6
    Texas        Fayette Co.        1,798      24,987        7.2%  Rural                22        12.2
    Texas        Fisher Co.           407       3,639       11.2%  Rural                 6        14.7
    Texas        Floyd Co.          1,074       5,250       20.5%  Rural                 6         5.6
    Texas        Foard Co.            121       1,062       11.4%  Rural                 2        16.5
    Texas        Fort Bend         56,706     893,319        6.3%  Urban               388         6.8
                  Co.
    Texas        Franklin Co.       1,219      10,641       11.5%  Rural                13        10.7
    Texas        Freestone          2,367      20,006       11.8%  Rural                21         8.9
                  Co.
    Texas        Frio Co.           3,749      18,220       20.6%  Rural                18         4.8
    Texas        Gaines Co.         1,748      22,157        7.9%  Rural                16         9.2
    Texas        Galveston         35,352     357,735        9.9%  Urban               280         7.9
                  Co.
    Texas        Garza Co.            589       4,527         13%  Urban                 7        11.9
    Texas        Gillespie          1,086      27,572        3.9%  Rural                12        11.0
                  Co.
    Texas        Glasscock             32       1,145        2.8%  Rural                 0         0.0
                  Co.
    Texas        Goliad Co.           788       7,144         11%  Urban                 4         5.1
    Texas        Gonzales Co.       3,094      19,865       15.6%  Rural                25         8.1
    Texas        Gray Co.           3,053      20,986       14.5%  Rural                25         8.2
    Texas        Grayson Co.       13,589     143,292        9.5%  Urban               126         9.3
    Texas        Gregg Co.         17,795     125,668       14.2%  Urban               137         7.7
    Texas        Grimes Co.         3,764      31,141       12.1%  Rural                25         6.6
    Texas        Guadalupe         13,250     182,953        7.2%  Urban               101         7.6
                  Co.
    Texas        Hale Co.           5,156      32,007       16.1%  Rural                33         6.4
    Texas        Hall Co.             527       2,820       18.7%  Rural                 7        13.3
    Texas        Hamilton Co.         794       8,314        9.6%  Rural                17        21.4
    Texas        Hansford Co.         314       5,117        6.1%  Rural                 7        22.3
    Texas        Hardeman Co.         494       3,509       14.1%  Rural                 8        16.2
    Texas        Hardin Co.         6,468      57,819       11.2%  Urban                47         7.3
    Texas        Harris Co.       623,573   4,806,747         13%  Urban             3,626         5.8
    Texas        Harrison Co.       9,570      70,047       13.7%  Urban                59         6.2
    Texas        Hartley Co.          137       5,220        2.6%  Rural                 3        21.9
    Texas        Haskell Co.          811       5,412         15%  Rural                 8         9.9
    Texas        Hays Co.          13,945     269,476        5.2%  Urban               139        10.0
    Texas        Hemphill Co.         189       3,204        5.9%  Rural                 3        15.9
    Texas        Henderson         11,940      84,508       14.1%  Rural                81         6.8
                  Co.
    Texas        Hidalgo Co.      221,600     889,799       24.9%  Urban               965         4.4  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Hill Co.           4,609      37,320       12.3%  Rural                51        11.1
    Texas        Hockley Co.        2,928      21,227       13.8%  Urban                21         7.2
    Texas        Hood Co.           4,403      66,315        6.6%  Rural                59        13.4
    Texas        Hopkins Co.        3,862      37,834       10.2%  Rural                35         9.1
    Texas        Houston Co.        3,661      21,936       16.7%  Rural                26         7.1
    Texas        Howard Co.         4,094      30,745       13.3%  Rural                36         8.8
    Texas        Hudspeth Co.         864       3,454         25%  Urban                 6         6.9  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Hunt Co.          12,020     108,532       11.1%  Urban                85         7.1
    Texas        Hutchinson         2,287      20,176       11.3%  Rural                26        11.4
                  Co.
    Texas        Irion Co.             97       1,544        6.3%  Urban                 2        20.6
    Texas        Jack Co.             802       8,755        9.2%  Rural                10        12.5
    Texas        Jackson Co.        1,925      15,162       12.7%  Rural                16         8.3
    Texas        Jasper Co.         6,272      32,518       19.3%  Rural                42         6.7
    Texas        Jeff Davis            89       1,908        4.7%  Rural                 2        22.5
                  Co.
    Texas        Jefferson         41,778     252,095       16.6%  Urban               287         6.9
                  Co.
    Texas        Jim Hogg Co.       1,413       4,764       29.7%  Rural                10         7.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Jim Wells          9,829      38,755       25.4%  Rural                50         5.1  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Texas        Johnson Co.       15,509     195,774        7.9%  Urban               120         7.7
    Texas        Jones Co.          2,022      20,316         10%  Urban                17         8.4
    Texas        Karnes Co.         2,099      15,039         14%  Rural                20         9.5
    Texas        Kaufman Co.       16,897     172,951        9.8%  Urban               110         6.5
    Texas        Kendall Co.        1,560      49,046        3.2%  Urban                21        13.5
    Texas        Kenedy Co.            26         358        7.3%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Texas        Kent Co.              63         739        8.5%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Texas        Kerr Co.           3,985      53,785        7.4%  Rural                38         9.5
    Texas        Kimble Co.           482       4,438       10.9%  Rural                 9        18.7
    Texas        King Co.               3         233        1.3%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Texas        Kinney Co.           515       3,143       16.4%  Rural                 4         7.8
    Texas        Kleberg Co.        6,191      30,454       20.3%  Rural                30         4.8
    Texas        Knox Co.             533       3,288       16.2%  Rural                 7        13.1
    Texas        Lamar Co.          7,311      50,513       14.5%  Rural                65         8.9
    Texas        Lamb Co.           2,049      12,774         16%  Rural                16         7.8
    Texas        Lampasas Co.       2,143      22,789        9.4%  Urban                15         7.0
    Texas        La Salle Co.       1,307       6,561       19.9%  Rural                17        13.0
    Texas        Lavaca Co.         1,991      20,661        9.6%  Rural                21        10.5
    Texas        Lee Co.            1,708      17,966        9.5%  Rural                18        10.5
    Texas        Leon Co.           2,040      16,228       12.6%  Rural                21        10.3
    Texas        Liberty Co.       17,335     102,661       16.9%  Urban               108         6.2
    Texas        Limestone          3,450      22,224       15.5%  Rural                24         7.0
                  Co.
    Texas        Lipscomb Co.         205       2,855        7.2%  Rural                 4        19.5
    Texas        Live Oak Co.       1,476      11,571       12.8%  Rural                18        12.2
    Texas        Llano Co.          1,923      22,664        8.5%  Rural                19         9.9
    Texas        Loving Co.             5          47       10.6%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Texas        Lubbock Co.       38,404     318,324       12.1%  Urban               243         6.3
    Texas        Lynn Co.             820       5,751       14.3%  Urban                 6         7.3
    Texas        McCulloch          1,271       7,494         17%  Rural                12         9.4
                  Co.
    Texas        McLennan Co.      33,636     266,254       12.6%  Urban               233         6.9
    Texas        McMullen Co.          62         571       10.9%  Rural                 1        16.1
    Texas        Madison Co.        1,796      13,642       13.2%  Rural                13         7.2
    Texas        Marion Co.         1,882       9,677       19.4%  Rural                12         6.4
    Texas        Martin Co.           572       5,226       10.9%  Urban                 5         8.7
    Texas        Mason Co.            244       3,975        6.1%  Rural                 4        16.4
    Texas        Matagorda          6,167      36,182         17%  Rural                52         8.4
                  Co.
    Texas        Maverick Co.      16,843      57,813       29.1%  Urban                52         3.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Medina Co.         6,518      53,756       12.1%  Urban                48         7.4
    Texas        Menard Co.           215       1,979       10.9%  Rural                 3        14.0
    Texas        Midland Co.       13,954     172,705        8.1%  Urban               149        10.7
    Texas        Milam Co.          3,616      25,649       14.1%  Rural                27         7.5
    Texas        Mills Co.            383       4,504        8.5%  Rural                 4        10.4
    Texas        Mitchell Co.         901       8,959       10.1%  Rural                10        11.1
    Texas        Montague Co.       1,946      21,134        9.2%  Rural                18         9.2
    Texas        Montgomery        48,093     680,824        7.1%  Urban               372         7.7
                  Co.
    Texas        Moore Co.          1,607      21,156        7.6%  Rural                28        17.4
    Texas        Morris Co.         2,403      12,082       19.9%  Rural                14         5.8
    Texas        Motley Co.            88       1,033        8.5%  Rural                 4        45.5
    Texas        Nacogdoches        9,590      64,995       14.8%  Rural                48         5.0
                  Co.
    Texas        Navarro Co.        7,810      54,775       14.3%  Rural                56         7.2
    Texas        Newton Co.         2,192      12,076       18.2%  Rural                 7         3.2
    Texas        Nolan Co.          2,367      14,460       16.4%  Rural                21         8.9
    Texas        Nueces Co.        61,858     351,852       17.6%  Urban               307         5.0
    Texas        Ochiltree            702       9,718        7.2%  Rural                11        15.7
                  Co.
    Texas        Oldham Co.            81       1,764        4.6%  Urban                 4        49.4
    Texas        Orange Co.        11,987      85,125       14.1%  Urban                99         8.3
    Texas        Palo Pinto         3,228      29,292         11%  Rural                44        13.6
                  Co.
    Texas        Panola Co.         3,025      22,730       13.3%  Rural                23         7.6
    Texas        Parker Co.         8,337     165,899          5%  Urban                93        11.2
    Texas        Parmer Co.           734       9,657        7.6%  Rural                13        17.7
    Texas        Pecos Co.          1,887      14,742       12.8%  Rural                23        12.2
    Texas        Polk Co.           8,057      53,223       15.1%  Rural                54         6.7
    Texas        Potter Co.        18,199     115,100       15.8%  Urban               131         7.2
    Texas        Presidio Co.       1,322       5,970       22.1%  Rural                11         8.3
    Texas        Rains Co.          1,318      12,858       10.3%  Rural                10         7.6
    Texas        Randall Co.        8,430     146,221        5.8%  Urban               105        12.5
    Texas        Reagan Co.           273       3,161        8.6%  Rural                 6        22.0
    Texas        Real Co.             450       2,819         16%  Rural                 6        13.3
    Texas        Red River          1,759      11,594       15.2%  Rural                17         9.7
                  Co.
    Texas        Reeves Co.         1,840      11,750       15.7%  Rural                25        13.6
    Texas        Refugio Co.        1,039       6,649       15.6%  Rural                10         9.6
    Texas        Roberts Co.           34         804        4.2%  Rural                 0         0.0
    Texas        Robertson          2,903      17,135       16.9%  Urban                24         8.3
                  Co.
    Texas        Rockwall Co.       4,670     123,538        3.8%  Urban                56        12.0
    Texas        Runnels Co.        1,242       9,896       12.6%  Rural                16        12.9
    Texas        Rusk Co.           6,494      52,597       12.3%  Urban                43         6.6
    Texas        Sabine Co.         1,820      10,035       18.1%  Rural                13         7.1
    Texas        San                1,602       7,886       20.3%  Rural                12         7.5
                  Augustine
                  Co.
    Texas        San Jacinto        4,526      28,399       15.9%  Urban                26         5.7
                  Co.
    Texas        San Patricio      12,099      70,044       17.3%  Urban                77         6.4
                  Co.
    Texas        San Saba Co.         646       5,873         11%  Rural                 7        10.8
    Texas        Schleicher           265       2,351       11.3%  Rural                 4        15.1
                  Co.
    Texas        Scurry Co.         1,866      16,258       11.5%  Rural                18         9.6
    Texas        Shackelford          343       3,201       10.7%  Rural                 4        11.7
                  Co.
    Texas        Shelby Co.         4,370      24,163       18.1%  Rural                30         6.9
    Texas        Sherman Co.          174       2,781        6.3%  Rural                 5        28.7
    Texas        Smith Co.         25,541     242,249       10.5%  Urban               190         7.4
    Texas        Somervell            648       9,791        6.6%  Rural                11        17.0
                  Co.
    Texas        Starr Co.         20,945      65,793       31.8%  Rural                99         4.7  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Stephens Co.       1,173       9,374       12.5%  Rural                12        10.2
    Texas        Sterling Co.          89       1,417        6.3%  Rural                 5        56.2
    Texas        Stonewall            119       1,218        9.8%  Rural                 3        25.2
                  Co.
    Texas        Sutton Co.           330       3,239       10.2%  Rural                12        36.4
    Texas        Swisher Co.        1,170       6,952       16.8%  Rural                 7         6.0
    Texas        Tarrant Co.      209,689   2,161,670        9.7%  Urban             1,474         7.0
    Texas        Taylor Co.        16,795     145,481       11.5%  Urban               157         9.3
    Texas        Terrell Co.           67         693        9.7%  Rural                 1        14.9
    Texas        Terry Co.          1,951      11,462         17%  Rural                11         5.6
    Texas        Throckmorton         149       1,543        9.7%  Rural                 3        20.1
                  Co.
    Texas        Titus Co.          4,169      31,273       13.3%  Rural                36         8.6
    Texas        Tom Green         12,014     119,006       10.1%  Urban                97         8.1
                  Co.
    Texas        Travis Co.        80,371   1,332,544          6%  Urban               692         8.6
    Texas        Trinity Co.        2,801      13,996         20%  Rural                21         7.5
    Texas        Tyler Co.          3,248      20,447       15.9%  Rural                24         7.4
    Texas        Upshur Co.         5,540      42,492         13%  Urban                34         6.1
    Texas        Upton Co.            390       3,157       12.4%  Rural                 7        17.9
    Texas        Uvalde Co.         6,241      24,895       25.1%  Rural                29         4.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Val Verde          9,896      47,678       20.8%  Rural                36         3.6
                  Co.
    Texas        Van Zandt          5,846      62,872        9.3%  Rural                49         8.4
                  Co.
    Texas        Victoria Co.      14,011      91,128       15.4%  Urban                90         6.4
    Texas        Walker Co.         6,764      79,821        8.5%  Rural                66         9.8
    Texas        Waller Co.         5,817      61,967        9.4%  Urban                32         5.5
    Texas        Ward Co.           1,264      10,946       11.5%  Rural                22        17.4
    Texas        Washington         3,161      36,382        8.7%  Rural                25         7.9
                  Co.
    Texas        Webb Co.          66,412     268,276       24.8%  Urban               217         3.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Wharton Co.        6,340      41,811       15.2%  Rural                42         6.6
    Texas        Wheeler Co.          529       4,801         11%  Rural                10        18.9
    Texas        Wichita Co.       17,106     130,166       13.1%  Urban               120         7.0
    Texas        Wilbarger          1,897      12,544       15.1%  Rural                18         9.5
                  Co.
    Texas        Willacy Co.        5,046      20,231       24.9%  Rural                23         4.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Williamson        25,935     673,951        3.8%  Urban               310        12.0
                  Co.
    Texas        Wilson Co.         3,933      52,772        7.5%  Urban                30         7.6
    Texas        Winkler Co.          909       7,305       12.4%  Rural                17        18.7
    Texas        Wise Co.           4,784      74,900        6.4%  Urban                56        11.7
    Texas        Wood Co.           4,556      46,967        9.7%  Rural                39         8.6
    Texas        Yoakum Co.           733       7,523        9.7%  Rural                13        17.7
    Texas        Young Co.          1,843      17,998       10.2%  Rural                19        10.3
    Texas        Zapata Co.         4,258      13,841       30.8%  Rural                29         6.8  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Texas        Zavala Co.         3,501       9,382       37.3%  Rural                15         4.3  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Utah         Beaver Co.           466       7,348        6.3%  Rural                 6        12.9
    Utah         Box Elder          2,825      61,590        4.6%  Rural                35        12.4
                  Co.
    Utah         Cache Co.          5,058     140,450        3.6%  Urban                46         9.1
    Utah         Carbon Co.         2,464      20,530         12%  Rural                19         7.7
    Utah         Daggett Co.           40       1,011          4%  Rural                 1        25.0
    Utah         Davis Co.         12,168     370,424        3.3%  Urban               130        10.7
    Utah         Duchesne Co.       2,096      20,158       10.4%  Rural                20         9.5
    Utah         Emery Co.            740      10,104        7.3%  Rural                18        24.3
    Utah         Garfield Co.         218       5,264        4.1%  Rural                 6        27.5
    Utah         Grand Co.            520       9,809        5.3%  Rural                17        32.7
    Utah         Iron Co.           4,271      62,607        6.8%  Rural                30         7.0
    Utah         Juab Co.             581      12,575        4.6%  Urban                10        17.2
    Utah         Kane Co.             357       8,208        4.3%  Rural                 7        19.6
    Utah         Millard Co.          769      13,328        5.8%  Rural                20        26.0
    Utah         Morgan Co.           130      12,860          1%  Urban                 5        38.5
    Utah         Piute Co.             90       1,493          6%  Rural                 3        33.3
    Utah         Rich Co.              83       2,634        3.2%  Rural                 3        36.1
    Utah         Salt Lake         62,284   1,192,255        5.2%  Urban               617         9.9
                  Co.
    Utah         San Juan Co.       2,586      14,411       17.9%  Rural                20         7.7
    Utah         Sanpete Co.        1,676      29,762        5.6%  Rural                15         8.9
    Utah         Sevier Co.         1,888      22,065        8.6%  Rural                14         7.4
    Utah         Summit Co.           424      43,134          1%  Rural                20        47.2
    Utah         Tooele Co.         4,090      79,981        5.1%  Urban                33         8.1
    Utah         Uintah Co.         3,419      37,162        9.2%  Rural                24         7.0
    Utah         Utah Co.          21,751     704,764        3.1%  Urban               223        10.3
    Utah         Wasatch Co.          513      36,731        1.4%  Rural                13        25.3
    Utah         Washington         8,976     197,898        4.5%  Urban                78         8.7
                  Co.
    Utah         Wayne Co.            152       2,632        5.8%  Rural                 3        19.7
    Utah         Weber Co.         16,839     269,823        6.2%  Urban               136         8.1
    Vermont      Addison Co.        2,918      37,619        7.8%  Rural                34        11.7
    Vermont      Bennington         5,584      37,367       14.9%  Rural                51         9.1
                  Co.
    Vermont      Caledonia          4,484      30,578       14.7%  Rural                30         6.7
                  Co.
    Vermont      Chittenden        13,442     170,050        7.9%  Urban               159        11.8
                  Co.
    Vermont      Essex Co.          1,071       5,988       17.9%  Rural                 2         1.9
    Vermont      Franklin Co.       6,210      50,732       12.2%  Urban                64        10.3
    Vermont      Grand Isle           835       7,508       11.1%  Urban                14        16.8
                  Co.
    Vermont      Lamoille Co.       2,533      26,177        9.7%  Rural                26        10.3
    Vermont      Orange Co.         3,072      29,892       10.3%  Rural                31        10.1
    Vermont      Orleans Co.        4,813      27,618       17.4%  Rural                35         7.3
    Vermont      Rutland Co.        8,387      60,381       13.9%  Rural                77         9.2
    Vermont      Washington         5,713      60,165        9.5%  Rural                71        12.4
                  Co.
    Vermont      Windham Co.        6,041      45,951       13.1%  Rural                55         9.1
    Vermont      Windsor Co.        6,019      58,116       10.4%  Rural                53         8.8
    Virginia     Accomack Co.       5,398      33,157       16.3%  Rural                44         8.2
    Virginia     Albemarle          6,077     114,925        5.3%  Urban                64        10.5
                  Co.
    Virginia     Alleghany          2,202      14,764       14.9%  Rural                13         5.9
                  Co.
    Virginia     Amelia Co.         1,467      13,419       10.9%  Urban                12         8.2
    Virginia     Amherst Co.        3,992      31,512       12.7%  Urban                30         7.5
    Virginia     Appomattox         2,489      16,696       14.9%  Urban                15         6.0
                  Co.
    Virginia     Arlington          8,462     233,976        3.6%  Urban                97        11.5
                  Co.
    Virginia     Augusta Co.        5,800      77,919        7.4%  Urban                51         8.8
    Virginia     Bath Co.             338       4,077        8.3%  Rural                 3         8.9
    Virginia     Bedford Co.        6,423      80,798        7.9%  Urban                65        10.1
    Virginia     Bland Co.            587       6,151        9.5%  Rural                 5         8.5
    Virginia     Botetourt          1,821      34,092        5.3%  Urban                21        11.5
                  Co.
    Virginia     Brunswick          3,321      15,856       20.9%  Rural                17         5.1
                  Co.
    Virginia     Buchanan Co.       5,178      19,329       26.8%  Rural                29         5.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Virginia     Buckingham         2,822      16,983       16.6%  Rural                19         6.7
                  Co.
    Virginia     Campbell Co.       6,910      55,035       12.6%  Urban                49         7.1
    Virginia     Caroline Co.       3,971      31,959       12.4%  Rural                34         8.6
    Virginia     Carroll Co.        4,740      29,096       16.3%  Rural                41         8.6
    Virginia     Charles City         867       6,580       13.2%  Urban                 6         6.9
                  Co.
    Virginia     Charlotte          2,148      11,427       18.8%  Rural                16         7.4
                  Co.
    Virginia     Chesterfield      29,381     378,488        7.8%  Urban               211         7.2
                  Co.
    Virginia     Clarke Co.           598      15,312        3.9%  Urban                 6        10.0
    Virginia     Craig Co.            528       4,859       10.9%  Urban                 4         7.6
    Virginia     Culpeper Co.       4,280      54,250        7.9%  Urban                31         7.2
    Virginia     Cumberland         1,911       9,755       19.6%  Rural                 7         3.7
                  Co.
    Virginia     Dickenson          2,864      13,714       20.9%  Rural                19         6.6
                  Co.
    Virginia     Dinwiddie          4,390      28,112       15.6%  Urban                21         4.8
                  Co.
    Virginia     Essex Co.          1,938      10,644       18.2%  Rural                14         7.2
    Virginia     Fairfax Co.       48,677   1,140,521        4.3%  Urban               432         8.9
    Virginia     Fauquier Co.       3,059      74,686        4.1%  Urban                33        10.8
    Virginia     Floyd Co.          1,709      15,625       10.9%  Urban                18        10.5
    Virginia     Fluvanna Co.       1,751      28,134        6.2%  Urban                 9         5.1
    Virginia     Franklin Co.       6,913      55,047       12.6%  Urban                57         8.2
    Virginia     Frederick          5,658      94,839          6%  Urban                65        11.5
                  Co.
    Virginia     Giles Co.          2,109      16,430       12.8%  Urban                24        11.4
    Virginia     Gloucester         3,859      39,546        9.8%  Urban                33         8.6
                  Co.
    Virginia     Goochland          1,222      26,184        4.7%  Urban                16        13.1
                  Co.
    Virginia     Grayson Co.        2,580      15,310       16.9%  Rural                13         5.0
    Virginia     Greene Co.         1,887      21,026          9%  Urban                14         7.4
    Virginia     Greensville        1,859      11,232       16.6%  Rural                25        13.4
                  Co.
    Virginia     Halifax Co.        6,172      33,599       18.4%  Rural                51         8.3
    Virginia     Hanover Co.        5,335     112,889        4.7%  Urban                79        14.8
    Virginia     Henrico Co.       34,876     334,855       10.4%  Urban               263         7.5
    Virginia     Henry Co.          9,944      49,765         20%  Rural                70         7.0
    Virginia     Highland Co.         118       2,303        5.1%  Rural                 7        59.3
    Virginia     Isle of            3,691      40,149        9.2%  Urban                31         8.4
                  Wight Co.
    Virginia     James City         4,457      81,426        5.5%  Urban                41         9.2
                  Co.
    Virginia     King and           1,059       6,721       15.8%  Urban                 3         2.8
                  Queen Co.
    Virginia     King George        2,136      27,867        7.7%  Rural                20         9.4
                  Co.
    Virginia     King William       1,574      18,528        8.5%  Urban                15         9.5
                  Co.
    Virginia     Lancaster          1,344      10,838       12.4%  Rural                14        10.4
                  Co.
    Virginia     Lee Co.            5,666      21,842       25.9%  Rural                37         6.5  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Virginia     Loudoun Co.       11,328     432,897        2.6%  Urban               151        13.3
    Virginia     Louisa Co.         3,946      39,986        9.9%  Rural                29         7.3
    Virginia     Lunenburg          2,165      12,020         18%  Rural                10         4.6
                  Co.
    Virginia     Madison Co.        1,116      14,013          8%  Rural                11         9.9
    Virginia     Mathews Co.          792       8,467        9.4%  Urban                 6         7.6
    Virginia     Mecklenburg        4,877      30,511         16%  Rural                43         8.8
                  Co.
    Virginia     Middlesex          1,500      10,958       13.7%  Rural                11         7.3
                  Co.
    Virginia     Montgomery         6,394      98,980        6.5%  Urban                68        10.6
                  Co.
    Virginia     Nelson Co.         1,755      14,692       11.9%  Urban                13         7.4
    Virginia     New Kent Co.       1,214      25,000        4.9%  Urban                17        14.0
    Virginia     Northampton        2,291      11,974       19.1%  Rural                14         6.1
                  Co.
    Virginia     Northumberla       1,552      12,263       12.7%  Rural                15         9.7
                  nd Co.
    Virginia     Nottoway Co.       2,907      15,561       18.7%  Rural                19         6.5
    Virginia     Orange Co.         3,267      38,019        8.6%  Rural                31         9.5
    Virginia     Page Co.           2,856      23,747         12%  Rural                16         5.6
    Virginia     Patrick Co.        2,890      17,569       16.4%  Rural                19         6.6
    Virginia     Pittsylvania       8,836      59,845       14.8%  Rural                54         6.1
                  Co.
    Virginia     Powhatan Co.       1,273      31,582          4%  Urban                12         9.4
    Virginia     Prince             3,470      21,856       15.9%  Rural                27         7.8
                  Edward Co.
    Virginia     Prince             3,585      43,067        8.3%  Urban                23         6.4
                  George Co.
    Virginia     Prince            28,932     487,523        5.9%  Urban               219         7.6
                  William Co.
    Virginia     Pulaski Co.        5,326      33,639       15.8%  Urban                36         6.8
    Virginia     Rappahannock         484       7,445        6.5%  Urban                 1         2.1
                  Co.
    Virginia     Richmond Co.       1,299       9,099       14.3%  Rural                12         9.2
    Virginia     Roanoke Co.        6,205      96,856        6.4%  Urban                56         9.0
    Virginia     Rockbridge         2,434      22,585       10.8%  Rural                28        11.5
                  Co.
    Virginia     Rockingham         5,098      85,390          6%  Urban                51        10.0
                  Co.
    Virginia     Russell Co.        5,511      25,440       21.7%  Rural                20         3.6
    Virginia     Scott Co.          3,718      21,497       17.3%  Urban                38        10.2
    Virginia     Shenandoah         4,813      44,905       10.7%  Rural                46         9.6
                  Co.
    Virginia     Smyth Co.          6,185      29,393         21%  Rural                41         6.6
    Virginia     Southampton        2,520      17,897       14.1%  Rural                15         6.0
                  Co.
    Virginia     Spotsylvania      11,986     146,744        8.2%  Urban                96         8.0
                  Co.
    Virginia     Stafford Co.      10,360     163,233        6.3%  Urban                92         8.9
    Virginia     Surry Co.            915       6,506       14.1%  Urban                11        12.0
    Virginia     Sussex Co.         1,851      10,652       17.4%  Urban                17         9.2
    Virginia     Tazewell Co.       8,226      39,650       20.7%  Rural                56         6.8
    Virginia     Warren Co.         3,934      41,436        9.5%  Urban                33         8.4
    Virginia     Washington         7,095      53,846       13.2%  Urban                65         9.2
                  Co.
    Virginia     Westmoreland       3,024      18,704       16.2%  Rural                22         7.3
                  Co.
    Virginia     Wise Co.           7,949      35,324       22.5%  Rural                49         6.2
    Virginia     Wythe Co.          4,399      28,143       15.6%  Rural                45        10.2
    Virginia     York Co.           3,145      71,209        4.4%  Urban                42        13.4
    Virginia     Alexandria        11,297     155,235        7.3%  Urban                81         7.2
                  City
    Virginia     Bristol City       4,508      16,884       26.7%  Urban                32         7.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Virginia     Buena Vista          941       6,567       14.3%  Rural                 9         9.6
                  City
    Virginia     Charlottesvi       4,465      45,223        9.9%  Urban                50        11.2
                  lle City
    Virginia     Chesapeake        21,643     252,493        8.6%  Urban               177         8.2
                  City
    Virginia     Colonial           2,624      18,265       14.4%  Urban                27        10.3
                  Heights
                  City
    Virginia     Covington          1,255       5,668       22.1%  Rural                13        10.4
                  City
    Virginia     Danville          12,748      42,099       30.3%  Rural                75         5.9  8Higher-
                  City                                                                                   risk0
    Virginia     Emporia City       1,847       5,524       33.4%  Rural                 3         1.6  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    Virginia     Fairfax City         975      24,825        3.9%  Urban                29        29.7
    Virginia     Falls Church         393      14,518        2.7%  Urban                14        35.6
                  City
    Virginia     Franklin           2,531       8,259       30.6%  Rural                15         5.9  8Higher-
                  City                                                                                   risk0
    Virginia     Fredericksbu       4,144      28,709       14.4%  Urban                32         7.7
                  rg City
    Virginia     Galax City         1,634       6,724       24.3%  Rural                18        11.0
    Virginia     Hampton City      22,693     137,970       16.4%  Urban               129         5.7
    Virginia     Harrisonburg       4,703      51,207        9.2%  Urban                64        13.6
                  City
    Virginia     Hopewell           6,783      22,848       29.7%  Urban                34         5.0  8Higher-
                  City                                                                                   risk0
    Virginia     Lexington            365       7,508        4.9%  Rural                 4        11.0
                  City
    Virginia     Lynchburg         12,506      79,279       15.8%  Urban                73         5.8
                  City
    Virginia     Manassas           3,567      42,710        8.4%  Urban                39        10.9
                  City
    Virginia     Manassas           1,181      16,675        7.1%  Urban                 6         5.1
                  Park City
    Virginia     Martinsville       3,966      13,686         29%  Rural                23         5.8  8Higher-
                  City                                                                                   risk0
    Virginia     Newport News      34,591     184,004       18.8%  Urban               189         5.5
                  City
    Virginia     Norfolk City      40,498     232,766       17.4%  Urban               193         4.8
    Virginia     Norton City        1,049       3,594       29.2%  Rural                13        12.4
    Virginia     Petersburg        11,325      33,481       33.8%  Urban                59         5.2  8Higher-
                  City                                                                                   risk0
    Virginia     Poquoson             391      12,624        3.1%  Urban                10        25.6
                  City
    Virginia     Portsmouth        23,307      96,989         24%  Urban                91         3.9  8Higher-
                  City                                                                                   risk0
    Virginia     Radford City       1,562      16,723        9.3%  Urban                14         9.0
    Virginia     Richmond          39,112     228,670       17.1%  Urban               227         5.8
                  City
    Virginia     Roanoke City      21,793      97,743       22.3%  Urban               144         6.6
    Virginia     Salem City         1,790      25,698          7%  Urban                26        14.5
    Virginia     Staunton           3,166      25,942       12.2%  Urban                37        11.7
                  City
    Virginia     Suffolk City      11,554      98,630       11.7%  Urban                73         6.3
    Virginia     Virginia          32,410     454,886        7.1%  Urban               307         9.5
                  Beach City
    Virginia     Waynesboro         3,247      22,742       14.3%  Urban                27         8.3
                  City
    Virginia     Williamsburg       1,140      15,757        7.2%  Urban                17        14.9
                  City
    Virginia     Winchester         3,487      27,919       12.5%  Urban                39        11.2
                  City
    Washington   Adams Co.          4,432      20,843       21.3%  Rural                21         4.7
    Washington   Asotin Co.         4,295      22,497       19.1%  Urban                12         2.8
    Washington   Benton Co.        30,900     212,838       14.5%  Urban               152         4.9
    Washington   Chelan Co.         9,437      80,032       11.8%  Urban                66         7.0
    Washington   Clallam Co.       10,680      77,675       13.7%  Rural                63         5.9
    Washington   Clark Co.         56,603     517,036       10.9%  Urban               277         4.9
    Washington   Columbia Co.         706       4,018       17.6%  Rural                 5         7.1
    Washington   Cowlitz Co.       21,365     112,058       19.1%  Urban                96         4.5
    Washington   Douglas Co.        4,978      44,147       11.3%  Urban                28         5.6
    Washington   Ferry Co.          1,659       7,435       22.3%  Rural                 9         5.4
    Washington   Franklin Co.      15,596      98,461       15.8%  Urban                84         5.4
    Washington   Garfield Co.         329       2,355         14%  Rural                 3         9.1
    Washington   Grant Co.         19,306     101,308       19.1%  Rural               103         5.3
    Washington   Grays Harbor      15,955      77,080       20.7%  Rural                96         6.0
                  Co.
    Washington   Island Co.         6,158      86,744        7.1%  Rural                32         5.2
    Washington   Jefferson          3,282      33,597        9.8%  Rural                23         7.0
                  Co.
    Washington   King Co.         189,993   2,271,238        8.4%  Urban             1,235         6.5
    Washington   Kitsap Co.        25,174     277,876        9.1%  Urban               151         6.0
    Washington   Kittitas Co.       4,397      47,368        9.3%  Rural                37         8.4
    Washington   Klickitat          3,454      23,248       14.9%  Rural                16         4.6
                  Co.
    Washington   Lewis Co.         14,638      85,307       17.2%  Rural               110         7.5
    Washington   Lincoln Co.        1,536      11,609       13.2%  Rural                 9         5.9
    Washington   Mason Co.         10,736      68,238       15.7%  Rural                49         4.6
    Washington   Okanogan Co.       9,202      43,255       21.3%  Rural                62         6.7
    Washington   Pacific Co.        3,935      24,067       16.4%  Rural                27         6.9
    Washington   Pend Oreille       2,668      14,153       18.9%  Rural                12         4.5
                  Co.
    Washington   Pierce Co.       114,807     927,313       12.4%  Urban               545         4.7
    Washington   San Juan Co.         967      18,666        5.2%  Rural                12        12.4
    Washington   Skagit Co.        16,709     131,229       12.7%  Urban               116         6.9
    Washington   Skamania Co.       1,254      12,454       10.1%  Urban                11         8.8
    Washington   Snohomish         72,590     841,529        8.6%  Urban               480         6.6
                  Co.
    Washington   Spokane Co.       83,972     549,835       15.3%  Urban               367         4.4
    Washington   Stevens Co.        8,270      48,273       17.1%  Urban                47         5.7
    Washington   Thurston Co.      34,777     298,645       11.6%  Urban               192         5.5
    Washington   Wahkiakum            610       4,691         13%  Rural                 5         8.2
                  Co.
    Washington   Walla Walla        8,213      62,085       13.2%  Urban                46         5.6
                  Co.
    Washington   Whatcom Co.       25,033     230,701       10.9%  Urban               160         6.4
    Washington   Whitman Co.        4,119      47,653        8.6%  Rural                24         5.8
    Washington   Yakima Co.        60,264     256,566       23.5%  Urban               250         4.1  8Higher-
                                                                                                         risk0
    West         Barbour Co.        3,127      15,397       20.3%  Rural                15         4.8
     Virginia
    West         Berkeley Co.      15,964     129,538       12.3%  Urban                87         5.4
     Virginia
    West         Boone Co.          5,449      20,925         26%  Urban                30         5.5  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Braxton Co.        2,989      12,158       24.6%  Rural                22         7.4  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Brooke Co.         2,645      21,739       12.2%  Urban                26         9.8
     Virginia
    West         Cabell Co.        17,263      92,501       18.7%  Urban                97         5.6
     Virginia
    West         Calhoun Co.        1,786       6,056       29.5%  Rural                14         7.8  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Clay Co.           2,804       7,819       35.9%  Urban                13         4.6  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Doddridge          1,189       7,719       15.4%  Rural                 6         5.0
     Virginia     Co.
    West         Fayette Co.        8,425      39,411       21.4%  Urban                58         6.9
     Virginia
    West         Gilmer Co.         1,253       7,309       17.1%  Rural                 9         7.2
     Virginia
    West         Grant Co.          1,877      10,965       17.1%  Rural                11         5.9
     Virginia
    West         Greenbrier         6,011      32,348       18.6%  Rural                58         9.6
     Virginia     Co.
    West         Hampshire          3,594      23,464       15.3%  Urban                30         8.3
     Virginia     Co.
    West         Hancock Co.        3,996      28,265       14.1%  Urban                29         7.3
     Virginia
    West         Hardy Co.          2,128      14,196         15%  Rural                20         9.4
     Virginia
    West         Harrison Co.       9,335      64,683       14.4%  Rural                83         8.9
     Virginia
    West         Jackson Co.        5,311      27,624       19.2%  Rural                38         7.2
     Virginia
    West         Jefferson          5,099      58,957        8.6%  Urban                50         9.8
     Virginia     Co.
    West         Kanawha Co.       32,205     175,899       18.3%  Urban               213         6.6
     Virginia
    West         Lewis Co.          3,630      16,719       21.7%  Rural                26         7.2
     Virginia
    West         Lincoln Co.        5,697      19,862       28.7%  Rural                27         4.7  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Logan Co.          8,203      31,251       26.2%  Rural                48         5.9  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         McDowell Co.       6,704      17,790       37.7%  Rural                35         5.2  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Marion Co.         9,169      55,799       16.4%  Rural                70         7.6
     Virginia
    West         Marshall Co.       4,731      29,722       15.9%  Urban                25         5.3
     Virginia
    West         Mason Co.          5,149      24,938       20.6%  Rural                36         7.0
     Virginia
    West         Mercer Co.        14,038      58,599         24%  Rural                69         4.9  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Mineral Co.        3,618      26,872       13.5%  Rural                31         8.6
     Virginia
    West         Mingo Co.          7,871      22,427       35.1%  Rural                23         2.9  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Monongalia         8,567     106,921          8%  Urban                78         9.1
     Virginia     Co.
    West         Monroe Co.         1,922      12,314       15.6%  Rural                14         7.3
     Virginia
    West         Morgan Co.         2,293      17,380       13.2%  Urban                17         7.4
     Virginia
    West         Nicholas Co.       5,477      24,266       22.6%  Rural                46         8.4
     Virginia
    West         Ohio Co.           6,964      41,473       16.8%  Urban                44         6.3
     Virginia
    West         Pendleton            960       6,051       15.9%  Rural                10        10.4
     Virginia     Co.
    West         Pleasants          1,181       7,564       15.6%  Rural                 6         5.1
     Virginia     Co.
    West         Pocahontas         1,407       7,776       18.1%  Rural                18        12.8
     Virginia     Co.
    West         Preston Co.        5,322      34,196       15.6%  Urban                40         7.5
     Virginia
    West         Putnam Co.         6,441      57,070       11.3%  Urban                62         9.6
     Virginia
    West         Raleigh Co.       15,976      72,863       21.9%  Urban                97         6.1
     Virginia
    West         Randolph Co.       4,995      27,539       18.1%  Rural                35         7.0
     Virginia
    West         Ritchie Co.        1,894       8,239         23%  Rural                18         9.5
     Virginia
    West         Roane Co.          3,164      13,794       22.9%  Rural                16         5.1  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Summers Co.        3,077      11,711       26.3%  Rural                17         5.5  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Taylor Co.         2,661      16,386       16.2%  Rural                14         5.3
     Virginia
    West         Tucker Co.           955       6,625       14.4%  Rural                 9         9.4
     Virginia
    West         Tyler Co.          1,559       8,081       19.3%  Rural                 9         5.8
     Virginia
    West         Upshur Co.         4,811      23,715       20.3%  Rural                35         7.3
     Virginia
    West         Wayne Co.          7,838      38,025       20.6%  Urban                46         5.9
     Virginia
    West         Webster Co.        2,785       8,125       34.3%  Rural                14         5.0  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Wetzel Co.         3,091      14,027         22%  Rural                21         6.8
     Virginia
    West         Wirt Co.           1,402       5,095       27.5%  Urban                 7         5.0  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    West         Wood Co.          14,748      83,364       17.7%  Urban                97         6.6
     Virginia
    West         Wyoming Co.        4,745      20,570       23.1%  Rural                29         6.1  8Higher-
     Virginia                                                                                            risk0
    Wisconsin    Adams Co.          3,421      21,211       16.1%  Rural                13         3.8
    Wisconsin    Ashland Co.        2,869      16,037       17.9%  Rural                21         7.3
    Wisconsin    Barron Co.         5,621      46,828         12%  Rural                52         9.3
    Wisconsin    Bayfield Co.       1,889      16,664       11.3%  Rural                17         9.0
    Wisconsin    Brown Co.         28,908     270,561       10.7%  Urban               194         6.7
    Wisconsin    Buffalo Co.        1,051      13,400        7.8%  Rural                10         9.5
    Wisconsin    Burnett Co.        2,231      16,973       13.1%  Rural                19         8.5
    Wisconsin    Calumet Co.        2,521      52,745        4.8%  Urban                17         6.7
    Wisconsin    Chippewa Co.       6,428      66,775        9.6%  Urban                47         7.3
    Wisconsin    Clark Co.          3,035      34,742        8.7%  Rural                28         9.2
    Wisconsin    Columbia Co.       5,016      58,337        8.6%  Urban                52        10.4
    Wisconsin    Crawford Co.       1,991      16,032       12.4%  Rural                23        11.6
    Wisconsin    Dane Co.          45,035     570,869        7.9%  Urban               349         7.7
    Wisconsin    Dodge Co.          7,832      88,539        8.8%  Rural                58         7.4
    Wisconsin    Door Co.           2,103      30,597        6.9%  Rural                32        15.2
    Wisconsin    Douglas Co.        5,430      44,238       12.3%  Urban                29         5.3
    Wisconsin    Dunn Co.           4,251      45,676        9.3%  Rural                33         7.8
    Wisconsin    Eau Claire        10,226     106,835        9.6%  Urban                69         6.7
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Florence Co.         550       4,708       11.7%  Rural                 3         5.5
    Wisconsin    Fond du Lac        9,461     104,010        9.1%  Urban                68         7.2
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Forest Co.         1,571       9,344       16.8%  Rural                12         7.6
    Wisconsin    Grant Co.          4,673      51,337        9.1%  Rural                47        10.1
    Wisconsin    Green Co.          2,896      36,864        7.9%  Urban                27         9.3
    Wisconsin    Green Lake         2,019      19,241       10.5%  Rural                16         7.9
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Iowa Co.           1,897      23,959        7.9%  Urban                13         6.9
    Wisconsin    Iron Co.             777       6,221       12.5%  Rural                 8        10.3
    Wisconsin    Jackson Co.        2,678      20,930       12.8%  Rural                18         6.7
    Wisconsin    Jefferson          6,977      85,809        8.1%  Rural                54         7.7
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Juneau Co.         4,179      26,743       15.6%  Rural                34         8.1
    Wisconsin    Kenosha Co.       22,153     167,920       13.2%  Urban               124         5.6
    Wisconsin    Kewaunee Co.       1,382      20,681        6.7%  Urban                16        11.6
    Wisconsin    La Crosse         10,550     120,359        8.8%  Urban                66         6.3
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Lafayette          1,406      16,926        8.3%  Rural                12         8.5
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Langlade Co.       3,281      19,528       16.8%  Rural                24         7.3
    Wisconsin    Lincoln Co.        3,104      28,345         11%  Rural                25         8.1
    Wisconsin    Manitowoc          7,733      81,256        9.5%  Rural                52         6.7
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Marathon Co.      12,410     138,175          9%  Urban               112         9.0
    Wisconsin    Marinette          5,224      42,000       12.4%  Rural                55        10.5
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Marquette          1,852      15,776       11.7%  Rural                18         9.7
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Menominee          2,075       4,199       49.4%  Rural                 7         3.4  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Wisconsin    Milwaukee        241,787     921,977       26.2%  Urban               857         3.5  8Higher-
                  Co.                                                                                    risk0
    Wisconsin    Monroe Co.         5,282      46,021       11.5%  Rural                47         8.9
    Wisconsin    Oconto Co.         3,545      39,660        8.9%  Urban                40        11.3
    Wisconsin    Oneida Co.         3,816      38,267         10%  Rural                41        10.7
    Wisconsin    Outagamie         13,559     192,561          7%  Urban               131         9.7
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Ozaukee Co.        3,172      93,115        3.4%  Urban                46        14.5
    Wisconsin    Pepin Co.            542       7,400        7.3%  Rural                 8        14.8
    Wisconsin    Pierce Co.         2,063      42,597        4.8%  Urban                32        15.5
    Wisconsin    Polk Co.           4,243      45,608        9.3%  Rural                51        12.0
    Wisconsin    Portage Co.        5,970      70,799        8.4%  Rural                53         8.9
    Wisconsin    Price Co.          1,824      14,178       12.9%  Rural                19        10.4
    Wisconsin    Racine Co.        30,068     196,710       15.3%  Urban               145         4.8
    Wisconsin    Richland Co.       2,275      17,161       13.3%  Rural                14         6.2
    Wisconsin    Rock Co.          24,794     163,959       15.1%  Urban               130         5.2
    Wisconsin    Rusk Co.           2,373      14,180       16.7%  Rural                17         7.2
    Wisconsin    St. Croix          4,469      96,138        4.6%  Urban                56        12.5
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Sauk Co.           7,475      65,916       11.3%  Rural                61         8.2
    Wisconsin    Sawyer Co.         2,877      18,575       15.5%  Rural                17         5.9
    Wisconsin    Shawano Co.        4,790      41,017       11.7%  Rural                38         7.9
    Wisconsin    Sheboygan         12,299     117,860       10.4%  Urban                83         6.7
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Taylor Co.         1,824      19,946        9.1%  Rural                13         7.1
    Wisconsin    Trempealeau        2,599      30,920        8.4%  Rural                31        11.9
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Vernon Co.         2,775      31,110        8.9%  Urban                26         9.4
    Wisconsin    Vilas Co.          3,090      23,755         13%  Rural                23         7.4
    Wisconsin    Walworth Co.       8,541     105,705        8.1%  Rural                71         8.3
    Wisconsin    Washburn Co.       1,989      16,915       11.8%  Rural                17         8.5
    Wisconsin    Washington         7,020     137,999        5.1%  Urban                73        10.4
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Waukesha Co.      15,937     411,061        3.9%  Urban               212        13.3
    Wisconsin    Waupaca Co.        4,816      51,645        9.3%  Rural                43         8.9
    Wisconsin    Waushara Co.       2,948      24,932       11.8%  Rural                20         6.8
    Wisconsin    Winnebago         16,496     171,049        9.6%  Urban               117         7.1
                  Co.
    Wisconsin    Wood Co.           9,931      73,849       13.4%  Rural                64         6.4
    Wyoming      Albany Co.         1,451      38,361        3.8%  Rural                15        10.3
    Wyoming      Big Horn Co.         639      11,876        5.4%  Rural                10        15.6
    Wyoming      Campbell Co.       2,160      47,049        4.6%  Rural                33        15.3
    Wyoming      Carbon Co.           717      14,527        4.9%  Rural                17        23.7
    Wyoming      Converse Co.         776      13,774        5.6%  Rural                11        14.2
    Wyoming      Crook Co.             99       7,417        1.3%  Rural                 8        80.8
    Wyoming      Fremont Co.        4,483      39,545       11.3%  Rural                29         6.5
    Wyoming      Goshen Co.           683      12,638        5.4%  Rural                 4         5.9
    Wyoming      Hot Springs          243       4,609        5.3%  Rural                 4        16.5
                  Co.
    Wyoming      Johnson Co.          237       8,735        2.7%  Rural                10        42.2
    Wyoming      Laramie Co.        5,214     100,860        5.2%  Urban                60        11.5
    Wyoming      Lincoln Co.          431      20,690        2.1%  Rural                16        37.1
    Wyoming      Natrona Co.        5,662      79,565        7.1%  Urban                49         8.7
    Wyoming      Niobrara Co.         207       2,346        8.8%  Rural                 3        14.5
    Wyoming      Park Co.             943      30,530        3.1%  Rural                17        18.0
    Wyoming      Platte Co.           481       8,655        5.6%  Rural                10        20.8
    Wyoming      Sheridan Co.       1,195      32,049        3.7%  Rural                15        12.6
    Wyoming      Sublette Co.         144       8,767        1.6%  Rural                10        69.4
    Wyoming      Sweetwater         2,288      41,322        5.5%  Rural                34        14.9
                  Co.
    Wyoming      Teton Co.             49      23,341        0.2%  Rural                 6       122.4
    Wyoming      Uinta Co.          1,205      20,722        5.8%  Rural                17        14.1
    Wyoming      Washakie Co.         294       7,728        3.8%  Rural                 5        17.0
    Wyoming      Weston Co.           356       6,872        5.2%  Rural                10        28.1
    \9\ https://
     www.fns.us
     da.gov/
     snap/store-
     definition
     s.
    \10\ https:/
     /usda-snap-
     retailers-
     usda-
     fns.hub.ar
     cgis.com/
     datasets/
     USDA-
     FNS::snap-
     retailer-
     location-
     data/
     about.
    \11\ https:/
     /www.censu
     s.gov/data/
     datasets/
     time-
     series/
     demo/saipe/
     model-
     tables.htm
     l.
    \12\ https:/
     /www.censu
     s.gov/data/
     datasets/
     time-
     series/
     demo/
     popest/
     2020s-
     counties-
     total.html
     #v2024.
    \13\ https:/
     /www.ers.u
     sda.gov/
     data-
     products/
     rural-
     urban-
     continuum-
     codes.
    \14\ https:/
     /github.co
     m/CT-Data-
     Collaborat
     ive/zip-to-
     planningre
     gion/blob/
     main/
     README.md.
    \15\ https:/
     /www.ameri
     canprogres
     s.org/wp-
     content/
     uploads/
     sites/2/
     2025/05/
     Higher-
     risk-SNAP-
     retailers.
     xlsx.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notes: The authors measured the SNAP retailers per 1,000 SNAP participants ratio as an indicator of food access
      for people who receive assistance through SNAP. Retailers within counties that were below the median ratio and
      in the top ten percent of counties with the highest SNAP participation were marked as being most at risk of
      being harmed by cuts in food assistance. Because the SNAP retailers data does not account for Connecticut's
      transition from counties to planning regions, retailer addresses were crosswalked using ZIP [C]odes. However,
      the crosswalk is not exact since some ZIP codes cross planning region boundaries.
    Source: For a list of definitions for the included store types, see U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``SNAP Store
      Type Definitions'' \9\ (last accessed April 2025). U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``SNAP Retailer Location
      Data'' \10\ (last accessed April 2025); U.S. Census Bureau, ``SAIPE Model Input Data: County SNAP Benefits
      Data,'' \11\ December 16, 2024; U.S. Census Bureau, ``Annual Resident Population Estimates, Estimated
      Components of Resident Population Change, and Rates of the Components of Resident Population Change for States
      and Counties: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2024,'' \12\ March 12, 2025; U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``2023
      Rural-Urban Continuum Codes'' \13\ (last accessed April 2025); CT Data Collaborative, ``Connecticut ZIP to
      Planning Region Crosswalk,'' \14\ September 13, 2023.
    Table: Center for American Progress.
    Download the list of individual SNAP retailers at higher risk here.\15\

        The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture will soon release its
    proposal for what are likely to be the largest cuts to the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in its history.\16\ Options under
    consideration reportedly include forcing states to take on a portion of
    benefit costs \17\ for the first time; \18\ freezing \19\ benefit
    increases from future Thrifty Food Plan adjustments; and expanding \20\
    burdensome work requirements to older Americans and families with
    children \21\--all of which would cut at the heart of the nation's food
    assistance system. Cuts to SNAP would not just affect Americans
    enrolled in the program but would also pull the rug out from under
    grocers, farmers, and the broader economy.\22\ A new Center for
    American Progress analysis identifies the 27,000 authorized SNAP
    retailers that would be at higher risk of financial hardship in
    response to such cuts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ https://unidosus.org/blog/2025/02/24/house-budget-resolutions-
    cuts-to-snap-largest-in-us-history/.
        \17\ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/snap-cuts-budget-
    reconciliation-beautiful_n_6813a6ffe4b0964363620874.
        \18\ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/shifting-snap-costs-
    to-states-would-make-future-recessions-worse/.
        \19\ https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/05/06/congress/
    house-republicans-snap-food-aid-00330620.
        \20\ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/escape-poverty-millions-more-
    food-stamp-recipients-required-work-under-new-house-gop-proposal.
        \21\ https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/worsening-snaps-
    harsh-work-requirement-would-take-food-assistance-away.
        \22\ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/shifting-snap-costs-
    to-states-would-make-future-recessions-worse/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Retailers in counties with high SNAP usage and low food access are at
            higher risk
        The impacts of cuts to SNAP are likely to be felt most strongly in
    areas with the highest rates of SNAP participation. In these
    communities, even if a family doesn't personally see their budget for
    food reduced, community residents could see their local grocer close.
    Families that see their benefits reduced or taken away entirely will
    have fewer resources to pay for the costs of rising food prices,\23\
    meaning more people will go hungry as sales at authorized SNAP
    retailers fall. This can be particularly difficult for businesses in
    communities with high rates of SNAP participation that depend on the
    revenue from these benefits. As Figure 1 shows, more than 27,000
    retailers in over 300 counties across the country could soon face
    severe financial hardship if cuts to food assistance were to be
    enacted.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-congressional-
    republican-budget-plan-will-hurt-americans-wallets/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To determine which businesses are most likely to be harmed by SNAP
    cuts, the authors utilized two county-level factors. First, the authors
    identified the top ten percent of counties with the highest SNAP
    participation rates \24\ relative to the total population, based on
    administrative participant data \25\ for 2022--the latest available--as
    well as U.S. Census Bureau population data.\26\ Second, the authors
    used a ratio for the number of SNAP retailers per 1,000 SNAP
    recipients, with counties below the median ratio having limited options
    for families receiving assistance to use their benefits. The 27,266
    businesses in the 303 counties that met both criteria are classified as
    being at higher risk from SNAP cuts. This includes 3,721 smaller
    grocery stores, 994 specialty stores, and 600 farmers and markets.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/saipe_treemap/
    saipe_snap_treemap.html.
        \25\ https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/saipe/guidance/model-
    input-data/snap.html.
        \26\ https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/
    2020s-counties-total.html.

              95 percent of counties with the highest rates of people
            receiving SNAP have limited access to retailers that accept
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            SNAP benefits.

        Importantly, access to authorized SNAP retailers fell with rising
    SNAP participation. In fact, 95 percent of counties with the highest
    rates of people receiving SNAP have limited access to retailers that
    accept SNAP benefits, highlighting the disparities in food access \27\
    among poorer parts of the country. Even if there are other stores
    nearby, families receiving assistance can be limited by those that
    accept SNAP. Rural areas are disproportionately represented among these
    high-risk counties, making up 77 percent of these areas despite only
    representing 62 percent of counties, according to the Department of
    Agriculture's Rural-Urban Continuum Codes.\28\ The relatively few
    businesses within these communities that accept SNAP payments are
    essential for meeting the needs of families that already struggle
    affording enough food. Cutting SNAP benefits would put the future of
    these businesses at risk by slashing a substantial source of revenue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ https://www.aecf.org/blog/communities-with-limited-food-
    access-in-the-united-states.
        \28\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-
    codes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAP is a lifeline for rural economies and small grocers
        Cuts to food assistance will have strong negative impacts on
    families' budgets and will lead to decreases \29\ in spending on food
    and other household goods, causing ripple effects for communities'
    local economies. In rural areas, $1 of SNAP spending generates roughly
    $1.50 \30\ in local economic activity during recessions. Prior research
    \31\ also demonstrates that SNAP dollars have a larger relative
    positive impact on rural economies by increasing employment and
    economic output than it does for urban economies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/
    2025/mar/how-cuts-medicaid-snap-could-trigger-job-loss-state-revenue.
        \30\ https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/
    publications/93529/ERR-265.pdf?v=84771.
        \31\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-
    details?pubid=102286.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Grocery retailers of all sizes should expect \32\ shocks to their
    revenue following cuts in food assistance. SNAP benefits are vital to
    the economic stability of the grocery industry and related jobs in
    agriculture. In 2020, SNAP supported nearly 199,000 \33\ jobs within
    the independent grocery industry and another 45,000 jobs \34\ in
    related industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, transportation,
    and local services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/16/proposed-snap-cuts-pressure-
    low-income-shoppers-retailers.html.
        \33\ https://grocers.guerrillaeconomics.net/res/Methodology.pdf.
        \34\ https://frac.org/blog/part-3-the-real-cost-of-cutting-snap-
    jobs-lost-stores-closed-communities-undermined.

              ``Some stores in low-income neighborhoods have more than 50
            percent SNAP sales. A 20 percent cut to SNAP would make it very
            difficult for stores like this, in food deserts, to remain
            open.''
                            Stephanie Johnson, National Grocers Association

        Grocers,\35\ farmers,\36\ and researchers \37\ are already
    expressing concerns about how SNAP cuts will impact grocery retailers
    across the nation. In an interview,\38\ Stephanie Johnson of the
    National Grocers Association stressed the connection between SNAP sales
    and independent grocers, saying, ``Some stores in low-income
    neighborhoods have more than 50 percent SNAP sales. A 20 percent cut to
    SNAP would make it very difficult for stores like this, in food
    deserts, to remain open.'' A March 2025 study \39\ published by the
    Commonwealth Fund estimates that the cuts proposed in the House budget
    resolution would result in the loss of almost 78,000 food-related jobs
    in agriculture, retail grocery, and food processing, as well as 65,000
    jobs in other industries, as local economies feel the impacts of
    decreased economic spending. Losing these 143,000 jobs would devastate
    communities and only worsen food access in rural areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ https://frac.org/blog/part-5-when-snap-slips-small-towns-
    suffer-the-hidden-costs-of-cutting-food-assistance.
        \36\ https://frac.org/blog/snap-cuts-threaten-the-fabric-of-rural-
    communities-farms-families-and-small-businesses.
        \37\ https://www.splcenter.org/resources/stories/effects-cuts-snap-
    federal-food-program-across-south/.
        \38\ https://frac.org/blog/part-3-the-real-cost-of-cutting-snap-
    jobs-lost-stores-closed-communities-undermined.
        \39\ https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/
    2025/mar/how-cuts-medicaid-snap-could-trigger-job-loss-state-revenue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion
        Cutting food assistance would destabilize the food industry amid a
    period of already great uncertainty. The hardship generated by
    reductions in SNAP sales for retailers that depend on customers having
    access to these benefits coincides with the expected rising cost of
    goods \40\ due to Trump's tariffs and the growing fears \41\ of an
    upcoming recession. Grocery stores that are forced to cut staff and
    close in response to reduced food purchasing will further limit access
    to food in communities across the country, even for consumers who do
    not use SNAP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/examples-of-
    potential-consumer-price-hikes-under-trumps-tariffs/.
        \41\ https://www.npr.org/2025/04/30/nx-s1-5380204/trump-economy-
    gdp-tariffs-recession-consumers.

        The authors would like to thank Lily Roberts, Joe Radosevich,
    Natalie Baker, Emily Gee, Colin Seeberger, Madeline Shepherd, Jerry
    Parshall, Bianca Serbin, Bill Rapp, and Will Beaudouin for their
    feedback.
    Contacts
    Press
    Julia Cusick, Vice President, Communications,
    jcusick@americanprogress.org
    Government Affairs
    Madeline Shepherd, Senior Director, Government Affairs, mshep
    herd@americanprogress.org

    Jerry Parshall, Senior Director, Safety and Justice Campaign; Director,
    State and Local Government Affairs, jparshall@americanprogress.org

              The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts,
            are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are
            those of American Progress alone. American Progress would like
            to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work
            possible.
                                   article 2

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/06/03/trumps-steel-and-
    aluminum-tariffs-could-drive-up-grocery-costs]

    Jun. 3, 2025
    How tariffs on steel and aluminum could show up on your grocery bill
        Tariffs on steel and aluminum impact everything from packaging to
    the bottom lines of stores like Walmart.

    Trade War 2.0 \1\ By Samantha Fields \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.marketplace.org/trade-war-2-0.
        \2\ https://www.marketplace.org/author/samantha-fields.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Canned food could get more expensive if the cost of steel and
            aluminum goes up. And if food distributors switch to, say,
            plastic, the cost of food in plastic could go up too.
              Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP via Getty Images.

        What's the first thing you thought about when you heard President
    Donald Trump was doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum? The price of
    groceries? Yes, no, us neither.
        President Trump campaigned on the promise that he would lower
    prices, including food prices. But his decision to double tariffs on
    steel and aluminum to 50% is likely to have the opposite effect,\3\
    including when it comes to grocery bills.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/03/03/what-do-trumps-
    tariffs-mean-for-your-grocery-bill.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``Tariffs on inputs like steel and aluminum may not seem that
    connected to food, but they are critical for packaging,'' said David
    Ortega, a food economist and professor at Michigan State University.
        He said to think about all those canned goods you buy: canned tuna,
    soda, beer, pet food. They're all packaged in steel or aluminum.
        Usha Haley, a professor at the Barton School of Business at Wichita
    State University, said most of it is imported.
        ``The United States just does not produce enough steel. And the
    U.S. imports nearly 70% of tinplate steel that manufacturers use for
    cans of fruits, vegetables, essential foods and pet foods,'' she said.
        If these tariffs remain in effect, she said, we're likely to start
    seeing all sorts of prices go up at the grocery store. And not just on
    canned goods.
        For instance, if companies that currently use aluminum to package
    certain products, like soda, start using more plastic instead, that
    could cause plastic--and anything packaged in it--to get more
    expensive, too.
        ``There are also indirect costs. The costs of transportation, the
    cost of fixing up trucks etc.,'' Haley said. All of which also get more
    expensive as steel and aluminum do. And that can trickle down into the
    prices we pay for pretty much everything at the store.
        John Clear, a partner on the retail team at AlixPartners, said
    retailers are in a tough spot: ``Consumers are super conscious of all
    the price increases, so they know they're losing trust. But also they
    don't have a lot of room in their margins to continue to swallow
    costs,'' he said.
        Especially after pandemic supply chain issues and the inflation
    that followed.
        So say a company that sells canned vegetables does decide to pass
    along the increased cost of a steel can to customers?
        Clear said that might only be an extra 2 to 5.
        ``Which doesn't seem a lot. But a can of sweet corn at Walmart is
    like 42 to 45,'' he said.
        So an extra 5 would make it cost about 10% more. A lot of people
    buying canned fruits and vegetables are on SNAP benefits,\4\ Clear
    said, which already don't go very far.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.marketplace.org/story/2023/03/21/one-mom-on-what-
    the-end-of-additional-snap-benefits-means-to-her-family.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``So if you think that's replicated across a number of items within
    their basket every week, suddenly that actually becomes quite
    impactful, and will ultimately mean that they probably buy one less
    unit,'' he said.
        Which again, might not seem like a lot, but if you're a big company
    like Walmart and thousands of customers start buying one less can of
    corn at thousands of stores, it adds up.
                                     ______

    Submitted Press Release by Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative In
                            Congress from California
    For Immediate Release

    June 10, 2025
    Farm Bureau of Ventura County Condemns ICE Activity in Oxnard
    ``ICE Threatens Our Industry, Our Economy, and Our Community''
        Ventura County, CA--The Farm Bureau of Ventura County, representing
    hundreds of farmers, ranchers, and agricultural businesses across the
    region, strongly condemns the actions taken by Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (ICE) in Oxnard this morning. Reports indicate that ICE
    agents attempted to enter a local packing facility without a judicial
    warrant, conducted operations in agricultural fields, and initiated
    vehicle stops on roads frequently used by agricultural workers
    commuting to job sites.
        As working producers and stewards of Ventura County's $2 billion
    agricultural economy, we know firsthand that our industry cannot
    function without the contributions of our workforce. These are people
    we rely on, respect, and work alongside every day. They are skilled
    professionals who bring deep experience and an extraordinary work ethic
    to Ventura County's fields and ranches. Their labor is the reason our
    region is recognized as one of the most productive agricultural areas
    in the world.
        The conduct of ICE this morning, marked by racial profiling,
    intimidation, and attempts to enter private property without judicial
    authorization, constitutes an unacceptable escalation. This approach
    undermines constitutional rights and directly threatens the integrity
    of California's agricultural economy.
        Let us be unequivocal: racial profiling is illegal. Intimidation is
    not enforcement. Using fear to destabilize the workforce that powers
    our farms is a reckless and short-sighted tactic with far-reaching
    consequences. These actions erode community trust, disrupt harvests,
    and impose undue strain on operations large and small. When our
    workforce is afraid, fields go unharvested, packinghouses fall behind,
    and market supply chains, from local grocery stores to national
    retailers, are affected. This impacts every American whoeats.
        We urge swift and coordinated action at the local, state, and
    Federal levels to safeguard farmworkers and ensure the continued
    strength of our agricultural industry.

        Local Actions We Urge Ventura County and City Governments to Take:

       Law enforcement agencies must be trained on their
            constitutional responsibilities, including the right to decline
            unlawful orders from ICE, CBP, or other Federal entities. The
            defense of ``I was just following orders'' is neither legally
            nor morally sufficient. Officers must be empowered to uphold
            civil liberties, not violate them.

       The Ventura County Sheriff's Office should implement a
            policy to notify the Rapid Response Network (RRN) when ICE
            operations occur, similar to how fire departments notify the
            Red Cross during house fires. RRN offers legal assistance,
            emergency support, and trauma-informed care to affected
            families, resources essential to maintaining community
            stability.

       We recommend the County train designated staff that work
            throughout the county, such as Weights and Measure & Ag
            Commissioner staff to serve as legal observers during ICE
            operations. The presence of trained observers, who document and
            question from a safe distance, has been shown to deter unlawful
            detentions and reduce instances of racial profiling.

        State Legislative Action Needed:

        We call on California's Assemblymembers and State Senators to
    strengthen and expand protections for immigrant workers statewide. This
    includes:

       Standardized training for local agencies

       Stronger limits on cooperation with Federal immigration
            enforcement

       Prohibitions against data-sharing or indirect involvement in
            ICE operations

        Federal Oversight and De-escalation:

        We urge our Federal representatives to:

       Conduct immediate investigations into ICE activity in
            Ventura County

       Withhold funding from operations that violate constitutional
            protections

       Take legislative steps to reduce the militarization of
            immigration enforcement in agricultural communities

        Farm Bureau members care deeply about their workers, not as
    abstract labor, but as human beings and valued community members who
    deserve dignity, safety, and respect. Ventura County agriculture
    depends on them. California's economy depends on them. America's food
    system depends on them.

        We invite our colleagues in local government, especially the
    Ventura County Board of Supervisors, city councils, and departments
    with direct community interface, such as Human Services, the Farmworker
    Resource Program, and Public Health, to add their voices and leadership
    to this effort.

        Media Contact:

      Farm Bureau of Ventura County
      Maureen McGuire
      (805) 310-3620
      Maureen@farmbureauvc.com
                                     ______

                              Submitted Questions
    Response from Hon. Brooke Rollins, Secretary, U.S. Department of
            Agriculture
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
            Congress from Pennsylvania
        Question 1. While the farm bill provides significant funding for
    voluntary farm conservation programs each year, the demand for the
    programs far exceeds the available funding. To allow for additional
    funding, the SUSTAINS Act was introduced to allow for private donations
    directly into the existing programs including EQIP, CSP and RCPP. The
    authority has now been law for several years but was never implemented
    by the Biden Administration. Can you provide the Committee with update
    on implementation of the SUSTAINS Act?
        Answer. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration failed to fulfill
    its duty of implementing the SUSTAINS Act. USDA is working to formulate
    a plan to execute and implement the program moving forward.

        Question 2. On April 14, 2025, USDA announced that the Climate-
    Smart Commodities Program is being reformed as the Advancing Markets
    for Producers (AMP) initiative. Can you update the Committee on the
    status of the reworked initiative? What is the process for AMP and what
    guidance has USDA given program participants that wish to modify their
    application or project? Is there a timeframe for projects to be
    resubmitted and approved?
        Answer. Recipients for all projects were given the opportunity to
    continue work in AMP through an amendment of the original award to meet
    the threshold of USDA's priorities. Agreement holders were notified of
    this opportunity on May 15, 2025, and were given until June 20, 2025,
    to submit amendment packages. The agency is currently reviewing the
    amendment packages and will proceed with signature and approval for
    those that meet the initiative priorities.

        Question 3. As reported, USDA canceled on June 11th some Regional
    Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) awarded grants that were to
    receive funding through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Will program
    participants that had their projects canceled be able to reapply for
    RCPP or modify their current terms or application? How is USDA working
    with entities that received or were expecting IRA funding through RCPP
    for applications and projects that have been canceled?
        Answer. On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed
    into law, which rescinded all unobligated Inflation Reduction Act
    funding for RCPP. Awards with programmatic partnership agreements and
    supplemental agreements that were signed were allowed to move forward.
    It is important to note that no RCPP contracts were canceled.
    Applicants who were not awarded are encouraged to reach out to their
    state RCPP Coordinator to strengthen their proposal for consideration
    in the next funding cycle using farm bill funding.

        Question 4. USDA's Rural Development programs are crucial to the
    rural economy, the heartbeat of America. They provide the foundation
    and services needed to help rural America thrive. USDA knows rural
    America. I have concerns with the FY 2026 President's Budget Request
    that proposes to terminate the USDA Rural Business and Industry
    Guaranteed Loan Program and the Rural Business Development Grants
    Program. Will you commit to working with me and this Committee to keep
    these USDA programs available for rural America and the farmers they
    serve?
        Answer. USDA acknowledges the role that Rural Development programs
    play in supporting rural communities and farmers. The Administration's
    budget proposal reflects a commitment to fiscal responsibility and
    streamlining programs to maximize impact. We are committed to
    evaluating all avenues to support rural economic development and job
    creation, consistent with the President's vision for a strong American
    economy.

        Question 5. I am a strong supporter of the USDA Rural Development
    Innovation Center and included codifying language in the farm bill that
    passed the House Agriculture Committee last year. Has USDA considered
    collaborating with the Cooperative Extension Service to help
    disseminate information, hold joint virtual webinars or in-person
    sessions, etc., about the multitude of RD programs available?
        Answer. The Rural Development Innovation Center is dedicated to
    enhancing program delivery and empowering rural communities through
    strategic partnerships and data-driven solutions. USDA is exploring
    collaboration with the Cooperative Extension Service to disseminate
    information, host joint webinars, and conduct in-person sessions.

        Question 6. From EMS stations to childcare centers, USDA's
    Community Facilities Programs play a vital role in helping rural
    communities invest in essential infrastructure. How is USDA ensuring
    that these funds can continue to be accessible to small and under-
    served communities, and will you explore new flexibilities or outreach
    efforts to improve program delivery?
        Answer. Ensuring these funds are accessible, especially for rural
    communities, is a priority. We are continuously reviewing our program
    delivery to streamline processes and reduce burdens, making it easier
    for communities with limited capacity to apply. This includes exploring
    new flexibilities in application requirements and providing targeted
    technical assistance and outreach.

        Question 7. High-speed internet remains out of reach for many rural
    communities, limiting opportunities for education, business, health
    care, and local government services. How is USDA RD adapting its
    broadband deployment strategy, particularly through ReConnect, to
    ensure these investments are timely, technologically flexible, and
    accessible to counties with limited grant-writing capacity?
        Answer. USDA Rural Development is adapting our broadband deployment
    strategy to address the unique challenges of rural communities. We aim
    to prioritize technological flexibility, allowing for various solutions
    that best suit local needs. For counties with limited grant-writing
    capacity, we are bolstering our outreach and support services,
    providing direct assistance, workshops, and clear guidance to help them
    navigate the application process and secure the funding critical for
    closing the digital divide.
    Small Rural Communities
        Question 8. Small rural communities and systems face numerous
    challenges in providing clean drinking water and ensuring adequate
    waste disposal. USDA has often been the largest source of grant
    financing for rural communities and systems. The FY 2025 enacted
    funding level for USDA's Water and Wastewater grants is $380 million.
    The FY 2026 budget proposes $144 million for the same programs. How can
    rural communities secure much needed funding for their systems when the
    proposed level is well below the programs' historic funding levels?
        Answer. We recognize the challenges rural communities face in
    maintaining and upgrading their water and wastewater infrastructure,
    and Rural Development remains a steadfast partner in these efforts. The
    President's FY 2026 budget proposal reflects a broader strategy to
    prioritize fiscal discipline and target resources where they are most
    impactful. Our commitment to supporting essential water and wastewater
    systems in rural America is unwavering. We will continue to maximize
    the impact of available funds through strategic allocations, leveraging
    partnerships, and emphasizing projects that demonstrate the highest
    need and long-term sustainability.

        Question 9. Several states have pointed to staffing shortages in
    the state SNAP offices as the reason for skyrocketing error rates
    coming out of the pandemic. Enhanced IT systems, including the use of
    artificial intelligence (AI), stand out as a potential solution for
    states who are struggling with workforce challenges. What barriers
    exist at the Federal level to prevent states from using AI, and what
    steps has the Department taken to remove unnecessary barriers and
    encourage states to use AI in their administration of SNAP?
        Answer. SNAP is unique among Federal programs due to requirements
    in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 that State SNAP agencies certify
    SNAP households using state agency employees that were hired under a
    merit system. As I outlined in my February 13, 2025, letter to state,
    Tribal, Territory, and Local Government Partners, I am committed to
    supporting state innovation through approval of waivers and pilot
    projects. AI holds enormous potential to streamline access to nutrition
    benefits, reduce administrative burden, and improve customer
    experience.
        USDA encourages state agencies to implement system enhancements
    that can streamline the SNAP application process and prepare cases for
    final eligibility determination by merit staff.

        Question 10. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 required
    the Department to issue guidance and promulgate notice-and-comment
    rulemaking on SNAP EBT card security. What is the status of the
    rulemaking, and when can we expect a rule to be published in the
    Federal Register?
        Answer. USDA Food and Nutrition Service takes its responsibility of
    helping to prevent fraud, particularly SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer
    (EBT) theft, seriously. USDA has made significant and sustainable
    progress, in partnership with states, third-party EBT processors, and
    authorized SNAP retailers, to modernize EBT systems and reduce fraud.
    USDA anticipates the rule, ``Enhancing Electronic Benefit Transfer
    (EBT) Card Security Measures,'' will publish in the Federal Register
    next year.

        Question 11. The most recent data from the Department estimates
    that 1.6 percent of all SNAP benefits were trafficked from 2015 to
    2017, representing about $1 billion. When will the Department publish
    an updated estimate of trafficking in SNAP?
        Answer. FNS has strengthened its focus on SNAP trafficking,
    including expanding the use of data analysis to detect fraudsters and
    taking immediate administrative action to ensure that stores that
    violate SNAP rules no longer participate in the program. Retailers who
    commit program violations may also be subject to monetary penalties,
    fines, and/or criminal prosecution.

        Question 12. SNAP state administrative expenses have increased by
    30 percent since 2019, and the Congressional Budget Office even
    estimates these costs will increase by 40 percent over the 10 year
    budget window, far outpacing inflation. Does the Department know what
    is driving the increase in the costs at the state level? What specific
    state and local government costs are increasing?
        Answer. SNAP State Administrative Expenses (SAE) are affected by
    many factors, such as participation levels, the number and salary level
    of state agency staff, inflation, the location of state agency offices,
    issuance costs, worker training costs, degree of automation, and level
    of fraud control activity. The increase in SNAP SAE is driven by
    increased spending on certification activities and automated data
    processing operations and systems development. These investments
    include developing remote systems and expanded call centers,
    streamlining eligibility determinations, implementing required program
    changes, hiring additional state staff to manage increased
    applications, and updating legacy platforms.

        Question 13. As part of their SNAP state administrative expenses,
    how much are states spending on SNAP outreach? Has spending on outreach
    increased? Please share outreach spending broken down by state going
    back to Fiscal Year 2015.
        Answer. Spending on outreach has increased but represents a small
    percentage of SNAP SAE costs. In FY 2015, the state share of outreach
    expenditures was $36,185,786 and the Federal share was $36,028,618. FY
    2015 SNAP outreach spending (Federal + state) totaled $72,214,404.
        In FY 2024, the state share of outreach expenditures was
    $76,867,615. The Federal share was $76,841,391. The total (Federal +
    state) spending for FY 2024 was $153,709,006. This represents an
    increase of $40,838,997 in state costs, and an increase of $81,494,602
    in total costs (Federal + state), between FY 2015 and FY 2024. Outreach
    represented 0.92% of SAE in FY 2015 and 1.3% of SAE in FY 2024.

       National Data Bank Version 8.2 Public Use SC4--Up To 99 Variables--
                                States Ascending
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                SNAP Outreach State     SNAP Outreach Total
         State/Territory               Share                 Fed Share
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2015
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama                   127,664                 127,664
               Alaska                    14,826                  14,825
              Arizona                 3,388,798               3,388,798
             Arkansas                   190,412                  33,315
           California                 8,219,735               8,219,736
             Colorado                   156,803                 156,802
          Connecticut                   552,983                 552,982
             Delaware                   121,912                 121,911
    District of Columbia                 71,286                  71,285
              Florida                   166,658                 166,657
              Georgia                 1,286,102               1,286,102
                 Guam
               Hawaii                   197,843                 197,843
                Idaho                         0                       0
             Illinois                 1,082,119               1,082,118
              Indiana                   450,537                 450,537
                 Iowa                    89,552                  89,551
               Kansas
             Kentucky
                     Louisiana          181,821                 181,821
                Maine
             Maryland                 1,188,989               1,188,990
        Massachusetts                   690,592                 690,592
             Michigan                   320,491                 320,491
            Minnesota                 1,651,239               1,651,238
          Mississippi                    29,215                  29,213
             Missouri                   183,856                 183,856
              Montana                         0                       0
             Nebraska                   293,851                 293,852
               Nevada                 1,362,138               1,362,138
        New Hampshire                     5,458                   5,457
           New Jersey                   197,598                 197,598
           New Mexico                         0                       0
             New York                 3,340,935               3,340,935
       North Carolina                   454,715                 454,716
         North Dakota                    50,790                  50,790
                 Ohio                 1,174,552               1,174,551
             Oklahoma
               Oregon                   395,899                 395,899
         Pennsylvania                 1,198,841               1,198,842
         Rhode Island                   454,668                 454,667
       South Carolina                 1,399,438               1,399,438
         South Dakota
            Tennessee                   558,868                 556,452
                Texas                 2,372,264               2,372,264
                 Utah                         0                   2,355
              Vermont                   434,075                 434,074
             Virginia                   109,473                 109,473
       Virgin Islands
           Washington                 1,409,908               1,409,909
        West Virginia                    83,714                  83,713
            Wisconsin                   525,168                 525,168
              Wyoming                         0                       0
                             -----------------------------------------------
        U.S.................         36,185,786              36,028,618
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2016
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama                   169,752                 169,752
               Alaska                    16,294                  16,295
              Arizona                 1,519,645               1,519,647
             Arkansas                   107,509                 107,508
           California                 8,069,173               8,069,174
             Colorado                   309,084                 309,084
          Connecticut                   564,944                 564,944
             Delaware                   109,032                 109,032
    District of Columbia                 73,669                  73,669
              Florida                   184,833                 177,785
              Georgia                 1,196,147               1,196,147
                 Guam
               Hawaii                   326,167                  50,000
                Idaho                         0                       0
             Illinois                   949,863                 949,863
              Indiana                   480,982                 480,983
                 Iowa                   152,841                 152,841
               Kansas
             Kentucky
                     Louisiana          243,752                 243,752
                Maine
             Maryland                 1,267,285               1,267,285
        Massachusetts                   705,638                 705,637
             Michigan                   469,331                 469,331
            Minnesota                 2,100,982               2,100,980
          Mississippi                    48,778                  48,780
             Missouri                   224,363                 224,363
              Montana                     8,923                   8,923
             Nebraska                   319,074                 319,074
               Nevada                 1,570,901               1,570,900
        New Hampshire                     3,679                   3,680
           New Jersey                   182,798                 182,798
           New Mexico
             New York                 3,252,832               3,252,833
       North Carolina                   537,598                 537,599
         North Dakota                    50,339                  50,340
                 Ohio                 1,604,339               1,604,339
             Oklahoma
               Oregon                   347,706                 347,707
         Pennsylvania                 1,400,472               1,400,473
         Rhode Island                   495,231                 495,231
       South Carolina                   996,703                 996,703
         South Dakota
            Tennessee                   332,158                 329,013
                Texas                 2,626,359               2,626,358
                 Utah                         0                  15,997
              Vermont                   444,234                 444,235
             Virginia                    80,720                  80,720
       Virgin Islands
           Washington                 1,458,892               1,458,892
        West Virginia                   109,320                 109,320
            Wisconsin                   742,047                 742,047
              Wyoming                         0                       0
                             -----------------------------------------------
        U.S.................         35,854,389              35,584,034
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2017
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama                   201,852                 201,853
               Alaska                    46,386                  46,386
              Arizona                         0               2,582,935
             Arkansas                    25,912                  25,912
           California                 9,772,870               9,772,870
             Colorado                   584,689                 584,690
          Connecticut                   536,915                 536,916
             Delaware                   110,629                 110,629
    District of Columbia                 65,728                  65,728
              Florida                   176,251                 176,251
              Georgia                 1,267,110               1,267,110
                 Guam
               Hawaii                   194,141                 194,140
                Idaho                         0                       0
             Illinois                 1,110,225               1,110,225
              Indiana                   468,774                 468,774
                 Iowa                   128,614                 128,614
               Kansas
             Kentucky
                     Louisiana          289,712                 289,712
                Maine                       512                     511
             Maryland                 1,511,679               1,511,680
        Massachusetts                   725,873                 725,872
             Michigan                   536,168                 536,168
            Minnesota                 2,163,606               2,163,608
          Mississippi                    71,500                  71,501
             Missouri                   432,293                 432,294
              Montana                    17,252                  17,252
             Nebraska                   318,247                 318,246
               Nevada                 1,634,951               1,634,950
        New Hampshire                     8,474                   8,473
           New Jersey                   220,392                 220,392
           New Mexico
             New York                 6,724,077               6,724,077
       North Carolina                   387,826                 387,825
         North Dakota                    62,497                  62,497
                 Ohio                 1,822,642               1,822,641
             Oklahoma
               Oregon                   372,382                 372,380
         Pennsylvania                 1,478,280               1,478,280
         Rhode Island                   434,324                 434,323
       South Carolina                 1,280,235               1,280,234
         South Dakota
            Tennessee                   352,927                 352,927
                Texas                 2,601,381               2,601,381
                 Utah                    24,539                  24,538
              Vermont                   477,538                 477,537
             Virginia                    87,691                  87,690
       Virgin Islands
           Washington                 3,067,709               3,067,710
        West Virginia                   104,456                 104,456
            Wisconsin                   698,042                 698,042
              Wyoming                         0                       0
                             -----------------------------------------------
        U.S.................         42,597,301              45,180,230
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2018
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama                   198,687                 198,688
               Alaska                    32,098                  32,098
              Arizona                 7,118,109               2,593,630
             Arkansas                    25,502                  25,499
           California                10,144,023              10,144,024
             Colorado                   709,687                 709,687
          Connecticut                   416,542                 416,542
             Delaware                   115,035                 115,035
    District of Columbia                 83,280                  83,280
              Florida                   177,955                 177,955
              Georgia                 1,407,651               1,407,651
                 Guam
               Hawaii                   131,510                 131,509
                Idaho                         0                       0
             Illinois                 1,268,334               1,268,334
              Indiana                   530,216                 530,216
                 Iowa                   146,782                 146,782
               Kansas
             Kentucky                       424                     424
                     Louisiana          269,256                 269,256
                Maine
             Maryland                 1,290,151               1,290,151
        Massachusetts                   798,380                 798,380
             Michigan                 1,457,714               1,457,714
            Minnesota                 2,438,828               2,438,793
          Mississippi                    99,931                  99,932
             Missouri                   552,033                 552,033
              Montana                     9,401                   9,401
             Nebraska                   368,489                 368,488
               Nevada                 1,527,612               1,527,612
        New Hampshire                     4,266                   4,266
           New Jersey                   128,251                 128,251
           New Mexico
             New York                 6,858,325               6,858,325
       North Carolina                   842,599                 842,598
         North Dakota                    59,181                  59,181
                 Ohio                 2,273,370               2,273,369
             Oklahoma                         0                       0
               Oregon                   745,475                 745,476
         Pennsylvania                 1,519,238               1,519,237
         Rhode Island                   524,189                 524,188
       South Carolina                 1,252,211               1,252,211
         South Dakota
            Tennessee                   551,479                 551,480
                Texas                 3,267,084               3,267,083
                 Utah                    22,415                  22,414
              Vermont                   486,962                 486,962
             Virginia                    92,643                  92,643
       Virgin Islands
           Washington                 3,749,468               3,749,468
        West Virginia                   123,807                 123,807
            Wisconsin                   595,575                 595,576
              Wyoming                         0                       0
                             -----------------------------------------------
        U.S.................         54,414,168              49,889,649
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2019
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama                   239,052                 239,052
               Alaska                    66,955                  66,956
              Arizona                12,897,607               2,725,399
             Arkansas                    27,727                  27,727
           California                13,629,085              13,629,085
             Colorado                 1,227,185               1,227,185
          Connecticut                   491,326                 491,327
             Delaware                   132,712                 132,713
    District of Columbia                103,075                 103,075
              Florida                   166,107                 166,108
              Georgia                 1,481,430               1,481,430
                 Guam
               Hawaii                   210,882                 210,881
                Idaho
             Illinois                 1,488,865               1,488,864
              Indiana                   414,169                 414,170
                 Iowa                   119,880                 119,881
               Kansas
             Kentucky
                     Louisiana          261,058                 261,058
                Maine
             Maryland                 1,760,449               1,760,447
        Massachusetts                 1,059,965               1,059,966
             Michigan                 1,495,971               1,366,774
            Minnesota                 2,518,185               2,518,185
          Mississippi                   104,845                 104,845
             Missouri                   381,944                 381,943
              Montana                    10,059                  10,060
             Nebraska                   387,383                 387,383
               Nevada                 1,288,008               1,288,007
        New Hampshire
           New Jersey                   216,621                 216,621
           New Mexico
             New York                 6,135,827               6,135,827
       North Carolina                   826,633                 826,633
         North Dakota                    53,463                  53,464
                 Ohio                 1,980,111               1,980,110
             Oklahoma                         0                       0
               Oregon                   751,501                 751,500
         Pennsylvania                 1,818,039               1,818,039
         Rhode Island                   482,872                 482,873
       South Carolina                 1,515,524               1,515,524
         South Dakota
            Tennessee                   709,052                 709,052
                Texas                 3,058,103               3,058,103
                 Utah                    23,250                  23,250
              Vermont                   570,962                 570,963
             Virginia                    62,143                  62,142
       Virgin Islands
           Washington                 3,719,835               3,719,836
        West Virginia                   123,093                 123,093
            Wisconsin                   878,858                 878,857
              Wyoming                         0                       0
                             -----------------------------------------------
        U.S.................         64,889,811              54,588,408
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2020
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama                   297,926                 297,926
               Alaska                    52,441                  52,442
              Arizona                 2,785,664               2,785,664
             Arkansas                    61,916                  61,916
           California                16,382,406              16,382,406
             Colorado                 1,660,694               1,660,695
          Connecticut                   443,481                 443,482
             Delaware                   130,164                 130,165
    District of Columbia                175,507                  80,393
              Florida                   244,846                 244,847
              Georgia                 1,740,347               1,740,347
                 Guam
               Hawaii                   522,131                       0
                Idaho
             Illinois                 1,727,066               1,727,065
              Indiana                   481,744                 481,745
                 Iowa                   193,789                 193,790
               Kansas                    46,443                  46,443
             Kentucky
                     Louisiana          211,607                 211,607
                Maine
             Maryland                 2,393,860               2,393,861
        Massachusetts                 1,057,862               1,057,861
             Michigan                 1,505,308               1,505,308
            Minnesota                 2,607,555               2,607,555
          Mississippi                   177,973                 177,974
             Missouri                   403,084                 403,084
              Montana                    10,060                  10,060
             Nebraska                   334,448                 334,447
               Nevada                 1,185,464               1,185,464
        New Hampshire
           New Jersey                   305,850                 305,850
           New Mexico
             New York                 5,640,744               5,640,744
       North Carolina                   394,036                 394,037
         North Dakota                    59,762                  59,763
                 Ohio                 1,846,295               1,846,295
             Oklahoma                         0                       0
               Oregon                   736,148                 736,148
         Pennsylvania                 1,900,575               1,900,575
         Rhode Island                   305,301                 305,301
       South Carolina                 1,319,824               1,319,824
         South Dakota
            Tennessee                   686,896                 686,896
                Texas                 1,426,644               1,426,644
                 Utah                    12,468                  12,468
              Vermont                   707,977                 707,978
             Virginia                    36,178                  36,178
       Virgin Islands
           Washington                 4,097,331               4,097,331
        West Virginia                   125,538                 125,539
            Wisconsin                   700,504                 700,504
              Wyoming
                             -----------------------------------------------
        U.S.................         57,135,857              56,518,622
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2021
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama                   286,127                 286,128
               Alaska                   101,498                 101,499
              Arizona                 2,881,047               2,881,047
             Arkansas                    76,344                  76,345
           California                15,079,814              15,079,814
             Colorado                 2,156,083               2,156,083
          Connecticut                   234,084                 234,084
             Delaware                   135,873                 135,872
    District of Columbia                103,940                 103,940
              Florida                   222,545                 222,545
              Georgia                 1,976,679               1,976,680
                 Guam
               Hawaii                   392,483                 392,483
                Idaho
             Illinois                 1,986,888               1,986,887
              Indiana                   244,901                 244,901
                 Iowa                   219,063                 219,064
               Kansas                    60,451                  60,451
             Kentucky
                     Louisiana          238,793                 238,793
                Maine                       399                     397
             Maryland                 2,551,627               2,551,627
        Massachusetts                 1,329,963               1,329,964
             Michigan                 1,435,475               1,435,475
            Minnesota                 2,833,324               2,833,324
          Mississippi                   194,661                 194,661
             Missouri                   434,527                 434,527
              Montana                    20,120                  20,120
             Nebraska                   386,826                 386,826
               Nevada                 1,188,356               1,188,357
        New Hampshire
           New Jersey                   253,876                 253,876
           New Mexico
             New York                 7,094,242               7,094,242
       North Carolina                 1,516,424               1,516,424
         North Dakota                    49,260                  49,261
                 Ohio                 2,354,293               1,849,878
             Oklahoma                   408,776                 408,775
               Oregon                18,688,155                 688,155
         Pennsylvania                 2,769,332               2,769,331
         Rhode Island                   119,909                 119,910
       South Carolina                 1,432,153               1,432,152
         South Dakota
            Tennessee                   766,005                 766,005
                Texas                 2,009,354               2,009,353
                 Utah                    42,367                  42,367
              Vermont                   557,294                 557,294
             Virginia                    39,868                  39,868
       Virgin Islands
           Washington                 4,122,616               4,122,616
        West Virginia                   125,845                 125,232
            Wisconsin                   764,123                 764,124
              Wyoming
                             -----------------------------------------------
        U.S.................         79,885,783              61,380,757
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2022
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama                   140,555                 140,556
               Alaska                    75,554                  75,554
              Arizona                 2,785,719               2,785,719
             Arkansas                    72,401                  72,401
           California                17,501,604              17,501,603
             Colorado                 2,701,157               2,701,157
          Connecticut                   465,578                 465,578
             Delaware                   186,149                 186,149
    District of Columbia                177,405                 177,405
              Florida                   181,706                 181,706
              Georgia                 2,257,675               2,257,674
                 Guam
               Hawaii                   396,894                 396,893
                Idaho
             Illinois                 2,203,305               2,203,304
              Indiana                   342,640                 342,640
                 Iowa                   246,693                 246,693
               Kansas                    54,585                  54,584
             Kentucky                    76,276                  76,276
                     Louisiana          573,548                 573,548
                Maine                     4,462                   4,457
             Maryland                 3,229,171               3,229,171
        Massachusetts                 1,413,670               1,413,670
             Michigan                 2,070,360               2,070,360
            Minnesota                 2,963,475               2,963,474
          Mississippi                   190,767                 190,767
             Missouri                   564,448                 564,448
              Montana                    23,972                  23,973
             Nebraska                   325,577                 325,577
               Nevada                 1,277,764               1,277,764
        New Hampshire                         0
           New Jersey                   885,609                 885,609
           New Mexico
             New York                 5,242,227               5,242,229
       North Carolina                 1,946,629               1,946,629
         North Dakota                    60,593                  60,594
                 Ohio                 2,240,929               1,980,293
             Oklahoma                   611,474                 611,475
               Oregon                   679,930                 679,929
         Pennsylvania                 2,836,921               2,836,920
         Rhode Island                   352,572                 352,571
       South Carolina                 1,400,876               1,400,876
         South Dakota
            Tennessee                   618,872                 618,872
                Texas                 5,530,134               5,530,133
                 Utah                    36,157                  36,157
              Vermont                   548,090                 548,092
             Virginia                    67,681                  67,680
       Virgin Islands
           Washington                 4,180,904               4,180,904
        West Virginia                   125,539                 125,539
            Wisconsin                 1,131,101               1,131,101
              Wyoming
                             -----------------------------------------------
        U.S.................         70,999,348              70,738,704
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2023
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama                   246,668                 246,669
               Alaska                         0                 109,168
              Arizona                 4,188,514               4,188,514
             Arkansas                    89,460                  89,460
           California                15,916,817              15,916,818
             Colorado                 3,087,364               3,087,364
          Connecticut                   143,870                 143,870
             Delaware                   184,067                 184,066
    District of Columbia                246,658                 246,658
              Florida                   254,076                 254,076
              Georgia                 2,347,651               2,347,651
                 Guam
               Hawaii                   407,647                 407,647
                Idaho
             Illinois                 2,382,014               2,382,014
              Indiana                   561,002                 561,003
                 Iowa                   247,053                 247,053
               Kansas                    66,978                  66,977
             Kentucky                   106,995                 106,995
                     Louisiana          477,265                 477,265
                Maine                       181                     178
             Maryland                 2,484,209               2,484,210
        Massachusetts                 1,813,333               1,813,334
             Michigan                 2,007,185               2,007,184
            Minnesota                 3,135,571               3,135,571
          Mississippi                   204,352                 204,352
             Missouri                   660,105                 660,105
              Montana                    22,998                  22,999
             Nebraska                   325,454                 325,453
               Nevada                 1,300,490               1,300,472
        New Hampshire                    13,112                  13,113
           New Jersey                   798,553                 798,553
           New Mexico
             New York                 4,128,987               4,128,987
       North Carolina                 1,037,935               1,037,936
         North Dakota                    67,952                  67,953
                 Ohio                 2,094,574               2,094,573
             Oklahoma                   914,234                 914,234
               Oregon                   874,135                 874,134
         Pennsylvania                 2,986,605               2,986,606
         Rhode Island                   608,482                 608,481
       South Carolina                 1,778,148               1,778,148
         South Dakota
            Tennessee                   865,007                 865,007
                Texas                 5,103,289               5,103,288
                 Utah                    44,345                  44,344
              Vermont                   688,007                 688,008
             Virginia                   260,851                 260,850
       Virgin Islands
           Washington                 4,831,113               4,831,113
        West Virginia                   114,345                 114,345
            Wisconsin                 1,484,455               1,484,455
              Wyoming
                             -----------------------------------------------
        U.S.................         71,602,106              71,711,254
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2024
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alabama                   173,588                 173,587
               Alaska                   184,536                 184,537
              Arizona                 3,562,676               3,562,677
             Arkansas                   102,705                 102,705
           California                15,966,394              15,966,394
             Colorado                 2,709,382               2,709,382
          Connecticut                   174,184                 174,184
             Delaware                   162,333                 162,333
    District of Columbia                258,425                 258,425
              Florida                   210,504                 210,504
              Georgia                 2,320,659               2,320,660
                 Guam
               Hawaii                   522,276                 522,275
                Idaho
             Illinois                 2,214,420               2,214,421
              Indiana                   569,008                 569,008
                 Iowa                   272,259                 272,258
               Kansas                   125,578                 125,578
             Kentucky                   157,058                 157,059
                     Louisiana          440,602                 440,603
                Maine                         0                       0
             Maryland                 1,755,901               1,755,901
        Massachusetts                 2,282,348               2,282,348
             Michigan                 2,086,267               2,086,267
            Minnesota                 4,223,385               4,223,384
          Mississippi                   203,414                 203,414
             Missouri                   731,977                 731,977
              Montana                    29,631                  29,630
             Nebraska                   337,976                 337,977
               Nevada                 1,626,237               1,626,237
        New Hampshire                    56,266                  30,040
           New Jersey                 1,919,238               1,919,238
           New Mexico                    29,939                  29,940
             New York                 5,324,729               5,324,730
       North Carolina                 1,764,683               1,764,683
         North Dakota                   116,597                 116,596
                 Ohio                 2,429,718               2,429,717
             Oklahoma                 1,188,153               1,188,153
               Oregon                 1,017,824               1,017,825
         Pennsylvania                 1,818,108               1,818,108
         Rhode Island                   475,248                 475,249
       South Carolina                 1,849,483               1,849,483
         South Dakota
            Tennessee                   920,343                 920,343
                Texas                 6,760,558               6,760,558
                 Utah                    21,931                  21,931
              Vermont                   766,062                 766,061
             Virginia                   313,152                 313,152
       Virgin Islands
           Washington                 5,089,296               5,089,296
        West Virginia                   121,481                 121,481
            Wisconsin                 1,481,083               1,481,082
              Wyoming
                             -----------------------------------------------
        U.S.................         76,867,615              76,841,391
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    07/09/2025, 12:29 p.m.

        Question 14. The most recent study published by the Department on
    foods typically purchased by SNAP households contains purchasing data
    from 2011. Does the Department plan to initiate a new study on the food
    choices of SNAP and non-SNAP households as part of the Food and
    Nutrition Service's next Research and Evaluation plan?
        Answer. FNS initiated a study on the food purchases of SNAP
    households in late Fiscal Year 2023 and expects its completion in
    Fiscal Year 2026.
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
            from Minnesota
    USDA Workforce/Staffing
        Question 1. In your Senate confirmation hearing testimony, you said
    ``we must work with the great men and women of USDA and the stakeholder
    community to immediately and comprehensively get a handle on the state
    of animal-disease outbreaks, including H5N1 and New World Screwworm,
    and do everything possible to eradicate them.'' Yet on your first day
    in the office, you fired \1/4\ of the great men and women who worked at
    USDA's National Animal Health Laboratory Network, which plays a major
    role in responding to animal-disease outbreaks.
        How does cutting a 14 person staff by 25 percent further our
    efforts to test for and track diseases like H5N1, which is impacting on
    the price of eggs people have to pay at the store each day?
        Answer. USDA worked swiftly to rescind the termination notices
    those employees received.
        Question 1a. Given that the United States reviews and judges
    foreign countries own animal-disease control programs and have cited
    weaknesses in those programs as an excuse to keep foreign animal
    product imports out, isn't there a danger that your actions could lead
    to similar reviews and decisions by other nations and hurt our farmers
    ability to export U.S. animal products?
        Answer. There have not been any barriers to trade imposed by other
    countries as a result of the subsequently rescinded terminations you
    mentioned above. I will continue to work to ensure that APHIS has the
    resources needed to maintain mission critical activities, including
    providing technical expertise in discussions regarding sanitary and
    phytosanitary export issues.

        Question 2. In a press release on your first full day on the job,
    you said you ``welcome DOGE's efforts at USDA because we know that its
    work makes us better, stronger, faster, and more efficient.'' So are
    you promising farmers, ranchers, loggers and the other stakeholders who
    depend on USDA and the services it provides that the DOGE recommended
    personnel reductions you have adopted will not result in any slowdown
    or delay in services to these constituencies by the Department and its
    agencies nor any degradation in the quality of work these
    constituencies enjoyed prior to these personnel reductions?
        Answer. I fully support President Trump's directive to eliminate
    wasteful spending and ensure taxpayer dollars are used effectively.
    USDA is optimizing building capacity and consolidating underutilized
    offices to reduce inefficiencies while continuing to prioritize
    frontline services for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. I
    understand the array of mission critical positions and programs at the
    Department and will ensure that those areas have the resources and
    personnel they need to continue serving the American people.

        Question 2a. Does DOGE have to review farm loans or guarantees over
    $500,000? Who else has to review these loans?
        Answer. I have hired people at the Department who are dedicated to
    finding and resolving inefficiencies. Their charge is simple, to help
    me refocus USDA on its core mission of serving the American people
    rather than the bureaucracy of Washington D.C. These efficiency
    personnel perform a concurrent review of Farm Loan Programs
    applications. This process began on April 30 and there has not been a
    delay in the processing of applications for direct loan or loan
    guarantee assistance. Notably, FSA underwriting policies and procedures
    have not been altered by this new review process. FSA submits a request
    for review upon receipt of an application, allowing the review to occur
    concurrently with FSA's own application analysis. All reviews to date
    have been cleared and completed within 1 business day of submission,
    thus avoiding delays.

        Question 3. It is my understanding that the Department fired 28
    people with the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in
    Manhattan, Kansas one day, only to rescind some of the firings the next
    day. The NBAF is the forefront of our nation's efforts to protect
    against transboundary, emerging, and zoonotic animal diseases that
    threaten our nation's food supply, agricultural economy, and public
    health. Additionally, several positions in the Food Safety & Inspection
    Service (FSIS) were likewise fired only to have the Department attempt
    to correct the error.
        Were these firings a clerical mistake or did someone have second
    thoughts about the initial decision to fire these people after the
    fact?

        Question 3a. Didn't you or someone at the Department review the
    list of terminated positions before they went out in order to catch
    obviously careless mistakes like this?

        Question 3b. With the threat of bird-flu further spreading
    throughout the country, plus other potential animal diseases, how could
    the NBAF or FSIS be on the chopping block in the first place; wasn't
    there any discussion before these decisions were made?
        Answer 3-3b. There have not been any reductions in force at USDA.
    The standup of NBAF continues to be a priority, and voluntary
    resignations will not negatively impact the mission transfer timeline.

        Question 4. We know that many of the jobs at USDA require specific
    education and training, if not years of experience, in order to address
    the specific challenges USDA is faced with resolving every day. Do you
    agree with that statement?

        Question 4a. Do you have the ability to replace these experienced
    folks who have left the agency? Do you have permission to hire given
    the hiring freeze this Administration had required?

        Question 4b. How many people can you hire? How many have been
    hired? What roles are they filling? What about roles in agricultural
    research or in cybersecurity? What about those with knowledge about
    loans and loan processing? Are you able to job-share so that as people
    with years of experience leave, they can co-work with new staff who
    need to get up to speed quickly?
        Answer 4-4b. USDA is committed to providing the most efficient and
    effective service possible to meet and exceed the needs of the people
    we serve. We will continue to review, assess, and solve for the best
    ways to ensure that service.

        Question 4c. Does USDA have enough trained epidemiologist to battle
    H5N1 or to prevent the spread of New World Screwworm? Does USDA have
    enough experienced staff to negotiate with foreign countries about
    opening new markets?
        Answer. I will continue working to ensure USDA has the resources
    needed to maintain mission critical activities, including preventing
    the spread of the New World Screwworm and expanding market access.

        Question 5. We have been informed that 17 USDA employees were fired
    from the Agricultural Research Service's U.S. Meat Animal Research
    Center (USMARC) in Nebraska. This action led Laura Field, Executive
    Director of the Nebraska Cattlemen to express \1\ her organization's
    concern given the importance of the Center to the beef industry and
    potential for losing the Center's ability continue to do ground-
    breaking research. In her view, USMARC isn't a place with wasteful
    spending and inefficiencies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/business-inputs/
    article/2025/02/19/usda-cuts-stretch-across-nations-top.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Is she wrong? Were the 17 employees who were let go an unnecessary
    wasteful expense? Can you guarantee to Ms. Field and us that USMARC
    will not see any slowdown or loss of productivity or innovation due to
    these cuts?
        Answer. Eleven probationary employees at USMARC were released and
    all were subsequently offered reinstatement. Any employees that have
    left their position at USMARC did so voluntarily. Critical research at
    USMARC continues without any slowdown or loss of productivity or
    innovation.
                                   attachment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/business-inputs/article/
    2025/02/19/usda-cuts-stretch-across-nations-top]
    Array of Jobs, Grants Lost Across Ag
    USDA Cuts Stretch Across Nation's Top Research Labs to Small, Urban
            Farmers Markets
    2/19/2025 D 2:33 PM CST

    By Chris Clayton,\1\ DTN Ag Policy Editor
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/
    author?authorFullName=Chris%20
    Clayton.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Opened in May 2023, the National Bio and Agro Defense
            Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas, was called the crown
            jewel in foreign animal disease research to defend agriculture
            from such outbreaks. The local newspaper reported 28 scientists
            and staff were terminated as part of the USDA job cuts. (DTN
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            file photo by Chris Clayton)

              Editor's Note: This story is updated from the Tuesday, Feb.
            18, version.
              * * * * *
        Omaha (DTN)--There are still no concrete details about the number
    of job cuts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture or which grant
    contracts have been canceled, but ground-breaking meat labs and the
    country's new crown jewel facility for combating foreign animal
    diseases were not spared from cuts.
        President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for ``radical
    transparency'' to shed light on what he views as wasteful spending
    across Federal agencies.
        For people and groups impacted, they see the cuts in a different
    light.
        At least 17 employees were laid off at the USDA Agricultural
    Research Service's U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska, the
    Lincoln Journal-Star first reported. Known as USMARC, the science lab
    has 35,000 acres and more than 25,000 livestock, including cattle,
    sheep and hogs. The facility conducts research on meat quality and
    safety, animal breeding and genetics, feed quality and efficiency, and
    overall livestock production.
        Laura Field, executive director of Nebraska Cattlemen, said her
    members started hearing about the layoffs at USMARC last week. ``We
    know there have been categories of folks that have been lost, and it's
    a real concern for us because the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center is
    such an important part of the beef industry from a production
    perspective,'' Field said. ``The research they have done there is so
    ground-breaking, and if they have losses that impact their ability to
    function, what that could mean for the cattle industry.''
        Beyond the research, Field noted the facility has 25,000 head of
    livestock that need to be taken care of as well.
        Field added, ``I think we all believe firmly that there is probably
    some need for the government to take a look at positions and have
    conversations about wasteful spending and efficiencies, but USMARC is
    certainly not a place where that is the case. We think they are already
    operating on a pretty thin budget, and they're doing a really good job
    given all of the work they are doing.''
        Along with cuts at USMARC, the local newspaper in Manhattan,
    Kansas, the Mercury, reported at least 28 people had been fired at the
    National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), a $1.25 billion, state-
    of-the-art USDA/Department of Homeland Security research facility that
    just opened within the past 2 years. NBAF is the country's only level 4
    biosecurity lab for animals and the first lab capable of diagnostics
    and vaccines for zoonotic diseases. Among those fired was a high-level
    researcher working on avian influenza, the Mercury reported.
        NBC News then reported USDA had ``accidentally'' fired researchers
    working on avian influenza.
        In a statement late Tuesday to DTN, USDA confirmed the department
    was seeking to rehire employees working on avian influenza.
        ``USDA continues to prioritize the response to highly pathogenic
    avian influenza (HPAI). Several job categories, including
    veterinarians, animal health technicians, and other emergency response
    personnel have been exempted from the recent personnel actions to
    continue to support the HPAI response and other animal health
    priorities. Although several positions supporting HPAI were notified of
    their terminations over the weekend, we are working to swiftly rectify
    the situation and rescind those letters--USDA's Food Safety and
    Inspection Service frontline positions are considered public safety
    positions, and we are continuing to hire the workforce necessary to
    ensure the safety and adequate supply of food to fulfill our statutory
    mission.''
    Individual Stories
        At the USDA National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment
    in Ames, Iowa, the Iowa State Daily reported the lab's 2022 student
    employee of the year was fired. Logan Conner had worked at the lab for
    more than 2\1/2\ years and was a research technician at the facility
    before being released on Friday.
        ``It was completely out of the blue,'' Conner told the school
    newspaper. ``No one at the building had any say or jurisdiction over
    who got fired (or) when--it was all just probationary employees.''
        In Illinois, A.J. Ruggieri, an Army veteran who served 2\1/2\ years
    in Africa, described himself as a Republican who voted for Trump, but
    also someone who started a new job in early December doing
    communications for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
    He noted he got the job partially because of his veteran status. He had
    thought he accepted an offer for a deferred resignation but was instead
    told on Friday he was being terminated under the probationary period
    status instead. He noted his wife is also ill with influenza.
        ``The first thing I did was call my wife. How were we going to pay
    for the prescriptions she needed? How were we going to pay for the
    emergency-room visit we had planned because her condition had worsened
    overnight?'' Ruggieri wrote in the Champaign News-Gazette. ``As I stood
    there, I was no longer a Federal employee. Was my Federal health
    insurance gone? What about dental insurance? We still have one child
    with braces. No clarification was given. There was no indication that
    the premiums were being paid from my paycheck, no severance discussed,
    nothing.''
        Ruggieri added, ``Everything comes at a cost. The only thing
    constant is change, but my question is not whether we can make America
    great again, but how do we do so? There is no civility in this, no
    courage, no honor, no consideration for the citizen employee. Just the
    bottom line cloaked in a technicality of a Federal regulation.''
        In Kansas City, Missouri, Alana Henry found out Friday night her
    group's 3 year, $165,000 farmers['] market grant had been taken away
    from USDA because it falls under the category of diversity, equity and
    inclusion (DEI). Henry's organization, the Ivanhoe Neighborhood
    Council, had a signed contract with USDA last fall. It was among $33.5
    million in grants to 113 groups across 43 states expand local and
    regional food systems, especially in under-served urban and rural
    communities.
        ``We had already started working on it and had received our first
    disbursement,'' Henry told DTN. ``You know, I had kind of been on pins
    and needles, so I'm not entirely surprised, but of course there is a
    level of shock and anger.''
        Henry, who also operates an urban farm, said the grant was meant to
    help expand a neighborhood farmers' market and also further help
    provide fruits and vegetables to young mothers on the Women, Infants
    and Children (WIC) program, as well as seniors in the area who buy food
    at the farmers market.
        ``We were very excited about creating a space for them to purchase
    from vendors who were authorized to accept those benefit programs and
    do it in a way that preserves their dignity,'' Henry said.
        Henry is unsure how to proceed after being told the grant ``no
    longer effectuates agency priorities regarding diversity, equity and
    inclusion programs and activities,'' based on the letter she received.
        ``Not only is it unfair, but clearly they didn't understand the
    sort of impact of the work we are doing and have been doing, but it's
    also potentially illegal,'' Henry said, noting USDA's breach of
    contract.
        Henry was not aware Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins spent
    Tuesday just a few miles away speaking to a conference of farmers in
    downtown Kansas City.
        ``I wish I had known that because I would have shown up,'' Henry
    said.
    USDA, White House on Cuts
        In response to questions from DTN, a spokesperson responded Tuesday
    afternoon, ``Secretary Rollins fully supports President Trump's
    directive to optimize government operations, eliminate inefficiencies,
    and strengthen USDA's ability to better serve American farmers,
    ranchers, and the agriculture community. We have a solemn
    responsibility to be good stewards of Americans' hard-earned taxpayer
    dollars and to ensure that every dollar is being spent as effectively
    as possible to serve the people, not the bureaucracy.''
        The spokesperson added, ``As part of this effort, USDA has released
    individuals in their probationary period of employment. Secretary
    Rollins understands the array of mission-critical positions and
    programs at the Department, and she will ensure that those areas have
    the resources and personnel they need to continue serving the American
    people.''
        USDA has not released details about the full number of people
    terminated across the department or the grants that have been
    rescinded.
        Speaking Tuesday on RFD-TV, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins
    said, ``The United States Department of Agriculture is filled with
    incredible, hard-working people. But there's also some realignment that
    needs to happen. Only 6% of our workforce actually goes into the
    office. There's 106,000 employees and 29 different departments. Are we
    doing everything to the best of our ability with the best people to
    serve our farmers and our ranchers?''
        An anonymous USDA employee on Wednesday called out DTN for quoting
    Rollins above and not fact-checking that statement. A report by the
    White House Office of Personnel Management in 2024 showed USDA had
    112,659 employees in Fiscal Year 2023 with 26,449 eligible for
    ``telework'' that year. The percentage of employees who worked remotely
    and did not work in the office was 23% of the workforce, meaning 77% of
    USDA employees actually worked in their offices nationwide that year. A
    link to the report is below.
        See, OPM telework report, 2024 https://www.opm.gov/telework/
    history-legislation-reports/status-of-telework-in-the-federal-
    government-2024.pdf.
        The White House Office of Communications also on Tuesday issued a
    statement from the President calling for ``Radical Transparency About
    Wasteful Spending.'' The statement said the government spends too much
    on programs, contracts and grants that do not promote the interests of
    the American people.
        ``For too long, taxpayers have subsidized ideological projects
    overseas and domestic organizations engaged in actions that undermine
    the national interest,'' according to the President's statement. ``The
    American people have seen their tax dollars used to fund the passion
    projects of unelected bureaucrats rather than to advance the national
    interest. The American people have a right to see how the Federal
    Government has wasted their hard-earned wages.''
        The President called for department agencies ``to take all
    appropriate actions to make public, to the maximum extent permitted by
    law and as the heads of agencies deem appropriate to promote the
    policies of my Administration, the complete details of every terminated
    program, canceled contract, terminated grant, or any other discontinued
    obligation of Federal funds. Agencies shall ensure that such
    publication occurs in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations,
    and the terms and conditions of the underlying contract, grant, or
    other award.''
        For more, see ``Forest Service, NRCS Among Agencies Hit by Mass
    Firings as USDA Cuts Jobs'' here: https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/
    web/ag/news/article/2025/02/14/forest-service-nrcs-among-
    agencies?itm_source=parsely-api

        Question 6. We have lost countless dedicated public servants at the
    Forest Service, many of whom held wildfire certifications and served on
    the line during fire season, and nearly all of whom played essential
    support roles for the Agency's core functions. How can you guarantee us
    that these cuts and hiring freezes will not result in any deterioration
    of the Forest Services' ability to provide for public safety when
    wildfires strike?
        Answer. In support of the President's vision and the Secretary's
    direction, the Forest Service worked with OPM to exempt wildland fire
    hiring from the national hiring pause. The agency has nearly met our
    target of having 11,300 firefighters on board for the summer peak.
    Additionally, we have invited staff who had voluntarily separated from
    the Forest Service through the deferred resignation program and who
    hold current red cards, to come back and support fire assignments this
    season. We have already had these staff members taking assignments into
    support roles. We will do everything we can to reduce the

        Question 7. We are already hearing \2\ concerns about the Elon Musk
    universal Federal employee buyout. Specifically, meatpackers worry that
    if many food safety inspectors take the buyout, it could lead to plant
    shutdowns for lack of inspectors. Plus, with the hiring freeze in
    place, questions remain on whether we are bringing on replacement meat
    inspectors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trumps-funding-
    freeze-hurts-american-farmers-and-consumers-rcna192333.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Can you tell us how many food inspectors are taking advantage of
    deferred resignation programs, and whether you foresee any potential
    shutdown of meat-packing facilities due to insufficient number of
    inspectors?
        Answer. As part of this reorientation, the Deferred Resignation
    Program (DRP), a completely voluntary tool, was used to empower
    employees to decide what is best for them. As of May 1, 2025, 555
    employees from FSIS voluntarily elected deferred resignation. These
    departures had no impact on the agency's ability to provide inspection
    coverage at establishments. Because of the essential nature of their
    work, FSIS frontline inspectors and veterinarians were not offered the
    opportunity to participate in the second round of DRP. FSIS frontline
    positions are considered public safety positions pursuant to
    Secretarial Memorandum 1078-008 issued on April 22, and USDA is
    continuing to hire the workforce necessary to ensure the safety of food
    to fulfill our statutory mission.
                                   attachment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trumps-funding-freeze-
    hurts-american-farmers-and-consumers-rcna192333]
    Trump's funding freeze leaves American farmers like me out in the cold
        How the Administration's funding freeze threatens the
    infrastructure that keeps rural communities--and everyday America--
    running.

    Feb. 16, 2025, 10:52 AM EST

    By Rob Larew, President, National Farmers Union

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file.

        The Trump Administration's decision to pause and review Federal
    funding has sparked uncertainty for many Americans. Even if you have
    not personally felt the effects yet, you soon might, because these
    abrupt freezes are hitting family farmers and ranchers hard. And when
    farmers struggle, every consumer feels it at the grocery store.
        Agriculture is a complex industry, often overlooked in national
    policy discussions. Farmers take on an immense amount of financial risk
    to put a crop into the ground or raise a herd of livestock, only to be
    wiped out by a natural disaster, rising costs or collapsing markets.
    The programs under review--or those completely frozen--help family
    farmers manage risk, access credit and stay afloat when times get
    tough.

        Without intervention, these cuts will ripple through rural
    economies.

        Like all businesses, farmers need some stability to succeed. As a
    sixth-generation farmer from West Virginia, I understand the
    Administration's desire to root out waste, fraud and abuse in Federal
    programs. But the current freeze is creating chaos instead of reform.
    No one knows what funding will be available, or if key programs will
    have the staff needed to operate. Here are a few examples of the
    funding freeze's real-world impacts on America's farmers.
        The freeze has most immediately impacted Federal conservation and
    voluntary climate-smart agriculture projects. Across the country,
    farmers have been left in limbo after making sustainability
    investments, trusting that the government would uphold its commitments.
        For example, some farmers who purchased cover crop seed to improve
    soil health or installed solar panels to reduce energy costs are now
    learning that Federal reimbursements have been cut off. These are not
    theoretical losses. These are real financial burdens that could push
    family farms into bankruptcy. Without intervention, these cuts will
    ripple through rural economies. Every farm that goes out of business
    means fewer families in rural communities, less money spent at the
    local businesses, fewer kids in the local schools, and fewer tax
    dollars for roads, hospitals and emergency services.
        Farmers and policymakers in both parties have broadly supported
    international food aid for decades. American farmers produce more food
    than we can consume, and food aid donations serve the dual purpose of
    providing a new market opportunity for farmers and feeding people in
    need around the world. The U.S. purchased roughly $2 billion in food
    aid last year from American farmers; dismantling our food aid program
    is certain to disrupt market prices and create additional stress for
    U.S. food producers.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file.

        Beyond agriculture, the funding freeze threatens the infrastructure
    that keeps rural communities running. Federal grants and loans help
    small towns replace aging and costly infrastructure, such as broadband
    and water systems, and invest in local meat and food processing. Local
    entities have relied on Federal loans and loan guarantees--existing
    commitments that the government is now freezing, leaving farmers,
    investors, lenders and rural communities on the hook for funds already
    spent.
        Shrinking the size of the Federal workforce might seem like a
    reasonable way to cut costs, but in agriculture it could have
    disastrous consequences. Farmers rely on Federal employees to
    administer disaster relief, risk management programs and conservation
    initiatives, and rural areas already struggle to recruit and retain
    qualified staff.
        One of the more alarming impacts could be on U.S. Department of
    Agriculture food safety inspectors. Meatpacking plants cannot operate
    without them, meaning staffing shortages could slow or shut down
    processing facilities. This would hurt livestock growers, who already
    face limited options due to industry consolidation. It would also
    reduce meat supply, driving up prices for consumers. These funding
    freezes do not just hurt individual farmers. They reinforce a food
    system already dominated by a handful of powerful corporations. Over
    the past several decades, agriculture has become more concentrated,
    with a few companies controlling everything from seeds and fertilizers
    to meatpacking and grain trading. Farmers have few choices on where to
    sell their products, leaving them at the mercy of companies that keep
    farm prices low while raising costs for consumers.

        Every farm that goes out of business means fewer families in rural
    communities, less money spent at the local businesses, fewer kids in
    the local schools, and fewer tax dollars for roads, hospitals, and
    emergency services.

        Further instability in Federal programs only strengthens these
    monopolies. When family farmers lose access to credit, conservation
    programs or technical assistance, they are more likely to be forced out
    of business or absorbed by corporate interests. That means less
    competition, fewer independent farmers and higher grocery prices for
    American families.
        Finally, Federal research funding drives breakthroughs in crop and
    animal science, safeguarding our food supply from emerging diseases and
    advancing technologies that help farmers produce more with fewer
    resources. However, the current funding freeze has stalled agricultural
    research, leaving farmers without the tools they need to adapt to a
    changing climate and evolving threats. Investing in agriculture is
    investing in the future--ensuring farmers can keep farming, rural
    communities can stay vibrant, and every American can have access to
    safe, affordable food.
        Supporting family farmers and ranchers means supporting the
    backbone of our nation. These funding cuts are not just numbers on a
    budget spreadsheet; they represent real dollars that sustain families
    and power rural economies. Freezing spending and making sweeping
    decisions without Congressional oversight just adds more uncertainty to
    a stressed farm economy. The right way to evaluate government programs
    is through thoughtful, measured approaches that protect taxpayer
    dollars without causing harm to family farmers, ranchers and rural
    communities.
        Policymakers must listen to the voices of those most impacted and
    recognize the real-world consequences of any cuts. Our rural economy
    and food system--and therefore all of America--depends on it.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rob Larew
              Rob Larew is a leader in agriculture, public policy and rural
            advocacy. Larew leads the second-largest general farm
            organization as the 15th President of National Farmers Union,
            representing more than 230,000 family farmers and ranchers
            across the country. A sixth-generation farmer from West
            Virginia, Larew has dedicated his career to advancing the
            interests of family farmers and rural communities across the
            United States.

        Question 7a. How long it takes to train a new meat inspector,
    assuming USDA might have to try to staff up?
        Answer. Formal and on-the-job-training of new inspectors depends on
    the position they are hired in. It ranges from 2 weeks (for food
    inspectors, GS 5-7) to around 6 weeks (for Consumer Safety Inspectors,
    GS 5-9).

        Question 8. According to the President's Executive Order, once the
    hiring freeze is lifted, you will only be able to hire one employee for
    every four that have left, presumably whether through buyout, firing,
    or reduction in force. Given the competing needs for USDA researchers,
    loan officers, food inspectors, firefighters, and other positions that
    deal directly with America's farmers, ranchers, and loggers, how will
    you prioritize which functions gets these precious staff resources and
    which functions do without?
        Answer. USDA will continue to assess staffing needs to ensure
    mission critical activities are carried out and will use the funding
    provided by Congress to implement programs across the Department. I
    will also continue to work with agencies to understand where
    opportunities and challenges are.

        Question 9. President Trump has proposed slashing USDA funding for
    the very technical assistance that farmers around the country rely on
    for valuable farm income and which allow them be better stewards of
    their land. We hear daily how vital this support is to America's
    farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. Do you support the
    President's cuts to programs that directly support our hard-working
    farmers and ranchers?
        Answer. USDA fully supports President Trump's directive to ensure
    taxpayer dollars are used effectively. USDA will continue to prioritize
    frontline services for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. I
    understand the array of mission critical positions and programs at the
    Department and will ensure that those areas have the resources and
    personnel they need to continue serving the American people.

        Question 9a. NRCS staff are the boots on the ground that are there
    to help America's farmers and ranchers. How many NRCS staff have left,
    been fired, or been bought up this year? How can you say that you are
    putting farmers first, when the very people that who's job is to help
    farmers are being terminated or bought out?
        Answer. Approximately 2,455 NRCS staff voluntarily took the
    Deferred Resignation Program. I will ensure the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service has the resources necessary to perform mission
    critical work.

        Question 10. We understand the Department's earlier efforts to fire
    its probationary employees and conduct additional mass layoffs is
    currently being stayed by court order as the ongoing litigations
    continues. During that initial round of firings of probationary
    employees, we heard countless stories of veterans losing their jobs
    under this Administration. While the firing of probationary employees
    at USDA did not qualify as a reduction-in-force (RIF), if you wanted to
    honor the service of these veterans performed for their country, you
    could have applied in this instance the same protections and
    preferences veterans would enjoy under a formal RIF. Instead, you chose
    to fire those probationary employees who also served their nation in
    the military along with everyone else.
        Don't you believe the men and women who wore the uniform and wanted
    to continue to serve in a different capacity deserve just a little more
    consideration than a summary firing without considering of any
    alternatives for them?

        Question 10a. According to several reports, each individual agency
    & Department had the final say on these firings plus a list of possible
    exceptions were given. Is it your testimony that the President and OPM
    in directing this action provided no flexibility or guidance to protect
    veterans from being subject to this action?
        Answer 10-10a. Over the last 4 years, USDA's workforce grew by 8%,
    and employees' salaries increased by 14.5%--including hiring thousands
    of employees with no sustainable way to pay them. This all occurred
    without any tangible increase in service to USDA's core constituencies
    across the agricultural sector. With respect to probationary employees,
    they have been restored to the respective employment status they each
    held prior to their termination. USDA paid each probationary employee
    any commensurate back pay, from the respective date of termination.
    USDA also acted diligently to complete the administrative steps related
    to notifying the probationary employees of their reinstatement,
    ascertaining whether some of the probationary employees choose to
    resign, processing the reinstatements for purposes of all relevant USDA
    record systems, and returning the reinstated employees to duty status.

        Question 11. During your initial firing of probationary employees,
    hundreds of them came forth to show that their termination notices
    indicated that their probationary period of employment was terminated
    due to poor performance. This notice was given to employees who had no
    performance review, those who did have reviews but received favorable
    reviews, and even those who were promoted after a favorable review. On
    April 18, 2025, a Federal judge issued an order requiring USDA to
    provide these employees with a written statement, stating that their
    termination was not performance or fitness based but was made as part
    of a government-wide mass termination. This notice can be found on
    USDA's website, which also includes a statement from the Department
    that it believes this order to be both legally and factually erroneous.
        Who made the decision at USDA to send these notices to probationary
    staff since they must have been drafted before you were sworn in?

        Question 11a. Who at USDA was involved in these conversations since
    you were not yet sworn in as the Secretary? Under what authority were
    they acting?

        Question 11b. On your first day, you held a party while these
    notices were being sent. Would you do it again?

        Question 11c. You have testified to Congress that no one at USDA
    has been fired. Yet, thousands of employees who were at USDA prior to
    January 20, 2025 have been terminated, resigned, placed on
    administrative leave, been part of a reductions in force, or have taken
    a deferred resignation. Please provide a list, by agency, division,
    mission area, or program area of the positions that were staffed prior
    to January 20, 2025 which are no longer staffed.
        If any positions have been eliminated at USDA, please provide a
    list of positions that have been eliminated.
        Answer 11-11c. Over the last 4 years, USDA's workforce grew by 8%,
    and employees' salaries increased by 14.5%--including hiring thousands
    of employees with no sustainable way to pay them. This all occurred
    without any tangible increase in service to USDA's core constituencies
    across the agricultural sector. It is the policy of USDA not to release
    personally identifiable information of USDA employees. With respect to
    probationary employees, they have been restored to the respective
    employment status they each held prior to their termination. USDA paid
    each probationary employee any commensurate back pay, from the
    respective date of termination. USDA also acted diligently to complete
    the administrative steps related to notifying the probationary
    employees of their reinstatement, ascertaining whether some of the
    probationary employees choose to resign, processing the reinstatements
    for purposes of all relevant USDA record systems, and returning the
    reinstated employees to duty status.

        Question 12. Section 3(c) of Executive Order ``Implementing The
    President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Workforce
    Optimization Initiative'' requires all Departments and agencies to
    initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), or mass firings. We
    understand USDA has completed its plan for compliance with this Order,
    even as the Courts have paused its implementation.
        Was the Department given a target number or goal to hit for the
    reductions in force that every Department and agency is required to
    implement pursuant to this Executive Order?

        Question 12a. As the Executive Order directs the Department to
    prioritize for RIFs those employees who are not designated as essential
    during a lapse in appropriations, has USDA looked at who was previously
    deemed non-essential in the first Trump Administration's government
    shutdown during 2018 and 2019. Tell me what guidance you gave your
    staff when you asked them to figure out who gets RIF'd and who stays?
        Answer 12-12a. Over the last 4 years, USDA's workforce grew by 8%,
    and employees' salaries increased by 14.5%--including hiring thousands
    of employees with no sustainable way to pay them. This all occurred
    without any tangible increase in service to USDA's core constituencies
    across the agricultural sector. On July 24, 2025, USDA announced an
    intended reorganization to make certain USDA can afford its workforce.
    To date, much of USDA's personnel reduction was through voluntary
    retirements and the Deferred Retirement Program (DRP), a completely
    voluntary tool. As of July 24, 2025, approximately 15,364 individuals
    voluntarily elected deferred resignation. When necessary, USDA will
    continue to fully leverage voluntary programs such as the Voluntary
    Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive
    Payments (VSIPs). At this time, it is unlikely that USDA will perform
    any large-scale reductions in force, focused and limited reductions in
    force may be implemented only if needed.

        Question 13. Where are you in terms of the USDA reorganization and
    office moves? I understand my Republican colleagues in the Senate are
    pleading for you to move offices to their states.
        Have you had any conversations with elected officials about these
    moves?

        Question 13a. Has GSA begun working on procuring office space for
    staff to move into?

        Question 13b. Will you commit to notifying Congress before a local
    or regional USDA office is closed or otherwise impacted by a
    restructuring or lease termination?

        Question 13c. Will you commit to holding public meetings on
    proposed closures in the county where the USDA office is located?

        Question 13d. Will you commit to holding the required public
    meetings for any proposed closures of county or regional FSA offices?
        Answer 13-13d. USDA announced on August 1, 2025, the opening of a
    30 day public comment period for stakeholders, including USDA
    employees, Members of Congress, and agricultural and nutrition
    partners, to provide feedback on the Department's reorganization plan,
    as outlined in the Secretary's memorandum issued on July 24, 2025.

        Question 14. Eliminating telework and remote schedules and
    requiring USDA Federal workers to work daily from an office, often not
    one affiliated with their agency, has resulted in higher costs as well
    as a drastic loss in productivity and morale, compromising the services
    USDA provides for the American public, most notably farmers. Yet
    previously, the Secretary herself indicated that a flexible work
    schedule was integral to her success. Given the USDA's commitment to
    science and services to the American public, when will the USDA begin
    shifting back to telework and remote work schedules to increase
    productivity and reduce costs?
        Answer. A 2023 study conducted by the GAO reported an 11% space
    utilization for USDA headquarters alone. Interestingly, Congress has
    set a utilization goal of 60%, which means that Congress agrees in-
    office work leads to greater productivity. I am committed to ensuring
    the most efficient and effective Department as possible. That effort is
    only possible when employees are at work, in an office, ready and
    available to serve Americans. In addition, President Trump issued a
    Presidential Action Memo that directed agencies to take all necessary
    steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to
    return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-
    time basis. USDA will continue to comply with this directive.

        Question 15. We continue to be concerned about staffing issues at
    USDA offices. How many USDA NRCS offices are currently unstaffed?
    According to a late March Agri-Pulse article,\3\ ``At least eight USDA
    offices in Indiana are devoid of NRCS staff following recent cuts, as
    are six in Kansas, five in Oklahoma, four in Missouri and three in
    Minnesota.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22487-workforce-cutbacks-
    strip-many-nrcs-offices-of-staff.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. Public Law 115-334, Section 12410 indicates: ``The
    Secretary shall not close any field office of the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service unless, not later than 30 days before the date of
    the closure, the Secretary submits to the Committee on Agriculture of
    the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture,
    Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a notification of the closure.''
    It also indicates: ``The Secretary shall not permanently relocate any
    field-based employees of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or
    the rural development mission area if doing so would result in a field
    office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or the rural
    development mission area with two or fewer employees, unless, not later
    than 30 days before the date of the permanent relocation, the Secretary
    submits to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
    and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate
    a notification of the permanent relocation.'' NRCS has adhered to these
    prohibitions, ensuring no county-based employees have been relocated in
    a manner that would necessitate notification to the Committees on
    Appropriations.
                                   attachment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22487-workforce-cutbacks-strip-
    many-nrcs-offices-of-staff]
    Workforce cutbacks strip many NRCS offices of staff
    03/05/25 6:07 AM By Noah Wicks \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/authors/295-noah-wicks.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              The USDA Service Center in Malvern, Arkansas (Photo: USDA)

              Update: A Federal appeals board on Wednesday ordered USDA to
            allow fired probationary employees to return to work until
            April 18. In a statement to Agri-Pulse, a USDA spokesperson
            said the agency ``will work to abide by the ruling and has no
            further comment at this time.'' Read more here.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22509-judge-orders-usda-
    probationary-employees-reinstated.

        USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service didn't have a
    district conservationist in Bradley County, Arkansas, for almost 11
    years before Josh Hardin showed up.
        When Hardin was hired by NRCS last August, he was tasked with
    bringing life to an office that had not existed in over a decade. After
    the agency rented a space in an old bank building for him to work from,
    he brought in chairs and tables from home, decorated the space with
    potted plants and outfitted the kitchen with supplies.
        Hardin worked hard to rebuild relationships with area farmers who
    were distrustful of the agency, which for years only sent
    conservationists from Mississippi or other parts of Arkansas to help
    them address soil erosion, water quality and other natural resource
    concerns. He had the right degrees, knew the community and operated a
    farm a few counties over, he said. When he first applied for the post,
    Hardin said his supervisors saw him as a ``perfect fit.''
        Despite the hour and 10 minute drive to work every day, Hardin
    finally felt like he'd landed his dream job. He helped at least 30 new
    ``clients,'' as he calls them, apply for conservation programs during
    his tenure. He believes that number is an undercount.
        ``Rarely in life do we get to be in a place where it's like an
    eclipse,'' Hardin said. ``You're doing what you want to do, you're
    making the money you need to make to do it and people are also happy
    you're there.''
        Then the email came.
        On Feb. 13 and 14, at least 1,200 probationary NRCS employees were
    informed that their positions were terminated, as were workers in other
    branches of USDA. Hardin was one of them.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Josh Hardin (Photo: Josh
                                            Hardin)

                                      ``We lost a man that was energetic
                                    and was really, really well equipped to
                                    work with the people here,'' Arkansas
                                    timber and cattle producer Allen Primm
                                    said of Hardin's termination.
                                      Now, the Bradley County office once
                                    again lacks a district conservationist
                                    of its own, leaving farmers without a
                                    local contact
    qualified to initiate contracts or authorize payments. Buyouts and
    firings have shrunken staffs at other USDA field offices as the Trump
    Administration works to downsize the Federal workforce. Leases for some
    locations will soon be terminated.
        At least eight USDA offices in Indiana are devoid of NRCS staff
    following recent cuts, as are six in Kansas, five in Oklahoma, four in
    Missouri and three in Minnesota, according to a tally by one source
    familiar with these offices. Some of these are ``effectively
    shuttered,'' the source said.
        NRCS Chief Louis Aspey told reporters Monday at Commodity Classic
    in Denver that the agency would stretch staff to cover offices that
    lost personnel. While he said there shouldn't be any offices ``without
    any staff there at all,'' he added, ``If there are, we're realigning at
    the state level to make sure that there's seamless coverage.''
        In a statement, a USDA spokesperson said Secretary Brooke Rollins
    ``fully supports President Trump's directive to improve government,
    eliminate inefficiencies, and strengthen USDA's many services to the
    American people.''
        The spokesperson also mentioned the idea of ``consolidating certain
    field offices,'' a move they said ``helps ensure that the American
    people's hard-earned taxpayer dollars are used effectively while USDA
    continues to prioritize the delivery of essential services to farmers,
    ranchers, and producers.''
        In a memo circulated on Jan. 20,\3\ Office of Personnel Management
    Acting Director Charles Ezell gave agency heads 4 days to identify all
    probationary employees, or employees with only 2 years of service or
    less, and ``promptly determine whether those employees should be
    retained at the agency.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/Guidance-on-
    Probationary-Periods-Administrative-Leave-and-Details-1-20-2025-
    FINAL.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When mid-February came around, as many as 200,000 probationary
    employees across the Federal Government received emails informing them
    they were fired. In a petition filed \4\ to the Merit Systems
    Protection Board last week, Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger said some
    5,900 USDA employees were removed from their jobs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/USDA-Systemic-
    Stay-%28redacted%29.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Agencies in recent weeks have attempted to bring back some fired
    staffers seen as critical, like scientists working on the government's
    highly pathogenic avian influenza response.
        Federal Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California
    on Feb. 27 ordered OPM \5\ to rescind its Jan. 20 directive, noting in
    his ruling that it ``did not have the authority to direct the firing of
    employees, probationary or otherwise, in any other Federal agency.''
    OPM revised its initial guidance \6\ on Tuesday, adding a statement
    saying it ``is not directing agencies to take any specific performance-
    based actions regarding probationary employees.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/Alsup-order.pdf.
        \6\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/OPM-Guidance-
    Memo-on-Probationary-Periods-Administrative-Leave-and-Details-3-4-
    2025.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another 75,000 workers across the entire Federal Government have
    voluntarily accepted deferred resignation and will receive full pay and
    benefits until Sept. 30.
        The mass workforce reductions follow a years-long effort by NRCS
    leaders \7\ to bring on enough new workers to offset a seemingly
    endless stream of employee departures due to retirements and job
    changes while also expanding the agency's ranks to handle $19.5 billion
    in new conservation dollars provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.
    While NRCS had 11,709 full-time staff last October and aimed to reach
    14,000 by 2026, recent employee losses are certain to have set back
    those efforts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/21766-getting-grounded-
    inside-usdas-efforts-to-staff-up-to-meet-farmers-environmental-
    challenges.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The agency's remaining county office employees are now likely to
    face heavier workloads, longer travel distances for on-the-ground
    visits and confusion stemming from frozen Federal funds. It may take a
    while for some producers to feel the effect of the staff cuts, but many
    will see impacts eventually, said Kansas Farmers Union Executive
    Director Nick Levendofsky.
        ``The paperwork is stacking up. The work that needs to be done out
    in the field and on the ground is stacking up. And people are
    scrambling to pick up the pieces, basically,'' said Levendofsky, who
    noted Kansas has lost at least 81 NRCS staffers in recent weeks.
        One four-county service area went from having an NRCS technician in
    each office to having one for all four counties, said one respondent to
    a survey released last week \8\ by the National Association of
    Conservation Districts. Some survey participants expected backlogs for
    cultural resources, engineering and wetland compliance to grow, while
    others said producers may be left waiting for payments amid shortages
    of qualified agency employees able to handle project inspection and
    check-out.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.nacdnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025-02-28-
    Conservation-District-Survey-Report.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``Certainly, the loss of Federal capacity is being felt,'' said
    Jeremy Peters, NACD's CEO.
        Speaking to Agri-Pulse in Washington, House Ag Committee Chair
    Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, R-Pa., offered some criticism of the NRCS staff
    terminations, saying ``it makes no sense when you have a farm bill that
    promotes technical service for farmers to downsize the number of
    professionals'' who provide that assistance.
        The Trump Administration is now beginning the process of
    terminating state and county office leases \9\ as part of its cost-
    cutting efforts. So far, it is looking to do so at 58 facilities used
    by NRCS and the Farm Service Agency, according to an online database
    the Department of Government Efficiency calls its ``Wall of Receipts.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22481-usda-prepares-for-
    some-state-county-office-lease-terminations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Acting FSA Chief Steve Peterson told Agri-Pulse Monday at Commodity
    Classic that any lease terminations will not occur until ``down the
    road,'' giving agency leaders some time to make plans for relocating
    staff. He said the purpose is to ``evaluate savings and see whether or
    not there's the ability to renegotiate or find other locations in those
    areas to possibly find cheaper rent.''
        As the Trump Administration attempts to shrink the Federal
    workforce, it makes sense that it would also try to limit the amount of
    buildings it leases, said Bruce Knight, who served as NRCS chief during
    the George W. Bush Administration.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Bruce Knight (Credit: Bruce
                                            Knight)

                                      ``If we're going to have fewer folks
                                    in government, you don't need the
                                    office space to house people who aren't
                                    there,'' Knight told Agri-Pulse.

        Still, legal hurdles may complicate any Trump Administration
    efforts to downsize FSA and NRCS operations, particularly at the county
    level.
        Language in the 2018 Farm Bill bars the [A]griculture [S]ecretary
    from closing any NRCS field offices or leaving them with fewer than two
    employees through staff relocations without notifying the House and
    Senate Ag Committees 30 days in advance. This provision likely remains
    in effect after two temporary farm bill extensions, said recently
    retired ag policy lobbyist Ferd Hoefner.
        Additionally, the funding package approved by lawmakers in fiscal
    2024 barred USDA from using appropriated funds to close Farm Service
    Agency county offices or leave county offices with two or fewer staff
    by relocating employees, unless it sought approval from the House and
    Senate Appropriations committees in advance. The government is
    currently being funded under terms of the FY24 appropriations
    legislation.
        ``Both Republican and Democratic Administrations have tried to
    close county offices and Congress routinely blocks it,'' Hoefner said,
    though he added ``normal process is going to go by the wayside'' in the
    Trump Administration.
        Hardin, the terminated Arkansas employee, has filed an appeal with
    the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, submitted a grievance with the
    Office of Special Counsel and is interested in joining a lawsuit filed
    by the American Federation of Government Employees should it become a
    class action, all in the hopes of getting his job back.
        And he says he's not the only one trying.
        ``If you're a Federal employee, you just don't know which way is up
    right now,'' he said. ``It feels like that's the point, that the chaos,
    that these people are intentionally inflicting drama and abuse so we'll
    just run away. But I think they underestimate the people they're
    messing with. They're really just making us all want to fight more.''

              Rebekah Alvey, Phil Brasher and Lydia Johnson contributed to
            this report.

              For more news, go to www.agri-pulse.com.
              Editor's note: This story was updated to include comment from
            a USDA spokesperson.

        Question 16. We are concerned with USDA local and regional office
    and staff capacity. How many USDA county, local, regional offices are
    under consideration for closure, lease termination, consolidation, or
    other changes? How many USDA offices around the country are unstaffed,
    how many are understaffed, and how many have been consolidated or
    otherwise impacted by staffing issues?
        Answer. USDA is optimizing building capacity and consolidating
    underutilized offices to reduce inefficiencies while continuing to
    prioritize frontline services for farmers, ranchers, and rural
    communities. I understand the array of mission critical positions and
    programs at the Department and will ensure that those areas have the
    resources and personnel they need to continue serving the American
    people. NRCS and FSA has ensured no county-based employees have been
    relocated in a manner that would necessitate Congressional
    notification.
    Farm Bill
        Question 17. The economic assistance package Congress passed last
    year makes payments based on planted acres. Crop insurance operates
    based on planted acres. The farm safety net, however, is based on base
    acres resulting in farmers possibly getting payments for commodities
    they don't even grow. Congress established base acres in order to
    comply with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules which limit how much
    the U.S. can spend to support farmers; rules that don't apply equally
    to all WTO members. If we're going to ignore our trade commitments like
    the USMCA to impose tariffs, why shouldn't we just ignore the WTO and
    reconsider the whole base acre approach to the farm safety net in favor
    of a planted-acre approach?
        Answer. Base acres are a critical mechanism to ensure that safety
    net programs do not influence planting decisions. This is a core
    principle to ensure that our farmers have fair and consistent
    protection while they take on the hard work of feeding, fueling, and
    clothing the world.

        Question 18. We were unable to extend authorization of every farm
    bill program at the end of last term. Can you describe the impact that
    has had?

        Question 18a. Are you hearing from folks involved in the orphan
    programs that did not get funded?
        Answer 18-18a. USDA implements the programs that are authorized and
    funded by Congress.

        Question 18b. What about regarding reimbursement of skimmed/
    electronically stolen benefits--have you heard about the impacts of
    that expiration from states operating SNAP or from participants, who
    are victims of skimming?
        Answer. USDA continues to work diligently to prevent fraud and
    ensure program integrity. FNS has made significant and sustainable
    progress in partnership with states, third-party EBT processors, and
    retailers to modernize EBT systems and reduce fraud. FNS has several
    important initiatives underway to strengthen protection for program
    benefits.

        Question 19. More than 20 percent of agriculture products produced
    in the U.S. are exported, and foreign markets have an outsize impact on
    the national farm economy. The last trade war that the President
    started was a $27 billion hit to farmers. How will the current much
    larger trade war trade war impact American producers and farmers?
        Answer. President Biden left American farmers and ranchers with a
    nearly $50 billion trade deficit. President Trump's leadership to seek
    fair and reciprocal treatment for our great producers will bring more
    stable long-term market opportunities around the world for agricultural
    exports.

        Question 20. Suggested cuts to SNAP in the reconciliation process
    are projected to cost farmers over $30 billion in farm income. This is
    approximately the same size as the tariff impacts that devastated
    prices during the first Trump Administration. Does USDA have a plan to
    address an additional hit to farm income? The combination of trade
    policy that removes markets for Americans and domestic policy that also
    diminishes demand at-home is a deadly one for farmers in this country.
    How are farming families supposed to survive such a major hit to their
    bottom line?
        Answer. We are aggressively pursuing market access opportunities
    across the globe. I am proud of the work our team is doing to support
    concrete wins for American farmers and ranchers. Just a few of these
    include:

       Maintaining fair dairy access in Costa Rica \4\ for American
            dairy farmers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/28/
    make-agriculture-great-again-trade-win-secretary-rollins-secures-
    greater-market-access-costa-rica-us.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Protecting pork market access in Panama.

       Removing non-tariff barriers for almonds in Japan.

       Resolving barriers to poultry market access in Angola, the
            9th largest market globally for U.S. poultry.
                                   attachment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/28/make-
    agriculture-great-again-trade-win-secretary-rollins-secures-greater-
    market-access-costa-rica-us]
    Make Agriculture Great Again Trade Win: Secretary Rollins Secures
            Greater Market Access with Costa Rica for U.S. Dairy Industry
    Release No.: 0121.25

    Published: May 28, 2025

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        (Washington, D.C., May 28, 2025)--Under U.S. Secretary of
    Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins' leadership, American dairy producers
    will have greater market access as Costa Rica has approved the first
    U.S. dairy facility to be registered under their new streamlined
    approval process.\1\ The Trump Administration continues to break down
    non-tariff barriers, and this latest action is the first of many wins
    ahead for American dairy producers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/
    DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=
    Costa+Rica+Dairy+Facility+Registration+Requirements_San+Jose_
    Costa+Rica_CS2025-0011.pdf
    &utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``Under President Trump's leadership, USDA is putting Farmers
    First. Securing greater market access for American dairy farmers is a
    much-needed win for the U.S. dairy industry and will give our producers
    better increased access to a $130 million market in Costa Rica. I look
    forward to continuing to Make Agriculture Great Again by breaking down
    trade barriers and opening new markets for our farmers and ranchers
    around the globe,'' said Secretary Rollins.
        On May 22, Costa Rica's National Animal Health Service (SENASA)
    officially approved the first American dairy cooperative for export to
    Costa Rica, making it the first U.S. dairy facility to be registered
    under the new streamlined approval process that eases market access for
    U.S. dairy products. This first registration paves the way for future
    U.S. dairy exports to Costa Rica, a $60 million market in 2024, that
    could have been lost if the Trump Administration was not able to
    navigate their new process.
        This Make Agriculture Great Again trade win comes on the heels of
    other major efforts from the Trump Administration to expand market
    access for American producers. In the last 2 months, USDA's Foreign
    Agricultural Service (FAS) has worked with India to reduce tariffs on
    U.S. Bourbon imports by 50 percent, resulting in a likely $2 million
    increase in distilled spirits exports to India in 2025. USDA has also
    worked with Panama to exempt U.S. pork from Panama's import quota
    mechanism and Pakistan to eliminate its arbitrary genetically
    engineered ban on U.S.-grown soybeans, resulting in the immediate sale
    of 65,000 metric tons of U.S.-grown soybeans in the country. The FAS
    efforts to expand market access also included working with Japan to
    lift the mandatory aflatoxin testing requirements on U.S. almonds,
    resulting in a likely eight to ten percent increase of U.S. almond
    exports to Japan annually.
    Farm Labor Uncertainty
        Question 21. We hear a great deal from the Administration about
    mass deportation plans and raids on businesses that have scooped up
    non-documented residents, legal foreign residents, and even U.S.
    citizens. At a hearing before the Senate Agriculture Committee, Zippy
    Duvall, the President of the American Farm Bureau, warned that
    ``Trump's deportation plans could lead to farms going out of business
    and an interruption in our food supply'' at a scale comparable to the
    COVID-19 pandemic.
        Given that American agriculture's dependence on foreign human
    labor, would you agree with American Farm Bureau President Duvall's
    assessment or is he wrong?
        Answer. The President has been unequivocal that there will be no
    amnesty, and I think that's very important. It is possible for our
    farmers to be successful through a combination of American labor,
    foreign workers that come legally to our country, and increased
    automation. Some reform within the current governing structure
    concerning the visa process will also be necessary.

        Question 21a. Do you believe there is a danger that the
    Administration's current and proposed actions on immigration may make
    even legal workers think twice before coming here to the U.S. to work,
    because farmers are certainly telling us they are worried about that?
        Answer. Workers that are in the United States legally have no
    reason to be concerned.

        Question 22. During your testimony before the House Agriculture
    Appropriations Subcommittee last month, you said that you were working
    to reform the H-2A program with the Department of Labor and the White
    House.
        Can you provide an update on how those efforts are going?

        Question 22a. Who, besides cabinet officials and your staff, is
    involved?
        Please provide the House Agriculture Committee regular updates on
    this work.
        Answer 22-22a. Conversations between the Department of Agriculture,
    Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security, Department of
    State, and other relevant entities in the Executive branch are ongoing.
    I will update the House Agriculture Committee on these conversations
    whenever appropriate.
    Funding Freeze/Cancellations
        Question 23. The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities
    initiative, now know as Advancing Markets for Producers (AMP) has
    proved to be a valuable addition to USDA's efforts to promote
    voluntary, farmer-led conservation in rural America. We have heard
    participants around the country describe being left waiting, uncertain
    whether farmers will be compensated for the tremendous environmental,
    economic, and agronomic benefits they have been working toward. I
    strongly urge you to improve communication moving forward.
        Can you confirm USDA will honor its promises to farmers and
    ranchers and provide the same amount of funding originally obligated to
    each PCSC project be available under AMP?

        Question 23a. Will AMP applications be reviewed and re-approved on
    a rolling basis? What is the expected timeline for projects to hear
    from USDA?
        Answer 23-23a. The Advancing Markets for Producers (AMP) initiative
    will champion USDA's mission with the policy priorities of Farmer
    First, Market and Value Chain Development, and Community and
    Cooperative Development. AMP will continue to fund conservation
    practices and support farmers. Recipients for all projects were given
    the opportunity to continue work in AMP through an amendment of the
    original award to meet the threshold of USDA' s priorities. Agreement
    holders were notified of this opportunity on May 15, 2025, and were
    given until June 20, 2025, to submit amendment packages. The agency is
    currently reviewing the amendment packages and will proceed with
    signature and approval for those that meet the initiative priorities.

        Question 24. In mid-April, the three nationwide awardees of the
    USDA NIFA Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network (FRSAN) lost access
    to their USDA reimbursement portal. This is both an infuriating and
    devastating development for these networks of practitioners, and for
    farmers and farm workers across the country who rely on this
    programming. All three networks have shut down their services,
    exacerbating the mental health crisis facing farmers across the
    country. Frozen payments and continued uncertainty around whether or
    not the FRSAN contract will ultimately be honored continues to cause
    significant harm to American producers who struggle with mental health,
    especially amid dire economic conditions.
        Why was FRSAN, an essential program that supports farmers in
    emergency situations, paused at all?

        Question 24a. This program is life or death. When can we expect
    this lifeline to American farmers who are struggling to be turned back
    on?
        Answer 24-24a. The funding for FRSAN is not paused.

        Question 25. On March 7th, USDA terminated all FY 2025 contracts
    for the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program
    (LFPA) and the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program
    (LFS) because the agency determined that the agreements ``no longer
    effectuates agency priorities.'' These programs were successful in
    building stronger economies and regional supply chains by connecting
    farmers, ranchers, and fishermen to local market opportunities--
    outcomes that I believe should be in line with the agency's priorities.
    These cancellations totaling over $1 billion will shutter valuable
    local markets for producers and take away healthy, nutritious foods
    from schoolchildren and families in need. These programs are not just
    relics of COVID programming, LFPA and LFS serve as models of USDA
    procurement that are both targeted and effective and, unlike the
    Farmers to Families Food Boxes that came before it, it supported local
    and regional producers and organizations to prioritize equitable
    distribution.
        When you abruptly canceled $660 million from LFS and $420 million
    from LFPA, the farmers that prepared to grow and provide food for their
    local communities and already signed contracts for seed, labor, and
    transportation, are now left with huge holes in their pockets and lost
    markets, since these programs operate on a reimbursement basis. In
    addition, food banks and schoolchildren will no longer receive local,
    healthy products through LFPA and LFS.
        How does taking away resources and markets from farmers and food
    away from low-income people and children align with the agency's
    priorities?
        Answer. With 16 robust nutrition programs in place, I will work to
    ensure USDA remains focused on its core mission: strengthening
    nutrition assistance for those most in need, supporting agricultural
    markets, and ensuring access to nutritious food.

        Question 25a. On March 14th, over 80 of my colleagues sent a letter
    to USDA following the termination of LFPA and LFS agreements demanding
    answers and justification. Your agency's response on April 2nd left a
    number of our questions unanswered and simply pointed to the increase
    of Section 32 purchases to support The Emergency Food Assistance
    Program (TEFAP)--a program your agency has also terminated $500 million
    in CCC funding for.
        Secretary Rollins, you point to TEFAP as a reprieve for farmers and
    hungry Americans when you slashed local foods programs and at the same
    time, cut half a billion dollars from TEFAP. Are you aware that
    overall, cutting LFPA, LFS, and TEFAP will provide quality food to
    fewer Americans even accounting for the sporadic Section 32 purchases?
        Answer. USDA released in March over $450 million in previously
    obligated funds for LFPA and LFS to fulfill existing commitments and
    support ongoing local food purchases. USDA continues to purchase food
    for TEFAP, with more than $271 million spend in FY 2025 thus far.

        Question 25b. Secretary Rollins, your letters from April 2nd and
    April 29th indicated that current LFPA and LFS may be extended upon
    request. What factors are considered in the evaluation of an extension
    request? Will an extension be funded through the Commodity Credit
    Corporation (CCC)? When can we expect those extensions to be confirmed?
        Answer. USDA continues to work with individual recipients based on
    their circumstances to assess extension requests. Extensions provide
    recipients with a longer period of time to expend previously obligated
    LFPA and LFS funds. Extensions continue to be confirmed as details are
    finalized between the Department and the requesting recipient.

        Question 26. The Rural Energy for America Program, commonly known
    as REAP, offers grants and loan guarantees to farmers, ranchers, and
    rural small businesses for energy efficiency improvements and renewable
    energy systems. Since its inception in the bipartisan farm bill in
    2008, REAP has provided grants and loans that have helped more than
    21,000 farms and 32,710 rural small businesses.
        In March, USDA announced the release of previously frozen REAP
    funding, but by April there will still reports on the ground of funding
    being under review and grants being frozen. The Ranking Members of both
    the Senate and House Ag Committees sent your agency a letter asking for
    an update on April 25th, but they have not received a response since.
    Are any REAP grants still frozen?

        Question 26a. Why has your agency not responded if the funds are
    out the door?

        Question 26b. Why were these funds were frozen in the first place?
    This program is a win-win for our nation's farmers and rural
    communities, and freezing funding threatens not only those projects,
    but calls into question if our constituents can trust the Federal
    Government to uphold their end of the bargain when they enter into a
    contract.
        Answer 26-26b. USDA has released all previously frozen funds for
    REAP. We are committed to processing these as quickly and efficiently
    as possible. The process of thoroughly reviewing and obligating a large
    volume of grants, particularly after a period of programmatic
    assessment, is complex and ongoing. Our priority has been to ensure the
    proper and timely disbursement of funds to eligible recipients.

        Question 27. Previously at USDA, grants and awards were recommended
    by USDA-subject matter experts (SMEs) in collaboration with independent
    scientific reviewers. Under the new Administration, additional
    mechanisms have been added for the review and recommendation process
    with non-SMEs having disproportionate influence on award decisions.
    Please describe the qualifications of those reviewing the awards in
    these additional stages and the experience they have in agricultural
    research.
        Answer. Once applications for a program are received, the NIFA
    National Program Leader for the program convenes a peer-review panel
    led by a panel chair. All identities of the peer reviews are kept
    confidential. Once recommendations are made for awards to be funded,
    the recommended projects go through compliance and due diligence to
    ensure the prospective grantee is eligible to receive NIFA funding.
    Finally, all recommended projects are administratively reviewed by an
    internal team at USDA to ensure the projects align with Administration
    priorities. Once completed, the project directors are notified of the
    status of their application.

        Question 28. USDA grants and awards for FY 2025 have been delayed
    given these additional mechanisms. What is the timeline for the release
    of FY25 awards and what will the USDA do to ensure this delay does not
    impact USDA's relationships with agricultural researchers and
    stakeholders? Moreover, given the involvement of the office of
    efficiency/DOGE, what will the USDA do to guarantee scientific
    integrity remains USDA's primary priority for NIFA, ARS, ERS, and other
    REE mission areas?
        Answer. NIFA is making use of all mechanisms to deliver FY25 funds
    to stakeholders in an efficient manner. NIFA leaders have remained in
    contact with partner universities and stakeholder organizations to
    ensure they are kept abreast of our progress and what to expect in the
    time between now and the end of FY25 to ensure obligation of 1 year
    funds.

        Question 29. Previously published RFAs (notifications of funding
    opportunities) have been removed from the USDA NIFA websites and the
    timing for the release of the new RFA continues to shift. Because of
    this significant delay, researchers and stakeholders will have limited
    time to submit proposals which will impact research, timelines, and
    outcomes that can benefit U.S. agriculture. How will the USDA prevent
    the delay in the release of the RFA from compromising the mission of
    NIFA and ensure the programs continue to operate with funds allocated
    to the most critical agricultural issues?
        Answer. USDA NIFA intends to obligate all 1 year funding by
    September 30, 2025. NIFA staff are identifying mechanisms to do this
    such as funding meritorious unfunded proposals from FY24 RFAs and
    streamlining peer review processes for other RFAs to meet the fiscal
    year deadline.

        Question 30. As of June 17th a large number of awards from previous
    years have been terminated or suspended often for using scientific
    terms such as ``climate'' or ``sustainable''. Many of the terminated
    research projects will have direct impacts on farmers, production,
    market access and farm revenue. Given USDA's commitment to science and
    supporting farmers and producers, when will these suspensions be
    lifted, terminations rescinded, and the awards accessible to
    researchers and scientists?
        Answer. Putting American Farmers First means cutting the millions
    of dollars that are being wasted on woke DEI propaganda. Under
    President Trump's leadership, I am putting an end to the waste, fraud,
    and abuse that has diverted resources from American farmers and
    restoring sanity and fiscal stewardship to the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture.
    Food Aid
        Question 31. In your termination letters for 27 Food for Progress
    and 17 McGovern-Dole projects you stated that the terminated agreements
    ``are not in alignment with the foreign assistance objectives of the
    Trump Administration.'' According to your own website the key objective
    of the McGovern-Dole Program ``is to reduce hunger and improve literacy
    and primary education, especially for girls.'' Can you identify what
    exactly you are opposed to? Are fighting hunger and promoting literacy
    are not objectives for this Administration?
        Answer. Fighting hunger and promoting literacy remain core
    objectives of the McGovern-Dole program. The FY25 Notice of Funding
    closed on June 23, 2025, and my team is actively reviewing projects
    that align with President Trump's foreign policy objectives in putting
    Americans first. Individual projects that do not meet this standard
    were terminated.

        Question 32. I have heard that the termination of the McGovern-Dole
    and Food for Progress programs was at the request of the White House
    and that there may have been a list of proposed cancellations that went
    beyond what you terminated. Please provide a full list of proposed
    cancellations and the justifications for why those programs were going
    to be canceled.
        Answer. A full list of terminated McGovern-Dole and Food for
    Progress projects was provided to your staff on May 22, 2025.
        The United States Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agriculture
    Service (FAS) has terminated 27 Food for Progress agreements and 17
    McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
    Program agreements that are not in alignment with the foreign
    assistance objectives of the Trump Administration. All terminated
    awardees will be reimbursed for costs incurred up to the effective date
    of termination. A sample, redacted termination letter for each program
    is attached.

        Please note that all U.S. agricultural producers have received
    payment for commodities in which partners have drawn down or have
    requested to be drawn down from the Department; and that partners are
    required to deliver any commodity en route to its final destination in
    accordance with the Agreement.

        While certain projects were terminated, USDA/FAS continues to
    administer both the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole International
    Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programs:

       14 active Food for Progress projects remain in 17 countries;
            and

       30 active McGovern-Dole projects remain in 22 countries.

        In addition, USDA/FAS is planning for the next phase of the
    programs; having published the FY25 McGovern-Dole notice of funding
    opportunity on May 9, and is finalizing its notification of FY 25
    funding opportunity for Food for Progress.

                     27 Terminated Food for Progress Awards
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Fiscal Year        Country        Organization      Short Description
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FY14   Guatemala       Gov. of Guatemala   Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY16   Haiti           CRS                 Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY18   Guatemala       Technoserve         Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY19   Peru            NCBA CLUSA          Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY19   West Africa     CNFA                Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY20   Bangladesh      Land O Lakes        Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY20   Colombia        Prtnrs of the       Mandating climate-
                                      Amrcs               smart practices
              FY20   DR              IESC                Studying arbitrary
                                                          scientific
                                                          guidelines
              FY20   Uganda          CRS                 Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY20   West Africa     Technoserve         Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY22   Thailand        Winrock             Providing financing
                                                          and cash
                                                          assistance
              FY22   Peru            NCBA CLUSA          Mandating climate-
                                                          smart practices
              FY22   Jamaica         ACDI/VOCA           Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY22   Malawi          Winrock             Mandating climate-
                                                          smart practices
              FY22   Burundi         Technoserve         Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY23   Nepal           Lutheran Wrld       Providing financing
                                      Relief              and cash
                                                          assistance
              FY23   Bangladesh      ACDI/VOCA           Mandating climate-
                                                          smart practices
              FY23   Lesotho         Land O Lakes        Mandating climate-
                                                          smart practices
              FY23   Ivory Coast     Technoserve         Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY23   Mauritania      Prtnrs of the       Mandating climate-
                                      Amrcs               smart practices
              FY24   Sri Lanka       IESC                Studying methane
                                                          emissions in dairy
                                                          sector
              FY24   Cambodia        Land O Lakes        Supporting another
                                                          government's lab
                                                          research
              FY24   Tanzania        Lutheran Wrld       Connecting
                                      Relief              producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY24   Tunisia         Prtnrs of the       Mandating climate-
                                      Amrcs               smart practices
              FY24   Benin           Prtnrs for Devpt.   Connecting
                                                          producers to non-
                                                          U.S. markets
              FY24   Madagascar      CRS                 Mandating climate-
                                                          smart practices
              FY24   Rwanda          CNFA                Building capacity
                                                          for government
                                                          instns.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          17 McGovern-Dole Terminations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             FY                  Country                 Organization
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY19                 Uzbekistan              Mercy Corps
    FY19                 Togo                    CRS
    FY20                 Guatemala               CRS
    FY20                 Honduras                CRS
    FY20                 Mali                    CRS
    FY21                 Benin                   CRS
    FY21                 Burkina Faso            CRS
    FY21                 Kyrgyzstan              Mercy Corps
    FY21                 Laos                    CRS
    FY21                 Sierra Leone            CRS
    FY22                 Burundi                 CRS
    FY22                 Lesotho                 CRS
    FY22                 Madagascar              CRS
    FY22                 Timor-Leste             CARE
    FY23                 Nepal                   WFP
    FY23                 Nicaragua               Project Concern Int'l
    FY24                 Guinea-Bissau           CRS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  attachment 1
    [Date]

      [Address]

        Dear [Address]

        This letter provides notice that the United States Department of
    Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), is terminating your
    federal award, Food for Education Agreement #OGSM: FFE-XXX-20XX-XX,
    McGovern-Dole 20XX [Country] (the ``Agreement''). FAS is terminating
    the Program Agreement in accordance with Part V, Paragraph D, of the
    Agreement; 7 C.F.R.  1599.17; and 2 C.F.R.  200.340-343.
        Termination. FAS notes that this termination is not a result of any
    noncompliance with the Agreement on the part of [Organization]. FAS has
    determined that the McGovern-Dole Agreement specified above does not
    align with the foreign assistance objectives of the Department. See 2
    C.F.R.  200.340(a)(4); 7 C.F.R.  1599.17(a)(2). Pursuant to, among
    other authorities, 2 C.F.R.  200.339-343, which are applicable to
    your Agreement, the Department hereby terminates award No. (FFE-XXX-
    20XX-XXX) in its entirety effective June 30, 2025.
        Closure. You must submit all final reports and a final payment
    request no later than 120 calendar days after June 30, 2025. You will
    be reimbursed for costs incurred up to the effective date of
    termination that are determined to be consistent with 2 C.F.R.
    200.343, Effects of suspension or termination. FAS will evaluate the
    allowability of other expenses incurred following termination as
    appropriate, as described at 2 C.F.R.  200.472. However, properly
    incurred expenses associated with the security, integrity, and
    disposition of any commodities currently in [Organization] possession,
    or en route to their final destination, shall be reimbursed. Any open
    balance remaining 120 days after the effective date of termination will
    be unavailable for payment.
        If you do not submit all reports in accordance with the terms and
    conditions of the Agreement within one (1) year of the effective
    termination date, FAS must proceed to close out the Agreement with the
    information available. In these circumstances, in accordance with 2
    C.F.R.  200.344, FAS must report your material failure to comply with
    the terms and conditions of the Agreement in SAM.gov using the
    Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In this
    way, failure to submit timely and accurate final reports may affect
    your future funding.
        Recipients are required by Federal regulation to retain all Federal
    Agreement records consistent with 2 C.F.R.  200.334.
        [Organization] is responsible for ensuring the security and
    integrity of any undistributed donated or procured commodities and must
    dispose of such commodities only as agreed by FAS. If [Organization]
    has active shipments en route to the final program destination,
    [Organization] is instructed to work with FAS to facilitate the
    delivery of those commodities in accordance with the Agreement and
    cease any further calls forward for commodities under the Agreement.
        Any sale proceeds, FAS-provided funds, interest, or program income
    that have not been disbursed must be used or returned only as agreed to
    by FAS. Within 120 days of the date of termination, please send
    repayment via check for the funds representing the remaining cash
    resources. The check should be made payable to the Foreign Agricultural
    Service, and mailed to:

      USDA FMMI FMS Collections
      PO Box 979099
      St. Louis, MO 63179-9000

        If the method of delivery requires a physical street address, the
    following address should be used:

      U.S. Bank
      Lockbox 979099
      1005 Convention Plaza
      St. Louis, MO 63101

        Please ensure that the check is accompanied by clear information on
    the Program Agreement number and date, the country name, and the
    program.
        Termination of the Agreement does not affect FAS's right to
    disallow costs and recover funds based on a later audit or other
    review. In addition, termination does not affect a recipient's
    obligation to return any funds due as a result of later refunds,
    corrections, or other transactions, including final indirect cost rate
    adjustments (refer to 2 C.F.R.  200.345).
        If you have questions, contact lindsay.carter@usda.gov.
                Sincerely,

    Mark Slupek,
    Acting Associate Administrator and General Sales Manager,
    Foreign Agricultural Service,
    United States Department of Agriculture.
                                  attachment 2
    [Redacted]

      [Redacted]
      [Redacted]
      [Redacted]
      [Redacted]

        Dear [Redacted]

        This letter provides notice that the United States Department of
    Agriculture, Commodity Credit Corporation CCC is terminating your
    federal award, Food for Progress Agreement [Redacted], Food for
    Progress FY 2024 [Redacted] (the ``Agreement''.) CCC is terminating the
    Program Agreement in accordance with Part IV, Paragraph D, of the
    Agreement; 7 C.F.R.  1499.16; and 2 C.F.R.  200.340-343.
        Termination. CCC notes that this termination is not a result of any
    noncompliance with the Agreement on the part of [Redacted] CCC has
    determined that the Food for Progress award specified above does not
    align with the foreign assistance objectives of the Department. The
    award is therefore inconsistent with, and no longer effectuates,
    Department priorities and is no longer necessary or desirable. See 2
    C.F.R.  200.340(a)(4); 7 C.F.R.  1499.16(a)(2). Pursuant to, among
    other authorities, 2 C.F.R.  200.339-343, which are aplicable to your
    award, the Department hereby terminates award No. [Redacted] in its
    entirety effective May 31, 2025.
        Closure. You must submit all final reports and a final payment
    request no later than 120 calendar days after May 31, 2025. You will be
    reimbursed for costs incurred up to May 31, 2025, that are determined
    to be consistent with 2 C.F.R.  200.343, Effects of suspension or
    termination. CCC will evaluate the allowability of other expenses
    incurred following termination as appropriate, as described at 2 CFR
    200.472. However, properly incurred expenses associated with the
    security, integrity, and disposition of any commodities currently in
    [Redacted] possession, or en route to their final destination, shall be
    reimbursed. Any open balance remaining 120 days after the date of this
    notice will be unavailable for payment.
        If you do not submit all reports in accordance with the terms and
    conditions of the Agreement within one (1) year of the effective
    termination date, CCC must proceed to close out the award with the
    information available. In these circumstances, in accordance with 2
    C.F.R.  200.344, CCC must report your material failure to comply with
    the terms and conditions of the award in SAM.gov using the Contractor
    Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In this way, failure
    to submit timely and accurate final reports may affect your future
    funding.
        Recipients are required by Federal regulation to retain all Federal
    award records consistent with 2 C.F.R.  200.334.
        [Redacted] is responsible for ensuring the security and integrity
    of any undistributed donated commodities and must dispose of such
    commodities only as agreed to by CCC. If [Redacted] has active
    shipments en route to the final program destination, [Redacted] is
    instructed to facilitate the delivery of those commodities in
    accordance with the Agreement and cease any further calls forward for
    commodities under the Agreement.
        Any sale proceeds, CCC-provided funds, interest, or program income
    that have not been disbursed must be used or returned only as agreed to
    by CCC. Within 120 days of the date of termination, please send
    repayment via check for the funds representing the remaining cash
    resources. The check should be made payable to the Commodity Credit
    Corporation, and mailed to:

      [Redacted]
      [Redacted]
      [Redacted]
      [Redacted]

        If the method of delivery requires a physical street address, the
    following address should be used:

      [Redacted]
      [Redacted]
      [Redacted]
      [Redacted]

        Please ensure that the check is accompanied by clear information on
    the Program Agreement number and date, the country name, and the
    program.
        Termination of the agreement does not affect CCC's right to
    disallow costs and recover funds based on a later audit or other
    review. In addition, termination does not affect a recipient's
    obligation to return any funds due as a result of later refunds,
    collections, or other transactions, including final indirect cost rate
    adjustments (refer to 2 C.F.R.  200.345).
        If you have questions, contact your FAS Program Contact at
    [Redacted].
                Sincerely,

    [Redacted]
    [Redacted]
    Foreign Agricultural Service,
    United States Department of Agriculture.

        Question 33. Food for Progress purchases and monetizes U.S.
    commodities. This program helps build the agricultural sector in other
    countries while directly helping U.S. farmers. You claim to support
    farmers, if that is true the why are you canceling programs that
    directly support U.S. farmers?
        Answer. The Food for Progress program has not been canceled. 14
    active projects remain ongoing in 17 countries. Individual projects
    that did not align with the Department's foreign assistance objectives
    were terminated. All commodity purchases for the terminated projects
    had already taken place. The FY26 Notice of Funding closed July 31,
    2025.
    MAHA Commission
        Question 34. In last month's MAHA Report, in Section 1, ``The Shift
    to Ultra-Processed Foods'', under the heading ``Government Programs
    Compounding the Issue'', the report notes that crop insurance primarily
    covers traditional field crops, that specialty crops account for only
    17 percent of the entire Federal crop insurance portfolio, and
    subsidies for fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and support for organic
    foods account for a mere 0.1 percent of the farm bill spending.
        If these facts are, using the report's terms, ``compounding the
    issue'', then what is the solution?
        Answer. We must do more to improve the health outcomes of our
    children and families, and President Trump knows agriculture is at the
    heart of the solution. Secretary Kennedy and I are actively working
    together in crafting sensical Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs)
    that are set to be released soon. The agencies are working to ensure
    Federal nutrition advice is sound, simple, and clear. The guidelines
    will prioritize whole, healthy, and nutritious foods such as dairy,
    fruits, vegetables, and meats.

        Question 34a. It appears the report is setting up for a call to
    increase farm bill funding for crop insurance and other programs that
    specifically support specialty crops to encourage their production;
    would that be a fair assessment?
        Answer. I look forward to sharing more information as it pertains
    to critical support for our producers when the report is released soon.

        Question 34b. How do we pay for such increases? Should they be paid
    for by reduction in support for traditional field crops?
        Answer. As the report is announced soon, I look forward to sharing
    more information.

        Question 34c. Given this sentiment, has Secretary Kennedy or others
    on the MAHA Commission shared their thoughts on the increases in the
    farm safety net included in reconciliation and how they view it in a
    MAHA context?
        Answer. We are working diligently to make sure our farmers and
    producers are able and equipped to continue providing the healthiest
    food to children and families.

        Question 34d. Secretary Kennedy has repeatedly amplified unproven
    and unscientific claims that threaten America's farmers and food
    producers, including calling sugar a poison. Why should America's sugar
    growers trust an Administration that lets their primary voice for human
    health disparage an entire industry based on nothing but his own
    personal view?
        Answer. My commitment is to continue working with American farmers
    to ensure that our producers have a seat at the table

        Question 34e. What have you said to him directly regarding his
    comments, if anything?
        Answer. Secretary Kennedy and I share the same views, working to
    ensure our farmers, ranchers, and producers have a seat at the table,
    and the tools needed to continue providing food for the country and
    world.

        Question 35. Secretary Kennedy has taken drastic steps to undermine
    national vaccination policy. Do you share his views and are you
    allowing him to dictate how you approach vaccination strategy for
    animals?
        Answer. Secretary Kennedy and I both look forward to assisting
    American farmers, ranchers, and producers, in our commitment to
    ensuring that we have the healthiest nation, even as it pertains to our
    vaccine strategy.

        Question 36. We have heard from many farmers and farm groups that
    the MAHA report was threatening to them. I understand the White House
    is trying to assuage the feelings of farmers by hosting meetings with
    various ag groups this week and next.
        What are you hearing from farmers?

        Question 36a. What should I tell my farmers to help ease their
    concerns?
        Answer 36-36a. America's farmers and ranchers dedicate their lives
    to feeding their country and the world, and in doing so have created
    the safest and most abundant and affordable food supply in the world.
    Secretary Kennedy and I both look forward to assisting American
    farmers, ranchers, and producers, in our commitment to ensuring that we
    have the healthiest nation.
    Oversight
        Question 37. We are concerned that Members of this Committee are
    not getting regular updates on the important work of USDA, like H5NI or
    New World Screwworm to name just two areas of concern. I think we've
    only had one New World Screwworm briefing for staff, and none for
    Members. This is unacceptable. Will you commit to provide regular
    briefings to Members and staff on these issues?
        Answer. Yes. Of note, USDA's Office of Congressional Relations
    hosts a monthly Congressional briefing to provide HPAI and New World
    Screwworm (NWS) updates and has held multiple additional Congressional
    briefings in conjunction with my announcements related to NWS and the
    southern border ports.

        Question 38. Do you not believe that Congress, particularly this
    Committee of jurisdiction, has an important oversight function?

        Question 38a. Committee Democrats have read more about what USDA is
    doing in press releases and statements from groups like the Cattleman,
    that we have heard from the USDA Office of Congressional Relations.
        This is serious. The work of Congress is serious. Our oversight
    role is serious. Why are we not getting the news and information from
    USDA in a timely manner?
        Answer 38-38a. USDA has, and will continue to hold, regular
    briefings on a multitude of topics across all mission areas. We have
    provided technical assistance on legislation to any office that
    requested us to do so. We regularly provide advanced copies of press
    releases and notices to the Hill on upcoming issues. We are responding
    to every letter, email, and phone call from our colleagues in Congress.
    Our briefings are bipartisan. Our responses to Congressional offices
    are bipartisan. We invite your office and any other office to engage
    with us.

        Question 39. Secretary Rollins, your budget proposal zeroes out
    funding for Conservation Technical Assistance. This is a highly
    unpopular proposal here on the Hill, as you will see reflected
    throughout the appropriations process. If Congress provides funding for
    this program and others that you have rashly proposed cutting, can you
    guarantee that you will implement the bill we passed as legally
    required?
        Answer. USDA will follow the law.
    SNAP
        Reconciliation Cuts

        Question 40. In the Republicans' reconciliation package, an extreme
    provision was included to create an unfunded mandate for states to pay
    for a portion of SNAP benefits, ranging anywhere from 5 to 25 percent
    in any given year, with little to no ability for the state to predict
    where they'll fall in that range. CBO estimates that, collectively,
    states would be forced to reduce or eliminate food assistance for about
    1.3 million people in an average month.
        What are the options or authority that states will have to meet the
    match in other ways if they aren't able to find the money--i.e., via
    SNAP benefit and eligibility cuts? The bill doesn't explicitly provide
    states with that authority and, in our markup, our Chairman refused to
    answer the question of what would happen if a state couldn't meet their
    match. But without other options, states would have to drop out of the
    program entirely if they couldn't meet their match. Under the
    majority's proposed reconciliation bill, will states that cannot meet
    their match be able to cut benefits or eligibility by an equivalent
    amount?
        Answer. The One Big Beautiful Bill (P.L. 119-21) was signed into
    law on July 4. USDA FNS is currently reviewing the enacted legislation
    to assess its immediate impacts on our programs, including SNAP. FNS is
    committed to ensuring a smooth and effective implementation, and I will
    direct my team to update you as soon as there is additional guidance.

        Purchase Restriction Waivers

        Question 41. We support promoting healthier diets and lifestyles
    for all Americans. I do have serious concerns, though, with us making
    life more difficult for Americans who are already struggling to make
    ends meet. We shouldn't make a program that is supposed to make their
    lives easier too confusing and too frustrating for anyone to want to
    participate in.
        Yet, you have already approved three different waivers, each of
    which have different restrictions on what can be purchased with SNAP.
    One restricts soda and candy, one restricts soda and energy drinks, and
    one restricts candy, candy-coated items, gum, licorice, mints, fruit
    leathers, sweetened baking chocolate, fruit or nuts with any sugar or
    honey added, granola bars--unless they include flour--and various types
    of popcorn if it has any sugar content, like kettle corn.
        You state in your approval letters that these waivers cannot ``in
    any way impede inter-operability of SNAP program benefits'' and that
    purchases made across state lines won't negatively impact SNAP
    eligibility for households.
        What happens if someone participating in SNAP in a restricted state
    purchases a restricted item across state lines? Nothing? Folks living
    near state lines can switch stores so they don't have to deal with
    confusing red tape? How's that going to be effective in determining
    whether restrictions are effective in these demonstration projects?
        Answer. SNAP restriction waivers do not affect or impede SNAP
    inter-operability. SNAP restrictions operate at the state level, and
    all SNAP recipients making a purchase with SNAP benefits within a state
    with an approved waiver must comply, regardless of residency. The terms
    and conditions of the waiver approval require each state to track and
    evaluate out-of-state transactions in bordering states.

        Question 41a. What kind of signage are you requiring retailers
    provide to explain this to folks so they can avoid embarrassment at
    checkout with all these changes?
        Answer. Each state approved for a SNAP restriction waiver is
    required to develop in-depth SNAP client and SNAP retailer
    communication plans detailing education materials and methods. State
    agencies are working collaboratively with retailers to develop these
    communication plans to ensure clear guidance, staff training,
    consistent messaging, and effective outreach to customers to ensure
    they understand what foods are and are not allowable for purchase with
    SNAP benefits.

        Question 41b. Can retailers in these states that don't want to deal
    with this red tape and confusion to opt out of these pilots?
        Answer. Retailers may not opt out of the SNAP restriction waivers.
    Participation is mandatory for all retailers in states with approved
    waivers. However, approved states are offering 6 months lead time or
    more to educate retailers about the waiver restrictions and provide
    technical assistance to support them as they come into compliance to
    support these pilot projects.

        Question 41c. For example, will a grocer that doesn't know that a
    granola bar was reformulated last week and no longer includes flour be
    penalized for committing a violation if they sell it to a SNAP
    participant? Will the participant be penalized if they try to buy it?
        Answer. FNS is committed to program integrity and is providing
    ongoing technical assistance to state agencies, who are, in turn,
    working closely with retailers. SNAP restriction waivers are not
    implemented immediately upon approval which allows for careful planning
    and coordination of restricted items. State agencies will be in
    continued communication with retailers to ensure compliance with the
    waiver restrictions as new products enter the marketplace.

        Question 42. These SNAP purchase restriction waivers specifically
    depend on the SNAP-Ed program--the one which Republicans want to
    eliminate--to ``provide additional nutrition support and education'' as
    part of state assessment of the pilot's success. Given that the
    reconciliation bill eliminated SNAP-Ed, will you be reevaluating those
    approvals?
        Answer. SNAP restriction waivers are not dependent on the SNAP-Ed
    program, and states have the flexibility to tailor evaluation plans
    based on available resources.

        SNAP Data Security

        Question 43. In response to the Administration's May 20th Executive
    Order 14243, ``Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating
    Information Silos,'' USDA issued a letter to SNAP state agencies on May
    6th, requesting ``unfettered access'' to sensitive data on program
    participants, including, but not limited to, names, dates of birth,
    personal address, Social Security Numbers and benefits received. While
    a recent court filing from USDA indicates that your department will not
    collect this data while it works to comply with the Privacy Act, we
    still have significant concerns. There are already secure mechanisms to
    combat the rare instances of fraud in SNAP, like the National Accuracy
    Clearinghouse (NAC), Quality Control system, and fraud investigators
    within FNS and states. So, it's clear that sprawling access to SNAP
    recipients' personal data is not necessary to ensure the program is
    running well. Instead, consolidating the personal data of tens of
    millions of Americans puts their data at serious risk and could
    undermine trust in the program moving forward.
        Secretary, when will the National Accuracy Clearinghouse be
    implemented in all states? Is it still on track to be live nationwide
    by the statutory deadline of the October 2027 deadline (as USDA's
    website states)?
        Answer. Yes, all states are on track to implement the NAC
    nationwide by October 2027.

        Question 43a. And as you know, the NAC uses Social Security
    Numbers, and dates of birth are used by the state agencies to find a
    positive match. However, these identifiers are not uploaded directly to
    the NAC. In order to protect participant information, state agencies
    will use a privacy-preserving record linkage process--or PPRL--to
    convert these data elements to a secure cryptographic hash before
    sharing the information to the NAC. The PPRL process allows the NAC to
    accurately match individuals, while preventing the collection and
    storage of the names, social security numbers, and dates of birth in
    the NAC system. If your agency insists on moving forward with
    consolidating SNAP data under this Executive Order, do you commit to
    using a privacy-preserving record linkage process to protect Americans'
    sensitive personal data?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation, USDA is unable to comment on
    this question.

        SNAP Skimming

        Question 44. As you know, SNAP skimming is a form of theft that
    occurs when an illegally installed device on a point-of-sale terminal
    steals information from a SNAP recipient's Electronic Benefit Transfer
    (EBT) card to make unauthorized purchases and drain the SNAP
    recipient's account without their knowledge. Unfortunately, EBT
    cardholders don't have the same Federal consumer protections as debit
    and credit card holders, including reimbursement for losses due to
    unauthorized electronic transactions.
        In December 2022, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations
    Act (CAA) of 2023 to address this issue by authorizing Federal funds to
    pay for the benefit reimbursements. From 2022 to 2024, all 53 states
    and Territories reported instances of skimming and over $320 million in
    stolen benefits had been replaced under the 2023 CAA authority.
        Unfortunately, last December, Democrats and Republicans negotiated
    a bipartisan deal to extend the law replacing stolen SNAP benefits for
    an additional 4 years, but at the eleventh hour, Speaker Johnson and
    Republicans in Congress reneged on that deal, blocking reimbursement of
    stolen SNAP benefits.
        The 2023 CAA instructed USDA to promulgate regulations to require
    states to comply with those updated security measures. The Biden
    Administration convened a working group with states, retailers,
    processors, and industry experts and coordinated with the Accredited
    Standards Committee X9 to write and inform this regulation. In fact,
    they had this regulation slated to be published by April or May of this
    year, but it has not yet been published by the new Administration.
        Secretary, we know you share in the desire to prevent the theft of
    SNAP dollars from low-income families--and even participated in a raid
    last month to target some of these bad actors. When does the
    Administration plan to publish this rule to require states to make
    security updates to prevent this type of theft? Will USDA mandate the
    transition to chip card and/or mobile technologies, both of which show
    promise in combating electronic theft?
        Answer. USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) takes its
    responsibility of helping to prevent fraud--particularly SNAP
    Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) theft--seriously and has made
    significant and sustainable progress in partnership with states, third-
    party EBT processors, and retailers to modernize EBT systems and reduce
    fraud. USDA anticipates the rule, ``Enhancing Electronic Benefit
    Transfer (EBT) Card Security Measures,'' will publish in the Federal
    Register next calendar year.
    Trade
        Question 45. Politico reported that Trump officials delayed and
    redacted the USDA quarterly outlook for U.S. agricultural trade because
    the report predicts an increase in the nation's trade deficit in farm
    goods. The May 2025 report was dated May 29, but was not released until
    June 2. The written analysis accompanying the report still has not been
    published.
        These delays and redactions undermine trust in USDA research.
    Secretary Rollins, what was your involvement in this delay? Was this
    delay due to understaffing at USDA? Given the importance of timely,
    politically independent, and complete reports, what will you do to
    ensure that such delays do not occur in the future? Can you commit to
    preventing future interference with USDA research processes?
        Answer. While many of the data products released by USDA are
    required by statute, others--including the quarterly Outlook for U.S.
    Agricultural Trade report--do not have this same requirement. USDA
    determined releasing only the data is sufficient for stakeholder needs.
    We remain committed to providing timely, accurate, and useful data in
    service to U.S. agriculture.

        Question 46. The written analysis that typically accompanies the
    report is a valuable tool for analysts, farm groups, commodity traders,
    and policy makers. Can you explain why the written analysis was
    redacted? Even if this analysis is not required by statute, why would
    you block publication of critical USDA insights that help
    decisionmakers take informed actions to best support U.S. agriculture?
    When can we expect this written analysis?
        Answer. In an effort to simplify this report's information and
    maintain clear communication of the data, only the actual data was
    published. USDA will continue to evaluate the best way to provide clear
    and transparent information that best serves farmers.

        Question 47. We are already seeing China increase soy purchases
    from countries such as Brazil and Argentina, hurting U.S. soy exports.
    What will you do to help U.S. soy producers compensate for the market
    access they have lost because of the President's on-again off-again
    tariffs?
        Answer. Response: President Biden left American farmers and
    ranchers with a nearly $50 billion trade deficit. President Trump's
    leadership to seek fair and reciprocal treatment for our great
    producers will bring more stable long-term market opportunities around
    the world for agricultural exports.
        We are aggressively pursuing market access opportunities across the
    globe. I am proud of the work our team is doing to support concrete
    wins for American farmers and ranchers. Just a few of these include:

       Maintaining fair dairy access in Costa Rica \5\ for American
            dairy farmers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/28/
    make-agriculture-great-again-trade-win-secretary-rollins-secures-
    greater-market-access-costa-rica-us. Editor's note: the press release
    is incorporated as an attachment to Ms. Craig's Question 20 response.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Protecting pork market access in Panama.

       Removing non-tariff barriers for almonds in Japan.

       Resolving barriers to poultry market access in Angola, the
            9th largest market globally for U.S. poultry.

        Question 47a. Secretary Rollins, you have been very vocal in your
    support of the President's tariff policies. Could you tell me,
    specifically, what role you have played in these trade deliberations?
    If you did not play a direct role, who was responsible for these
    policies which are having such a profound impact on our nation's
    farmers?
        Answer. I have consistently been the number one advocate for
    American farmers and ranchers in pushing for fair trading relationships
    around the world. I regularly speak directly to my counterparts in
    other governments about the unfair treatment our producers are facing,
    as well as working closely with my colleagues across President Trump's
    cabinet to ensure that farmers have a vocal seat at the table in all of
    our international negotiations.

        Question 48. You recently returned from a trip to Rome where you
    were focused on improving market access to Italy and the EU According
    to USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service Data, Italy imported $1.8
    billion in U.S. agricultural goods in 2024. Even if you are successful
    in increasing demand for U.S. agriculture in Italy and similar markets,
    how will these efforts even begin to address the harm our farmers are
    already feeling from lost market access and damaged trading
    relationships with countries such as China (who imported $27.3 billion
    in U.S. agriculture in 2024), Canada (who imported $32.4 billion in
    2024), and Mexico (who imported $31.3 billion in 2024)?
        Question 48a. What have been the concrete outcomes of your ongoing
    campaign to promote U.S. agriculture abroad?

        Question 48b. How much did your trip cost?
        Answer 48-48b. We are aggressively pursuing market access
    opportunities in every country around the world. There is no single
    country that we can rely on as the only destination for our
    agricultural exports. Our Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs team
    is working daily in markets around the world to reduce trade barriers
    and improve access for American farmers, ranchers, and foresters. I am
    proud of the work our team is doing to support concrete wins for
    American farmers and ranchers. Just a few of these include:

       Maintaining fair dairy access in Costa Rica \6\ for American
            dairy farmers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/28/
    make-agriculture-great-again-trade-win-secretary-rollins-secures-
    greater-market-access-costa-rica-us. Editor's note: the press release
    is incorporated as an attachment to Ms. Craig's Question 20 response.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Protecting pork market access in Panama.

       Removing non-tariff barriers for almonds in Japan.

       Resolving barriers to poultry market access in Angola, the
            9th largest market globally for U.S. poultry.

        Question 49. You recently returned from a trip to the UK What
    agreements were signed there?

        Question 49a. How much did your trip cost?
        Answer 49-49a. While in the UK, I secured major wins for American
    exporters of energy resources, including fair market access for wood
    pellets to be utilized to support energy production in the UK, as well
    as additional opportunities to import ethanol produced in the U.S. I
    also highlighted additional opportunities for U.S. un-milled rice
    exports to the UK and advocated for the U.S. seafood industry and U.S.
    dairy products, which are unfairly targeted by risk classifications or
    are only accepted due to minor technicalities that can be addressed
    through partnerships between the U.S. and UK Governments. Throughout my
    visit, I fought to improve the public misperception about the safety,
    quality, and consistency of America's agricultural products. Through
    conversations with American farmers who export to the UK, I confirmed
    they are interested in exporting more products, and UK importers and
    retailers are interested in selling and promoting more American
    agricultural goods.

        Question 50. You have traveled internationally extensively during
    your first few months. How much have taxpayers paid for those trips?
        Answer. International travel is very common across Administrations
    for senior leadership within USDA. To date, I have traveled to the
    United Kingdom and Italy on official business with reciprocal visits
    here in the United States. USDA will continue to be a good steward of
    taxpayer dollars when performing such travel.
    Food Safety
        Question 51. One of the only actions you've taken on food safety
    was to cancel The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological
    Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) and the National Advisory Committee on Meat
    and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI). These committees were established in
    1988 and 1971 respectively, are made up of volunteers, and were
    extremely low cost at under $500,000.
        One of the NACMCF projects that was pending before the panel was
    terminated was seeking advice from the expert panel on how to
    strategically use Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS), in addition to any
    other current or emerging technologies and strategies, to help FSIS
    rank and focus resources on foodborne microbial pathogen subtypes based
    on public health risk. How does USDA intend to access this important
    insight?
        Answer. I fully support the President's directive to improve
    government, eliminate inefficiencies, and strengthen USDA's many
    services to the American people. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
    Service (FSIS) continues to deliver its mission to keep the supply of
    meat, poultry and egg products safe, wholesome and properly labeled for
    consumers. FSIS has extensive food safety expertise and utilizes its
    technical background to guide advancements in the food safety space in
    the U.S. and abroad. FSIS scientists regularly collaborate with Federal
    public health partners and researchers across USDA to evaluate new
    technologies and explore new applications of existing technology,
    including how to use WGS data to target the microbial pathogens of
    greatest public health concern. We will continue to rely on the vast
    experiences and resources within the Department and Federal Government,
    to generate science and data that informs our work and upholds our
    commitment to protecting consumers from foodborne illness.
    Additionally, FSIS senior leadership will continue to meet regularly
    with consumer and industry groups to hear concerns and receive
    feedback.

        Question 51a. Another pending NACMCF project sought to acquire a
    better understanding of the factors that contribute to Cronobacter
    contamination of powdered infant formula and the production environment
    to increase the effectiveness of prevention and management strategies.
    This is critical information that could be useful in preventing
    outbreaks involving infant formula products. How will this be accessed?
        Answer. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) does not
    regulate infant formula.

        Question 51b. For the 2025-2027 committee term, NACMCF was to work
    on charges related to Listeria in ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry
    products from FSIS, in response to the deadly Boar's Head outbreak last
    year. This would have been important research to have in helping to
    prevent future outbreaks in RTE products. How does USDA intend to
    obtain this scientific expertise?
        Answer. Protecting consumers from foodborne illness is a top food
    safety priority for USDA. On July 15, I announced a new, comprehensive
    plan to bolster USDA's efforts to combat foodborne illness. Under
    President Trump's leadership, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
    is enhancing Listeria sampling, prioritizing thorough food safety
    assessments in ready-to-eat establishments, collecting more and better
    in-plant data on Listeria risk factors and taking immediate enforcement
    actions to address recurring noncompliance and ensure safe food
    production. FSIS experts will also be analyzing the new data collected
    as part of this effort to identify further enhancements to sampling and
    inspection.
    Miscellaneous Topics
        Question 52. Secretary Rollins, we are hearing from producers
    throughout the country about the uncertain Federal funding and policy
    environment. With regard to conservation, states and conservation
    districts are facing this as well, and are worried that they will be
    expected to step in when NRCS does not. Can you speak to the importance
    of program consistency and reliability when it comes to conservation
    planning and implementation specifically, and how you're working to
    ensure farmers can rely on USDA?
        Answer. USDA will continue to uphold President Trump's commitment
    to America's farmers and ranchers while making sure the critical
    programs our customers rely on remain available.

        Question 53. Secretary Rollins, your proposal to zero out
    conservation technical will massively hinder the ability of farmers to
    enroll in USDA conservation programs. No farmer wants this program cut.
    And at a bipartisan, conservation-related hearing last week, every
    witness before the Committee confirmed this by sharing how essential
    Conservation Technical Assistance is to producers. The President's
    initial budget release claimed that many farmers have been forced to
    participate in the program, an outright lie, as these programs have
    always been voluntary. Why did you recommend cutting this support for
    farmers?
        Answer. The President's Budget eliminates discretionary funding for
    conservation technical assistance because it has historically received
    over $1 billion in mandatory funding, in addition to funding at the
    state and local levels. While funding has helped producers deploy
    conservation practices on their lands, many have been forced to
    participate in the program in order to comply with state environmental
    regulations such as California's Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program,
    which regulates agricultural runoff. These cost drivers should be
    connected to the resource demands they impose.

        Question 54. Secretary Rollins, the President's budget proposed
    eliminating funding for the Forest Service's Collaborative Forest
    Landscape Restoration program (CFLRP), one of the Agency's most popular
    and effective programs. There is bipartisan support for this program in
    Congress and vulnerable communities depend on the forest management
    activities it funds. It's clear that a cut to this program will
    actively hinder our ability to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire
    and support economic revitalization in rural communities. Can you
    please explain why you proposed zeroing out CFLRP?
        Answer. As an Agency, we are looking to maximize the return of
    every dollar entrusted to us. We will continue to leverage
    collaboratives to achieve priority forest landscape outcomes.

        Question 55. Secretary Rollins, according to the Forest Service
    itself, ``in its first 10 years, the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration program created nearly $2 billion in local labor income and
    supported an average of 5,440 jobs annually.'' The program also treated
    an area larger than New Jersey, and between FY 2013 and FY 2019,
    accomplished 19 percent of the Forest Services total hazardous fuels
    treatments and 15 percent of the timber volume sold. A proposal to cut
    this program runs counter to your own proposed goals for forest
    management. Why was this program cut?
        Answer. As an Agency, we are looking to maximize the return of
    every dollar entrusted to us. We will continue to leverage
    collaboratives to achieve priority forest landscape outcomes.

        Question 56. Secretary Rollins, your budget proposal includes
    slashing support for state, Tribal, and private forestry programs.
    These programs provide technical and financial assistance to landowners
    and resource managers to help sustain the nation's forests and
    grasslands, protect communities from wildland fire, and restore forest
    ecosystems. I don't think there's a forestry group or stakeholder out
    there that would support wholesale elimination of an entire branch of
    the Forest Service, so why should Congress?
        Answer. The FY 2026 request eliminates funding for the State,
    Private, and Tribal Forestry account to ensure fiscal responsibility
    with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the appropriate
    roles of Federal and state governments. The budget request anchors to a
    return to federalism, which is a priority for the Trump Administration.
    It encourages increasing state and local governments' authority to fund
    the management of state and privately-owned forests, community
    preparedness, and public risk mitigation activities in alignment with
    local priorities. Our partnerships with states and local governments
    are a key aspect of managing the nation's forests. We will continue our
    steadfast partnerships with states and local communities to ensure
    America's forests are healthy and resilient. Changing the funding model
    to have our non-Federal partners contribute more significantly ensures
    that all of us have a financial stake in managing our forests.

        Question 57. Secretary Rollins, your budget strips all funding from
    Rural Development Business and Industry loans, and Rural Business
    Development grants. The only reason given is that these programs are
    duplicative of programs elsewhere in government, but I am here to tell
    you that there aren't other programs doing this work or providing this
    capital. Only about 15 percent of businesses are in rural areas and
    cuts to these rural development programs will hurt these rural
    businesses. USDA which is the only agency with a proven track record of
    in rural America, why does this USDA think that other agencies are
    better suited to serve rural America?
        Answer. The Trump Administration continues our commitment to rural
    America, and we are doing so by reforming the Federal bureaucracy.
    Reducing government spending, by ending duplicative programs, and
    enhancing accountability, we are ensuring that taxpayer dollars are
    being used responsibly.

        Question 58. Secretary Rollins, USDA's budget zeros out the
    ReConnect rural broadband program. Can you please explain why this
    Administration doesn't think rural America deserves the same access to
    the internet as their more urban counterparts?
        Answer. The Trump Administration absolutely believes that rural
    Americans deserve reliable, affordable, and fast broadband internet.
    USDA continues to work with our partners at FCC and the Department of
    Commerce in deploying the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
    (BEAD) Program. The BEAD program provides $42.5 billion for broadband
    deployment.

        Question 59. Bolstering America's domestic energy supply chain has
    always been a joint effort across several Federal agencies. Our
    nation's farmers rely on the supply chains the renewable energy sector
    provides. How is USDA working with other agencies to strengthen our
    domestic energy supply by boosting agriculture-related products like
    biofuels, synthetic aviation fuel or solar?
        Answer. I am in consistent communication with Administrator Zeldin
    and the White House about the importance of biofuels to the farm and
    rural economy. I am supportive of Administrator Zeldin's proposed
    Renewable Fuel Standard with the highest ever volume requirements for
    American grown biofuels. America's national security depends on our
    energy security, and biofuels are a crucial asset that bring more jobs
    and help farmers in rural America. I will continue advocating for
    biofuels and for policies that support a strong commodity market.

        Question 59a. When did you last speak with Secretary Wright about
    these issues?
        Answer. Secretary Wright and I meet regularly to develop plans for
    energy generation and transmission. I'm proud to partner with Secretary
    Wright so we can continue to serve the President's vision of unleashing
    American energy.

        Question 60. In your testimony, you state that you ``addressed the
    avian flu.'' So is it done? Have we no more transmission? No more
    poultry dying? No more dairy cows being impacted?
        Answer. My five-pronged strategy to improve biosecurity on poultry
    farms and lower egg prices is working. I will continue to implement
    this strategy and explore all options to help all producers protect
    their animals from avian influenza.

        Question 61. Given the MAHA reports call for reducing ultra
    processed foods in schools, will the MAHA recommendations, due out in
    August, include support for programs like the Local Food for Schools
    initiative that not only helped create a pipeline for delicious healthy
    food items but also supported local farmers?
        Answer. The work of the MAHA Commission is ongoing, and we look
    forward to sharing those recommendations soon. USDA continues to have
    16 robust nutrition programs in place.

        Question 62. How will USDA work with school nutrition operators to
    better understand operational challenges and provide policy
    recommendations that would support the MAHA report goals? We understand
    that the SNA has invited you and Secretary Kennedy to meet with their
    members. Is that something you will commit to before the August report
    is released?
        Answer. As I mentioned at my confirmation hearing, children are
    suffering from diet-related chronic disease at unheard of rates. School
    lunch is an important part of that conversation, because we should all
    want it to be the best meal eaten, not just the best meal served.
    States and nutrition program operators have a significant role in
    administering the FNS Child Nutrition Programs these programs. There
    are various opportunities to tailor child nutrition program
    implementation to local needs and circumstances. I look forward to
    hearing innovative ideas from those at the state level and those who
    directly serve our children in cafeterias across the country.

        Question 63. What is USDA doing to communicate the opportunity to
    drive growth in our rural economies at this critical time and ensure
    that the Administration, including the Office of Management and Budget,
    understands the direct impact that a strong Renewable Volume
    Obligations can have on American farmers and U.S. agriculture markets?
        Answer. USDA acknowledges the vital role that Rural Development
    programs play in supporting rural communities and farmers. The
    Administration's budget proposal reflects a commitment to fiscal
    responsibility and streamlining programs to maximize impact. We are
    always open to constructive dialogue with Congress and this Committee
    to ensure rural America has the resources it needs to thrive. We are
    committed to evaluating all avenues to support rural economic
    development and job creation, consistent with the President's vision
    for a strong American economy.

        Question 64. It is imperative that EPA take a careful and judicious
    approach to Small Refinery Exemption (SRE) petitions and ensure that
    biofuel blending volumes are not negatively impacted by any action on
    pending SRE petitions. If mishandled, SREs could short-circuit the RVO,
    destabilize farm economies, and wipe out the benefits of a strong rule.
    We all saw a preview of the relationship between blending volumes and
    agriculture markets in the last few weeks when soybean prices fell by
    28 and bean oil trading was halted all due to a rumor about EPA's
    planned blending volumes and when EPA was forced to publicly dispel a
    rumor that it would be approving all 169 pending small refinery
    exemptions after RIN prices dropped precipitously. What is USDA doing
    to ensure that the Administration understands how abuse of SRE
    authority hurts American farmers?
        Answer. I remain in consistent communication with Administrator
    Zeldin and the White House about the importance of biofuels to the farm
    and rural economy. I am supportive of Administrator Zeldin's proposed
    Renewable Fuel Standard with the highest ever volume requirements for
    American grown biofuels. America's national security depends on our
    energy security, and biofuels are a crucial asset that bring more jobs
    and help farmers in rural America. I will continue advocating for
    biofuels and for policies that support a strong commodity market.

    Questions Submitted by Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
            from Georgia
    Specialty Crops
        Question 1. USDA's Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops (MASC)
    program provided much-needed aid to specialty crop producers across the
    country, particularly to the diverse group of growers across my
    district in Georgia. However, as you are aware, specialty crop growers
    are still facing a number of challenges such as labor costs and
    increased costs of production. What is your planned timeline for
    distribution of the remaining 15% payment rate allocated in the MASC
    program, and do you plan to provide additional assistance to the
    specialty crop sector, whether via the MASC program or another
    initiative?
        Answer. USDA has issued the second round of MASC payments.

        Question 2. Unfair trade practices continue to impact the U.S.
    agriculture industry. In recent years, U.S. fruit and vegetable growers
    have faced increased competition from foreign-subsidized and less
    regulated imports being dumped into our markets. This dramatically
    impacts Southeast producers and threatens the success and future of
    seasonal and perishable produce. How can the Administration help level
    the playing field for American many specialty crop farmers who are
    currently forced to compete with lower costs of production in other
    countries, primarily Mexico?
        Answer. Unfair foreign trade practices undermine the
    competitiveness of American farmers and ranchers, creating an uneven
    playing field, in foreign markets and here at home. I am fighting to
    ensure that we address unfair practices, and I am proud to support
    President Trump's reciprocal tariff negotiations, so that our producers
    can compete on a level playing field.
    Disaster Relief Implementation and Oversight
        Question 3. Madam Secretary, Congress appropriated substantial
    disaster relief funding to respond to natural disasters in 2023 and
    2024. Can you provide an update on how those funds will be distributed,
    what states or regions have received support, and what the current
    outstanding needs are?
        Answer. USDA has announced the projected timeline for development
    and delivery of each of the components that comprise the full suite of
    Supplemental Disaster Assistance for agricultural producers online at
    https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/20232024-supplemental-
    disaster-assistance.
                                   attachment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/20232024-supplemental-
    disaster-assistance]
    2023/2024 Supplemental Disaster Assistance
    What It Is
        The American Relief Act of 2025,\1\ Pub. L. No. 118-158 (the Act),
    signed into law on Dec. 21, 2024, provided the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture with more than $30 billion to deliver disaster recovery
    assistance to farmers and livestock producers. Below is a projected
    timeline for development and delivery of each of the components that
    comprise the full suite of Supplemental Disaster Assistance for
    agricultural producers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/10545.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Projected Timeline
    Timeline Summary \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ [See table below.]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP)
        The Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) \3\ provides
    economic loss assistance for covered commodities based on 2024 planted
    and prevented planted acres.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-
    commodity-assistance-program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Important Dates
       March 19, 2025: Sign-up began

       August 15, 2025: Sign-up ends

        Nearly $8B in payments have been paid out to date. View more
    payment information on the ECAP Dashboard.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-
    commodity-assistance-program/dashboard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) for Drought and Wildfire
        The Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) \5\ for Drought and
    Wildfire will provide assistance for losses due to drought and
    wildfires in 2023 and 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-
    livestock-relief-program-elrp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Important Dates
       May 29, 2025:DA announced ELRP payments to begin livestock
            producers impacted by drought and wildfires in 2023 and 2024.
            ELRP Rule\6\ published on the Federal Register.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/29/2025-
    09581/emergency-livestock-relief-program-elrp-2023-and-2024.

         Farm Service Agency ELRP webpage.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-
    livestock-relief-program-elrp.

       May 30, 2025: The target date for FSA county offices to sign
            and certify.
    Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) for Flooding and Wildfire on
            Non-Federal Lands
        The Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) for Flooding will
    provide assistance for losses due to flooding wildfire on non-Federal
    [lands.] USDA has never stood up an assistance program for livestock
    due to flooding, this requires more time due to needed software
    changes.
    Important Dates
       Week of September 8, 2025: The target for program
            announcement
    Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP)
        The Supplemental Disaster Relief Program\8\ will provide assistance
    to producers for necessary expenses due to losses of revenue, quality
    or production of crops due to weather related events in 2023 and 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/sdrp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Important Dates
        For producers with indemnified losses:

       July 10, 2025: Sign-up began

        For uncovered losses (shallow losses) including producers without
    crop insurance, and quality losses we need more time to collect the
    data:

       October 2025: The target for sign-up to begin
    General Block Grant Authority
        USDA is using general block grant authority to pay on losses due to
    adverse weather events for 2023 and 2024. General block grants will not
    duplicate assistance for which USDA covers a similar loss.

       USDA has received general block grant requests from:

         Florida--announced July 21, 2025 \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/07-21-2025/secretary-
    rollins-announces-6759-million-disaster-assistance-farmers.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Georgia

         North Carolina--announced September 5, 2025 \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/09-05-2025/usda-
    announces-2212-million-grant-agreement-cover-agricultural-losses.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         South Carolina

         Tennessee

         Virginia--announced July 28, 2025 \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/07-28-2025/
    secretary-rollins-announces-609-million-disaster-assistance-farmers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Timing
        We are currently engaging with the above states to negotiate their
    final agreement. These are agreements between the states and USDA.
    New England and Pacific Block Grant
        Provides compensation for necessary expenses related to crop,
    timber and livestock losses, including on-farm infrastructure as a
    consequence of any adverse weather event in 2023 and 2024. Small block
    grants will not duplicate assistance for which USDA covers a similar
    loss.

       New England and Pacific block grants were specifically
            earmarked by Congress to cover:

         Alaska

         Connecticut

         Hawaii

         Maine

         Massachusetts

         New Hampshire

         Rhode Island

         Vermont
    Timing
        FSA is actively engaged with all eight states eligible working to
    refine these agreements. These are agreements between the states and
    USDA.

                                 Important Dates
                                Timeline Summary
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date                   Program                 Milestone
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    March 19, 2025         Emergency Commodity       Sign-up began
                            Assistance Program
                            (ECAP)
    May 29, 2025           Emergency Livestock       USDA starts ELRP
                            Relief Program (ELRP)     payments to livestock
                            for Drought and           producers impacted by
                            Wildfire                  drought and wildfire
                                                      in 2023 and 2024--
                                                      Complete
                                                     See USDA News
                                                      Release\12\
    \12\ https://
     www.usda.gov/about-
     usda/news/press-
     releases/2025/05/29/
     usda-provide-1-
     billion-livestock-
     producers-impacted-
     drought-or-wildfire-
     2023-and-2024.
    May 30, 2025           Emergency Livestock       Target date for FSA
                            Relief Program (ELRP)     county offices to sign
                            for Drought and           and certify
                            Wildfire
    Week of July 7, 2025   Supplemental Disaster     Sign-up to begin
                            Relief Program (for
                            producers with
                            indemnified losses)
    August 15, 2025        Emergency Commodity       Sign-up ends
                            Assistance Program
                            (ECAP)
    Week of September 8,   Emergency Livestock       The target for program
     2025                   Relief Program (ELRP)     announcement
                            for Flooding and
                            Wildfire on Non-Federal
                            Lands
    October 2025           Supplemental Disaster     Target for sign-up to
                            Relief Program (for       begin
                            producers with
                            uncovered/shallow
                            losses)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional Resources
              Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) Fact Sheet \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/fact-sheets/
    emergency-commodity-assistance-program-ecap.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) Dashboard \14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-
    commodity-assistance-program/dashboard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Texas Water Treaty (Block Grant) Announced \15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/03/
    19/usda-announces-280-million-grant-agreement-support-rio-grande-
    valley-agricultural-producers-amid.

        Question 4. What metrics or data is USDA using to assess whether
    disaster funds have reached impacted producers, particularly in under-
    served rural or forested areas?
        Answer. USDA is committed to leveraging data currently on file to
    deploy critical disaster relief in a manner that aligns with
    Congressional intent while accurately and consistently calculating
    assistance for losses suffered by all eligible participants.

        Question 5. Are there any remaining delays or bureaucratic barriers
    preventing full deployment of disaster block grant funds to impacted
    states, and if so, how is USDA working to address those challenges?
        Answer. There are no remaining delays or bureaucratic barriers
    preventing deployment of block grant funds. USDA's team is in
    consistent communication with each block grant state, holding at a
    minimum, weekly meetings to ensure each state's specific questions and
    needs are addressed.
    Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP)
        Question 6. The Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) is one
    of the few cost-share programs available to private forest landowners
    after natural disasters. However, landowners frequently report that
    reimbursement delays and eligibility limitations make recovery nearly
    impossible. What improvements is USDA considering to streamline EFRP or
    make it more responsive?
        Answer. The Farm Service Agency has begun providing more frequent
    and geographically tailored training to staff and stakeholders for the
    Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP). Additionally, staff
    closely monitor funding expenditures to quickly identify bottlenecks
    and apply the necessary resources to address delays.

        Question 7. Last year's draft of the farm bill in both the House
    and Senate included proposals to reform and strengthen EFRP. If those
    provisions aren't enacted legislatively, does USDA have existing
    authority to make any of those improvements unilaterally through
    administrative changes?
        Answer. Changes such as covering livestock watering structures on
    grazed forestland which were damaged by a qualifying natural disaster
    and covering losses on private property incurred by fires started by
    the Federal Government have been implemented administratively.

        Question 8. Given the increasing scale of natural disasters--
    wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes--how is USDA evaluating the long-term
    sustainability and funding needs of EFRP to ensure it can support
    timely recovery for forest landowners?
        Answer. There are sufficient budgetary resources for EFRP. FSA
    works closely with Federal, state and local forestry partners to gather
    feedback on disaster trends to provide needed resources in a timely
    manner following disasters.
    Forest Landowner Disaster Recovery
        Question 9. Private forest landowners manage over half of our
    nation's forests, yet they lack the recovery tools and safety nets that
    row crop and livestock producers have access to through USDA. Do you
    agree that this is a gap in our disaster and risk management portfolio?
        Answer. USDA stands ready to assist all producers without regard to
    their types of yields. Forestry products are an integral part of the
    U.S. economy and USDA fully recognizes the private forest landowners'
    role in their availability.

        Question 10. Will you commit to working with Congress and the Trump
    Administration to advance the Disaster Reforestation Act, which would
    allow forest landowners to deduct the value of timber destroyed by
    natural disasters?
        Answer. We will be glad to work with your office on this topic.

        Question 11. How is USDA incorporating the needs of forest
    landowners into broader disaster and risk mitigation planning,
    especially given their role in forest management, preserving
    watersheds, and providing wildlife habitat?
        Answer. NRCS conservationists work with private forest landowners
    and managers to plan and install forestry practices that can improve
    growth, reduce risk, and improve forest health while addressing other
    landowner goals, such as wildlife habitat or livestock grazing
    considerations.

        Question 12. Would you support parity in tax and disaster recovery
    treatment for forest owners comparable to other agricultural producers,
    recognizing the long timelines and investment risks associated with
    timber production?
        Answer. USDA will implement any changes Congress wishes to enact to
    better assist forest landowners.
    International Trade and Regulatory Compliance: EUDR Concerns
        Question 13. The United States has a strong record of being the
    ``green standard'' for sound forest management--we grow more trees than
    we harvest nationwide, and in regions like the southeastern U.S., we
    grow three trees for every one harvested. While we were glad--but not
    surprised--to see the United States classified as ``low risk'' under
    the European Union's Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), we are
    disappointed that this designation does not exempt U.S. producers from
    the costly and burdensome compliance requirements, including
    geolocation and due diligence tracking. Is USDA working with USTR and
    other agencies to push back on the implementation of this misguided
    regulation and protect our forest landowners from unfair burdens?
        Answer. USDA is working closely across the Administration to fight
    the unfair burdens of the EUDR. A ``low risk'' designation does not do
    enough to reduce the burdens that many industries will face under this
    arbitrary standard. I will continue fighting to ensure the European
    Union cannot put baseless regulations on American producers.

        Question 14. One of the biggest challenges with EUDR is the
    traceability requirement. In many cases--such as wood pellets,
    engineered wood products, or recycled materials--it is functionally
    impossible to trace a finished product back to a specific tract of
    family-owned land to prove that no deforestation occurred. Does USDA
    agree that this compliance framework is impractical and that U.S.
    producers should not be penalized for sustainable forest management
    practices?
        Answer. Yes, the EUDR compliance requirements are far too
    burdensome for American producers.

        Question 15. China, despite having well-documented issues with
    illegal logging and forest loss, was also classified as ``low risk'' by
    the EU. This raises serious concerns about how these risk
    determinations were made. Is USDA engaging with the EU or other global
    partners to challenge the legitimacy of these classifications and
    ensure a level playing field for U.S. forest products?
        Answer. Yes, USDA has been consistent that the ``low risk''
    designation does not accurately account for U.S. forestry practices in
    relation to other countries. We are engaging regularly with the EU and
    other partners to find a reasonable and practical path forward.

        Question 16. Is the Trump Administration continuing to push back
    against the EUDR's unintended consequences, and are there efforts
    underway to coordinate with other nations who share our concerns to
    apply pressure on the EU to revise or delay these compliance mandates?
        Answer. USDA is actively seeking ways to ensure that U.S. producers
    do not have the unreasonable compliance burdens currently outlined by
    the EUDR. We are coordinating with other like-minded countries who
    share this concern.
    Trump Administration Executive Orders on Timber and Domestic Supply
            Chain
        Question 17. On March 1st, the Trump Administration issued two
    Executive Orders--one directing Federal agencies to boost domestic
    timber production and another to evaluate the volume and national
    security implications of timber imports. How is USDA responding to
    these directives, and what steps are being taken to support domestic
    timber supply?
        Answer. The Forest Service is developing a national strategy that
    outlines our agency's goals, objectives, and initial actions related to
    increase active forest management. Additionally, all Regional Foresters
    are developing 5 year strategies, tiered to the national strategy, to
    increase their timber volume offered, leading to an agency-wide
    increase of 25% over the next 4-5 years. Furthermore, District Rangers
    and Forest Supervisors will utilize direct timber sale opportunities
    with interested purchases operating on and around forests. Finally, all
    agency timber sales will use base rates or minimum rates, where
    appropriate, based on Emergency Authorizations outlined by the
    Secretary in Secretarial Memo 1078-006.

        Question 18. Private landowners manage the majority of our nation's
    forests. Is USDA working with these landowners to expand timber
    production on private lands as part of the broader effort to secure
    domestic supply?
        Answer. USDA partnerships with the states and local governments are
    a key aspect of managing the nation's forests including assistance to
    private landowners. The FY 2026 request eliminates funding for the
    State, Private, and Tribal Forestry account to ensure fiscal
    responsibility with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the
    appropriate roles of Federal and state governments. The Budget request
    anchors to a return to federalism and encourages increasing state
    authority to fund the management of state and privately-owned forests.
    Changing the funding model to have our non-Federal partners contribute
    more significantly ensures that all of us have a financial stake in
    managing our forests.

        Question 19. Many rural communities are seeing sawmills and wood-
    processing facilities close, which reduces market access and undermines
    domestic supply chain resilience. Is USDA examining how these mill
    closures impact landowners' ability to harvest and market their timber?
        Answer. USDA is proactively investing in projects that strengthen
    wood products manufacturing facilities, positioning them to overcome
    manufacturing challenges, and create and retain jobs. Three key grant
    programs of the Forest Service: Wood Innovations, Community Wood, and
    Wood Products Infrastructure Assistance have helped build markets,
    support efficient processing, and strengthen our critical wood products
    infrastructure. From 2021-2024, the Forest Service has provided nearly
    $190M to 482 projects across the country, matched or leveraged with
    $618 million from applicants. Of these projects, 288 projects ($140
    million), supported sawmills and other wood processing facilities.

        Question 20. Will the Administration continue to find ways to
    secure America's critical natural resources--like timber and wood
    products--for both domestic use and export markets, including strategic
    industries like biomass energy, cross-laminated timber, and sustainable
    aviation fuel?
        Answer. The Administration is committed to maintaining markets for
    timber and wood products. The agency's Wood Innovation Grants Program
    is one of the ways the agency supports markets for these products. The
    program, launched in 2015, stimulates, expands, and supports U.S. wood
    products markets and wood energy markets to support the long-term
    management of National Forest System and other forest lands. National
    focus areas include mass timber, renewable wood energy, and
    technological development that supports hazardous fuel reduction and
    sustainable forest management.
    National Organic Program
        Question 21. A petition sent to USDA from Biodegradable Products
    Institute asks that AMS add a definition of ``compost feedstock'' to
    the Federal organic regulations, 7 CFR  205.2, and to make certain
    conforming and clarifying adjustments to the related regulations. Our
    nation's leading producers of compostable packaging are facing serious
    barriers in California that could be fixed by USDA acting on a 2023
    petition to deregulate how compost is managed in the National Organic
    Program. Will you commit to reviewing this petition and consider an
    interim final rule to give farmers and packaging companies the relief
    they deserve?
        Answer. USDA is assessing the petition, and it has been the subject
    of National Organic Standards Board meetings. That discussion and
    analysis is continuing.

    Question Submitted by Hon. Scott DesJarlais, a Representative in
            Congress from Tennessee
        Question. I understand a petition has been at USDA for
    approximately 2 years seeking to update the definition of compost in
    the National Organic Program in support of biomanufacturers. Have you
    had an opportunity to review this petition, if so, can you advise on
    when to expect a decision? If not, is there a timeline for review and
    potential approval?
        Answer. USDA is assessing the petition, and it has been the subject
    of National Organic Standards Board meetings. That discussion and the
    analysis is continuing.
    Question Submitted by Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress
            from North Carolina
        Question. Given our nation's current fiscal situation and the need
    to fully maximize the impact of the resources allocated across the
    Federal Government, including USDA, I agree with the need to pursue
    greater efficiencies as reflected in the Administration's budget. The
    Farm Service Agency (FSA) is one of the key agencies where staff
    resources can be better supported with technology efficiencies, which
    the budget highlighted as `improving online services so that farmers
    are receiving top-notch service to meet their needs'.
        A prime example of this efficiency is third-party providers who
    work with producers for activities such as crop planted acreage
    reporting to FSA. USDA can easily and quickly improve this experience
    for producers by embracing this process, as required in the 2014 and
    2018 Farm Bills.
        Will you provide details on how your office plans on working with
    FSA to ensure they are closely working with third parties to determine
    functionalities most helpful in leveraging existing technologies and
    data sets, and prioritize automation of activities which benefit both
    county office staff and producer convenience?
        Answer. I fully support President Trump's directive to eliminate
    wasteful spending and ensure taxpayer dollars are used effectively. By
    working with the Department of Government Efficiency, USDA can utilize
    private sector experience to obtain cost effective and overdue IT
    modernization.
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Don Bacon, a Representative in Congress
            from Nebraska
        Question 1. The FY 2025 NOFO for Food for Progress was posted and
    then taken down. This is a mandatory farm bill program authorized by
    Congress.
        When will the FY 2025 NOFO for Food for Progress be re-posted?
        Answer. The FY25 Notice of Funding closed on July 31, 2025. USDA is
    currently reviewing applications in order to make awards.

        Question 1a. Given the delays in posting the FY 2025 Food for
    Progress NOFO, is USDA anticipating an expedited award process? If yes,
    how might this differ from how previous years were awarded?
        Answer. USDA will work expediently to process applications and make
    awards in accordance with the statutory requirements.

        Question 1b. Why was the FY25 McGovern-Dole NOFO allowed to go
    forward?
        Answer. The FY25 Notice of Funding closed on June 23. USDA is
    currently reviewing applications in order to make awards.

        Question 2. USDA recently terminated 27 Food for Progress awards
    and 17 McGovern-Dole Food for Education awards. The termination letters
    state the programs were no longer serving the foreign assistance
    objectives of USDA.
        What are the foreign assistance objectives of USDA going forward
    which all the food aid programs must align with?
        Answer. USDA is prioritizing foreign assistance that makes America
    safer, stronger and more prosperous. Assistance that meets USDA's core
    objectives and ensures a return on investment for American farmers,
    ranchers, foresters and agriculture producers. These objectives are
    outlined in a June 30 Secretarial Memorandum: https://www.usda.gov/
    sites/default/files/documents/sm-1078-012.pdf.
                                   attachment
    United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Secretary
            Washington, D.C. 20250
    Secretary's Memorandum 1078-012

    June 30, 2025
    Prioritizing Foreign Assistance From The United States Department Of
            Agriculture, Which Makes The United States Of America Safer,
            Stronger, And More Prosperous.
    1. Purpose
        The purpose of this Memorandum is to establish a return to American
    principles and realign the Department's focus towards its original
    objectives of maximizing and promoting American agriculture, ensuring a
    safe, nutritious and secure food supply, enhancing rural prosperity,
    and protecting our National Forests and Grasslands. To achieve this
    purpose, this memorandum orders the rescission of all foreign
    assistance previously granted through the Department which does not
    actively make the United States of America safer, stronger, and more
    prosperous. It also calls on the Department to recognize the goodwill
    of American farmers, ranchers, foresters, and agricultural producers in
    all foreign assistance programs.
        The United States of America has long been the most generous and
    charitable country in the world. American prosperity has been shared
    for decades in the spirit of kindness to feed the hungry and
    economically develop a great many countries. However, for too long,
    this generosity has been taken advantage of by a foreign aid industry
    and bureaucracy that is not aligned with American interests. American
    agriculture feeds, fuels, and clothes the world.
        Therefore, this Department and all supporting agencies and mission
    areas will focus on foreign assistance that prioritizes (1) making
    America safer, stronger, and more effective; (2) meeting our core
    objectives at USDA; and (3) ensuring a return on investment for the
    American farmers, ranchers, foresters, and agricultural producers who
    seek to support vulnerable communities around the world with the bounty
    of American agriculture.
    2. Policy
        To affect these priority areas, USDA will:

      1.  Review and terminate foreign assistance projects that do not
                contribute to making America safer, stronger, and more
                prosperous, specifically when it comes to American farmers,
                ranchers, foresters, and agricultural producers. Any
                projects focused exclusively on benefiting foreign
                agricultural systems, with no tie to the American people or
                developing market access for the American producer, will no
                longer continue.

      2.  Realign Department foreign assistance priorities towards projects
                that support the economic prosperity of American farmers,
                ranchers, foresters, and agricultural producers.
                Specifically, foreign assistance must support, develop, or
                advance market opportunities for American agriculture and
                forest products while seeking to support vulnerable
                communities across the globe.

      3.  Bring American farmers and ranchers back to the decision-making
                table for foreign assistance. For too long, the foreign aid
                industry has operated in a vacuum, one that has not also
                prioritized the goals of the American agricultural
                community. USDA will solicit input from American farmers
                and ranchers on how best to serve vulnerable communities.

      4.  Coordinate with all other relevant Federal agencies to ensure
                aligned foreign assistance objectives in the interest of
                the American people. The Federal Government should have
                complimentary foreign assistance projects and objectives,
                not duplicitous or competing priorities which do not
                provide effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
                USDA will work closely within the Executive Branch to
                further efficient foreign assistance programs that directly
                further the safety, strength, and prosperity of the United
                States of America. The Office of Budget and Programs
                Analysis (OBPA) and Office of General Counsel (OGC) shall
                assist USDA agencies and organizations properly to comply
                with the provisions of this.
    3. Incidental Transfers
        The Assistant Secretary for Administration, the Chief Financial
    Officer, and the Director, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, are
    authorized to approve such transfers of funds, personnel, employment
    authority, space, records, property, and incidentals as may be
    necessary to implement the provisions of this Memorandum.
    4. Effective Date and Termination
        This memo is effective immediately.

    Brooke L. Rollins,
    Secretary,
    U.S. Department of Agriculture.

        Question 2a. Will there be any additional terminations? Can USDA
    provide assurances that it will not terminate awards before programming
    can begin moving forward like what has occurred with the FY 2024
    terminated awards?
        Answer. USDA will continue to ensure that all projects align with
    the foreign assistance objectives of the Department.

        Question 2b. Is USDA considering a process to allow terminated
    awards to be reinstated? If yes, please provide more information about
    this process.
        Answer. There is no formal appeals process for terminated projects
    which do not align with the Department's foreign assistance objectives.

        Question 2c. What is USDA planning to do with the returned funds
    from the monetization sales?
        Answer. USDA will reallocate any recouped funds towards projects
    that are aligned with the foreign assistance objectives of the
    Department.

        Question 3. The recent ``Make America Healthy Again'' (MAHA)
    Commission Report--produced jointly by DHHS, USDA, and EPA--has raised
    serious concerns in farm country. The report cites numerous sources
    that do not exist and misrepresents others to justify its claims that
    pesticide products are responsible for America's chronic disease,
    despite a lack of evidence.
        Why was the ag community effectively shut out of the entire report-
    drafting process?
        Answer. My commitment is to ensure that our agriculture community
    is represented in this process.

        Question 3a. The report concluded that more research is necessary.
    What immediate steps is USDA taking to strengthen and expand
    agriculture research efforts?
        Answer. USDA remains committed to supporting high-priority research
    that is responsive to the needs of American farmers and ranchers
    through both the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the National
    Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

        Question 3b. Now that the report is out, how will you work via the
    interagency process to correct the misinformation and anti-farmer
    findings in MAHA's first report?
        Answer. America's farmers and ranchers dedicate their lives to
    feeding their country and the world. They have created the safest, most
    abundant, and most affordable food supply in the world. We are working
    to make sure our kids and families consume the healthiest food we
    produce.

        Question 3c. What will USDA's involvement be in shaping the
    strategy that the Commission will issue in August?
        Answer. USDA remains committed to working with our agency
    colleagues while advocating for America's farmers and ranchers.

        Question 3d. What specific actions is the MAHA Commission taking to
    ensure that farmers have a seat at the table and that their input will
    be actively considered?
        Answer. The Trump Administration has a unique, once-in-a-generation
    opportunity to unify our vision across key programs and initiatives,
    fostering a healthier, more vibrant America with the work of the
    Commission. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes the vital
    role of farmers to produce the safest most abundant food supply in the
    world. USDA remains steadfast in supporting continued access to safe,
    effective solutions that enable our farmers and ranchers to feed, fuel,
    and clothe the U.S. and the world.

        Question 4. The American Relief Act, passed in December 2024,
    provided approximately $21 billion in funds for agricultural producers
    that suffered losses due to natural disasters. Those funds were
    statutorily required to be released by March 21, 2025. Currently the
    aid schedule released by USDA states that sign up for the Supplemental
    Disaster Relief Program will not begin until July 7th for previously
    indemnified losses and September 15th for uncovered losses. In the
    meantime, producers awaiting relief, in some cases, require these
    payments to shore up credit agreements with lenders, putting them in an
    especially precarious position.
        What is the cause of this nearly 3 month delay?
        Answer. The Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) was
    launched ahead of the 90 day deadline as mandated by Congress. This was
    the only portion of the supplemental disaster assistance that had a 90
    day deadline. USDA is also committed to the timely delivery of the
    other components of the American Relief Act to provide relief much
    faster than that of the previous Administration. A timeline for
    development and delivery of each of the components that comprise the
    full suite of Supplemental Disaster Assistance for agricultural
    producers cans be found here:https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/
    programs/20232024-supplemental-disaster-assistance.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Editor's note: the website snapshot is incorporated as an
    attachment to Mr. Austin Scott's Question 3 response.

        Question 4a. What immediate steps have been taken or are planned to
    correct this issue?
        Answer. The Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) was
    launched ahead of the 90 day deadline as mandated by Congress. This was
    the only portion of the supplemental disaster assistance that had a 90
    day deadline. USDA is also committed to the timely delivery of the
    other components of the American Relief Act to provide relief much
    faster than that of the previous Administration. A timeline for
    development and delivery of each of the components that comprise the
    full suite of Supplemental Disaster Assistance for agricultural
    producers cans be found here: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/
    programs/20232024-supplemental-disaster-assistance.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Editor's note: the website snapshot is incorporated as an
    attachment to Mr. Austin Scott's Question 3 response.

        Question 5. With regard to the termination of the 2019 tomato
    suspension agreement, Mexico has threatened it will retaliate against
    American agricultural products.
        Have you had any discussions with USTR or Commerce on the status of
    the negotiations, and how can you ensure that the rest of U.S.
    agriculture does not get caught in the crossfire?
        Answer. The U.S. Department of Commerce announced the termination
    of the 2019 tomato suspension agreement on July 14, 2025. I will
    continue to be an advocate for American producers to have a level
    playing field domestically and around the world. The U.S. Government
    will closely monitor for any retaliatory action by Mexico and respond
    accordingly.

        Question 6. In your testimony before the House Agriculture
    Committee on June 11, 2025, you stated that there have been no cuts in
    funding and no employees have been terminated at the U.S. Meat Animal
    Research Service. Numerous producer organizations who rely on the
    research which comes out of these institutions say that while this is
    technically correct, it is not the whole story.
        Between January 20, 2025, and June 15, 2025, what is the average
    timeline between when a research procurement contract action has been
    received by USDA from the University of Nebraska's Agroecosystem
    Management Research Unit, the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research Unit,
    and the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, and when the facility
    received final approval to execute the requested research procurement
    contract?
        Answer. The average timeline from receipt to approval and execution
    of a contract at these locations during the requested period was 32
    calendar days.

        Question 6a. What is USDA's standard evaluation process on research
    procurement contracts when making approval/denial decisions?
        Answer. An agency seeking approval for a research procurement
    contract must submit the request to their Mission Area's Chief
    Operating Officer. Upon Mission Area approval, the request is forwarded
    to the Office of Contracting and Procurement for their review and
    approval. Once approved, the action may then be solicited.

        Question 6b. What immediate steps can USDA take to improve research
    procurement contract decision turnaround time?
        Answer. ARS has implemented an efficient review process, enabling
    their Mission Area's Chief Operating Officer to approve requests within
    1 to 2 business days. ARS works closely with the Department's Office of
    Contracting and Procurement to ensure that urgent and high-priority
    needs are expedited, with some approvals occurring the same day the
    need is identified.

        Question 6c. How many unfilled USDA employee vacancies were there
    on January 20, 2025 at the University of Nebraska's Agroecosystem
    Management Research Unit, the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research Unit,
    and the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, respectfully?
        Answer. Listed below are vacancies on January 20, 2025 (not
    including seasonal fieldwork positions):

       12 vacancies at the Agroecosystem Management Research Unit

       2 vacancies at the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research Unit

       25 vacancies at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center

        Question 6d. How many USDA employee vacancies were there on June
    15, 2025 at the University of Nebraska's Agroecosystem Management
    Research Unit, the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research Unit, and the
    U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, respectfully?
        Answer. Listed below are vacancies on June 15, 2025 (not including
    seasonal fieldwork positions):

       13 vacancies at the Agroecosystem Management Research Unit

       3 vacancies at the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research Unit

       27 vacancies at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center

        Question 6e. What steps will USDA take to fill unfilled positions
    at these facilities?
        Answer. USDA is committed to following all Presidential Memoranda
    governing the hiring of Federal civilian employees within the Executive
    Branch which states that ``no Federal civilian position that is
    presently vacant may be filled, and no new position may be created''
    unless specifically outlined in the memoranda or mandated by applicable
    law. Any recruitment actions undertaken for any vacancies will meet
    these specifications. Once approval to commence hiring is received, ARS
    will implement the procedures detailed in the Merit Hiring Plan issued
    by the Office of Personnel Management on May 29, 2025.

        Question 6f. How many USDA employees at the University of
    Nebraska's Agroecosystem Management Research Unit, the Wheat, Sorghum
    and Forage Research Unit, and the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, had
    their employment terminated and reinstated between January 20, 2025,
    and June 15, 2025, respectfully?
        Answer. There were five probationary employees at the Agroecosystem
    Management Research Unit, two probationary employees at the Wheat,
    Sorghum & Forage Research Unit, and eleven probationary employees at
    the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center. All eighteen employees were
    offered reinstatement.

        Question 6g. Of the USDA employees of the University of Nebraska's
    Agroecosystem Management Research Unit, the Wheat, Sorghum and Forage
    Research Unit, and the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, who had their
    employment terminated and reinstated between January 20, 2025, and June
    15, 2025, how many have resigned or retired, respectfully?
        Answer. Between January 20, 2025, and June 15, 2025, three
    employees at the Agroecosystem Management Research Unit, two employees
    at the Wheat, Sorghum & Forage Research Unit, and five employees at the
    U.S. Meat Animal Research Center voluntarily left their position.
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Tracey Mann, a Representative in Congress
            from Kansas
        Question 1. Thank you for your work to secure our border with
    Mexico in regards to the New World Screwworm and the recent
    announcement of a $21 million investment to produce additional sterile
    flies to push this devastating parasite farther south from our nation's
    borders. Can you provide us a timeline on when that facility in Metapa,
    Mexico will be fully operational? If New World Screwworm makes its way
    into the United States, what would be in your view the best response to
    eradicate this parasite?
        Answer. Mexico is planning for the Metapa facility to be
    operational within an aggressive 12-18 month timeframe. Once completed,
    the facility will serve as a sterile insect production site capable of
    generating an additional 60-100 million sterile insects per week,
    significantly boosting the regional supply and enhancing overall
    capacity for sustained sterile fly release. Sterile insect technique
    (SIT) remains a powerful component of the eradication strategy but
    alone cannot effectively eradicate New World Screwworm. If NWS makes
    its way into the United States, eradication will require robust field
    surveillance, education and outreach to ensure prompt identification
    and treatment, and strict animal movement controls, in addition to SIT.
    USDA broke ground on a domestic sterile fly dispersal facility in Texas
    and have begun developing plans for a potential domestic production
    facility to increase readiness and provide the United States with
    contingency capability. Furthermore, USDA is working rapidly to explore
    new technologies and science for the production of sterile insects and
    for NWS treatments.

        Question 2. Biofuels markets provide critical domestic demand for
    growers, but they have been impacted by surging levels of imported
    products from China and Brazil that have diluted the American farmer's
    position. To address this, I introduced the Farmer First Fuel
    Incentives Act which would restrict foreign feedstocks from being
    eligible for Federal tax credits for biofuels markets. This policy was
    recently passed by the House as a part of our One Big Beautiful Bill,
    and we hope that the Senate will maintain this restriction to ensure
    that biofuels markets are structured the way Congress intends--with the
    farmer at the front of the line. How does USDA view policies to protect
    domestic feedstock producers, and how does the Administration feel
    about tax dollars potentially being spent to subsidize foreign products
    instead of American agriculture?
        Answer. USDA supports advancing American energy security through
    our domestic homegrown biofuels industry.
    Question Submitted by Hon. Brad Finstad, a Representative in Congress
            from Minnesota
        Question. Recently the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association
    commissioned a study that detailed the alarming economic impact of
    avian metapneumovirus on Minnesota's ag economy. The study showed $112
    million in lost turkey output, $17 million reduction in labor income,
    $31 million in lost value added to the Minnesota economy, reduction in
    tax revenue of nearly $8 million--all in 2024 alone.
        These stark economic realities of aMPV have led MTGA and
    Minnesota's turkey industry to request USDA open existing indemnity
    programs, like LIP and ELAP, to help keep independent growers in
    business until a robust and successful aMPV vaccination program can be
    fully implemented.
        Will you share a status update on that request?
        Answer. USDA's Center for Veterinary Biologics has granted
    emergency authorization for the use of both domestically produced
    experimental autogenous aMPV vaccines and imported aMPV vaccines that
    are unlicensed in the U.S.
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Newhouse, a Representative in Congress
            from Washington
        Question 1. The Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops (MASC)
    program is vital to producers in my district. Please provide an update
    on the issuance of the second tranche of payments for this program that
    was announced by USDA earlier this year.
        Answer. USDA has issued the second round of MASC payments.

        Question 2. Out-of-control and unsustainable labor cost increases
    driven by the terms and conditions of the H-2A program is posing a
    significant threat to the ability of many U.S. growers to continue to
    produce healthy, American-made food. I have significant concerns with
    the data collection method used by the Farm Labor Survey. The Survey
    results are used by the Department of Labor to establish a government-
    mandated wage for employers using the H-2A temporary foreign worker
    program. Deficiencies in the data collection have contributed to non-
    justifiable wage reporting that has greatly exacerbated unsustainable
    increases to labor costs for H-2A users and made the program
    inaccessible to some growers. Will you follow up on that pledge by
    instructing NASS to:

      a.  Once again report a ``Field & Livestock Combined'' annual average
                hourly base wage, as was done by USDA under the first Trump
                Administration, but was halted by the Biden Administration;
                and

      b.  Expand the survey's sample size and refine the survey's design to
                increase clarity, brevity, and comprehension; and

      c.  Determine any degree to which the inclusion of wages paid to H-2A
                workers affects the average hourly base wage, considering
                regions where H-2A workers and those in corresponding
                employment make up a larger or smaller percentage of the
                agricultural workforce and:

      d.  Explore the ability to make an empirical assessment based on the
                data collected as to whether the admission of H-2A workers
                either benefit and protect domestic worker jobs in
                agriculture or have an adverse effect.

      e.  Collaborate with their colleagues at USDA and DOL to ensure that
                producers are appropriately educated and aware of the
                impact of their participation.

        Answer. I will commit to collaborating with the Department of Labor
    and other relevant entities in the Executive branch to advocate for
    necessary reforms to the H-2A program to make sure the program is
    affordable and accessible for all growers who are unable to find a
    domestic workforce.
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
            from North Carolina
        Question 1. Earlier this year, the USDA's 1890 National Scholars
    Program was suspended, pending further review. I am pleased that the
    USDA lifted the suspension. However, for this program to truly thrive,
    scholars and institutions need assurance that it won't face sudden
    suspensions again. I heard directly from representatives of 1890
    Institutions, and they shared how deeply concerning this pause was for
    them and their students--many of whom were left uncertain about their
    financial stability and educational futures. That is why I introduced
    the Land-Grant Institution Parity Act, with Congressman Figures on the
    Committee, which protects Federal funding for our land-grant colleges
    and universities, including the country's 19 land-grant HBCUs, commonly
    referred to as 1890 Institutions.
        Can I count on your commitment to work together in addressing the
    real challenges and opportunities for our 1890s and HBCUs?
        Answer. USDA remains committed to supporting our land-grant
    institutions, including our 1890 land-grant universities, to ensure
    they can continue to train the next generation of agriculturalists.
    Additionally, I look forward to working with the White House and other
    Federal agencies to continue implementing Executive Order 14283, White
    House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically
    Black Colleges and Universities.

        Question 2. The application deadline for the 1890s National
    Scholars Program was March 15, 2025. From my understanding, in early
    May 2025, approximately 700 applications had been received, but no
    scholarships had yet been awarded.
        How is the USDA addressing these applications to ensure a timely
    selection process?
        Answer. This year, USDA selected 29 student scholars based on
    funding and workforce needs.

        Question 2a. Could you please describe the criteria and review
    processes being used to evaluate the applications?
        Answer. Applications undergo an initial screening to confirm
    submission of required materials and eligibility and then USDA
    collaborates with 1890 land-grants to confirm admission eligibility
    before forwarding qualified applications for agency review and
    selection. USDA looks forward to identifying ways to improve this
    process in the future.

        Question 2b. Additionally, what is the projected timeline for
    notifying applicants of scholarship decisions?
        Answer. USDA notified all applicants of application status on
    August 1, 2025.

        Question 3. In addition to serving on this Committee, I also serve
    on the House Education and Workforce Committee, which oversees the WIC
    program. I was encouraged to see that it was one of the few programs to
    receive an anomaly for the Continuing Resolution passed in March. I was
    also pleased to see the recognition WIC received in the Make America
    Healthy Again (MAHA) commissioned report for its critical role in
    improving nutritional outcomes by providing access to healthy foods,
    such as fruits and vegetables through the Cash Value Benefit, or CVB.
    Research shows that increased consumption of fruits and vegetables is
    linked to better health outcomes for families, including reduced risk
    of maternal and infant mortality, improved nutrient intake, and long-
    term prevention of diet-related chronic diseases.
        Since the CVB increase in 2021, and later codified in the 2024 USDA
    Final Rule, young children on WIC are now eating an additional \1/4\
    cup of fruits and vegetables per day. Parents and caregivers say they
    can afford a healthier diet, increase their variety of fruits and
    vegetables, and serve their families more fruits and vegetables, all
    thanks to the CVB.
        However, recent proposals in President Trump's Fiscal Year 2026
    budget request and the House Republicans Agriculture Appropriations
    bill, call for cutting back the CVB to 2014 levels.
        Given that increased CVB levels have helped families consume more
    fruits and vegetables, do you believe that cutting funding for the CVB
    would reduce families' access to and consumption of these healthy
    foods? Yes or No.
        Answer. I appreciate the value of the Special Supplemental
    Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to pregnant
    and post-partum mothers and their children. WIC has a proven track
    record of improving the health of nutritionally at-risk women, infants
    and children. It ensures WIC participants receive nutritious
    supplemental food purchases that are adjusted according to
    participants' life stage nutritional needs, including support for
    purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables, to promote health eating habits
    and improved health outcomes.

        Question 4. Secretary Rollins, you have approved three state waiver
    requests to restrict SNAP purchases under pilot authority. These pilots
    require robust evaluation to assess their impacts.
        Given the stated goal of the MAHA initiative, will states be
    required to evaluate individual-level health outcomes among SNAP
    participants?
        Answer. SNAP restriction waivers require an evaluation plan and
    data reporting elements, which state agencies have some flexibility in
    designing. State agencies will use various methods to evaluate the
    pilot project and associated outcomes.

        Question 4a. If not, what metrics will USDA use to determine
    success after the 2 year pilot period?
        Answer. States are required to develop an evaluation plan that
    defines project success and outcomes, detailed data points and metrics
    to be collected, and a description of how they will be analyzed.

        Question 4b. What role, if any, are SNAP participants or community
    organizations playing in the design and evaluation of these pilot
    programs?
        Answer. States are required to collect, measure, and analyze input
    from a variety of stakeholders--including SNAP households, retailers,
    and community-based organizations--through a variety of feedback
    channels such as webinars, town halls, surveys, focus groups, and
    public comment periods as they develop and evaluate the pilot.

        Question 4c. How is USDA ensuring that these voices are reflected
    in the development and review process?
        Answer. FNS is meeting frequently with state agencies to discuss
    opportunities and challenges associated with implementing the waiver.
    State agencies are working collaboratively with retailers to develop
    communication plans to ensure clear guidance, consistent messaging, and
    effective outreach to customers. Retailers may request or recommend
    educational signage and materials for use in stores.

        Question 5. Secretary Rollins, pilot projects under SNAP are
    permissible under the statute in order to test and evaluate different
    ways to improve the program. Several of the SNAP restrictions waiver
    requests from states outline that they will work with SNAP-Ed to define
    the evaluations.
        Given that the reconciliation bill eliminated SNAP-Ed, will you be
    reevaluating those approvals?
        Answer. SNAP restriction waivers are not dependent on the SNAP-Ed
    program, and states have the flexibility to tailor evaluation plans
    based on available resources.

        Question 6. Secretary Rollins, you have approved six state waiver
    requests to restrict SNAP purchases under pilot authority. In
    establishing any pilot, robust evaluation measures are required to
    determine the effects of the project.
        Given the stated goal of these pilots to Make America Healthy
    Again, will states be evaluating the health outcomes of individual SNAP
    participants?

        Question 6a. If not, how will USDA evaluate the outcome of the
    pilots after 2 years?
        Answer 6-6a. Like all SNAP demonstrations, states are required to
    conduct an evaluation to determine the effects of these pilots. There
    are many options in evaluating such a project, and the law does not
    specify the scope and nature of a project's required evaluation. FNS is
    encouraging states to work with SNAP-authorized retailers to secure
    data on SNAP purchases, and to supplement this with data on the food
    choices of participants to the extent possible.
        While it is difficult to assess changes in individual long-term
    health outcomes over the short duration of these pilots, existing
    evidence is clear that dietary improvements can reduce chronic disease
    risk over time. If states are able to identify changes in food
    purchases and/or by SNAP participants that are correlated with the
    scope or timing of the pilots, that would represent promising evidence
    of potential positive impacts of changes to the definition of eligible
    foods. More study would be needed to determine any causal links or
    influences.
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Nikki Budzinski, a Representative in
            Congress from Illinois
        Question 1. Once volumes are set, it is imperative that EPA take a
    careful and judicious approach to Small Refinery Exemption (SRE)
    petitions and ensure that biofuel blending volumes are not negatively
    impacted by any action on pending SRE petitions. If mishandled, SREs
    could short-circuit the RVO, destabilize farm economies, and wipe out
    the benefits of a strong rule. We all saw a preview of the relationship
    between blending volumes and agriculture markets in the last few weeks
    when soybean prices fell by 28 and bean oil trading was halted all due
    to a rumor about EPA's planned blending volumes and when EPA was forced
    to publicly dispel a rumor that it would be approving all 169 pending
    small refinery exemptions after RIN prices dropped precipitously.
        Answer. Secretary Rollins is in consistent communication with
    Administrator Zeldin and the White House about the importance of
    biofuels to the farm and rural economy. Secretary Rollins is supportive
    of Administrator Zeldin's proposed Renewable Fuel Standard with the
    highest ever volume requirements for American grown biofuels. America's
    national security depends on our energy security, and biofuels are a
    crucial asset that bring more jobs and help farmers in rural America.
    The Secretary will continue advocating for biofuels and for policies
    that support a strong commodity market.

        Question 2. Secretary Rollins, you serve on the Make America Health
    Again Commission. I know you support the goal of making Americans
    healthier--we all do. America's farmers and ranchers are a critical
    part of solution here, not the problem. Now that the report is out,
    what can you tell us about USDA's involvement in shaping the strategy
    that the Commission will issue in August?
        Answer. USDA recognizes the vital role of farmers to produce the
    safest most abundant food supply in the world. The Trump Administration
    remains steadfast in supporting continued access to safe, effective
    solutions that enable our farmers and ranchers to feed, fuel, and
    clothe the U.S. and the world.

        Question 2a. Can you ensure that farmers have a seat at the table?
        Answer. I commit is to continue working with American farmers to
    ensure that our producers have a seat at the table.
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Gabe Vasquez, a Representative in Congress
            from New Mexico
        Question 1. Wildfire severity and frequency has been increasing
    over the past several decades, with more than double as many acres
    burned on average per year from the 1990s to today. The USFS plays a
    pivotal role in managing forests to prevent catastrophic wildfire and
    in fighting fires when they grow out of control or threaten communities
    and approximately 75% of USFS staff are trained in wildland
    firefighting. While catastrophic wildfire is increasing, USFS staff has
    been severely cut during this Administration, with 25% of staff either
    resigning, being laid off, or accepting early retirement.
        Do you feel that USFS has the staffing necessary to adequately
    suppress catastrophic wildfire and protect communities throughout the
    west from the unfettered spread of wildfire?
        Answer. In support of the President's vision and the Secretary's
    direction, the Forest Service worked with OPM to exempt wildland fire
    hiring from the national hiring pause. The agency has nearly met our
    target of having 11,300 firefighters on board for the summer peak.

        Question 2. The President's FY26 skinny budget proposes changes to
    eliminate the U.S. Forest Service's Research and Development (R&D)
    deputy area. The R&D program works at the forefront of science to
    inform the management of our nation's 193 million acres of forests and
    grasslands. R&D work is also foundational to forest product innovations
    and essential market analyses. The R&D team (which, at the beginning of
    this year was made up of about 2,000 people nationwide including a
    center in Albuquerque) also develops predictive wildfire models,
    including one for hazardous fuels treatments which returns $7 in
    benefits for every $1 in Federal funds invested. The USFS R&D office in
    Albuquerque generates research around forest health, wood beetles, and
    informs land managers about forest conditions. Forest Service R&D leads
    the world in forest research and the private sector is not likely to
    fill its role.
        Do you believe that up to date locally based scientific research is
    important to informed natural resource management?
        Answer. USDA recognizes that sound decision-making incorporates a
    multitude of factors. The Department supports research that is aligned
    to the Agency's land management focus through the Forest Inventory and
    Analysis program. We will also continue to leverage the tremendous work
    of universities we have traditionally partnered with to deliver world-
    class research.

        Question 2a. We are hearing that USFS Research and Development is
    being effectively eliminated. How are you ensuring that forest
    landowners and managers have adequate science to manage the nation's
    private and public forests?
        Answer. The FY 2026 Budget terminates the Forest and Rangeland
    Research program to ensure fiscal responsibility with taxpayer dollars
    and appropriate alignment of resources with the Forest Service's
    responsibility to steward National Forest System lands. The eliminated
    programs in this account were out of step with the practical needs of
    forest management for timber production. The long-standing census of
    forest resources and conditions through the Forest Inventory and
    Analysis program would continue under the National Forest System
    account to ensure that it is aligned with the practical needs of active
    forest management for timber production. The Joint Fire Science program
    was also maintained and would be moved to the DOI as part of the
    proposal for a new U.S. Wildland Fire Service.

        Question 2b. We are currently in peak wildfire season in New
    Mexico. Do you feel USDA and USFS have adequate research, science, and
    staff to ensure that communities in the state are supported in forest
    management to prevent catastrophic wildfire?
        Answer. The Budget fully supports the President's bold actions in
    Executive Order 14225, ``Immediate Expansion of American Timber
    Production,'' to improve forest management and increase domestic timber
    production, and the Administration's goal of restoring federalism by
    empowering states to assume a greater role in managing forest lands
    within their borders. The requested funding level supports the highest
    priorities in forest management, including timber sales and hazardous
    fuels removal. Further, implementation of Executive Order 14308,
    ``Empowering Commonsense Wildfire Prevention and Response,'' will
    reform the Federal approach to wildland fire management, creating
    operational efficiencies for the Federal wildfire mission and
    streamlining efforts around risk mitigation and coordination with non-
    Federal partners to combat the wildfire crisis.

        Question 3. Prescribed fire is a vital component of forest
    management and plays an irreplaceable role in preventing severe
    wildfire. We have concerns that the USFS is rolling back their
    commitment to doing prescribed fire work on federally owned and managed
    lands.
        What are the current USFS authorities for conducting prescribed
    fire on USFS lands, and is the agency committed to continuing to
    utilize prescribed burning as a tool for proactive forest management?
        Answer. The Forest Service conducts prescribed fires as tool to
    manage National Forest System Lands with these authorities and
    direction: Organic Administration Act of 1897 (Citation: 16 U.S.C.
    475); Weeks Act of 1911 (16 U.S.C.  552, 563); Clarke-McNary Act of
    1924 (16 U.S.C.  564 et seq.); National Forest Management Act of 1976
    (16 U.S.C.  1600-1614); Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
    1976 (43 U.S.C.  1701 et seq.); Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.  7401 et
    seq.); Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C.  6501 et
    seq.); various Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts (often
    include specific line items for hazardous fuels reduction and fire
    management); and United States Forest Service Manual and Directives
    (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5100--Fire Management). The agency is
    committed to continuing to use this tool as a component of forest
    management.

        Question 4. The President's budget proposes eliminating the Forest
    Service's State, Private, and Tribal Forestry branch, save for the
    Forest Inventory and Analysis program. The State, Private, and Tribal
    Forestry branch is responsible for absolutely essential cross-boundary
    forest work that promotes watershed health and drinking water
    availability, ample timber production, and fire resilient landscapes
    across the nation. In other words, this branch is responsible for
    generating tremendous public good on private lands for all Americans to
    benefit from. It helps prevent the deadly spread of forest pests and
    diseases and leads fire management on behalf of the Federal Government.
    If this branch were to be eliminated, Americans can say goodbye to the
    cooperative forestry programs that promote forest management and keep
    forests as forests, instead of parking lots.
        What reasons can you give for why these programs that provide
    outsized benefit to the American people should be eliminated?
        Answer. The President has pledged to manage National Forests for
    their intended purpose of producing timber. The Budget reduces funding
    for the Forest and Rangeland Research program because it is out of step
    with the practical needs of forest management for timber production,
    but maintains funding for Forest Inventory and Analysis, a longstanding
    census of forest resources and conditions.

        Question 5. The President's FY26 Budget proposes zeroing out the
    NRCS discretionary technical assistance budget. Conservation technical
    assistance, or CTA, pays for the field conservation professionals who
    provide tailored conservation solutions to producers who request them.
    These key field staff work directly with farmers and ranchers to assess
    their specific conservation needs, and their expert advice is one of
    the most cost-effective avenues for conservation gains.
        What is your plan to ensure that NRCS will have adequate staff to
    be able to meet the steep producer demand for locally tailored
    conservation solutions?
        Answer. Farmers will continue to receive conservation technical
    assistance funded from the following farm bill programs: the
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Stewardship
    Program, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, the Regional
    Conservation Partnership Program, and the Agricultural Management
    Assistance Program. NRCS partners with state conservation agencies,
    local conservation districts, and third-party private sector entities
    (known as Technical Service Providers). The Conservation Technical
    Assistance program will be realigned to reflect the total salaries and
    expenses needed to provide technical assistance to deliver programs
    authorized by Congress. Multiple funding sources will contribute to the
    salaries and expenses needed to fund the NRCS workforce.
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Josh Riley, a Representative in Congress
            from New York
        Question 1. During the hearing, you stated that it was your
    understanding that no contracts between USDA and farmers in New York's
    19th Congressional District (NY-19) remained suspended.
        Please confirm that your understanding is correct (i.e., that all
    contracts between USDA and farmers in NY-19 have resumed). If it is not
    correct, please explain that.

        Question 1a. Please provide a list of any contracts between USDA
    and farmers in NY-19 that had been suspended or terminated since
    January 20, 2025, so that I can follow up with the affected farmers to
    ensure they are receiving all the support they need.
        Answer 1-1a. There are no suspended contracts between USDA and the
    roughly 4,500 farmers in New York's 19th Congressional District.

        Question 2. America's immigration system is a complete mess. We
    must secure America's borders after years of the Biden Administration's
    failure to do so. And, consistent with Due Process and the
    Constitution, we should remove people who commit violent crimes while
    unlawfully present in the United States. However, the farmers I
    represent (many of whom have supported you and the President in the
    past) are very concerned that your Administration's immigration
    enforcement actions will sweep too broadly and result in the
    deportation of hardworking, law-abiding farmworkers, many of whom have
    been working on Upstate New York's farms for many years. Removing these
    immigrants would devastate our agriculture economy and tear apart our
    rural communities. As you know, many farmworkers are here unlawfully
    not because they are ``criminals'' but rather because politicians from
    both parties have completely failed to fix our nation's broken
    immigration system. For example, if our immigration laws made any
    sense--which they don't--we would have visas for dairy workers to milk
    the cows year-round. But since politicians have failed to fix the laws,
    family farmers have been put to an impossible choice of either hiring
    undocumented labor or going out of business. I was very encouraged to
    read a New York Times article days after your hearing in which the
    President announced that he would stop immigration raids on farms and
    other agricultural sites, reportedly as a result of your counsel to
    him. I'd welcome the opportunity to work with you to update our
    immigration laws in a way that best supports Upstate New York's family
    farms. In the meantime, can you please confirm that the Administration
    will not deport any farmworker or farmworkers' immediate family member
    in NY-19 who (1) has not committed a crime (aside from unlawfully
    entering or remaining present) and (2) is endorsed by his or her family
    farm employer? The many family farms I represent need and deserve that
    assurance from you and the Administration.
        Answer. The President has been unequivocal that there will be no
    amnesty, and I think that's very important. It is possible for our
    farmers to be successful through a combination of American labor,
    foreign workers that come legally to our country, and increased
    automation. Some reform within the current governing structure
    concerning the visa process will also be necessary.

                                   [all]