    [Senate Hearing 119-132]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-132

                               REVIEW OF THE USDA
                            REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
                            NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 July 30, 2025

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Available on http://www.govinfo.gov/

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-296 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                        JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Chairman
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     TINA SMITH, Minnesota
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas               CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
    TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama            BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia
    CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa               PETER WELCH, Vermont
    JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                ADAM SCHIFF, California
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan

                   Fitzhugh Elder IV, Majority Staff Director
                        Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
                    Lauren Santabar, Minority Staff Director
                     Chu-Yuan Hwang, Minority Chief Counsel

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, July 30, 2025

                                                                       Page

    Hearing:

    Review of the USDA Reorganization Proposal.......................     1

                                  ----------

                        STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

    Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas......     1
    Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota....     2

                                    WITNESS

    Vaden, Stephen, Alexander, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, USDA,
      Washington, DC.................................................     4
                                  ----------

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statement:
        Vaden, Stephen...............................................    38

    Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
    Boozman, Hon. John:
        The Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Memorandum: SM 1078-
          015........................................................    39
    Klobuchar, Hon. Amy:
        National Association of Forest Service Retirees, letter......    44
        American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, letter.    47
        American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
          letter.....................................................    49
        Southern Environmental Law Center, letter....................    52
    Fetterman, Hon. John:
        Agreement between the ERS and AFGE Local 3403, letter........    54

    Question and Answer:
    Vaden, Stephen:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........    60
        Written response to questions from Hon. Joni Ernst...........    67
        Written response to questions from Hon. Cindy Hyde-Smith.....    68
        Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley.....    69
        Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet.......    69
        Written response to questions from Hon. Cory Booker..........    74
        Written response to questions from Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........    81
        Written response to questions from Hon. Raphael Warnock......    83
        Written response to questions from Hon. Peter Welch..........    91
        Written response to questions from Hon. John Fetterman.......    92
        Written response to questions from Hon. Adam Schiff..........    95

                               REVIEW OF THE USDA
                            REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2025

                                            U.S. Senate
              Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m., in
    Room 328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Boozman,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Boozman [presiding], Hoeven, Ernst, Hyde-
    Smith, Marshall, Tuberville, Justice, Fischer, Moran,
    Klobuchar, Bennet, Smith, Lujan, Warnock, Welch, Fetterman, and
    Schiff.

       STATEMENT OF HON. BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
     ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION,
                              AND FORESTRY

        Chairman Boozman. Good morning and welcome. It is my
    privilege to call this hearing to order to review the USDA
    reorganization proposal.
        I welcome our witness, Judge Stephen Vaden, Deputy
    Secretary of Agriculture. I appreciate your ability to appear
    before the Committee on such short notice and the opportunity
    to engage thoughtfully on the future of USDA and how it will
    continue to efficiently serve our farmers, ranchers, and rural
    communities.
        Despite being at the helm for less than six months,
    Secretary Rollins has already made a significant and positive
    impact on the agriculture sector in rural America. I appreciate
    her commitment to serving our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and
    foresters. She has worked tirelessly to implement emergency
    economic assistance and supplemental disaster relief passed in
    December to ensure that American farmers and ranchers receive
    emergency assistance to keep their family farms in operation
    and to help them recover from natural disasters. She has
    championed provisions that bolster the farm safety net, crop
    insurance, research, our animal health infrastructure, and
    trade promotion programs Congress delivered in the One Big
    Beautiful Bill.
        The Secretary has also taken action to defend American
    livestock against the growing threat of New World screwworm, as
    well as successfully reined in the highly pathogenic avian
    influenza outbreak that has significantly impacted poultry
    flocks and dairy operations across the U.S. She continues to be
    a voice for American agriculture and those who feed, clothe,
    and fuel our Nation.
        Last week, Secretary Rollins announced a major
    reorganization of USDA. I appreciate the Secretary's emphasis
    on improving effectiveness, accountability, enhancing services,
    reducing bureaucracy, and cutting waste. I support those goals.
    As we examine the proposal, we need to fully understand its
    implications for the people USDA serves, especially how
    reorganization will affect USDA's boots on the ground, presence
    in rural America, and delivery of essential services.
        From its founding, USDA has been essential to American
    life, supporting farmers and ranchers, stewarding natural
    resources, investing in rural development, and advancing
    innovation in food and agriculture. As the Department evolves
    to meet 21st century challenges, it is important that any
    organization enhances its ability to deliver on these
    commitments. I share the Secretary's desire to ensure USDA
    operates efficiently, is a good steward of taxpayer dollars,
    and meets the needs of agriculture and rural America.
        We must also prioritize what matters most to producers in
    rural communities: service, responsiveness, and results. USDA
    is often the most visible face of the Federal Government in
    rural America. That presence, whether through FSA offices,
    conservation staff, or rural development programs, needs to be
    preserved and empowered.
        As we review this plan, I look forward to learning more
    about how this proposal strengthens the USDA's ability to
    deliver on the ground, support implementation of the farm bill,
    and serve as a reliable partner to people it was created to
    support.
        Deputy Secretary Vaden, I recognize you have only been in
    the Department for a little over three weeks after being sworn
    in on July 7, so you are involved but not that involved. A lot
    has gone on in the last three weeks, I am sure.
        Again, we want to thank you for coming on very, very short
    notice, which was due to the fact that hopefully we will get
    out of here in the next few days for a few weeks. Again, thank
    you for being here to testify.
        I now turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Klobuchar.

      STATEMENT OF HON. KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
                               MINNESOTA

        Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for working with me to hold this hearing at the last
    moment. The reason it is short notice is because the
    Administration put out a half-baked plan with no notice and
    without consulting agricultural leaders.
        As we start this discussion, let me be clear, I support
    efforts to make USDA work, but I do not think getting rid of
    15,000 employees, which has already happened because of early
    buyouts, because of firing people, because of everything else
    that has happened, is good for agriculture. I do not think that
    these tariffs, which have dried up markets when our farmers and
    ranchers are already working on thin margins, have been good
    for agriculture.
        We have a half-baked agenda that will almost certainly
    result here in worse services for farmers, families, and rural
    communities. Coordinated action and influence for rural America
    and agriculture does not mean just being close to where the
    producers are. That is true, we have that with ag. We have 90
    percent of the employees already out in the field. What you
    guys are planning on doing or proposing to us is to take that
    other 10 percent and break them down and send them to five
    different hubs, including a state that I would say is not in
    the top 10 for agriculture, not even close.
        It also means having staff in a place, if we want to do our
    jobs right, where they can meet with their peers in other
    agencies and interact with key stakeholder groups and Members
    of Congress. Whittling down USDA's resources to do this crucial
    work puts rural America at a disadvantage when they do not have
    people in the room where it happens.
        We have differences across the aisle, but I think every one
    of my colleagues understands that you need people that can meet
    with you. You need people that can go over to the White House
    so that you do not have people that do not have the interests
    of rural America in mind making all the decisions.
        I am extremely concerned about the harm that this
    reorganization will have on the USDA's research. The previous
    relocation of the Economic Research Service and the National
    Institute of Food and Agriculture was nothing short of a
    disaster. A 2023 report by the Government Accountability
    Office, those reports are used by both Democrats and
    Republicans to make their points, underscores the threat that
    these short-sighted actions have on USDA stakeholders. GAO
    explicitly stated, based on this much smaller relocation, that
    ERS produced fewer key reports and that N-I-F-A, known as NIFA,
    took longer to process grants because of relocation. Why would
    we want that right now when we have already lost 15,000
    employees, when farmers are already suffering, when we have
    these tariffs walloping them?
        This means farmers did not get timely economic information,
    and researchers were left waiting for critical research
    funding. This reorganization plan would create similar chaos
    but on a much grander scale, which seems to be what this
    Administration is repeatedly about. Vacating long-standing
    research labs, including the very lab where USDA began work on
    sterilized flies to combat screwworms, and pushing researchers
    out of federal service will threaten the innovation that our
    farmers demand and need to combat animal and plant disease.
        Just this year, 1,600 employees have already left USDA
    research agencies, and you want to make it even smaller when we
    are trying to compete with other countries, when we know that
    so many of our human-based diseases actually start with animals
    all around the world, when we know that farming and ranching
    has been the jewel of America's economy.
        I hope that today's discussion will shed light on the
    effects this proposal will have on USDA's ability to respond to
    wildfires, administer critical nutrition programs, protect
    civil rights, and meet the needs of our farmers.
        Before I close, I want to point out that this
    reorganization plan, as I noted at the beginning, was developed
    without input of Congress or the very stakeholders USDA aims to
    serve. It is unacceptable that we learned about this proposal
    just minutes before it was announced.
        The first months of this Administration do not inspire
    confidence, given the months of freezes, cancellations,
    unfreezes, firings, hiring back, lease terminations, firings
    and subsequent attempts to rehire veterinarians, farm loan
    officers, and other critical positions. It has injected
    uncertainty at a time when USDA's customers look for certainty
    and trust.
        I did not vote for you, Mr. Deputy Secretary, but I did
    think that you would go in, based on your experience, and be
    able to do things that would actually help rural America. I
    actually took you at your word when you had pledged to work
    with us on things that would help. That is not what happened
    here when we had absolutely no notice of what you were going to
    do.
        Chairman Boozman. We will now introduce our witness, Deputy
    Secretary of Agriculture Stephen Vaden. Deputy Secretary Vaden
    was confirmed earlier this year, and prior to his confirmation
    was a judge on the International Court of Trade. During the
    first Trump Administration, he served as General Counsel of the
    Department of Ag.
        Deputy Secretary Vaden is a native of Union City,
    Tennessee, where his family has resided for many generations.
    Again, we thank you very much for being here this morning, and
    you are now recognized.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEPHEN ALEXANDER VADEN, DEPUTY
            SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, USDA, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Vaden. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar,
    Committee Members, thank you for your invitation to come here
    today to talk about our reorganization plan. I have already
    submitted my testimony to you in writing. I do not believe
    reading it to you today would be a good use of our time.
        Instead, I would like to focus on some facts and begin to
    answer some questions that have arisen. First, the Secretary's
    plan proposes relocating 2,600 employees from the National
    Capital Region to five hubs around the country. Let's put that
    number in perspective, shall we? From January 2021 to January
    2025, the Biden Administration, 2,200 employees left
    Washington, DC. There was no congressional notice. There was no
    outcry. There was no Committee hearing. For more than 1,700
    days, extending well beyond any fair definition of the COVID
    pandemic, USDA was on a maximum telework footing. Both career
    and political leadership rarely set foot in USDA's
    headquarters. Staff moved away from the National Capital
    Region. They expected not to be asked to return. There was no
    congressional notice. There was no outcry. There was no
    Committee hearing.
        As was earlier noted, 90 percent of USDA's current staff
    reports to work outside the National Capital Region. We propose
    to add approximately 2.5 percent to that number, 2,600 people.
    With respect, it is insulting to suggest that the more than 90
    percent of USDA employees who clock in every day outside of
    Washington, DC, are somehow less important and less vital than
    the people who do the same in Washington, DC. Everyone's work
    makes the Department. The heart of USDA is in the field, and
    the maximum number of people possible should report to work
    there.
        Speaking of where USDA employees report to work, USDA has a
    total of 4,754 facilities at which its employees report to work
    every day. The Secretary's proposal calls for closing exactly
    four of those 4,754 places of employment. How did we determine
    which ones to close? We followed congressional intent. Earlier
    this year, on January the 4th, President Biden signed into law
    the Use It Act. It passed this body, the Senate, 97 to 1. In
    case you are wondering, the one Senator who voted against it
    does not sit on the Agriculture Committee.
        What does the Use It Act require? All buildings, leased or
    owned by a government agency, should be at least 60 percent
    occupied. Not a single one, not a one of USDA's buildings in
    the National Capital Region meet this congressionally mandated
    60 percent occupancy rate.
        What does the Use It Act say? If you fail to meet it, the
    agency should choose to consolidate and vacate to get into a
    footprint that does meet the 60 percent threshold. That is
    exactly what USDA is choosing to do, follow the law this body
    passed.
        Finally, a note on timing. I understand the consternation
    some Members of this Committee have with the fact that they
    received notification at the same time that USDA's employees
    did. There was a thought behind that, and that thought was
    this. The employees are the ones who are most directly affected
    by the Secretary's decision. Out of common courtesy and
    respect, they should hear that decision from the Secretary
    first and not from a leak that originates from somewhere else.
        USDA's entire focus of its reorganization efforts has been
    on voluntary decisions by employees. The Secretary has been
    frank with our employees about what our budgetary numbers
    require and what the Administration's expectations are so that
    those employees can make the best decisions for themselves and
    their families. That will continue to be the Department's
    guideposts.
        We understand the need to work with Congress. The 30-day
    notification period required by law ensures that now is the
    time for us to receive feedback from stakeholders, from our
    employees, and from Members of Congress as well.
        I look forward to taking your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Vaden can be found on page
    38 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Boozman. First, I would like to enter into the
    record the memo that was provided, SM 1078-015, for the
    Committee record, without objection.
        [The letter can be found on pages 39-43 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Boozman. Can you tell us a little bit about--we
    have the 30-day period. What kind of timeline are we looking at
    after that as we go forward?
        Mr. Vaden. Well, first, we have a 30-day period of
    consultation.
        Chairman Boozman. Right.
        Mr. Vaden. That is required by statute, and we are going to
    honor every day of that. As schedules allow, both the Secretary
    of Agriculture and myself will travel to all five proposed hub
    locations. We will be engaging in further conversations with
    USDA's eight mission areas, as well as their agency leadership
    on connecting the right functions of each agency and mission
    area to a particular hub location.
        We also need to finalize our conversations with the General
    Services Administration, which manages, of course, the entire
    real estate footprint of the Federal Government regarding the
    leases and facilities that they have available in these five
    regions for USDA employees to move into.
        Following those discussions, we will issue a finalized
    phased timeline for the implementation of the Secretary's plan.
    This will include union notifications where required by
    contractor law, employee notifications, including where needed,
    options provided by VERA and VSIP. We will then initiate the
    vacature of the National Capital Region space in a phased plan,
    as we have laid out in the buildings we have intended to
    vacate. Of course, throughout this process, we will consult not
    only with our employees and our stakeholders but Congress as
    well.
        Chairman Boozman. I think the thing that we are all
    concerned about, I know you all are, and certainly we as a
    Committee are, is the ability to serve customers in rural
    communities and the agriculture community that really is in a
    difficult situation. I am very proud of the work that we have
    done, as I mentioned in our opening statement. Can you tell us
    about how the plan is going to improve programs that support
    Americans who live in rural areas as we go forward?
        Mr. Vaden. It is going to allow us to build the next
    generation of USDA leadership. Simply put, the hardest problem
    that any federal agency faces, and this is not limited to the
    Department of Agriculture, is talent retention. The cost of
    living here in Washington, DC, is prohibitive. Who do I have in
    mind when I am thinking about what I want for the next USDA
    leadership? Well, there is someone you all know here who is the
    story that we are trying to seek and continue, and that is my
    friend Ralph Linden, who is sitting back here behind me. He is
    currently our acting General Counsel. Ralph started his tenure
    with USDA in 1982, which also happens to be the year I was
    born, so I know he has worked at USDA for 43 years.
        Ralph moved to a neighborhood in suburban Virginia. He
    bought a home with his wife and started a family. Ralph has
    worked his way up from the lowest of line attorneys in the
    Office of General Counsel to the top position at the
    Department, acting General Counsel. His institutional knowledge
    of legal issues that have come across USDA's desk is
    unparalleled. When he moved into that home in suburban
    Virginia, all of his neighbors were government employees.
    Today, all of the homes in Ralph's neighborhood sell for seven
    figures. There are no government employee neighbors of his.
    They are all dual professional, private sector doctors,
    lawyers, lobbyists, your typical D.C. types, no government
    employees to be found.
        The future Ralph Lindens of the world cannot buy a home in
    Washington, DC, when the average price is seven figures. They
    cannot start a family. They cannot go on the journey that Ralph
    has had. They can do that in Raleigh, North Carolina. They can
    do that in Indianapolis, Indiana. They can do that in Kansas
    City, Missouri. They can do that in Fort Collins, Colorado.
    Yes, they can do that in Salt Lake City, Utah, which was why
    one of our principal considerations for where to put our
    regional hubs, was the cost of living. We want people to come
    to USDA for a career, to start a family, and to stay with us.
    Unfortunately, given the cost of living in the National Capital
    Region, the Ralph Lindens of the world can no longer do that in
    the District of Columbia.
        Chairman Boozman. Very good. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. It is apparent that USDA did
    not consult with or even bother to notify Congress with this
    plan. I would like to know, did you consult with the American
    Farm Bureau before releasing this plan, the organization that
    represents so many of our farmers and ranchers?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, the Secretary's memorandum was the
    first step, not the final step.
        Senator Klobuchar. You did not. Is that the answer?
        Mr. Vaden. This is the beginning of the consultation
    process----
        Senator Klobuchar. Could you just answer yes or no? Did
    you----
        Mr. Vaden [continuing]. not the end.
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. consult with the Farm
    Bureau before releasing this?
        Mr. Vaden. The consultation process has just begun.
        Senator Klobuchar. You did not, for the record. Did you
    consult with the farmers union, the National Farmers Union,
    before releasing this plan? Yes or no?
        Mr. Vaden. No, because the consultation process has just
    begun.
        Senator Klobuchar. Did you consult with or submit this plan
    to the Office of Management and Budget before this?
        Mr. Vaden. A plan was submitted to the Office of Management
    and Budget, and they are aware of our current plan.
        Senator Klobuchar. Sixteen hundred employees have left
    USDA's research agencies. USDA fired many researchers,
    including those working on avian flu, only to later backtrack.
    USDA is extremely delayed in setting out funding for
    competitive research programs this year, as so many of my
    colleagues know. To me, these actions completely undermine
    agriculture research, just as we are seeing more and more
    animal diseases that are used against us in trade arrangements
    that hurt our producers. Senator Smith and I have seen the
    horrific effects of avian flu.
        Secretary Vaden, USDA's reorganization plan would vacate
    USDA research labs and eliminate or consolidate offices for the
    Ag Research Service, the Agricultural Statistics Service. Do
    you believe that vacating research sites, eliminating offices,
    and losing researchers will improve outcomes for farmers who
    depend on this research?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, 91 of 94 ARS research labs are
    unaffected by the Secretary's memorandum. Further, the
    Secretary's memorandum states in its plain text that what will
    go on in Beltsville will take place over a period of years and
    in a way that does not interfere with any ongoing research.
    With regard to where researchers are, I think it is important
    to note, as you have referenced ERS and NIFA multiple times,
    that during the prior Administration, nearly all of the hiring
    that took place in those agencies was done virtually, which is
    to say, the employees that were hired reported to no office
    other than their own kitchen. Some of them who did have offices
    in the National Capital Region not only never reported to those
    offices, but moved hundreds of miles away.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Vaden, I know you will be surprised
    at this, but I am not interested in relitigating the pandemic
    right now, which spanned two Administrations, the Trump
    Administration, part one, and the Biden Administration. What I
    want to talk about is now. Do you think that these actions are
    actually going to make us more competitive when it comes to ag,
    more competitive when we are dealing with research issues
    across the world? How will you ensure that critical research
    projects will not suffer?
        Mr. Vaden. Absolutely, I do. Because on a government
    salary, government employees cannot afford to start a quality
    life in Washington, DC, but they most certainly can in
    Indianapolis, Indiana.
        Senator Klobuchar. USDA's reorganization plan calls for
    closing every one of the existing Food and Nutrition Service
    offices, both the headquarters and regional offices, and
    relocating those employees as well. As you know, these
    programs, our food and nutrition assistance, which took a major
    hit in this recent budget bill--well, except for the states
    that have the highest error rates, it serves tens of millions
    of customers every year, including over 40 million SNAP
    recipients. The FNS has a huge task ahead implementing the bill
    with these SNAP cuts, huge transformation that we have decided
    to embark on.
        How can USDA possibly ensure the integrity of the billions
    of dollars it is responsible for overseeing with this change
    and closing down all the offices? Can you provide the Committee
    with a breakdown of staff losses by function? Given our shared
    interest in the program integrity, I would like to know how
    many staff who have left positions related to financial
    management program integrity or management review of nutrition
    programs. Can you answer that?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, two points in response to that. Number
    one, I would be happy to get you those numbers, but your
    supposition that all Food and Nutrition Service employees will
    be leaving the National Capital Region is incorrect. Every
    agency and every mission area under the Secretary's plan will
    have representation and officials in Washington, DC. As I know
    you know well, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is
    primarily administered by the states. What USDA's role is, is
    to ensure the states are properly administering the program. It
    makes sense to move the employees whose job it is to oversee
    the states into these states that they are overseeing, rather
    than keeping them in Washington, DC.
        Senator Klobuchar. Yes, I have just had a different
    experience in my own state office, in my own work. I think like
    when the work of our office is constituent services, you know,
    I have one person in each of the areas, but I have kept people
    together that have to interact to make decisions and do hard
    work together and figure out when the constituents call. We
    have a number of them with veterans concerns or a number of
    them with adoption concerns. Having that kind of interaction
    and having that kind of expertise in one space, which in the
    case of USDA, already 90 percent of their workforce, as we both
    agreed on, is dispersed.
        One thing we have not discussed, given the raging forest
    fires we have seen recently, given the details included in the
    USDA's reorganization plan, and as you know, the President's
    budget proposed moving wildland fire operations out of the U.S.
    Forest Service to a new federal wildland firefighting agency
    housed in Interior. There is also reporting that the
    Administration is considering moving parts of the USDA's Rural
    Development Agency to the Small Business Administration. Is the
    USDA still considering moving parts of the Forest Service and
    Rural Development to other Cabinet agencies?
        When you are looking at only 10 percent of the workforce
    already in one place, and you want to halve that, and then you
    want to move away all the wildfire, are you trying to decimate
    this agency, Mr. Vaden? Are you trying to do what they are
    doing to the Department of Education? That is a question I want
    answered. What about the Forest Service? Are you still pursuing
    getting rid of that as well?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, the President's budget proposal is
    before this body. It speaks for itself. It calls for the
    centralization of all federal wildfire fighting capabilities.
    That is a proposal that predates this Administration, and I
    think it is one that should be taken seriously.
        As it goes to the Forest Service, I want to make certain to
    state for the record that the Secretary's memorandum, again in
    its plain text, specifically notes that the Forest Service's
    fire safety lab will not be moving and is protected in this
    reorganization.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Last question. Why did you tell
    people to resign and fire them and then try to rehire them?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, we do not have the money in our budget
    to pay for all of the employees that were hired in the prior
    Administration. Former Secretary Vilsack, in comments to Agri-
    Pulse, admitted as much just last week.
        Senator Klobuchar. You are saying that you thought it was a
    good idea to fire them and then try to rehire them, the same
    people for the same positions, and you lost a whole bunch of
    them, veterinarians and researchers?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator----
        Senator Klobuchar. You think that was a smart way to handle
    it?
        Mr. Vaden [continuing]. were terminated as a result of the
    DRP.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. I am done.
        Chairman Boozman. Senator Hoeven?
        Senator Hoeven. Deputy Secretary, thanks for being here
    today. I support finding cost savings where you can. I support
    the idea of moving people out of the D.C. area and out into the
    field and closer to the farmer. Of course, the ultimate goal
    has to be better service to our farmers and ranchers across ag
    country.
        I think the key here, though, that I want to talk about
    with you is that when the Trump Administration went through
    this process during the President's first term and moved NIFA
    and ERS to Kansas City, there was a process. We had a process
    where the Administration worked with Congress, and we went
    through the options. People could request being included, and
    there was a give and take. You know, that is kind of what we
    are looking for, I think, this time. I understand your point,
    okay, you wanted to bring something out. I think the key is
    that we know that there is an ability to work with you on this
    to effectuate the things we talked about, the cost savings,
    better service, those kind of things.
        It also involves funding. I chair Ag Approps. It is going
    to change your funding needs and where those allocations have
    to go. We are hoping that--I mean, Republicans have cleared the
    Ag Approps bill to be on the Senate Floor now, and I am hoping
    with our colleagues across the aisle we are working on that
    right now, so it is very timely. This process is important.
        As we look at the five sites, like from my part of the
    world, there is nothing within 600 miles of us, from Fargo,
    North Dakota, for example. We are in the heart of ag country.
    My question to you is, where are we in this process?
        One other point I would make before you respond is that
    Secretary Rollins was in front of our Ag Approps Committee, and
    I specifically said, hey, will you work with us? Because we
    talked about this reorganization effort, and I said, we support
    the goals, but we want it to be a process where you work with
    Congress, with the Senate, both the Authorizing Committee and
    the Appropriations Committee on it, and we achieve those
    results together. I think that will help garner a lot more
    support for the effort.
        I want to know where, and I will be up to see you later
    today, we can talk some more, but I want to know where we are
    in this process so we can accomplish just what I am laying out
    and what I think, you know, the Secretary and I had talked
    about previously.
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, as I stated in my opening
    remarks, this is the first step, not the final step. We are now
    accepting feedback, and we want to hear from you, and I know I
    will be speaking with you later this afternoon. I look forward
    to that meeting.
        We could not put offices everywhere, and we learned some
    lessons from the ERS/NIFA relocation in term one. One of the
    most important lessons that we learned was instead of looking
    all over the map, literally, for where we should go if we are
    looking to relocate, the first thing we should do is see where
    we already are and where we already have office space available
    and a core set of employees. That is one of the reasons, for
    example, that Fort Collins, Colorado, jumped to the top of our
    list.
        When we look at USDA's footprint in the State of Colorado,
    we not only have all of the employees in Fort Collins, but in
    nearby Lakeland and Denver. That just formed a natural core,
    particularly with Forest Service equities, that made sense for
    us to go ahead and build on. There is a similar story when you
    look at Kansas City and when you look at Raleigh, North
    Carolina, and the other hubs as well. That is what we were
    looking at.
        While our plan does not have an office in North Dakota, one
    thing I will note is that nearly all of these hubs are closer
    to North Dakota than Washington, DC. While we could not put a
    location in every state, we are bringing these hubs closer to
    the American people that we serve, and if you look at a map, it
    is kind of neat how it worked out that they are pretty evenly
    spaced across the center of country from Raleigh all the way
    over to Salt Lake.
        Senator Hoeven. Again, the things we talked about, you
    know, cost reductions, moving people out of D.C. closer to the
    farm country, better service for farmers and ranchers, I mean,
    we can kind of go through and debate all the things you brought
    up as to each of the hubs. For example, what is magic about
    five hubs? How much agriculture is there in the State of Utah?
    We can go through all those things, and whether in fact it is
    actually easier or better for our farmers and our ranchers in
    North Dakota, given the five hubs you have selected.
        There is a difference between you selecting five hubs on
    your own and saying, okay, we are at the start of the plan, but
    this is the plan, and we are going to talk about it, but this
    is the plan. That is different than if we work together and
    come up with a plan that people have had input, they have been
    fairly heard and fairly treated, and it may be different than
    five hubs, and it may be different than these locations, and it
    may be different in form and function, but it is something that
    ultimately this Congress has something to say about, both from
    an authorizing standpoint, and certainly from an appropriation
    standpoint.
        Is this a process where we are still going to work together
    on an outcome, or is this an outcome that we are now just going
    to talk about, but it is a fait accompli?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, if you read the memorandum, it has
    built-in flexibility. The memorandum lays out a vision, but
    then there is a line in that memorandum which says the vision
    and the plans laid out here can change, and the Secretary
    delegated authority to me to make changes where needed.
        Senator Hoeven. Then we look forward to working with you on
    it.
        Mr. Vaden. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes, thank you.
        Chairman Boozman. Senator Bennet.
        Senator Bennet. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
    having this hearing.
        Mr. Vaden, thanks for being here. I will prove it to you
    later, but I have long called for the idea of trying to
    relocate people from Washington, DC, to parts of the country,
    partly to get out of the insulation of this place, partly to
    just be closer to, in this case, producers, but others as well.
    Philosophically, that is where I have been. I say I have to
    prove it to you because you just said Fort Collins had risen to
    the top of your list, and I wonder if you could describe a
    little bit what the intention is for that hub in Fort Collins.
    We are pleased to have that announcement for our state. Then I
    will ask you some follow-up questions. You mentioned fire. You
    mentioned the Forest Service equities as part of that too, so
    if you could just elaborate on that, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Vaden. Well, as you know, Senator, in your State of
    Colorado, the Forest Service already has many employees spread
    between Fort Collins, Lakeland, and Denver. We want to build on
    that. It makes sense for more of the Forest Service to be
    located actually close to the forests it is in charge of
    managing.
        I know there has been some questions by certain Members of
    the Committee about Salt Lake City. That is also what brought
    Salt Lake City into the mix, what it can offer the Forest
    Service and, in particular, what it can offer the Forest
    Service's aviation assets as it looks in whatever Congress
    decides about the Administration's plan regarding centralizing
    wildfire efforts to fight the forest fires that, unfortunately,
    we know that the Forest Service will be charged with fighting.
        Now, what other agencies may join the Forest Service in
    Fort Collins? Those lists have not been finalized. Partly that
    is because we need to consult with the employees, and we need
    to consult with the mission areas and agencies now that they
    know what we think makes the most sense to see how they want to
    adapt their footprint to these locations.
        Senator Bennet. I think those consultations are important.
    I would also say it will be very important to consult with the
    local communities as well. The world-class research that is
    done at Colorado State University is an example of something
    that I think the Department can build on that I hope that if
    you and the Secretary are going to be out there, that you are
    able to make the time to meet with the people on the ground at
    the university and around that ecosystem to be able to try to
    apply as much imagination as possible to the work that you are
    trying to do.
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, we join with you in wanting to
    build in every force multiplier that we can. Either Brooke or I
    will visit Fort Collins, and we will give you a heads up before
    we go out there so if you wish to join us, you or your staff
    are more than welcome to, as well as your colleague in the
    Senate and the House.
        That is one of the reasons why we think this plan is such a
    good idea, why you have laid out. When we get people into the
    field with the people whom they serve, you just mentioned
    Colorado State University, it is easier to collaborate, and it
    is easier to multiply efforts. It is that in-person
    collaboration that we are trying to spark.
        Senator Bennet. I was actually on the phone with the
    Secretary this morning because we were having our biweekly fire
    update as it happens, and Secretary Burgum was on that call
    too. We had a, I think, seven Senators because this is a
    moment, obviously, of deep peril in the West as it is every
    summer. For us, this is life and death. The implementation of
    these bureaucratic choices is not philosophical at the end of
    the day. It is can we preserve the American West and can we
    preserve our way of life? Can we preserve our drainages and the
    water that we all rely upon? For us, none of this is trivial,
    none of this is about politics.
        I would just finish by saying that the reorg that you guys
    are talking about with respect to fire generally, you know,
    that has to be something that there are deep consultations on.
    Today, we had a discussion with the Interior Secretary and with
    the Agriculture Secretary about the importance of thinking
    about how we are doing fire mitigation, how we are doing forest
    restoration, that this is not just about fighting fires, it is
    about the entire landscape.
        I know John Hoeven knows this well from his work as
    Governor, and what you do before a fire happens and what you do
    on the back end of a fire. I hope we will use this as an
    opportunity to try to think as deeply as we can about this
    because we may never get another chance.
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, I am with you on that. Obviously,
    just as Brooke wants to work with you, I want to work with you
    on this because this is something we cannot afford to get
    wrong. I would just point out to you, I know you have probably
    read the memorandum, but in the memorandum it notes that one of
    the instructions from the Secretary is that, as we go forward
    with this reorganization after consultation with Congress, we
    are going to do so in a way that does not interfere with the
    Forest Service during forest fire season. They are going to be
    left to do their job, and they will move when it is safe for
    them to do so.
        As I noted in response to your questions, we took in
    particular account the Forest Service needs and in particular
    its aviation needs with regard to our selections of Salt Lake
    City, Utah, and Fort Collins, Colorado, as two of our five USDA
    hubs.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Hoeven. Senator Hyde-Smith.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very much. I certainly
    appreciate you appearing today. You are doing a great job.
        Also, I just want to be very clear that I support the
    efforts to make the Department of Agriculture more efficient
    and physically sustainable and responsive to farmers and
    producers, including making the USDA operate closer to the
    people it serves. I support taking a thorough look at USDA
    operations in Washington, DC, area and across the country to
    correct inefficiencies and to restore fiscal responsibility. I
    applaud you, Mr. Deputy Secretary, and the Secretary for
    reviewing departmental operations to ensure USDA is carrying
    out its missions in a responsible manner, and I think you are
    doing exactly that.
        However, there are still many questions that need to be
    answered on the specifics of the reorganization proposal, so I
    am glad to understand that, you know, things are still open and
    nothing is final yet, but it is a work in process.
        Page three of the Secretary's memo that was made public
    last week states that the Agricultural Research Service will
    eliminate its area offices, and residual functions will be
    performed by its Office of National Programs. I have concerns
    about the implication that this section may have for
    agricultural research, specifically with the work being done in
    Stoneville, Mississippi, that I think you are familiar with,
    which is home to the Agricultural Research Service Southeast
    area office. Stoneville is the largest agricultural research
    location in the Southeast and one of the largest for ARS. It is
    located in the Mississippi Delta where it remains close to
    thousands of farmers, producers, key stakeholders, and
    customers, which is a key pillar for the USDA reorganization
    proposal. This location provides careers, expertise, and
    economic opportunity in that area that struggles with poverty
    for generations.
        The Southeast area office and the area administrative
    office staff provide leadership, opportunity, accountability,
    and administrative support services to all USDA research units
    across the Southeast region. This includes 27 research
    locations in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana,
    Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina,
    Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, often in partnership with
    our land-grant universities. This involves 60 research units,
    1,500 employees, including nearly 500 scientists, and a $358
    million annual budget.
        The Southeast area office is critical to the success of the
    research programs covering everything from insect management
    research, warm water aquaculture research, which is very big in
    Mississippi, crop genetics, and water resource management. The
    area office staff understands the research being conducted in
    the region and supports the area's scientists located at the
    various research units throughout the Southeast. This allows
    for dedicated resources to work on challenges unique to
    agriculture in the Southeast.
        Stoneville, located in a low-cost area, already operates as
    a host center for federal employees. In addition, other federal
    agencies, including the NRCS, ARS, the DOI, have employees
    housed in that Whitten Center there. The center has the
    capacity to house other agency employees and research programs
    with quality office and lab space, which can be utilized as
    part of this reorganization proposal.
        The area office operations budget of approximately $9.9
    million will no longer be managed at Stoneville if the area
    office is eliminated. This will have a negative effect on the
    local economy in Mississippi if employees are reassigned to
    other states. To me, this runs counter to the goal of moving
    USDA staff outside of Washington, DC, and getting them closer
    to the Department's customer base.
        I could go on for days talking about how valuable the
    Southeast area office in Stoneville, Mississippi, is to USDA
    agriculture research and our ability to remain a global leader
    in agriculture.
        Mr. Deputy Secretary, what assurances can you provide me
    that any proposal finalized by USDA will not negatively impact
    the Stoneville ARS facility, its employees, or the important
    work that is being done there?
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, I thank you for the question, and
    your passion for the center in Stoneville shines through in it.
    First of all, let me make a distinction that may not have been
    clear in my earlier remarks. The fact that the Secretary's
    memorandum indicates that we are removing a level of middle
    management between the people on the ground who actually do the
    work and the people who ultimately are responsible for
    overseeing it does not mean that automatically everyone who is
    located in a former regional office of an agency will be moved.
        With respect to Stoneville, because of the important
    research that is actually conducted there, I believe at the
    current time, USDA's plan, subject of course to consultation
    with you, is for the staff to remain there.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very much for your answer.
        Senator Hoeven. Senator Smith.
        Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        Mr. Vaden, I am going to follow up on the questions that my
    friend just asked regarding ARS facilities. We have two of them
    in Minnesota, as you no doubt know. One of them is in St. Paul,
    conducts research on Cereal disease, plant science, and soil
    and water management. Of course, you probably also know that
    earlier this year, those lab researchers in St. Paul were laid
    off and then rehired. There is also a lab in Morris, Minnesota,
    that focused on soil and water conservation. That lab has 15
    full-time vacancies right now due to the current Trump
    Administration's force reductions and lack of hiring.
        My first question is, what is the Administration's plans
    for these two ARS facilities in Minnesota? What is your plan
    for keeping them going, staffing, and letting them do their
    work?
        Mr. Vaden. Well, I appreciate the question, Senator. With
    regard to the staffing levels at those individual facilities in
    Minnesota, I will have to get back with you on that. With
    regard to the labs themselves, as I noted in the beginning, as
    a result of the Secretary's plan and the President's budget,
    which is currently pending before the Congress, 90 of 94 ARS
    labs will be untouched. The labs that you have mentioned in the
    State of Minnesota are among the 90 of 94 ARS labs that will
    remain untouched by this reorganization.
        Senator Smith. Thank you. When I spoke with you during your
    confirmation hearing, you and I had a conversation about the
    importance of tribal relations and the trust and treaty
    responsibilities that the Federal Government has to tribal
    nations. As we both know, also the USDA does not have the best
    track record when it comes to working with tribes.
        Let me ask you, could you describe what tribal consultation
    you have undertaken so far with this reorganization? What are
    your plans for that tribal consultation?
        Mr. Vaden. Well, we intend, during the consultation period
    that has begun, to hear from all of our stakeholders, including
    tribes. I hope you took note of the fact that in the
    Secretary's memorandum, although it has not received as much
    attention as certain other parts of the memorandum, we note
    that we are going to consolidate tribal relations functions----
        Senator Smith. Yes, I noted that.
        Mr. Vaden [continuing]. within mission areas and ensure
    that our Office of Tribal Relations delivers all statutorily
    required functions. The reason that we want to do this is
    similar to the reason that we are wanting to consolidate civil
    rights functions at USDA.
        Historically, as you well know, there have been inequities
    between agencies in terms of how these communities are dealt
    with and the equality of service they get from USDA. We believe
    that by consolidating these functions, we can truly ensure that
    all tribal members receive the same level of service that they
    deserve, regardless of which agency within USDA they are
    dealing with.
        Senator Smith. I will look forward to following up with you
    on that. If you will allow me, tribal nations are not another
    constituency of the USDA. We have a government-to-government
    relationship with tribal nations. In that sense, it is
    different, though I mean in no sense any disrespect to the
    important constituencies that the USDA has.
        Mr. Vaden, there is a huge interest in Minnesota in the
    work that the USDA does around rural development. This has been
    an area that I have spent a lot of time working on. I want to,
    in the short time I have left--I am a little concerned about
    what is in this reorganization plan or what is not in this
    reorganization plan regarding what the Administration's plans
    are for rural development. Can you tell me, does the
    Administration commit to maintaining rural development as a
    USDA mission area, rather than having it get farmed out to
    other agencies across the Federal Government? What is your plan
    for keeping rural development state offices?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, rural development is very personal to
    me. As you and I know, when I came before you for my
    confirmation hearing, I live in rural America. That is where I
    go home to. I have seen, as you have seen in the State of
    Minnesota over the past many decades, where towns that used to
    have multiple factories, including my own, have lost those in
    recent years. You have a committed champion in rural
    development at USDA in Secretary Rollins and myself.
        When it comes to our state-level offices for rural
    development, the county offices I believe you referred to,
    there is a reason why they are not mentioned in the memorandum.
    That is because they are unaffected by this memorandum.
        Senator Smith. You expect those regional offices, those
    local offices, to stay as they are right now?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, we are going to leave the county-level
    footprint alone as a result of this memorandum. That not only
    goes for rural development, I want to be clear, it also goes
    for the Farm Services Agency.
        Senator Smith. Just yesterday, the Banking Committee, where
    I serve, passed unanimously out of Committee a significant
    piece of housing legislation. Included in that legislation is a
    bill that Senator Rounds and I from South Dakota have worked on
    to make important improvements and reforms to the Rural Housing
    Service so that we can preserve rural housing in communities.
    This is over 400,000 units of rural housing across the country.
        I constantly hear about the challenges of staffing
    shortages and technology challenges in rural housing service,
    which makes it very difficult for the agency to actually
    function and operate effectively, and our bill addresses this.
    I want to just mention this to you because, as the Secretary
    and the agency moves forward, we have made an important first
    step with passing this legislation out of Banking Housing. Now,
    I hope that we can move it through the Senate Floor and through
    the House and get the President's signature. As I said, it is a
    unanimous passage out of Banking Housing Committee. I hope that
    we can continue to work on that.
        Thank you. I am sorry I went over time, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Boozman. Senator Tuberville.
        Senator Tuberville. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Vaden, thanks for being here, and thanks for what you
    are trying to do, increasing government efficiency, reducing
    unnecessary spending. We are $37 trillion in debt, and we need
    to look after our hardworking farmers and producers, our
    foresters. We have already lost 150,000 farms in the last few
    years, 25,000 farmers. The suicide rate is out the roof. We are
    losing. In the last profession I was in, you lose and you get
    your ass fired real quick, and we are losing.
        Our farmers are--I mean, they are in trouble. Even if they
    make a profit this year, we are still going to lose thousands
    of farms. We are going to find out, really, how quick we are
    going to need farmers and producers when all this happens.
        Our buildings are falling apart. We are in debt. We need
    expensive repairs. Do we have any estimates how much money this
    is going to cost the Federal Government and American taxpayers,
    you know, through the USDA of moving people around? I know that
    we do have some good structures, but have we looked into any of
    that at all?
        Mr. Vaden. We do have an estimate, Senator, regarding how
    much at a minimum we expect to save once costs are taken into
    account, and that is approximately $4 billion. How did we get
    to that number? We got to that number by looking into account
    the headcount reductions as a result of the Deferred
    Resignation Program. Those alone will save the Department of
    Agriculture approximately $1.9 billion net.
        You have mentioned the state of our buildings, and you are
    unfortunately correct, particularly when it comes to the
    National Capital Region, and you are looking at the four
    buildings that the Secretary's memorandum proposes to vacate.
    The value of the deferred maintenance on those buildings, the
    liability on USDA, is $2.2 billion, with a B, dollars, hard to
    conceive, but that is the calculation when you add those four
    buildings together of how much maintenance they need to bring
    them up to modern standards.
        When you add those two sums together of expected savings,
    you are starting out with more than $4 billion. That is before
    we take into account the lower cost of living for employees,
    the lower lease rates that we will have to pay in the five
    hubs. Of course, the full value of that we will only know when
    the plan is finalized after consultation with Congress. We
    start out at a baseline of $4 billion worth of savings.
        Senator Tuberville. You obviously did your due diligence on
    housing in some of these new locations. You feel good about
    that, about the amount that it will cut the cost of living for
    a lot of these young people, hopefully, that we get in the
    USDA?
        Mr. Vaden. We do, Senator. As a matter of fact, if you take
    a look at the Federal Reserve Board's data, which of course, as
    you know, they analyze large regions of the country typically,
    not necessarily individual states. Washington, DC, falls into
    the Northeast region for the Federal Reserve Bank. According to
    the Federal Reserve, the average price of a home, the median
    price of a home in the Northeast region is more than $800,000.
    What, according to the Federal Reserve, is the median price of
    a home in the Midwest where we are sending many of our
    employees? It is less than half that.
        Senator Tuberville. Yes, thank you. Talking about the
    nutrition and sending more people back into the states to help
    with that, my future plan, obviously, is trying to get back
    into the State Government and helping that area.
        Our error rates, in a lot of our states, are awful,
    absolutely awful, and we want to get ours down in the State of
    Alabama, too. Do you think this will help be able to get error
    rates down to a point where we can survive, you know, and make
    sure we feed the right people and help the right people that
    need it, other than the people that are sitting on the couch
    and watching TV?
        Mr. Vaden. I do, Senator. As I noted in response to an
    earlier question, of course the Food and Nutrition Service,
    they will have employees in Washington, DC, in either the
    Whitten or Yates building going forward under the Secretary's
    plan. As we shift more people into the field who are focused on
    the states and focused on the regions of the country that we
    serve, that means more people for individuals in Alabama and
    every other state to reach out to, to help with technical
    assistance and whatever other advice and counsel that we can
    offer, best practices, what have you, to get those error rates
    down so that states can come into compliance with the new bill
    that Congress has passed.
        Senator Tuberville. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Boozman. Senator Welch.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        First of all, I actually do support as much local
    engagement, local leadership as possible. I have introduced
    legislation on FEMA to push much more of the decision-making,
    much more of the authority, back to the local communities that
    are invested in making things work. All right? I believe more
    local leadership, less Washington-centered leadership, is
    important.
        Let me begin. I have some inclination to be supportive of
    folks being back home, closer to where they are serving. The
    concern I have is whether the reorganization plan is on the
    level, whether it is about empowering local communities, or it
    is about decimating the already severely cut-back workforce.
    That is the tone of what my questions will be about.
        In Vermont, we have lost 78 staff members already. Our
    local USDA is terrific. They are responsive. We call them. They
    give us an answer. They help us, right? That is what happens to
    you guys. We lost 78 people. How am I going to get excited
    about this so-called reorganization plan where folks are going
    back, but we have already lost 78? Tell me why I should be
    confident about this.
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, to use your phrase, this plan is
    on the level. The Secretary and I are both serious. Employees
    who accept their new locations, they have got a job, and we
    have got an office for them. We are planning a new home for
    them in a location where their federal salary will go farther.
        Senator Welch. Here is what does not make sense to me. If
    you believe in the local control, why do you fire local people?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, if you are referring to the deferred
    resignation plan, those were voluntary decisions made by
    individual employees who chose, with the information that the
    agency provided to them, to seek a new career----
        Senator Welch. I am going to interrupt you here because we
    are going to have a little bit of a disagreement on that. You
    know, in talking to a lot of federal workers, they felt the axe
    was coming down, and they had to make a choice between two
    really terrible things, get fired, get one of those notices
    that people get, and they then are escorted out of the building
    within five minutes--my daughter-in-law got that over at
    USAID--or take the buyout. That does not satisfy me. Again, we
    have got 78 people who wanted to stay on their jobs, by and
    large, and were doing a good job and could answer the phone
    when I called, and they are gone. Try to reassure me concretely
    about how this works out for the benefit of local folks and
    farmers who depend on USDA.
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, with regard to your concerns
    about terminations, I would point you to the language of the
    memorandum. The memorandum puts a thumb on the scale against
    future RIFs. As a matter of fact, the memorandum's terms
    specifically note that there can be no RIFs under this
    reorganization unless it is personally approved by me. With
    regard to----
        Senator Welch. I do not want to cut you off, but----
        Mr. Vaden. Sure.
        Senator Welch [continuing]. you know what my concern is----
        Mr. Vaden. I do.
        Senator Welch [continuing]. and I would like to be able to
    follow up because I want this, in the real world, to be
    beneficial for folks in Vermont, for our farmers who are
    incredibly valuable citizens.
        The other question I have is about the balance between the
    commodity farming interests and concerns that many of our
    Members on this Committee have because that is the farming in
    their region, and like the vegetable farmers or the dairy
    farmers. I have been working for years in trying to get more
    support for those local farming enterprises that are suitable
    for the state that I live in.
        My concern is an imbalance here, and I am not going to be
    arguing about taking anything from our commodity folks, but I
    want more for folks with vegetable farms, farm-to-school,
    organic farms, and I do not see that priority as being
    important in what I have seen from the Department of
    Agriculture so far. Can you address that?
        Mr. Vaden. Sure. Let me make two points in regard to that.
    First, this reorganization plan as proposed by the Secretary is
    not meant to preferentially advantage or disadvantage any
    particular sector of agriculture. Second, I know Senator
    Schiff, who just came in, shares your concerns about whether
    USDA cares as much about specialty crop farmers, I know you
    mentioned dairy farmers, as they do others.
        Speaking for myself, I do. We want all farmers,
    traditional, organic, specialty crop, commodity crop, to make a
    profit and to do well. If there are things that we can do
    better, if there are ideas that you have about how we can serve
    your constituents better, or if there are programmatic ideas we
    can provide technical assistance on, please call me.
        Senator Welch. Well, I will call you, and what it really
    does come down to is resource allocation because that is the
    reflection of the decision of Congress as to where the priority
    is. It is really essential to a lot of farmers that their non-
    commodity orientation be respected and be supported and be
    encouraged. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Boozman. Senator Marshall.
        Senator Marshall. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Vaden, welcome. Glad you are here today. In your
    testimony, you were mentioning some of the advantages of moving
    to some of these communities, and I would just point out that
    you failed to mention that moving to Kansas City, that suddenly
    you would have the advantage of being a Chiefs fan. Rather than
    suffering through another year here with the Washington
    Commanders, you failed to mention to be within an hour of the
    most storied basketball program in the Nation and just barely
    two hours away from the first land-grant university in America.
        I just would want to give you a chance to talk a little bit
    more. You think about the Kansas City metro, within two-hour
    drive of the Iowa State University, the Nebraska University,
    Missouri, Arkansas--how far away is Auburn? Not too far, 35
    miles.
        Anyway, so my point is, you cannot coach talent. You have
    to have talent. Within just miles of there is some of the
    greatest ag research in the world. How important is that to
    American agriculture to have, let alone the affordability
    issues you mentioned?
        Mr. Vaden. It is vital. I want to add to the mix NBAF. We
    have not forgotten about that. You have not either. I know
    there is some unfinished business left there. When you think
    about the potential that facility has and the technology and
    level of research that can go on there that are vital for the
    future of American agriculture, you have pointed to many of the
    reasons why Kansas City also joined as one of our five hubs.
    The Department put some thought into this. We want to spark
    that level of collaboration that you have noted, whether it be
    with our land-grant and non-land-grant university partners,
    whether it be with individual farmers, whether it be with the
    local chamber of commerce in an area that is driven and
    motivated, even though it may be in an urban setting, by
    agriculture.
        I know that you are well aware that the Federal Reserve has
    a location in Kansas City, and that when we are looking at the
    shape of the agricultural economy for inclusion in the Beige
    Book, we look to what the Kansas City Fed has to say.
        Senator Marshall. Yes.
        Mr. Vaden. USDA will be able to take advantage of all of
    these synergies in not only Kansas City, but the other hubs
    that we have laid out.
        Senator Marshall. Over the past four years, it was reported
    that only six percent of USDA employees were in the office as
    well, and more and more, just the crescendo of complaints from
    my ag producers back home, that they could work with their
    local FSA officer or their conservation officer, but then that
    report would get somehow clogged here in D.C. I want to
    compliment the White House, the $10 billion that was
    appropriated in spring within days. Within days, my farmers had
    the help that they needed, and then more recently, I think it
    was $16 billion.
        Something is working right from a standpoint of customer
    service. I just cannot help but think when you have people
    working for USDA, out there going to church, going to the
    soccer match, all those type of things, with the local farmers
    and ranchers, it is going to be a better service as well.
        Just talk about customer service, how that is going to be
    impacted by these people, you know, net-net, moving out into
    the hinterlands, as we call it.
        Mr. Vaden. Well, I do not consider it the hinterlands. I
    consider it home, Senator, but with regard to having more
    people in the field, we agree with you that we think the level
    of service will improve. Not only do we agree with you, even if
    we had a disagreement, the Congress has legislated on this
    point. This is another matter that drove our consideration of
    this plan, and that is looking at USDA's reorganization
    authority, which was granted to us by the Congress in 1953.
        If you actually look at the statute, I am a former judge,
    so I tend to look at statutes. What does the statute say? The
    statute says, in carrying out this law, ``The Secretary shall
    seek to simplify and make efficient the operation of the
    Department of Agriculture to place the administration of farm
    programs close to the State and local levels,'' from the
    statute. This is exactly what Congress intended, the maximum
    amount of USDA resources dedicated out in the field, not in
    Washington, DC.
        Senator Marshall. Yes. I just want to make one last point.
    President Trump's tariffs are working. He has made incredible
    trade deals that are going to open up markets that we never had
    access to before. We have never sold a cheeseburger in all of
    Europe. Ethanol, 40 percent of our corn crop goes to ethanol.
    Suddenly, EU, U.K., all these countries are going to be buying
    ethanol as well. We are seeing manufacturing jobs move back to
    this country because of these tariffs as well. American
    agriculture will benefit significantly for long-term trade
    agreements, for long-term success as well, and we cannot wait
    to see what is next coming out of the White House and the
    tariffs.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Chairman, before our next Senator
    asks questions, I just wanted to put on the record two letters.
    I will put a pin in my disagreements with Senator Marshall on
    the tariffs.
        First of all, the National Association of Forest Service
    Retirees sent you and I a letter opposing the reorganization of
    the Forest Service, saying it would decimate the ability of the
    Forest Service to deliver services and conduct research.
        Second letter, American Federation of Government Employees,
    which represents many of these USDA employees, they sent a
    letter to you and me opposing the reorganization due to the
    impact on the workforce and asking for an impact assessment and
    cost-benefit analysis.
        Chairman Boozman. Without objection.
        [The letters can be found on pages 44-53 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Boozman. Let's see. Senator Lujan.
        Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, farmers and ranchers back in New Mexico have told
    me that these tariffs feel like a gut punch. Everything's
    getting more expensive for them. Implements are getting more
    expensive. Fertilizer is getting more expensive. I mean, heck,
    I do not know how many of you buy ground beef. I do. If you go
    buy it now, compared to the prices that you saw just a little
    bit of time ago, I mean--anyhow, that is not what I am here to
    talk about today. I thought it was important to mention that,
    though.
        Mr. Vaden, Secretary Rollins' memo proposes effectively
    eliminating the U.S. Forest Service's nine regional offices
    over the next year. As you know, the Forest Service's Southwest
    regional office is located in New Mexico. Now, what I am hoping
    is that we get some information shared with the employees in
    all parts of America where they are going to be impacted by
    this plan, including the 250 employees at the office. I want
    them to be prepared. Mr. Vaden, what will eliminating the
    regional office in Albuquerque mean for the employees there?
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, let me first of all point out
    that with regard to the Forest Service employees in
    Albuquerque, Albuquerque is specifically mentioned in the
    Secretary's memorandum because of its important H.R. functions.
    That is a core area of the Forest Service that will be
    unaffected by this reorganization.
        Senator Lujan. Mr. Vaden, it is going to stay open?
        Mr. Vaden. No, Senator. If you will allow me----
        Senator Lujan. Okay. Well, then let's get on to the
    employees, please.
        Mr. Vaden. No, Senator. The----
        Senator Lujan. Let's fast-forward.
        Mr. Vaden. The H.R. function will be there.
        Senator Lujan. Okay.
        Mr. Vaden. The regional office will no longer be there.
        Senator Lujan. Okay. What does that mean to the employees?
        Mr. Vaden. Those employees may be absorbed into other areas
    in Albuquerque or may be asked to move, pending consultation
    with the employees and the agencies.
        I also think it is important to note, because I want to
    respond to the question that you sent to the Department of
    Agriculture just the other day, that you asked about the lease
    at the building at 333 Broadway Street SE. I thought you would
    want to know that that building has long been on the GSA
    priority list for closure. Its lease was set to end on the 31st
    of December 2026.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Mr. Vaden, if I----
        Mr. Vaden. This reorganization plan----
        Senator Lujan. I have limited time, sir. Mr. Vaden--Mr.
    Chairman, can I get some help here? Mr. Vaden, I have limited
    time here. We sent you those questions so you could respond in
    writing. You chose not to do that so maybe now you will. I hope
    that you just respond to these questions in writing. That is
    why we sent them to you ahead of time.
        Mr. Vaden. That question was not a part of the letter that
    Senator Klobuchar sent.
        Senator Lujan. You just said I sent you a letter.
        Mr. Vaden. No, you sent----
        Senator Lujan. I just sent you some questions.
        Mr. Vaden [continuing]. an inquiry.
        Senator Lujan. Anyhow, I am not going to get into----
        Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Chairman, if you could give----
        Senator Lujan.--this back-and-forth----
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. Senator Lujan extra time.
    One letter is not all we need here when we had no consultation.
    Senator Lujan has every right to send his own letter.
        Senator Lujan. Mr. Vaden, what does it mean to the
    employees? Have they been consulted?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, the employee consultation begins now.
    As I mentioned in my----
        Senator Lujan. When is now? Today?
        Mr. Vaden. It began the day that the memorandum was issued.
        Senator Lujan. Have the employees in Albuquerque been
    consulted?
        Mr. Vaden. They will be consulted through their union
    members, through their----
        Senator Lujan. It started----
        Mr. Vaden [continuing]. union representatives----
        Senator Lujan.--but they have not been consulted yet.
        I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if we need to send a
    formal letter when the consultation in New Mexico will truly
    begin with the employees.
        Now, based on the Secretary's memorandum, it is not clear
    if the center is going to be closed or relocated. That is why
    we are asking this particular question. The Administration
    needs to provide more details about this reorganization plan
    and how proposed changes will impact wildfire response. A lot
    of these questions may not even have to be asked today if our
    staff's questions would have been answered as opposed to
    ignored.
        When will you, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture,
    provide this information to this Committee?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, we have already had multiple staff
    meetings. We would intend to continue those over the next 30-
    day consultation period----
        Senator Lujan. Mr. Vaden, I will try to be more clear here.
        Mr. Vaden [continuing]. and we are happy to----
        Senator Lujan. I am sorry if my English is spoken with an
    accent. I apologize. I am proud to be born and raised in New
    Mexico. I will try to speak more clearly. When will you provide
    this information to this Committee?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, we will get it to you. You send us your
    questions. You will get----
        Senator Lujan. I am asking you right now. When will you
    provide this information on the reorganization plan to this
    Committee, to the Members, to those of us that are duly elected
    to be here? When?
        Mr. Vaden. As we finalize it, you will----
        Senator Lujan. Is it not finalized?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, as I noted in my opening remarks, this
    is a vision to be implemented. The individual details will need
    to be worked out with the agencies and the employees.
        Senator Lujan. Let me ask the question a different way.
        Mr. Vaden. Obviously that involves consultation with you.
        Senator Lujan. Mr. Vaden, when will you provide the
    existing information about the reorganization plan to this
    Committee and to the Members?
        Mr. Vaden. The existing information is contained in the
    memorandum. If you want background data regarding how some of
    these decisions were made, we are happy to work with you on it.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I appreciate it. We are
    on the same page there.
        Now, Mr. Vaden, one thing I have been hearing from folks
    back home around SNAP and WIC is that we are seeing an all-out
    assault on these food programs. One in four Americans rely on
    programs to eat, as we all know. The Administration is
    attempting to gut the specialized workforce that ensures these
    programs are operating effectively and efficiently.
        Now, I read the Secretary's memorandum that was released on
    the 24th. Now, the questions I am getting from people back in
    New Mexico is that they are already struggling to get timely
    technical assistance needed to effectively administer WIC to
    the mothers and kids back home. Has the Department conducted an
    analysis of how this proposed reorganization will impact the
    ability of Americans to access federal nutrition assistance
    programs?
        Mr. Vaden. By sending more people into the states and
    having fewer people in Washington, DC, we will have more
    employees, including in the Food and Nutrition Service, closer
    and more available to our state partners to provide the
    assistance they need.
        Senator Lujan. Again, Mr. Vaden, if I could just be clear,
    did you all conduct the analysis of how it is going to impact
    the ability to feed folks?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, as part of our plan, our entire effort
    was to increase----
        Senator Lujan. Mr. Vaden, I appreciate that, sir. Did you
    conduct analysis? Has analysis been conducted, yes or no?
        Mr. Vaden. Yes. We show that----
        Senator Lujan. Okay, my question is when will----
        Mr. Vaden [continuing]. by bringing more employees in the
    field we will get better results.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. You can submit that all
    in writing as well. When will you commit to sharing the
    analysis with this Committee?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, we will work with you following the
    hearing.
        Senator Lujan. A week? A month? If it already exists, it
    could be here tonight.
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, with regard to the analysis in each
    specific agency----
        Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Boozman. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Mr. Secretary, for your attendance here today. I appreciate
    that you answered our Chairman's call to come before this
    Committee and be here in a fairly short manner.
        You may recall during your confirmation process, you and I
    discussed the potential benefits of relocation of USDA, and I
    shared that I thought Nebraska would be a great location for
    parts of the agency with a cheaper cost of living, a workforce
    where agriculture is ingrained in our culture, and high-quality
    educational institutions. Ultimately, I would have liked to see
    a process that allowed for Nebraska to demonstrate its strong
    value proposition.
        While I do agree with the overreaching goal here, I have to
    express disappointment in how this has been rolled out and the
    lack of engagement with Congress prior to the announcement.
        I also agree with Senator Hoeven that to accomplish a major
    reorganization, Congress will need to be a partner to provide
    resources and perhaps additional authorities. I hope you will
    commit that, moving forward, USDA will be proactive in
    engagement with this Committee and also with the Appropriations
    Committee.
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, as I noted in my opening remarks,
    the Secretary's memorandum was the first step, not the final
    step. It was essentially the green flag, not the checkered
    flag. Now what we are entered into is a 30-day statutorily
    required period, having given notice to you of our intentions
    to reorganize the Department to hear from you.
        As Senator Hoeven noted, he is coming to meet with me later
    today. I thank him actually, since I am spending some time up
    here today with him, for him coming down to see me in my office
    in the Whitten building. I will be happy to meet with other
    Members of this Committee who have similar concerns, ideas,
    efficiencies that they want to share with us so we can make our
    plan better.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you. I would like to start now with
    a few questions to understand some of the impacts to some of
    the USDA assets that we have in my State of Nebraska. We are
    home to several USDA research facilities, and that includes the
    U.S. Meat and Animal Research Center that conducts research
    that is strongly supported by our livestock industry, and a new
    ARS facility co-located at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
    that is focused on innovative precision agriculture research
    for which construction has started. With the reorganization
    effort, can you verify that neither of these ARS facilities
    will be impacted?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, I can, and I am surprised you left out
    the NRCS Soil----
        Senator Fischer. I was going to get to that.
        Mr. Vaden [continuing]. Survey Center in Lincoln. All of
    those facilities are unimpacted. As you probably remember from
    my opening remarks, 90 of 94 ARS research facilities are
    unimpacted by this memorandum. That includes all of the
    facilities in Lincoln, and for that matter, the rest of
    Nebraska. You may have noticed in the Secretary's memorandum
    that while the individual facilities were not called out by
    name, Lincoln, Nebraska, was, and I am here to confirm that
    that was the intent of putting that in there to signal that
    those facilities, for the reasons you have noted, are important
    and are part of the 90 of 94 ARS facilities which will be
    untouched.
        Senator Fischer. More broadly, as you go through this
    reorganization effort, what thought have you given to address
    any outstanding facility improvements that may be needed at
    these research centers? Basically, I am asking you, what
    commitment do you have to these centers in the future?
        Mr. Vaden. Well, the budget is a number that Congress gives
    us. Obviously, for every dollar that we save, that gives us the
    opportunity, if Congress allows, us to reallocate those funds
    toward facilities we intend to keep. I am excited about the
    fact that the Secretary's plan calls for us to save at least
    $2.2 billion by ditching these National Capital Region
    facilities that are out of date and in disrepair. We are happy
    to work with the Congress if, as a result of those savings,
    there are other facilities that you think are worthy of
    investment with those moneys.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you. I am sure we will be in touch
    in conjunction with the university. Thank you.
        Chairman Boozman. Senator Warnock has something to do, so I
    think, Senator Schiff, you are going to allow him to precede
    you. Senator Warnock.
        Senator Warnock. Thank you, Chair Boozman. Thank you,
    Senator Schiff.
        Mr. Vaden, last week, without notice to the Members of this
    Committee, Secretary Rollins announced this mass
    reorganization. Now you are here in response to the Chairman's
    call. What I would like to know is whether this plan will
    disrupt the lives of everyday Georgians who depend on USDA's
    programs. These are folks I talk to, obviously, all the time
    and what USDA does or does not do, how it is able to deliver
    matters to farmers and families in Georgia.
        I am proud to have secured $21 billion for farmers and
    rural communities in Georgia devastated by Hurricane Helene and
    other disasters. I am glad to see applications for some of this
    funding are finally opening up. We are already at the beginning
    of what could be a very rough hurricane season. I have seen
    firsthand the devastation that these hurricanes can bring. Are
    the USDA staff who administered disaster funding affected by
    this reorg?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, our intent in the Secretary's
    memorandum is that for these frontline-facing positions,
    whether it be the people who do our normal commodity programs
    or who are involved in the disaster relief programs, that their
    efforts not be affected by this reorganization.
        Senator Warnock. Well, do you expect that part of USDA to
    see some downsizing of staff?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, we have made a commitment that if
    employees go with us to these new locations, they have got a
    job, and we are planning to have an office for them there. That
    is what we are planning for. Now, whether every employee will
    voluntarily decide to come with us, I do not know.
        Senator Warnock. A relocation for a family is a big deal.
        Mr. Vaden. It is.
        Senator Warnock. What do you think will happen?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, I think actually a large number of them
    will choose to come. I think many of them will choose to come
    because, given cuts made by other federal agencies here in
    Washington, DC, the job market is not what it once was here. I
    think that the exciting opportunity these new hubs provide for
    them to actually be able to own a home affordably and grow and
    expand their family with the lower cost of living, that is one
    of the primary reasons we chose each of these five hubs, will
    attract them to come.
        Senator Warnock. You do not expect a significant reduction
    in staff as a result of the reorganization?
        Mr. Vaden. It is hard for me to predict how many will. Do I
    think 100 percent will say yes and relocate? No, Senator, that
    would not be realistic for me to say that. I think a
    significant percent, more than a majority, will choose to come.
        Senator Warnock. What are your plans? What are your plans
    to ensure that this reorganization does not continue to delay
    the rollout of these critical funds that farmers need in the
    wake of these disasters?
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, FSA is hard at work on that. I
    have had meetings, even though I am only three weeks on the
    job, about the next phases of that rollout. You may have seen I
    participated with Secretary Rollins in the release of some of
    those funds my very first week on the job. You have my word
    that that is first and foremost in our mind. We are aware that
    the farm economy is not strong right now. Producers need these
    funds as quickly as possible, and we are going to get them out.
        Senator Warnock. Will you review the impact of the
    reorganization plan and then report back to this Committee
    without us having to call you? Will you report back to the
    Committee regarding whether or not it is working?
        Mr. Vaden. Absolutely. By the way, I do not know whether
    you were in here when I mentioned it for some of the other
    Senators. If so, I apologize for repeating myself. If you have
    ideas about how we can reorganize better or if there are
    particular things in Georgia that you want to draw our
    attention to, we are happy to meet with you.
        I hope you saw in the memorandum that Athens, Georgia,
    though it is not a hub that we have selected, will play an
    important role in USDA going forward. The Forest Service, as
    you know, already has some significant assets in Athens,
    Georgia, and we actually intend to build on those as a part of
    our reorganization and are working with the southern region of
    the Forest Service and the current Regional Forester there in
    transitioning USDA's assets for the Forest Service, which are
    so important for the eastern region of the country, to the
    Athens location.
        Senator Warnock. In the first Trump Administration, USDA
    relocated the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to
    Kansas City, Missouri. According to a report from the
    Government Accountability Office, this move resulted in the
    Black staff at this agency declining by 65 percent. Mr. Vaden,
    what is your plan to ensure that this reorganization does not
    disproportionately impact staff of a particular demographic?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, we are going to treat everyone equally,
    make certain everyone has the information, and as you are
    probably aware, you and Congress have generously granted to the
    agencies the ability to provide relocation assistance when
    things like this do happen, and of course employees who decide
    to make that move are eligible for this relocation assistance.
        Senator Warnock. What is your plan to make sure--because we
    saw the disproportionate impact in Kansas in that case. What is
    your plan to ensure that we do not see this kind of
    disproportionate impact?
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, we want every employee to join
    with us, regardless of race, gender, or any other
    characteristic.
        Senator Warnock. Yes, but I am asking----
        Mr. Vaden. If you have ideas on how we can target specific
    populations to ensure that they see the benefits of the
    Secretary's plan, I would like to----
        Senator Warnock. Well, to be quite honest with you, I am
    deeply suspicious of that because the approach of this
    Administration seems to be to push against any kind of
    intentional effort to make sure that we do not see
    disproportionate impact on a whole range of issues.
        Let me ask you this thing. Yes or no, has the USDA
    conducted any sort of disparate impact analysis of this
    reorganization plan to determine if there is any
    disproportionate harm to any particular groups of staff or
    farmers?
        Mr. Vaden. Not to my knowledge because the plan has not
    been finalized.
        Senator Warnock. Will you commit to doing so and sharing
    the results with this Committee?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, we will take into account our civil
    rights responsibilities in everything we do.
        Senator Warnock. My question is, would you conduct a
    disparate impact analysis?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, you have my word that everything we do
    will not be based on race.
        Senator Warnock. I take that as a no. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Boozman. Senator Moran.
        Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for your presence today. I
    appreciate the chance to be here to hear what you have to say.
    I am pleased that in three weeks on the job, you seem so
    knowledgeable about the details of the Department of
    Agriculture. I express my appreciation for the idea that work
    by federal employees and work for federal taxpayers and
    constituents, particularly farmers and ranchers, can be
    accomplished outside the D.C. area.
        I have been through this issue with you previously in the
    earlier Administration and was pleased by the decision to have
    two research agencies relocated in Kansas City. I will leave
    off the word Missouri in that explanation, but two agencies
    located in Kansas City. I want to know, do you anticipate in
    moving any functions of TFAA or FAS outside the District of
    Columbia?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, I do not want to give a definitive yes
    or no answer, but as you know, our trade and foreign
    agricultural affairs mission area, which Congress instructed us
    to create in the 2018 Farm Bill, is something of a special
    animal, as most of its focus is actually international rather
    than domestic. It is basically a diplomatic corps for America's
    farmers, ranchers, and foresters.
        Given the specific focus of that agency, while I cannot
    guarantee that there will not be some employee who gets
    relocated, I think that that agency, when we are looking at
    what it is we are trying to do and that agency's focus is
    international rather than domestic largely, that it might be
    among the lesser affected mission areas.
        Senator Moran. Well, Kansas City Commodity Office has
    historically played a significant role in the function of
    international food aid programs, particularly Food for Peace.
    Do you see those functions continuing under this
    reorganization?
        Mr. Vaden. All functions that remain with the Department of
    Agriculture by statute are unaffected. We cannot, with a
    reorganization, add to or reduce from the statutory
    responsibilities Congress has given to the agency.
        Senator Moran. Do you have any insight into what
    subagencies, if any, could move to Kansas City besides ERS and
    NIFA? Kansas City is also the home to the RMA Compliance Office
    and the Domestic Inspection Operations Office for the Federal
    Grain Inspection Service. Thoughts about those?
        Mr. Vaden. We do not have finalized lists. I think it is
    important to know that with regard to RMA, that that is an
    agency where, because of its function, many of the people are
    already out in the field, and some of them are remote. They are
    remote for a reason, not because it became cool five years ago,
    but because their job requires them to be on the road, and this
    reorganization plan does not affect that.
        Senator Moran. I also would add--I do not know that I need
    any comment from you, but I would add that with the move of
    NIFA and ERS to Kansas City in the first Trump Administration,
    that decision was further confirmed by the actions of Secretary
    Vilsack. There was efforts at one point in time to try to
    reverse that decision, which Secretary Vilsack did not do. I do
    hope that we do better and presumably the times have changed in
    regard to COVID, but so many USDA employees have worked
    remotely. We had this conversation when you were in my office
    seeking my vote for your nomination's confirmation. I am
    pleased by the efforts that you have described to me then and
    again today in this hearing about the insistence that federal
    employees at USDA return to in-person positions. True?
        Mr. Vaden. Yes, sir, and one thing I will note of
    bipartisan agreement during today's hearing is that it appears
    that Members of both sides of the aisle are sick of Teams
    meetings and teleworking, and we at USDA are definitely on that
    bandwagon. We want our employees who need to be in the office
    in the office.
        Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, thank you. You mentioned in
    your earlier comments about NBAF to Senator Marshall. Would you
    further explore with me and the Committee, you indicated that
    you recognize some things needed to be done? What do you
    anticipate those being, and how do you anticipate to accomplish
    it?
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, I know that I need to take a trip
    out there in order to see it myself, and I have been summarily
    briefed on some of the challenges that are currently engaged in
    at NBAF. I have a more in-depth briefing on my calendar after
    this hearing in the next couple of weeks. After I have had that
    briefing, I would be more than happy to sit down with you and
    talk specific.
        Senator Moran. It is a jewel, a gem. I would like to visit
    with you. I am happy to come to see you. That seems to please
    you when we make the----
        Mr. Vaden. Well, I can----
        Senator Moran [continuing]. trip to your office, and I will
    do that.
        Mr. Vaden [continuing]. come to see you. I was just
    complimenting Senator Hoeven for his extra effort----
        Senator Moran. I do not want Senator Hoeven to receive any
    additional consideration than I do.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Moran. I will come see you.
        In addition to talking about relocation, I would love to
    have the conversation about NBAF, a project, the National Bio
    and Agro-Defense Facility that I have been involved in since, I
    do not know, my days in the House 20-plus years ago.
        Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Boozman. Senator Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Vaden, I will not repeat except to say that I share the
    bipartisan concerns that have been raised about the creation of
    this plan without input from impacted entities or the Congress.
    One of the chief messages of USDA proposing this is centered
    around making USDA offices and services moving closer to
    American farmers.
        I know this will not surprise you, but California is the
    number one ag-producing state in the union, and yet the
    proposed hub in place of USDA headquarters will be located in
    Salt Lake City, which is more than 500 miles from the Central
    Valley. My understanding is that none of the other five top ag-
    producing states will enjoy the presence of one of these
    regional hubs.
        My question is, why was not a hub placed closer to the
    largest ag-producing state or, frankly, any of the other top
    five agriculture-producing states? Why were not those selected
    as venues?
        Mr. Vaden. Fair question, Senator. First, I want to note
    just a simple geographic fact. While there are no hub locations
    in California itself, nearly all of our hub locations are
    closer to California than everybody being in Washington, DC.
        With regard to your point about why California does not
    have a hub location, the simple answer is cost of living. We
    were looking at the cost of living for reasons that I noted. We
    want people to join USDA to build a career, to be able to
    purchase a home. The hub locations we chose, Salt Lake City
    being among, believe it or not, the cheapest cost of living on
    the list, allow that opportunity. Unfortunately, it is more
    difficult to do that in California with the price of housing.
        Senator Schiff. There is going to be a huge cost of the
    relocation of all of the staff, indeed, if staff choose to
    relocate. In 2019, half of the staff at the two agencies that
    were part of the then-reorganization plan did not relocate. The
    GAO, in addition to the point that Senator Warnock made, also
    found that there was a tremendous loss of expertise in that
    relocation and that the new hires were very junior and lacked
    the kind of experience that was lost in that relocation.
        Have you done an estimate of what the expected attrition
    is? If half the employees did not relocate, do you expect to
    lose half of these employees?
        Mr. Vaden. I think the Secretary has spoken to that. We
    expect to have better results this time around, in part because
    we learned some lessons from ERS/NIFA. I mentioned some of
    those earlier in terms of looking for places focused on cost of
    living, looking at where we actually already were, and had a
    footprint of USDA employees with whom the new employees could
    collaborate.
        I think that, given what we are trying to sell and the fact
    that, as you acknowledged, we are looking to build the future
    of USDA, not just maintain the present, these will provide us
    with the incentives to get these positions.
        Senator Schiff. What is your estimate of the attrition? It
    was 50 percent in the last reorganization. What percentage?
        Mr. Vaden. We do not have a specific number to offer at
    this time.
        Senator Schiff. Let me raise a broader concern. No regional
    offices in California. In fact, we are losing in this
    reorganization an Agriculture Research Service office in
    California. The $20 billion in disaster relief, that aid
    includes a broad authority to deliver assistance through block
    grants to states. Despite California expressing interest and
    the legislation having no limits, USDA has announced such a
    narrow set of qualifications that it essentially excludes all
    but a few states in the Southeast. Moreover, USDA announced it
    was rescinding all but one Regional Conservation Partnership
    Program awards per state, and then all six California awards
    were canceled. Some of these projects even had the same goals
    as projects in other states, like my colleague Senator
    Fetterman in Pennsylvania.
        I hope you can understand--and this is not to denigrate
    from Pennsylvania--just California would like to enjoy the same
    thing. My question is, all of California's conservation program
    grants canceled. California does not qualify for disaster
    assistance on the narrow definition. California gets no
    regional office. California loses one of the existing offices.
    It is hard not to perceive this as a political calculation
    rather than one that is in the best interest of farmers, given
    our dominance in agriculture. What do you have to say to
    California farmers who are feeling that the Administration, the
    President is not representing them, that he is punishing them
    because the state did not vote for him?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, that is not the case at all. With
    regard to moving more USDA employees, though not into
    California, much closer to California than Washington, DC, our
    employees will have more ready access to your state.
        With regard to your notation about the ARS facility, I
    would note that the proposed closure of it is not a creature of
    the Secretary's reorganization. It is instead part of the
    President's budgetary proposal to this body. Of course, I am
    well aware that Congress holds the power of the purse and they
    make the final decision on what will get funded.
        Finally, with regard to disaster assistance, I know that
    the first level of the block grant funding that we announced
    focused on those who had crop insurance and accepting those
    specialty crop producers who participate in NAP who are
    eligible for the current round of block grants. Specialty crops
    were left out. There is a second tranche that was noted and has
    yet to be announced that is designed to include so-called
    shallow losses, which, as you know, are losses that are not
    covered by crop insurance. I would love to talk with you more
    about that in the future as we move toward rolling out that
    proposal.
        Senator Schiff. We will take you up on that invitation, but
    let me just say this. The fact that the California office is
    being closed as a budgetary decision rather than as a
    reorganization position does not give Californians any comfort.
    They just know they are losing an office and losing access.
        In terms of an office in Utah being only 500 miles away,
    that is also not much of a comfort to California farmers,
    particularly when California farmers, I think if that is the
    choice, would rather have the experience of the current USDA
    employees in Washington than an inexperienced group of new
    employees in Utah.
        Finally, the proof will be in the pudding. Right now,
    California grants are canceled. Right now, California does not
    qualify for disaster assistance. You know, however that is
    justified or rationalized, the proof will be whether resources
    actually get to California farmers, and that is the standard we
    will hold the Administration to.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Boozman. Senator Justice.
        Senator Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Vaden, okay, now listen, you know, I totally understand
    that people that are being relocated, it can be a stressful
    time. I get that completely, but let me just say just this. At
    one time not long ago, our family farm had grown to a size
    where we were probably really close to the biggest cash grain
    farmers east of the Mississippi River, corn, wheat, and
    soybeans. Would you not think, would you not think of all the
    Senators of all, I ought to know, I ought to really know what
    is happening and what is going on because we were farming in
    multiple states, I ought to really know the pulse of the
    farmers, the ranchers, the foresters. I ought to know. I mean,
    for God's sakes a living, of everything in the world that I
    ought to know about, I ought to know about this.
        Now, I can tell you without any question that it would be
    great if you would have said, we are going to build one of
    these locations in West Virginia. You know, that would be great
    because we are close to 2/3 of the population of the country,
    and our cost of living is great, and, you know, our people are
    wonderful, and it would have been great. Here is the whole
    deal, and here is the thing you have just got to ask, so easy.
    Go ask the farmers, and I am sure you have done exactly that.
    Go ask the foresters. Go ask the ranchers one question, is it
    working? They will say, ain't no way. For God's sakes a living,
    why in the world do we have to run all over the place with our
    hair on fire going completely buck nuts and everything over
    just simply just this? It is not working.
        Literally, these people have given us so much, it is off
    the chart. I listened to Coach Tuberville, and Coach, you know,
    Coach has a real, real understanding because he has the pulse
    of the people. He is right with the people, and he is right
    with our farmers. Well, there is nobody. There is nobody in the
    world that could be more with our farmers than I am, you know.
        With all that being said, just absolutely just think. These
    people have given us innovation. They are the most productive
    people on the planet, and we are losing them. Coach just said
    the suicide rate is off the chart. We are losing thousands of
    farms every year. You are going to lose more this year, right
    now.
        You know, with all that being said, what in the world are
    we trying to pretend to ourselves that absolutely this thing is
    working and working in D.C.? What you are saying to the world
    is all we are trying to do is put these people closer to the
    pulse, to the pulse of what is going on. We are trying to do it
    in a way that is equitable in every way, cost of living, you
    know, great people, great resources, all that stuff. We are
    trying to do all that.
        Now look, I am a white-haired new guy on the block that has
    done a lot of stuff, and I have done one whale of a lot of just
    this. Absolutely, I know what is going on in the farm
    community, the forestry community, our ranching community. I
    know, and it is high time that we try to do something to reward
    and help and make easier and everything else for all those
    people that are busting their you-know-what for all of us every
    day.
        Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions. I do not have a
    question one. All I am telling you is absolutely, we absolutely
    need to move and do the very best that we can for these great
    people tomorrow.
        Anyway, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Fetterman.
        Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Hello, Mr. Vaden. Now, I am sure you are aware you are an
    expert in part of this industry. You will probably know that
    Pennsylvania, that is our largest industry. Now I think we can
    all agree that, at least in my state, I assume that it is
    probably nationally, that the vast majority of the parts of my
    state are very red and they are more aligned with the GOP. For
    me, and I think we agree that ag is bipartisan, and that is the
    way I approach this kind of a thing.
        Often, you know, I am advocating the kinds of parts in
    Pennsylvania that just they are maybe not going to vote for,
    for me because I think it is an incredibly difficult job to be
    a farmer. I revere in what they do for our Nation.
        Today, though, I am here to express my concern because I
    today am as the voice for the unions that are really, really
    concerned based by your choice to relocate for me. That is why
    I really wanted to bring up and, you know, there really was
    not--you know, I am concerned there really was not any
    negotiation or anything with the unions for this in advance for
    that.
        When ERA and NIFA were relocated in 2019, workers were
    promised relocation expenses and incentives. I actually have
    the signed agreement between them and the union outlining these
    relocation incentives. I ask unanimous consent that it be
    entered into the record.
        Chairman Boozman. Without objection.
        [The letter can be found on pages 54-57 in the appendix.]
        Senator Fetterman. I do believe the Department walked back
    a little bit on this promise. Mr. Vaden, I am asking, are you
    willing to commit to covering all the relocation expenses for
    the USDA staff who choose to move or are forced because this is
    part of the plan?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, Congress has a cap that they have put
    by statute on the maximum amount of relocation assistance that
    we can provide. However, within that range, we do have quite a
    lot of flexibility. As I mentioned earlier in the hearing, it
    is our intent to cover these employees' expenses within the
    bounds set by Congress.
        Senator Fetterman. Thank you. That is a great answer.
        Mr. Vaden, I appreciate the Department being available for
    a staff briefing yesterday. I just really want to make sure
    that the voice of the union here is--and I really want to have
    more--and to commit to more union engagement through all this.
    I would like to invite you to help facilitate meetings with the
    union leaders and those other members to be more a part of this
    process. I assume that you are open to that.
        Mr. Vaden. Absolutely.
        Senator Fetterman. Okay. Now, in my last minute, are you
    familiar with the spotted lantern fly?
        Mr. Vaden. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I saw some in
    Washington, DC, last week, sadly.
        Senator Fetterman. Yes. Oh, yes. I love stomping them. You
    know, I am a great Pennsylvanian and a great American. Wherever
    I see them, it is like, stomp it, stomp it, stomp it.
        Mr. Vaden. Well, you will be glad to know that I did some
    of that myself down near city center.
        Senator Fetterman. Yes, no, and of course, I mean, that is
    really a concern about that invasive species. We want to make
    sure--it seems like now you are aware of it. You know, can we
    ensure that Pennsylvania farmers from the lantern fly control
    programs will not be interrupted?
        Mr. Vaden. Senator, as part of the Secretary's
    reorganization proposal, it specifically notes the importance
    of ensuring that nothing interferes with the important work
    APHIS does, whether we are looking at New World screwworm or
    whether we are looking at the spotted lantern fly or whether we
    are looking at a future threat to come. Everything that we do
    will be implemented in a way that does not affect APHIS'
    important work in this area.
        The final point that I would note on that is nearly all of
    the people who are involved in battling these invasive species
    are already on the frontline and not located in Washington, DC.
        Senator Fetterman. Okay. Thank you.
        Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Chairman Boozman, for holding
    this hearing today.
        Welcome back to the Committee, Deputy Secretary Vaden. It
    is good to have you here.
        I am actually really excited about this hearing and the
    opportunity. Secretary Vaden, I have spoken with you and
    Secretary Rollins at length about this issue that we are
    talking about today. First, getting our folks back into the
    office, that has been really important to me. Consolidating or
    selling off unused office space and moving USDA closer to those
    it is meant to serve, which is our farmers and our rural
    communities. Again, just want to thank you for making this a
    priority.
        As you know, the status quo is forcing taxpayers to foot
    the bill for billions in deferred maintenance. We do not hear a
    lot of that talked about, but there is deferred maintenance and
    there are the ongoing operating costs, all for buildings that
    are almost entirely empty. Just last week, 78 percent of the
    seats in the USDA South building were not filled. However, this
    represents a significant improvement from the past number of
    years.
        When Secretary Vilsack sat in that very seat that you are
    sitting in today, a year ago, a year ago, he denied evidence
    exposed by the GAO revealing the USDA headquarters building had
    an 11 percent utilization rate in 2023. He also said the
    whistleblower letter that I received, ``isn't even close to
    correct'' to the USDA building usage at that time. Well, folks,
    Secretary Vilsack lied.
        Thanks to this Administration's dedication to transparency,
    I actually have the data to back that up. In February 2024, as
    Secretary Vilsack testified before this Committee and told us
    there was nothing to see here, USDA's three main Washington,
    DC, office buildings had barely over 13 percent of their seats
    filled.
        Unfortunately for taxpayers, USDA is not the only agency
    holding onto unaffordable properties that are nearly vacant.
    This includes nearly 7,700 vacant federal buildings and another
    2,200 that are largely empty. To fix this, the Senate must pass
    my For Sale Act to dispose of underutilized buildings,
    including the Ag South building, and to return the money from
    those sales to the taxpayers. We need more of these agencies to
    follow Secretary Rollins' and USDA's lead. With that being
    said, that is a great plug for my For Sale Act.
        Deputy Secretary Vaden, I find it interesting. We really
    have not heard any outrage from our colleagues when it comes to
    the Biden Administration, when they kept USDA's workforce
    almost entirely remote and our offices sat empty. Yet now we
    are starting to hear all of those concerns about relocating
    positions into the very communities that USDA is supposed to
    serve. My question, I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
    Can you expand on the main factors that led to the USDA to
    consolidate offices in the D.C. region and move those positions
    to the other states?
        Mr. Vaden. Well, Senator, first, let me thank you for your
    leadership on this issue because you were focusing on telework,
    the inefficiencies it created, and the vastly empty government
    buildings that dot the District of Columbia before it was cool.
    Thank you for doing that.
        Like you, I got a chuckle when I read the letter that was
    sent to me Monday night with the concerns expressed about
    meetings only done by telework and who is going to be at the
    Department manning the store. As you well know, that was the
    Biden Administration. That was USDA for the past four years.
    Drive by the Whitten building. Drive by the South building. The
    parking lots were empty.
        Here in the Trump Administration, we want people in the
    office. As you have noted, even when we have got all of our
    employees in the office, we are still not reaching the
    congressionally mandated threshold of 60 percent occupancy.
    That is not a high bar. That still leaves 40 percent vacant.
    With regard to the South building, on high-attendance Sunday--
    they used to call it at my church--we hit 36.9 percent.
        Senator Ernst. That is the high mark.
        Mr. Vaden. That is barely half of what Congress has
    mandated that building should hold, which, again, is only 60
    percent in order for us to keep it.
        What drove our consideration was fairness to the taxpayer,
    asking them, can we really expect them to foot the bill for a
    building that is largely empty? Obviously, in the executive
    branch, we are charged with carrying out the laws that Congress
    passed. You made your intent incredibly clear when you passed
    the Use It Act by a vote of 97 to 1 in the U.S. Senate, and we
    are following it.
        Senator Ernst. I am so thankful for that. I am glad that we
    are actually going through this exercise now to move more of
    our folks out to the people that they should be serving, our
    farmers and our rural communities.
        I am going to also add to the record, Senator Marshall was
    talking about Kansas State University being the first land-
    grant institution. I will note that Iowa was the first state to
    accept the Morrill Act of 1862, which established our land-
    grant universities. Iowa State University was the first
    institution to open its doors to co-ed students. Thank you.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Boozman. Thank you.
        Thank you again, Deputy Secretary Vaden, for your time and
    insight today and again, doing this on very, very short notice.
        The hearing record will remain open for five business days.
    That concludes our hearing, and it is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 July 30, 2025

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

                                 July 30, 2025

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]