[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]