[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 3, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-11
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-513 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
STEVE KING, Iowa MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JIM COSTA, California
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BOB GIBBS, Ohio MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee FILEMON VELA, Texas
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
JEFF DENHAM, California JUAN VARGAS, California
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DOUG LaMALFA, California SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
TED S. YOHO, Florida
VANCE M. McALLISTER, Louisiana
______
Nicole Scott, Staff Director
Kevin J. Kramp, Chief Counsel
Tamara Hinton, Communications Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
submitted letter............................................... 61
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,
opening statement.............................................. 1
McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
Massachusetts, submitted memo.................................. 61
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 9
Prepared statement...........................................
Witness
Vilsack, Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J., Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Supplementary material....................................... 63
Submitted questions.......................................... 66
HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D.
Lucas [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Lucas, Goodlatte, King,
Neugebauer, Conaway, Thompson, Gibbs, Austin Scott of Georgia,
Tipton, Crawford, DesJarlais, Gibson, Hartzler, Noem, Benishek,
Fincher, LaMalfa, Hudson, Davis, Collins, Yoho, McAllister,
Peterson, McIntyre, David Scott of Georgia, Costa, Walz,
Schrader, Fudge, McGovern, DelBene, Negrete McLeod, Vela, Lujan
Grisham, Nolan, Enyart, Vargas, Maloney, and Courtney.
Staff present: Bart Fischer, Brandon Lipps, Debbie Smith,
John Goldberg, Josh Mathis, Matt Schertz, Nicole Scott, Pelham
Straughn, Skylar Sowder, Tamara Hinton, Anne Simmons, Keith
Jones, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, Mary Knigge, Robert L.
Larew, Merrick Munday, and Riley Pagett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture
to review the state of the rural economy will come to order. By
a gentlemen's agreement, the Ranking Member and I are foregoing
opening statements in the spirit of allowing as much time for
the Secretary--who has a schedule conflict later this morning.
I would also note that we would request that other Members
submit their opening statements for the record so the witness
may begin his testimony, and ensure there is ample time for
questions.
With that, I would like to welcome our witness to the
table, The Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Secretary Vilsack, please begin
when you are ready, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS ``TOM'' J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And
to the Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity
to appear before you this morning. I will just take a few
minutes to briefly review where we are relative to farm income
and the rural economy, and then I know that there are--an
opportunity for a number of questions on issues of concern to
all of you.
Last year we experienced a record farm income, and this
year we are expecting and anticipated farm income will be above
average, roughly $8 billion above the 10 year average. This is
in part a result of record exports. We had a record year last
year in agricultural exports. The first quarter of this year
actually has surpassed the first quarter of last year by
roughly eight percent, so we expect and anticipate again strong
exports, records in beef, poultry, and pork, as well as a 40
percent increase in volume in some of the bulk commodities that
are now being traded.
A record enrollment in conservation activities, nearly
500,000 producers are benefitting from the conservation
programs established by Congress, and a record expansion of
local and regional markets gives opportunities for small and
mid-sized operators to succeed. Debt to asset ratios, and debt
to equity ratios, are the lowest they have been since 1954.
There are concerns, obviously, and I am sure we will address
many of them, but some of these concerns that we are focused on
at USDA is the lack of predictability in workforce, and the
need for comprehensive immigration reform, the impact of
weather, specifically drought in the Western part of the United
States, and, based on the recent Agricultural Census, a
continued concern about the declining middle-sized farms within
agriculture, and the aging nature of farmers.
The rural economy, despite agriculture's record income,
still continues to have its challenges with persistent poverty,
with stagnant job growth, and with population loss for the
first time in quite some time. I think the farm bill that you
all worked so extensively on, and we thank you for the work in
getting it passed, provides real hope for a brighter and better
future in rural America. It not only provides a strong safety
net for our producers, it also expands market opportunities
both domestically and foreign. There will be creative use of
our conservation programs that will open up new income
opportunities for our producers, and it lays the cornerstones
for a new natural resource economy, with production agriculture
and exports, local and regional food system expansion,
conservation and its opportunity to expand outdoor recreation
and ecosystem market opportunities, and a new opportunity to
bring manufacturing back to rural America through the bio-based
product manufacturing sections of the farm bill, that will
expand beyond fuel and energy to now include chemicals,
polymers, and other fabrics.
We are committed at USDA to a timely and transparent
implementation of the farm bill that you passed. At your desks
I believe there is a report that we issued today, indicating
the steps that have already been taken, in terms of
implementation. We are significantly ahead of where we were in
implementing the 2008 Farm Bill. I would say we are absolutely
on track to have the Livestock Disaster Assistance programs up
and going, so producers can apply on April 15, and hopefully
will receive resources shortly thereafter. Our focus in the
spring and summer will be on getting the educational materials
out about the new safety net programs, ensuring that we work
diligently on the establishment of the regional conservation
partnership effort outlined in the farm bill, and also
establishing the Agricultural Foundation, which offers great
hope and opportunity for us to leverage existing agricultural
research dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the questions from the
Committee, and again, appreciate the opportunity to be here, as
well as, again, appreciate the good work of this Committee in
getting the farm bill passed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vilsack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to have
this opportunity to discuss the state of the rural economy. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), under President Obama's leadership,
has helped to build a strong foundation for future economic growth in
rural America. The potential in rural America is almost limitless.
Expanded opportunities in the bio-economy and renewable energy, rural
manufacturing, and emerging markets for agricultural products are
providing new revenue opportunities for farmers, ranchers and
foresters, expanding the potential for job creation in rural small
businesses, and spurring economic growth across the country.
The 2012 Census of Agriculture data, released in February, provide
an important backdrop for this discussion. While the results reiterate
what we have known for many years--that the farming population is
aging--they also show growth in key areas. The number of young farmers
has increased slightly. The number of minority farm and ranch principal
operators increased dramatically, reflecting the changing face of
America as a whole. The Census data also show that the number of small
and very large farms held steady, but the middle--farms and ranches
that are middle-sized and mid-income--has suffered in recent years.
We can and we must do more to support those living and working in
rural America now, including a focus on assisting the middle-sized
farms, while creating the kind of jobs and opportunity that encourage
young people to get into the business of farming, and attracting and
retaining the next generation talent in rural America.
Working with community and local government partners, our efforts
have had a significant impact thus far. We have invested billions in
critical infrastructure, essential nutrition assistance, and land and
water conservation. For hardworking rural families who need additional
help putting healthy food on the table, USDA's nutrition assistance
programs are available as they return to work and rebuild in the wake
of tough times. The unemployment rate in rural America fell to 6.8
percent for the 4th quarter of 2013--down from 9.0 percent during the
same period in 2009. Moving forward, we must step up our efforts to
invest in areas with high potential for growth, including expanding
marketing opportunities for farm and ranch products both at home and
abroad; investing in the emerging bio-economy; advancing conservation
efforts that preserve land and water resources; and supporting critical
research that will prepare our farmers and ranchers to address modern
challenges.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee for
your hard work in crafting the newly-signed 2014 Farm Bill. The new
farm bill provides certainty that has been lacking for several years
and allows USDA to now move forward confidently with the tools and
resources we need to accomplish our mission of serving America's
farmers, ranchers and rural communities.
Supporting Production Agriculture
Farmers, ranchers and those working in supporting industries
maintain an agriculture sector that has seen strong growth over the
past 5 years. Agriculture accounts for about $746 billion in economic
activity, supports one out of every twelve jobs in the economy, and
helps to maintain vibrant, thriving rural communities. They are
expanding into new markets around the world, spurring innovation, and
creating jobs and opportunity on and off the farm, even in the face of
uncertainty.
The future of rural America depends on their continued leadership,
and we must make sure they have the tools they need to continue to
grow, and a strong safety net to support them during tough times. In
the roughly 8 weeks since the farm bill was signed into law, USDA is
working diligently to implement the programs to ensure the
effectiveness of the farm safety net going forward.
In the face of recent historic drought throughout the United
States, USDA has provided assistance to farmers, ranchers and rural
communities, including conservation assistance, and grants to help
rural communities improve access to fresh drinking water. The new farm
bill also reauthorizes disaster assistance programs that have not been
operational since 2011, allowing USDA to provide additional, much-
needed relief to struggling farmers and ranchers. At the direction of
the President, USDA has made the disaster programs our number one
priority and expedited their implementation. Sign-up will begin on
April 15, 2014.
Helping Farmers and Ranchers Access New Markets
USDA is supporting America's farmers and ranchers as they build on
record agricultural exports. In Calendar Year 2013, exports of U.S.
food and agricultural products reached a record $144.1 billion \1\ and
supported nearly one million American jobs. We are on track for another
exceptional export year in FY 2014, with shipments of farm and food
products forecasted to reach $142.6 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Figure reflects domestic exports and does not include re-
exports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA has helped secure new agreements with Panama, Colombia and
South Korea. These agreements will generate new markets for U.S.
farmers and ranchers to the tune of more than $2 billion per year in
additional exports. USDA has also removed numerous barriers to trade.
For example, since 2012, USDA, in partnership with the U.S. Trade
Representative, has removed unwarranted restrictions to help farmers
provide more U.S. apples to South Africa, beef to Japan, organic
produce to the European Union, and more. For example, over the past
year, USDA, working closely with the U.S. potato industry, expanded
market access for U.S. potatoes in the Philippines, Taiwan and Korea.
As a result of the removal of trade barriers, potato exports to these
three markets rose 13 percent from the previous year, reaching nearly
$21 million.
The potential for agricultural exports is considerable, yet only a
small percentage of American companies export, and, of those that
export, 58% export to only one market. Recognizing the tremendous
potential of U.S. exporters to reach additional markets, in February
the Administration's White House Rural Council launched the Made in
Rural America export and investment initiative, which brings together
Federal resources to help rural businesses access new customers and
markets abroad. Thanks to resources in the new farm bill, USDA is also
able to continue funding for trade promotion and market expansion for
U.S. agricultural products overseas. For example, through the Market
Access Program we will be able to provide trade promotion and marketing
funding to over 600 small companies annually.
At the same time, USDA is helping create strong local and regional
supply chains and the rural jobs that come with them. In 2008, USDA
estimates valued local food sales at $5 billion nationally--a figure
that industry estimates grew to approximately $7 billion in just 3
years. Our research shows that money spent on local food often
continues to circulate locally, creating demand for other businesses
and services in rural communities. USDA's investments in local and
regional supply chains help producers break into new markets and meet
consumer demand in under-served communities. As such, this strategy is
a critical piece of USDA's work to support rural economies more
generally.
USDA has invested in local food infrastructure--from cold storage
facilities, to processing plants, to farmers markets, to food hubs that
aggregate products from many farms and help smaller producers reach
larger buyers. There are over 230 food hubs in operation nationwide
today, and more than 8,100 farmers markets registered with the AMS
National Farmers Market Directory. The 2014 Farm Bill builds on this
progress by expanding funding eligibility through the Farmers Market
and Local Food Promotion Program to include both direct-to-consumer
opportunities like farmers markets, and supply chain projects like food
hubs, which will allow USDA to invest up to $30 million annually in
local and regional food systems.
Schools, hospitals, retailers and other institutional and wholesale
buyers are a rapidly expanding market opportunity for local producers
and an investment into local economies, and USDA has helped to connect
farmers and ranchers to local buyers. For example, USDA's Farm to
School efforts are working directly with producers and schools to
supply nearly $355 million in local food, reaching over 30 million
students in school cafeterias and investing in the health of America's
next generation.
The 2012 Census of Agriculture data indicate there is tremendous
growth potential for small and mid-sized producers, but many need
additional support in order to become competitive.
Accordingly, USDA has expanded efforts to connect small- and mid-
sized farmers and ranchers with tools and resources to help them access
capital, get information about land management and conservation
practices, manage risk, find local markets, and other educational
resources that will help them grow their operations and expand into new
markets. For example, the hoop house cost-share program, which began as
a pilot in 2010 through the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, provides revenue opportunities by extending the growing season
for high value crops, while also promoting conservation for small and
mid-sized farmers. Since 2010, more than 10,000 hoop houses have been
constructed, with projects in all 50 states.
Since its launch in January 2013, the Microloan Program has issued
more than 6,000 microloans totaling $116 million to beginning, small
and mid-sized producers across the country. Housed within the FSA
Direct Operating Loan program, the program allows farmers and ranchers
to access of up to $50,000 to help launch startup farm businesses,
provide needed resources, and increase equity so farmers can graduate
to commercial credit and expand their operations. This tool is
especially helpful for new farmers, including veterans and women, and
socially-disadvantaged farmers, such as those operating in Strike Force
regions, as they tend to be under-capitalized and smaller.
Investing in Critical Research and Innovative Technology
Amazing scientific breakthroughs have helped our farmers, ranchers
and growers increase production on the same amounts of land, using
fewer inputs. Studies have shown that every dollar invested in
agricultural research returns up to $20 to the economy.
USDA continues to work with our Land-Grant University partners to
deliver science-based knowledge and practical information to farmers,
ranchers and forest landowners to support decision-making, innovation
and economic opportunity in rural America. In the past 5 years alone,
research by USDA scientists has led to nearly 400 patent applications
covering a wide range of topics and discoveries. USDA also continues to
aggressively partner with private companies, universities and others to
transfer technology to the marketplace to benefit consumers and
stakeholders. In 2013, for example, USDA entered into 1,924 cooperative
research agreements, issued 23 licenses on patented technology, filed
134 patents, and received 46 patents on a variety of innovations to
boost American agricultural productivity.
Looking ahead, we know that farmers, ranchers and foresters will be
on the front lines when it comes to dealing with the impacts of a
changing and shifting climate. That's why USDA has established a set of
seven regional Climate Hubs and three subsidiary hubs. These hubs will
help producers to get the latest information to help them mitigate the
risks of climate change. The regional model ensures that the facts
they're getting are geared toward what's happening in their part of the
country. Each hub will serve as a repository for information on risks
associated with climate change and deliver science-based, practical
options for dealing with these challenges to farmers, ranchers, forest
landowners and other stakeholders.
USDA is also helping farmers and ranchers to use what is already
grown and raised on our farms and ranches in innovative and unexpected
ways. New opportunities in advanced bio-based products and renewable
energy expand the potential to strengthen rural manufacturing,
particularly of products made from renewable materials from our farms
and forests. Rural America desperately needs those jobs, and every
American benefits from our expanded competitiveness in this globally
emerging market.
For example, USDA is helping to create markets for advanced
biofuels from non-food, non-feed sources--from the farm field to the
end user. In 2010, USDA established a program to incentivize hundreds
of growers and landowners farming nearly 60,000 acres of advanced
biofuel feedstocks for energy conversion facilities. To ensure those
feedstocks are put to use, USDA has invested in the work needed to
create advanced biofuels refineries. Since 2009, USDA has invested in
efforts to create nine new advanced refineries nationwide. We have also
created six regional research centers across America to develop
advanced bio-based energy technology that's appropriate to every
region. With the nearly $900 million in mandatory money provided in the
Energy Title of the farm bill, we can continue these efforts to expand
the bio-based economy and support economic development opportunities in
rural America.
USDA scientists are also conducting research on the use of wood,
helping companies meet green building design standards and creating
jobs using forest products. Forest Service research into wood-based
nanotechnology is leading the way to plant-based construction
materials, body armor, and more. Earlier this month, USDA also
announced a new $1 million partnership a nonprofit organization to
educate architects, engineers and builders about the benefits of
advanced wood building materials. We also have plans for a new prize
competition to design and build high-rise wood demonstration projects,
which we believe will help spur increased sustainability in
construction and encourage builders to source materials from rural
domestic manufacturers and domestic, sustainably-managed forests.
Expanding Opportunity in Rural America
USDA has made strategic investments in infrastructure, housing and
community facilities to help improve quality of life in rural America.
Since 2009, USDA has helped more than 800,000 families buy, repair or
refinance a home; extended new or improved broadband service for more
than seven million Americans and 364,000 rural businesses; improved or
constructed more than 90,000 miles of electric line; invested in 6,700
water and wastewater projects for nearly 20 million Americans; and
provided grants and loans to assist nearly 75,000 small and mid-sized
businesses in rural America, creating or saving an estimated 377,000
jobs. New tools provided in the 2014 Farm Bill will allow USDA to build
on its investments in the prosperity of rural communities.
Even as we make these investments, rural America continues to face
a unique set of challenges when it comes to combating poverty. While
poverty is not limited to rural America, nearly 85 percent of
persistent poverty counties are located in rural areas. In fact, \1/3\
of rural counties have child poverty rates of over 30 percent, at a
time when research increasingly demonstrates the negative effect of
poverty on child development and educational attainment. The
Administration believes that we must do more to create better futures
for our children and families and those striving to reach the middle
class.
That is one reason USDA has established the StrikeForce initiative.
StrikeForce represents a broad commitment to grow economies, increase
investments and create opportunities in poverty-stricken rural
communities through intensive outreach and stronger partnerships with
community organizations. From increasing access to healthy, affordable
food; to closing farm loans; to building housing, libraries, hospitals
and clinics; to expanding the productivity of our farmers and ranchers,
through StrikeForce, USDA is working in close partnership with
communities to provide technical assistance and a hands-on approach to
ensure that knowledge of USDA programs and assistance is accessible to
anyone, regardless of education attainment, place of residence or local
capacity.
In 2010, USDA started StrikeForce as a pilot in persistent poverty
counties in rural Arkansas, Georgia and Mississippi. As we saw this
community partnership strategy working, we expanded our efforts. Now,
through StrikeForce, USDA has partnered with more than 400 community
organizations, businesses, foundations, universities and other groups
across 770 rural counties, parishes, boroughs, Tribal reservations and
Colonias in twenty states. Through these partnerships, USDA has
supported 80,300 projects and ushered more than $9.7 billion in
investments into poverty-stricken rural areas.
Conclusion
In closing, I want to reiterate the importance of the passage of
the new farm bill. The tools and resources provided by the farm bill
will help USDA to carry out its mission, but there is more to be done
to ensure the long-term viability of America's farms and ranches. It is
critical that Congress move on immigration reform to maintain a stable,
productive agricultural workforce. Agriculture needs the surety of a
stable and adequate workforce, and that is possible only through a
comprehensive set of rules that enact a pathway to citizenship for many
of the workers who help to drive the productivity of our farms and
ranches.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to speak briefly about the state of the economy in rural
America. I believe that rural America--and those who live, work and
raise their families there--continues to remain strong. Thanks to their
resilience and willingness to adapt and innovate, our farmers, ranchers
and rural communities are prepared to take on the challenges that the
coming years will bring and keep the rural economy moving forward.
Attachment
Progress on 2014 Farm Bill Implementation
Title I--Commodity Programs
Supplemental Agriculture Disaster Assistance: USDA will
publish a final rule to implement the disaster assistance
provisions and begin sign-up by April 15, 2014.
County and Regional Loan Rates: USDA issued a press release
on March 28, 2014 announcing county and regional loan rates.
Extension of Programs: On March 28, 2014 FSA published on
the Federal Register notices for the extension of the following
programs: (1) Marketing Assistance Loans; (2) Milk Income Loss
Contract; (3) Dairy Indemnity Payment Program; (4) Non-Insured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program; and (5) Sugar.
Dairy Forward Pricing Program: Final rule published on March
21, 2014, that re-established the Dairy Forward Pricing
Program.
Title II--Conservation
Conservation Programs: Applications are currently being
accepted for the Conservation Stewardship Program and
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Title III--Trade
Market Access Program (MAP): During the week of April 7,
2014, the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) will announce 2014
MAP funding.
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMD): During
the week of April 7, 2014, FAS will announce 2014 FMD funding.
Title IV--Nutrition Programs
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Payments:
On March 5, 2014, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) released
an Implementation Memorandum to States on the elimination of
standard utility allowances in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) for LIHEAP payments less than $20.
SNAP-related Provisions: On March 21, 2014, FNS released an
Implementation Memorandum to States communicating major SNAP
related provisions of the Act.
Community Food Projects: On February 27, 2014, the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) released a Notice of
Funding Availability for the Community Food Projects
Competitive Grants Program, with $5 million available.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP): On March 10,
2014, FNS released an Implementation Memorandum to States on
phasing out the eligibility of women, infants and children.
Multiagency Taskforce on Commodity Programs: On March 14,
2014, the Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition and Consumer
Services issued a memorandum to solicit names for a multi-
agency task force to provide coordination and direction for
commodity programs.
Title V--Credit
Farm Loan Programs/Direct Farm Ownership: On February 7,
2014, FSA implemented changes in the interest rate on Direct
Farm Ownership loans that are made in conjunction with other
lenders.
Modifications to Farm Loan Programs: On March 24, 2014, FSA
issued a news release in announcing changes to Farm Loan
Programs as part of the Farm Bill.
Microloans: On March 26, 2014, FSA issued an agency
directive implementing non-discretionary microloan provisions.
Title VI--Rural Development
Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG): On March 25, 2014, Rural
Development published a notice in the Federal Register
extending the application period for Fiscal Year 2013 and 2014
funding for VAPG, with up to $25.5 million available for these
grants.
Definition of Rural Housing: On March 13, 2014, Rural
Development issued guidance to State Directors, field staff and
stakeholders on implementing new eligibility requirements
regarding the definition of rural housing.
Title VII--Research and Related Matters
Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative: On
March 17, 2014, NIFA released a Notice of Funding Availability
for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative,
with $20 million available in FY 2014.
Specialty Crop Research Initiative: On March 17, 2014, NIFA
released a Notice of Funding Availability for the Specialty
Crop Research Initiative, with $76.8 million available in FY
2014.
Citrus Disease Subcommittee: A subcommittee has been
formally established within the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, under the
Specialty Crop Committee, and solicitation letters for
nominations were issued March 17, 2014.
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR): Letters
soliciting nominations to the FFAR Board were mailed to
interested parties and a Federal Register notice was submitted
for publication on March 31, 2014.
Budget Submission and Funding: On March 10, 2014, REE
submitted its first Budget Submission and Funding report to
Congress.
Title VIII--Forestry
Insect and Disease Infestation: On March 19, 2014, Forest
Service Chief Tom Tidwell sent a letter to all state governors
notifying them of the opportunity to submit requests for
designating their priority insect and disease areas for
treatment.
Title X--Horticulture
Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention:
On April 3, 2014 USDA announced $48.1 million in funding for
383 projects to help prevent the introduction or spread of plan
pests and diseases.
National Clean Plant Network: The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service announced a Request for Applications (RFA)
on March 24, 2014 for the National Clean Plant Network, with $5
million available.
Bulk Shipments of Apples to Canada: On April 3, 2014, AMS
will publish a final rule in the Federal Register amending
regulations under the Export Apple Act to allow bulk containers
to be shipped to Canada without U.S. inspection.
Title XI--Crop Insurance
Premium Amounts for Catastrophic Risk Protection (CAT):
During the first week of April, the Risk Management Agency
(RMA) will issue documents to revise the premium rates charged
for CAT coverage to be based on the average historical ``loss
ratio'' plus a reasonable reserve.
Title XII--Miscellaneous
Catfish Inspection: On March 14, 2014 the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) submitted the first status report to
Congress on the development of the final rule establishing a
catfish inspection program.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The chair would
like to remind Members that they will be recognized for
questioning in the order of seniority for Members who were here
at the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be
recognized in order of arrival, and I do appreciate the
Members' understanding. And, with that, I recognized myself for
5 minutes.
Mr. Secretary, I would be remiss if I didn't note how
greatly I appreciate the heavy lift that you now have in front
of you in implementing the farm bill. And we certainly felt
that weight on this side of the room in the process of getting
it to your desk. And I also appreciate greatly the efforts of
you and your team during the farm bill process generally,
especially in those final days of negotiations. And you know
what I speak of, but thank you for making that happen.
Could you take a little more time and provide more of an
overall view of the implementation efforts as they have
occurred so far, and how you see them working through the rest
of the summer and the fall, and if there are difficulties that
you are encountering that would be appropriate to share with
us, so perhaps we can help address those? I would be interested
in that too, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we actually began
preparing for the passage of the farm bill before the bill was
actually passed and signed by the President. We established
individual committees within each title of the farm bill, and
asked them to identify the steps that would have to be taken in
order to implement it fully, whether it would be a rural
guidance policy directive, a notice in the Federal Register,
whatever it would be. We identified roughly 450 additional
steps--significant steps would have to be taken within the
overall farm bill. We have a convening group that has re-
prioritized the priorities within each title to determine what
needs to be done immediately.
Obviously our focus was on getting the disaster assistance
programs up and going. We recognize that we have an equal set
of pressure and stress on making sure that there is educational
materials prepared and given to producers so that they can
begin the process of understanding the various elections that
they have to make, both in crop insurance, and in the safety
net programs. We want these producers to be prepared to make
those decisions in an informed way sometime in the fall, late
fall, early winter of this year, so that they are in good shape
for the 2015 crop year.
So we anticipate livestock applications on or before April
15, resources provided thereafter--shortly thereafter.
Educational materials, we are in the process now of deciding
how to allocate the $3 million that you all provided to
establish the educational outreach, and the $3 million that
will create the education pools that will be used by folks to
make decisions. We also understand the significance of what you
have done in conservation, and we know there is great interest
in these regional partnerships, so we are focused on making
sure that we get those in order in a relatively quick way. We
are in the process right now of making conservation programs
available, Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). There are sign-up
opportunities at this point in time, and we anticipate
obligations being completed on the regular programs sometime
this summer.
In terms of the Foundation, we have a number of steps
legally that we have to take, which we expect and anticipate
taking very, very shortly. There will be a meeting of the ex
officio Board members, the interim Board. We will, this week,
have provided a notice to the world to submit applications and
nominations for folks who can serve on the Board. We will vet
those folks, and hopefully sometime late spring we will be in a
position to have a full Board appointed.
We expect and anticipate a lot of activity in 2014. And, at
this point in time, we think we have what we need, but we
appreciate the offer that if we are in need of assistance, we
will certainly let you know.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back, and
turn to the Ranking Member, and recognize him for 5 minutes for
any questions he may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, I
appreciate you being here. And currently you guys have decided
not to do a general sign-up in CRP in 2014, or until the fall,
I guess, is that the decision?
Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure that that decision has
been final. As you well know, the amount of acreage available
in CRP has been somewhat contained and restricted by
Congressional action, so we are in the process of taking a look
at precisely where we are relative to continuous sign-up,
which, obviously, continues. What I do know about CRP is that,
because of limitations, in the future we are going to have to
be quite targeted and quite focused. We think we have some
flexibility in the continuous programs, but at this point I
wouldn't say that we have finally made a decision relative to a
general sign-up.
Mr. Peterson. Well, I would encourage you to take a look at
it, because I think there is--from what I can tell, there are
1\1/2\ million to 2 million acres left in there, even with the
24 million acre cap, so I am concerned that, given what is
going on with commodity prices and so forth, I think things are
going to change. I mean, we have been having people tear up
their CRP because of the high rents and so forth, but I think
that may change. The continuous sign-up is not going to solve
all the problems that I am interested in. We need big track CRP
to maintain these wildlife populations. That is what has
brought back pheasants, and deer, and some of this other stuff.
And so the continuous by itself isn't going to get it, in terms
of wildlife, in my opinion.
Secretary Vilsack. I don't disagree, and, as you know, we
have had a number of general sign-ups since I have been
Secretary.
Mr. Peterson. Well, thank you, and I would just encourage--
because if you wait until fall, we are going to miss the year
up in our part of the country. The way this winter is going, we
may not, or we may have snow in July. I was reading in a story
someplace the last couple days about the bee pollinator
situation, and it was reported that there is apparently some
kind of Federal program or something to encourage people to
plant alfalfa and clover. Do you know what they are talking
about?
Secretary Vilsack. We provided $3 million to encourage
better habitat for pollinators, given the challenges and
concerns we have seen.
Mr. Peterson. How does that work? How does the $3 million--
what does it do?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is essentially focused on the
upper-Midwest area, in an effort to try to see whether or not
incentives will work to encourage the planting of grasses, et
cetera, that will be attractive to pollinators. And it is part
of an overall effort that involves the establishment of a
pollinator working group at USDA, and it is something that the
White House is also quite interested in. The science--John
Holdren is involved in this as well. And we are doing
additional research, in terms of trying to establish precisely
what the threats are, what the challenges are for pollinators.
It is complicated, and it is not--it doesn't lend itself to a
simple answer.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, I am aware of that, and we appreciate
your efforts, but I guess--is it like a cost-share? Is that
what you are looking at? So if you are going to plant--say you
have some land that is a general crop: corn, or soybeans, then
you are going to put it down into alfalfa and clover, how would
this--would it be like a cost-share that----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it helps to defray the
expenses if you make that decision.
Mr. Peterson. To plant it?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, sir.
Mr. Peterson. Yes. Okay. So it would be like the cost-share
that you get for planting CRP, or some of these other things?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, sir.
Mr. Peterson. On the dairy front, I know you are moving
rapidly on that. One provision in the bill was to allow
California to come into the Federal Order System, and I
understand there have been meetings with California processors
and so forth. So can you kind of update me on--or do you know
where that is at, and how that is progressing?
Secretary Vilsack. There have been three or four specific
trips by our Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) personnel to
California. I think we have probably addressed nearly 80
percent of the producers, manufacturers, and trade
organizations, as well as the California Department of Food and
Agriculture.
We would expect and anticipate that the formal proposal
that is required to trigger this will be submitted sometime
this spring. Once that industry submits the proposal, we may
have to go through, as you know, one or more formal rulemaking
hearings, and then, obviously, there has to be approval by the
producers. So the process is moving, and we are prepared to
cooperate, should the producers want to be part of this. We
basically have ten of these, representing roughly 60 percent of
the dairy industry in the country today.
Mr. Peterson. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank you
for being here. Just a couple of things. I guess one of the
things that was--wasn't really resolved in the farm bill was
the actively engaged rules, and that was left up to your agency
to determine. And, obviously, a lot of the producers in my
district are very interested in this process. Can you elaborate
a little bit of kind of how you see this process being
developed, and what kind of input that you might seek from
producers and producer groups?
Secretary Vilsack. This is, obviously, an issue that raised
a lot of concerns and interest, as you indicated. I would say
first and foremost, we are dealing in a very narrow band, in
terms of what Congress has directed us to do. As you well know,
there is a family farm provision, as it relates to the actively
engaged, which will probably address a large percentage of
operations in the United States, so that obviously won't be
part of our review or conversation. It will be primarily
focused on general and limited partnerships. It is not likely
to be focused in great--to a great extent on corporate
structures because of the nature of liabilities.
So we will be looking at the universe of folks that we are
dealing with. We will propose an interim rule process so that
folks will be given the opportunity to weigh in, to have
comment, to express concerns. This is a very difficult issue to
provide the kind of clarity and certainty that everybody would
like to have. We are working on it. I had a meeting just
yesterday with my staff on this, so we are very--we understand
our role. We understand the narrow focus. We understand where
the attention needs to be placed, and we understand the process
has to be transparent, and has to give people an opportunity to
weigh in and comment on whatever we ultimately decide.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The other thing
is that recently Fish and Wildlife, last week, listed the
Prairie Chicken as threatened. I am on the record saying that I
don't believe that was necessary. But one of the things I do
understand is that supposedly Fish and Wildlife did consult
with USDA about this issue. And what I was wondering is did
they ask, or did you furnish them any information that would
lead them to have information of the economic impact of listing
this species, and the hardship or burden that it might place on
producers?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, our primary conversations
with Fish and Wildlife Service on this particular issue was how
we might be able to provide the same kind of regulatory
certainty for Lesser Prairie Chicken that we have provided for
Sage Grouse. So we have been able to enter into an arrangement
with Fish and Wildlife for the benefit of landowners and
producers in which we lay out specific conservation practices
that, if farmers, pursuant to Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), working with NRCS, adopt these conservation
practices, then they don't have to worry about incidental
takings, relative to conservation practices, or relative to
their operation for a period of 30 years. So our focus has been
primarily on trying to figure out ways in which we can mitigate
the impact on farming operations.
I will have to check with my staff as to whether or not
economic information was provided, but I know that I did direct
the staff to look at ways in which we could create more
regulatory certainty for folks who may be impacted by this
decision.
[The information referred to is located on p. 63.]
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, and I would appreciate it if you
would follow up about the economic, which kind of leads me to
the next question on COOL labeling. One of the things that was
a part of the farm bill was that, within 180 days of enactment,
that the agency would furnish a study of the economic impact on
COOL labeling. And I can tell you firsthand it has had an
economic impact on my district, and it hasn't been in a
positive way. For example, they closed a packing plant, Cargil
did, in Plainview, Texas, lost 2,000 jobs. And when you talk to
local leaders, and leadership at Cargil, they will tell you
that the COOL regulations had a substantial part to do with
that. And so I am very anxious to hear your progress, and kind
of see how you think that is playing out, and when can we
expect that report?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the report will be furnished in a
timely way. We obviously will--are in a situation where
Congress has directed us, pursuant to statute, to establish a
labeling responsibility. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has
given us direction and guidance as to what those labels
require. We are obviously in a current litigation situation, if
you want to call it that, with Canada and Mexico. We anticipate
and expect some indication of what the WTO panel is considering
sometime in the June or July time period of this year.
Mr. Neugebauer. One last question. You know, with the new
farm bill, and a fairly different farm bill, a new safety net,
a lot of different moving parts, lot of choices, which is a
good thing. One of the things that concerned me a little bit
is, in the President's budget, we are seeing that--proposing
closing more FSA offices. And I am wondering about, in the time
where we need to be educating our producers, new programs, new
procedures, does that make sense?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, first of all. Congressman, we are
not anticipating--expecting the closure of any offices in 2014,
so the current state--and system will stay in place. However,
FSA's budget, in terms of salaries and expenses, has resulted
in a 20 percent reduction in workforce over the last several
years. Technology is going to change the way in which work is
being done at FSA offices.
We know that we have roughly 130 to 140 offices that either
have no full time employee working at them, or have a single
full time employee working at them. We believe that there is an
opportunity for us to take this year and look at where the work
is actually being done, and essentially reorganize and
restructure the FSA system so that the people are where the
work is, and create, basically, a three-tiered system, with
central offices with supervisory personnel and more than three
employees, branch offices with three employees, but no
supervisory personnel, satellite offices where people will be
able to obtain, by appointment, an opportunity to meet face to
face.
With the technology changes, we are hopeful that within the
next year to 2, many of our producers won't even actually have
to access an FSA office, but if they do, they will be able to
access all of their records in all of the counties where they
may have land in a single office. So that is going to change
significantly the way in which FSA offices operate.
Our view is that there is a new opportunity for FSA offices
to be a one stop shop for information about not just their own
programs, but all the other programs that may potentially
impact and affect a farming operation, and provide additional
income opportunities. We want them to be a greater guide and
greater counselor to producers. So we are taking a look at how
we might be able to modernize the system, but for 2014, we
don't anticipate any significant change.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina for 5 minutes,
Mr. McIntyre.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for
your strong work on behalf of agriculture, and your very good
work for rural economic development. Following up on the last
question, we too are hearing from farmers about the FSA field
offices being understaffed with the new regulations in place,
and you were just talking about a three-tiered system, and the
concern of about a 20 percent reduction in workforce. What kind
of timetable for this year, with the change in the--obviously
with the farm bill are you looking at in being able to have
adequate staffing to be able to meet these needs as farmers
come in with questions?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the farm bill provided $100
million of additional resources, and we are using those
resources now to begin the process of ramping up temporary help
at many of these offices. I emphasize temporary because we
clearly don't have the permanent budget capacity to support
additional permanent help. I would point out that, when and if
there is consolidation of offices in 2015, it is not about
saving money. It is really about redirecting those resources to
strengthen the remaining offices that will be in existence.
We have over 2,100 offices today, and so there shouldn't be
any change this year. We are ramping up temporary help to
provide assistance and help as we implement the farm bill. So I
don't think there needs to be as much concern as there might
be, if one understands precisely what we are doing, relative to
the FSA offices. No impact on 2014, temporary help in 2014.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you. And you mentioned about the next
year or 2, you were just saying a moment ago in your answer to
my colleague about technology improvements, with regard to
updated software so that those FSA temporary employees and
permanent employees can do their job, how soon do you expect
that updated software so that they will be able to implement
what needs to be done to help the farmers with the new farm
bill?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are in a position, we believe,
to be able to provide producers information that would allow
them to take a look at their operations sometime late summer,
early fall, make adjustments to their production history, and
then provide additional information over the fall, so that when
they have to make the election in the latter part of this year,
whether it is Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) or Price Loss
Coverage (PLC), whether they opt for supplemental coverage
under their crop insurance opportunities or not, that they will
have adequate and sufficient information to be able to make
that informed decision.
So we are going to have everything in place during the
summer and fall so folks can access information, so that
conferences can be held, so that land-grant universities and
extension, the minority serving institutions will be able to
provide information to folks who have questions. And so that is
our plan.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you. And, in addition to talking about
by this fall in earlier testimony today to the Chairman, you
say that late fall, early winter you mentioned, is that the
ultimate goal for full implementation of all aspects of the
farm bill?
Secretary Vilsack. I wouldn't say that that is a fair
statement, Representative. I think that there are issues that
will bleed into 2015. What we have attempted to do is to try to
establish the highest priority areas, the things that people
have the greatest concerns about, and the need to get it done
this year, and that is what we are focused on. We think if we
get the dairy program up and going, as we are required to do,
if we have the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX), and the
supplemental crop insurance option available, if we have the
ARC and PLC programs in place, and the disaster assistance and
the conservation process in place, that we will have gone a
long way.
But there are still issues relative to crop insurance
changes that may take a little bit longer than that, the
conservation compliance issue, for example. That may bleed into
2015, and the reason that is not as high a priority is because,
in a sense, we already have that responsibility now. If you are
participating in a disaster program, or any other safety net
program, you have conservation----
Mr. McIntyre. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--responsibilities. So it will take a
while. I would be happy to show you the 450 additional steps
that have to be taken. It is not--it is a complicated thing.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you. And in my remaining few seconds, I
want to thank you for your help with this final year of the
tobacco buyout to honor the contracts entered into a decade
ago. What is the timeline for the transfers and successors of
producers and quota holders to receive their final payment?
When can those payments, pending from last year, and those due
to a deceased holder, expect to be made?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have--we paid out over 90
percent of the resources to producers in February. We would
expect and anticipate the remaining payments to be made
sometime late spring.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you again for your help with that. I
know how important that has been, and we appreciate your
helping us to resolve that over the last 10 years, it being a
project that has now come to fruition. With that, I yield back
my time, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing, and, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your service in
coming here to testify this morning. Let us start with one that
is going to be good news, and that is, do you have some
information on the appreciation of the value of ag lands, say,
in the Corn Belt over the period of time that you have been
Secretary, and perhaps before?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, the best way for me
to put it would be to point out that our debt to asset and debt
to equity ratios are the lowest they have been since 1954. So,
obviously, there has been an appreciation of land. There has
also been land acquisition, but not as it was in the 1970s and
1980s, based on debt, but based on the capacity of people to
pay cash for land. So that is--I think we are in a very solid
position at this point.
Mr. King. It is much different than it was going into the
1980s: very much higher leverage. Now, I wanted to make that
point, because I think we have made a lot of progress in that
situation. And then in the farm bill that has most recently
become law, there were three provisions I would have liked to
have seen that would have treated the livestock producers a lot
better, and that is GIPSA language of Mr. Conaway's, which I
won't go very far into, expecting he may. The other is the COOL
language, which you have spoken to, and mentioned that we are
in a current litigation situation regarding WTO agreements. Had
that COOL language--just for the record, had that COOL language
that was in our version of the bill, had that been--gone into
law, if we had made it either voluntary or repealed it, can you
tell the Committee where the litigation might be now?
Secretary Vilsack. Obviously, if it had been repealed, it
may very well have rendered the current issue moot. I am not
sure that--necessarily that a change in the law directing us to
label it any particular way would have necessarily resolved the
concerns of the Canadians and Mexicans. I just don't know.
Mr. King. But perhaps moot?
Secretary Vilsack. Moot if you repeal it, because then it
is--then there is not an issue here, other than they might
contend that they have been damaged in some way, and, frankly,
we are a bit skeptical of those damage claims.
Mr. King. And I think that is--it is my position to repeal
it, and it is the position of this Committee, and it was one of
my disappointments out of the farm bill. Then I would like to
go over to the RFS, and ask you, have you been asked to consult
on the EPA's reconsideration of the Renewable Fuel Standard?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have a responsibility to always
indicate to EPA our views on the Renewable Fuel Standard, and
we have done that. What I have attempted to do is to focus on
the areas that I have specific control over, and that is the
ability to potentially look for additional market opportunities
overseas. We think there is an export opportunity that needs to
be explored. And, with the blessing of corn growers, and others
in the industry, we are going to expand our trade mission to
China to include representatives from the biofuel industry. We
also are continuing to look at ways in which we can use the
resources that we have, notwithstanding the restrictions that
are in the farm bill, on the Renewable Energy for America
Program (REAP) to see if there are ways in which we might be
able to encourage more distribution of higher blends.
Mr. King. I appreciate those extra opportunities out there.
But as far as advice to EPA, as you consult with them on the
basis of the law on the Renewable Fuel Standard, as you look at
that language, what is your recommendation to them as they
reconsider?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would say a couple things,
Congressman. I mean, first of all, I am a strong believer in
the Renewable Fuel Standard. And I know it is controversial
even in this Committee, but I believe it is important to have
for jobs, for stabilizing farm income, for reducing our
reliance on foreign oil, and for providing consumers choice,
and less expensive gas.
Mr. King. With regard to the language in the----
Secretary Vilsack. Right.
Mr. King.--Act itself----
Secretary Vilsack. I think we need it. I think that the EPA
has a very interesting situation, where the basis of that
standard was established on the belief that we would, as a
country, continue to use more and more gasoline. With more fuel
efficient vehicles, and with a difficult economy at times, that
has not been the case. But since the EPA rendered its initial
projections, gasoline use has increased, and we wanted to make
sure that EPA was aware of that, because we think that could
have an impact on what they ultimately decide.
Mr. King. Well, let me just borrow a little bit of our
time, and make my recommendation to the EPA, then, and that is
that they review the data with current numbers, rather than
2011 numbers, and go back and carefully read the law and the
directive that Congress delivered on that. And I would like to,
then, just stop quickly at one more piece here, and that is the
amendment that I had, called the Protect Interstate Commerce
Amendment. And you predicted that if it stayed in the bill,
that there would be a lot of litigation because the bill is--
the amendment is not well drafted.
I don't find other lawyers that read that that way, but I
would ask if you could briefly comment on what you think the
impact will be on the egg supply, especially in California, if
the people who do litigate, and have started now, originating
in Missouri, are not successful?
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired, but the
witness may answer the question.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, you and I obviously
have a disagreement about the clarity of the provision. I think
it would have led to a lot of confusion. I think, frankly, we
are going to have to see what courts ultimately decide on this
issue to provide clarity. You know, it may have an impact. It
could be a positive impact in some producing areas. It may have
a negative impact in other producing areas. I think the market,
ultimately, is going to decide, and the market is going to
decide how many eggs we consume.
Let me just, if I could, Mr. Chairman, 30 seconds on the
RFS, this needs to be perhaps noted in this Committee's
history. Congressman, you and I agree, so mark that down. I
think they should look at the current gas usage, and they
obviously need to read the law very, very carefully.
The Chairman. And I would note to both of you I am very
sensitive about the Renewable Fuel Standard. The gentleman's
time has expired.
Mr. King. I do acknowledge the Secretary's statement, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. David Scott,
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and welcome, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, given
Congress's clear intent to limit the Federal jurisdiction of
navigable waters, and also given the Supreme Court's
interpretation the same way, to limit navigational waters, how
do you justify the EPA's proposed rule to extend, not limit,
but to extend Federal jurisdiction so much beyond navigable
waters that flies directly in the face of what Congress
intended, and directly in the face of what the Supreme Court
interpreted?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, this is a law that Congress
wrote. It is a law that the Supreme Court has interpreted, and
it is a law that the EPA has responsibility for implementation.
My role, I believe, is to make sure that EPA is fully aware of
the potential impact that it could have on farming and ranching
and land ownership, as it relates to rural lands, and we have
done that. My role is to make sure that there is greater
clarity in terms of what this rule does and does not do. And I
think, by virtue of our input, we have clarified and reaffirmed
that normal traditional agricultural activity is not impacted.
We have reaffirmed that agricultural storm water discharge is
not impacted. We have reaffirmed the maintenance of drainage
ditches are exempt.
We have also cleared up that groundwater, tile drains, the
regulation of ditches are not going to be expanded. In fact, we
have now clarity in terms of precisely what is involved here.
It doesn't involve waste water treatment systems. It doesn't
involve artificial lakes or ponds for rice. And we went one
step further in pointing out to the EPA that when people do
conservation practices, it is really about improving water
quality, which is why they have identified 56 specific areas
that will not require permitting. I think our responsibility is
to do what we did, which is to provide clarity and certainty.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, Mr. Secretary, I do hope
that you will be able to do more, because we need a strong
advocate. Our farmers are struggling with this issue. They
cannot run their farms in an efficient way, not knowing from
one day or next what interpretation is of navigable waters.
Sometimes it could be even, like, a puddle. I mean, when you
have that kind of discrepancy--our farmers are faced with so
many obstacles that I just urge you to do that.
But let me ask you, is it true that farmers only qualify
for a Clean Water Act Section 404 exemption if the farmer
follows the NRCS standards?
Secretary Vilsack. We have worked with the EPA to ensure
that when folks follow the rules that are established by NRCS--
--
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--in concert with the land owner, as they
put together the conservation plan, and as they decide what
needs to be done, that, if they follow through, and it is in
one of those 56 activities, that they don't have to worry about
getting a permit, or notifying anyone.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. There is an ongoing conversation that
will take place as a result of an Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), so that, as further information is forthcoming, or
issues arise that would fall into this bucket, that number may
be 58, may be 63, may be 75 a year from now.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Okay. Thank you very much,
Secretary, and I just urge you to help our farmers as much as
you can on that. I get a lot of complaints from our farmers in
Georgia about the navigable waters issue.
But there are two other points, and my time is running out,
that I think that are facing--really the greatest challenges
facing agriculture and farming now. One of them is the age of
our farmers is getting higher, and higher, and higher. The
average age of our farmers now is almost 60. I think that this
is a great threat to the future of agriculture, and we need to
do more to get our younger people engaged in farming. Next
month I am going to give the commencement address at the
University of Georgia's School of Agriculture, and I want to
say something to these students, and give them some hope on
that. And I would like for you to tell me what the USDA is
doing to help to bring down the barriers.
I mean, it is one thing to say to a young person going to
business selling shoes, you just open up a store, get on the
corner, and do that. But when you are talking about going into
farming, in this day's climate, there is land acquisition,
there are a lot of things there. One of the things that I want
to propose is that we look at how we can give students loan
forgiveness, scholarships. Perhaps we can use a combination of
1860s and 1890s to work collaboratively together, change the
language and the law so that we can give students scholarships,
and so that we can maybe give loan forgiveness.
Whereas, if we don't do something to get some incentives
for our young people to get into farming, and bring that age
down, we are--the future of this nation, and quite honestly the
world, is at stake. As the world grows, farmers are getting
older, we have to face this dilemma. Could you----
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired, but the
witness may answer the question.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman,
there are a number of steps that we are taking, and will be
taking. Increased resources in the Beginning Farmers and
Ranchers Development Program, the establishment of the
microloan program, which this Congress has now increased the
limit, new opportunities in terms of less expensive crop
insurance for beginning farmers, which they didn't have before,
the ability to get advance payments on conservation for
beginning farmers, a more flexible definition of beginning
farmer, lower credit costs for beginning farmers, and
additional premium assistance in terms of crop insurance for
beginning farmers.
And we are also working with a program called AGree to take
a look at ways in which we could potentially create a Food
Corps, which would be similar to the Peace Corps, Vista, or
AmeriCorps, which is akin to your idea. It wasn't so much a
scholarship as it would be the capacity to pay for someone to
be mentored on a farm. That, with the CRP transition program,
there may be ways in which we can get young people involved.
The fact that we have expanded local and regional food system
market opportunities allows smaller operators and producers
access to farming, which is why we have seen a slight increase
in people farming under the age of 35. So the trend line, you
are correct, we have a challenge, but we are beginning to see a
little brighter future in that respect.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you. Thank you for the
time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I recognize
myself for 5 minutes. Mr. Secretary, I thank you for being
here. I want to thank in advance all those hard working FSA,
NRCS folks across this country going to be implementing the
farm bill, once the base decisions are made here in D.C. They
have a great team in place, so they have--they are challenged,
and they have a lot of hard work ahead of them to communicate
these changes to the folks. So please express our appreciation
for what they are currently doing, they are about to do, in
that regard.
I want to talk about cotton a little bit, China has, by
some reports, a 57 million bale strategic reserve, something on
the order of four to five times U.S. production. We are not
real sure what they are going to do with it and why, and it has
a big overhang on the market that is having some impact. Can
you talk to us about what you and the USDA have done to
communicate, either directly to the Chinese or to the WTO, our
concerns about what they might or might not be doing with
respect to their cotton policy, and the high subsidies they are
paying?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I appreciate you bringing
this issue to--bringing it up. You know, our conversations with
China in the last several years have been focused primarily on
their regulatory system and process, and trying to get it
better synchronized with ours, in terms of regulatory
approvals. If I can ask for your permission, I would be happy
to get you a more detailed conversation on what the
communications have been relative to cotton in China.
I can tell you that we have established a China-American
business group in China, the purpose of which is to allow us to
not only inform the Chinese through official circles, but also
to engage Chinese officials and Chinese business leaders in
these conversations. But let me get you more information on
cotton.
[The information referred to is located on p. 63.]
The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that. Please include in
there--there is some indication that 2014 they are going to
make some changes to whatever their policy is, or has been, so
fold in their prospects of what they are going to do as a part
of that conversation. And I appreciate you getting back to us
on that.
Let us talk a little bit about the SNAP program, and the
able bodied adults of age--under the age of 50 with no
dependents. Now that unemployment nationwide has come down to
6.7 percent, can you talk to us a bit about what your plans are
to continue granting waivers to states who have asked for those
waivers for folks in that category to stay on food stamps
beyond the normal 3 month category?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, there is a real
opportunity in this area, and, for that matter, the entire SNAP
population, to do a better job of connecting work opportunities
with folks on SNAP who are interested in working, and who are
capable of working. That is why we are excited about the
portion of the farm bill that creates the opportunity for us to
have up to ten pilots with states to do a better job of
connecting. The fact that we have these pilots is going to send
a strong message about the important work that states must do a
better job of using the education and training money that they
have to actually do a better job of getting folks better
connected.
We think there is a disconnect between economic development
and workforce development offices at the state level and human
services offices. These folks know where the jobs are. These
folks know who is looking for a job. For whatever reason, they
are not doing a particularly good job of talking. We provide
several hundred million dollars to encourage that kind of
conversation. We need to do a better job of compelling that
conversation.
We will be happy to take a look at the waiver issue. I
think there are circumstances, unfortunately, in some states
where the unemployment rate overall may be low, but there may
be particular areas within that state where the unemployment
rate is unacceptably high, and so there may be the need for
some kind of flexibility as it relates to those areas.
[The information referred to is located on p. 64.]
The Chairman. So you are saying that you can target those
waivers to specific counties, versus the entire state?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think that there are
opportunities to do that, and opportunities, again, to work
with states to compel them to do a better job. We are seeing a
plateauing, and now a slight decline, of the number of people
in need of SNAP, which reflects the unemployment circumstance,
but there is still work to be done here. And I am very focused
on making sure these pilots actually give us information that
will allow us to develop better policies in the future.
The Chairman. Well, I hope we can see the--if you will
communicate that with us, once you begin to see some results
out of those pilots, that you will share that with Congress as
well as we deal with 80 percent of the spending in the farm
bill that is related to nutrition programs. With that, I yield
back. Now recognize Mr. Costa----
Mr. Costa. Yes.
The Chairman.--for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank the Secretary for his good work, and his staff. Speaking
of which, I want to acknowledge that one of your staff members
who is departing used to work for many of us here in the House
Agriculture Committee, and that is Ann MacMillan, and we wish
her the very best in her future endeavors, Mr. Secretary.
Your opening statement talked about the good, and the bad,
and the challenges American agriculture faces. On the plus
side, you noted that record profits, due in large result to
trade activity, has been occurring throughout American
agriculture. Have you done any evaluations, the Department, on
what the benefits would be if the TTIP, the trade negotiations
between ourselves, and the Europeans, and the TPA, were to be
successfully negotiated?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are confident that it would
substantially increase trade activities, Congressman. I can get
you the specific dollar amounts.
[The information referred to is located on p. 64.]
Mr. Costa. I think that would be helpful.
Secretary Vilsack. But there is no question--that is why we
are engaged in these conversations, because we realize that
there is terrific opportunity for----
Mr. Costa. And your efforts with the most difficult non-
trade barriers, non-tariff barriers, which are the
phytosanitary standards, obviously would be appreciated as
well.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I can tell you that we have
eliminated or knocked down roughly 1,500 of those barriers
since I have been Secretary. The challenge with both of those
negotiations, on the TTIP negotiation, it is all about Europe's
willingness to understand the importance of biotechnology, and
Europe's willingness to understand that some of these
geographic indicators that they are so insistent on have become
so generic that it really is unfair.
Mr. Costa. Like Parmesan and Burgundy.
Secretary Vilsack. Right. And it is a challenge, especially
for the dairy industry, and it is one that we need to be
talking more about, so that folks understand what is at stake.
On Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), it is all about market
access, and the ability of the Japanese and Canadians to be
more realistic about what kind of market access they are
willing to provide.
Mr. Costa. Yes. I want to switch over here, because I don't
have a lot of time. We also appreciate your visit to
California. You mentioned the drought problems facing the West,
and particularly California, and many of us represent the part
of the San Joaquin Valley which is ground zero for the drought
impacts that we are facing. You and the President's visit was
appreciated, but I am concerned about the follow through.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to read for the record, and
submit it, a letter that Bishop Ochoa provided for many of us,
and I will read excerpts of it. ``Dear President Obama, the
lack of water is impacting everyone, farmers, ranchers,
dairymen, their employees, faith communities, and the
businesses that serve them. The situation is quickly
deteriorating into a humanitarian crisis. Businesses are
shutting their doors, and others are laying off employees.
Access for children, families, to clean, drinkable water is
uncertain. Lines at food banks and human service agencies have
doubled due to this issue, and, in fact, our Catholic Charities
services went from 87,000 units in 2012 to 137,000 units in
2013, and we believe this year the number will double. We are
reminded, at this time of drought, our dependence on the
Creator, but our human dignity relies on access to water.'' I
will submit the rest of that, with unanimous consent.
The Chairman. Unanimous consent.
[The information referred to is located on p. 61.]
Mr. Costa. What can a rancher do in my district, Mr.
Secretary? I know you only have a partial responsibility to
save his 1,000 head herd, as he doesn't have feed available
now. The livestock disaster programs are set to begin
enrollments on April 15, but what about today? Where are we?
There was a commitment to provide additional financial support.
I am terribly worried about this.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that producer has access to
additional EQIP money that can be used for improvements to
grazing, or crop land, or water utilization. That producer can
also, if he is an organic producer, as a variance to the
organic grazing requirements, that producer could take
advantage of the conservation innovation grants that we are
making available to create new and creative ways to deal and
cope with less water.
Mr. Costa. Okay, why don't we follow up on that? I
appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. How about the food banks that
are going to face increased----
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry----
Mr. Costa.--demands?
Secretary Vilsack.--how about what?
Mr. Costa. Food banks.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the food banks received an
additional $60 million of assistance, the President announced,
and that resource has been available, and it will continue to
be available.
Mr. Costa. I have a list of other questions, but time
doesn't allow me. I will submit them for the record, Mr.
Secretary, you can get back to me. Quickly, on two other areas,
why would the Administration be proposing dramatic cuts in
self-help housing, the 502 direct mortgage programs that have
been proven to work, at a small cost to the government?
Secretary Vilsack. If you understand the budget of USDA, 50
percent of our budget is in four areas. It is in fire
suppression, it is in----
Mr. Costa. Which we need.
Secretary Vilsack. It is in rental assistance, and it is in
food safety. When sequester is established, when additional
cuts are put on top of sequester, as has been the case for
USDA, that 50 percent has actually seen increases, it means the
other 50 percent get impacted, and so something has to give.
And our challenge is, obviously, to make sure that we continue
to provide a link to direct housing loans, to guaranteed loans,
which we are attempting to do in record amounts.
About 800,000 folks have had home ownership since I have
been Secretary because of the work of USDA, but you have a
situation here where part of the budget continually gets
increased, and the other part has to bear its burden, and the
other 50 percent's burden of cuts.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and I will submit the rest of my questions to be
responded to in a timely manner.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Secretary, would you remind the Committee, I believe you have
an obligation later this morning that you have to leave, what
your departure time will be, for our time purposes up here?
Secretary Vilsack. It is 12:15, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. It is 12:15. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I
know my colleagues will work in an expedited fashion to give
everyone an opportunity. With that, I recognize the gentleman
from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary,
for coming in today. As you are aware, last week the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and U.S. EPA put out a rule supposedly to
clarify the ``waters of the United States.'' And yesterday, in
my committee, the Water Resources Subcommittee of T&I, we had
Secretary Darcy. During the hearing I told her that, for a rule
that is supposed to have been out for more clarification, it
was more muddier.
And if you look back at the 2006 Supreme Court decision,
the Rapanos decision, eponymous doctrine, that there are limits
to the Federal role under the Clean Water Act, and they need to
pull back, and she could not give any examples of where there
would be some pullback. And I almost have to come to the
conclusion that they currently view that they have all the
authority they need now, and so that--I just want to make that
message clear to you.
But I know in your shop, dealing with the NRCS, first
question, currently, would you agree that, under normal farming
practices, that agriculture is exempt from 404 permits under
the Clean Water Act?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. So when they are talking about dredge and
fill, and all practices, and they are exempt, so this would--in
regard to Mr. Scott's questions, this would be--this rule would
be an expansion of the Federal Government's role in the Clean
Water Act, because it is currently, as you just agreed, that
normal farming practices--agriculture is exempt. It doesn't
matter if they are working with NRCS or not, correct?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I just want to make sure that I am
clear about this, Congressman. Normal farming activities,
plowing, seeding, cultivating, drainage, harvesting for
production, upland soil and water conservation practices,
agricultural storm and water discharges, return flows from
irrigated agriculture, the construction and maintenance of farm
and stock ponds, maintenance of draining ditches, all of that
is currently exempt.
Mr. Gibbs. That is correct. But with your--USDA's MOU that
you are developing with the U.S. EPA, the way I read it is that
they have to be under NRCS standards.
Secretary Vilsack. No, what----
Mr. Gibbs. Under the rule.
Secretary Vilsack. No. It is important for everyone to
understand, the--normal agricultural activities are exempt,
have been exempt, and continue to be exempt. In addition, they
provide a clarity that groundwater, tile drains, regulations of
ditches, artificial lakes and ponds, this proposed rule is not
designed to touch those. But in an effort to be quite clear
about this, because the uncertainty was, well, what if I am
engaged in certain conservation practices, we began the process
of identifying specific conservation practices so there would
be no misunderstanding and no confusion.
If you are doing one of these 56 conservation practices,
working with the NRCS, you don't have to worry about notifying
anybody, you don't have to worry about getting a permit. The
purpose of this is really to provide clarity and certainty for
producers. It is not to provide----
Mr. Gibbs. So your belief is that the rule--nothing can
come under section 404 permits for agriculture--for pollution
permits for weed control activities, fertilizer application and
all that would be currently exempt?
Secretary Vilsack. That----
Mr. Gibbs. There would be no----
Secretary Vilsack. If it is within normal farming
activities, as I understand it, that is exempt.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Because, I mean, I have a lot of concerns,
and I know the agricultural organizations out there, I spoke to
them all, are really concerned about the definition, how they
are doing this. Now, Secretary Darcy said yesterday that
significant nexus, and case by case scenarios, and so the door
is open for them to move forward, so we have to be really
careful on the USDA's role, and your role, to make sure that
normal farming practices, if not even--if they are not even
partnering with NRCS, will still be exempt from all permits,
other than CWA.
Secretary Vilsack. Right. And that is why we established
this MOU, to have an ongoing continuing conversation between
the three of us, the Corps of Engineers, USDA, and EPA, so as
issues come up in the field, they can be addressed and dealt
with. That list of conservation practices may be expanded, and
we may be able to provide greater certainty for the EPA as
well.
Mr. Gibbs. So if the producers out there that are working
with NRCS, and doing conservation practices, would it be NRCS
that would do the inspection to make sure the practices are
being followed, or the EPA?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs. NRCS----
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs.--correct? Because that is a sticking point of
concern, is that----
Secretary Vilsack. NRCS.
Mr. Gibbs. Because we want to make sure that we have good
programs out in the countryside, especially Soil and Water
Conservation Service, to work in agriculture, doing the right
thing, and that is a good partnership. We want to make sure
that partnership goes on. So, my time has expired, I yield
back. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota,
Mr. Walz, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Secretary, I
want to thank you and your staff for the work you have done. I
also want to especially thank you for that visionary and strong
shouldered support of American clean energy and the RFS. I
associate myself with my colleague from the Deep South, Mr.
King, on his support of the RFS, created great jobs out in
Middle America. It has made us less dependent on foreign oil.
It is visionary, we are moving forward, and after basically a
decade, we have become so much more efficient, so don't change
the goalposts now. Give our entrepreneurs the chance to
succeed.
I am also very proud of what we did in the energy title of
this piece of legislation. As the Ranking Member on that
Subcommittee, we have $881 million in mandatory funding, key
programs like REAP, Bio-Finance Assistance Program, BCAP, and
Bio-Preferred. My question to you, Mr. Secretary, is how are
you going to quickly translate those funds into real projects
that create jobs and energy on the ground out there?
Secretary Vilsack. We would anticipate the ability to
expand section 9003 funding to chemical processing and
manufacturing this year. We think that there--it may require a
slight tweaking of our rules and regulations in order to expand
it to polymers, and some of the other fabrics and fibers that
you all were considering. But we expect and anticipate to be
able to hit the ground running on this immediately.
Mr. Walz. Great. Well, we are appreciative of it, and it is
some exciting stuff happening out there. I also wanted to
associate myself with Mr. Scott's comments that were very
pointed, and I appreciate your response on that, this issue of
beginning farmers and ranchers. Mr. Fortenberry, myself, the
Chairman, and the Ranking Member put together a good package on
that, but Mr. Scott's hitting on a real key issue of those
barriers, of giving them the opportunity. It is not opportunity
of outcomes. It is opportunity to get in the business, and then
let them go. So, again, I stress, anything we can do to move
those programs forward, and get our young folks on the land is
critical.
And one other association Mr. Costa brought up, and, again,
my friend from Iowa, and my colleague to the West, Mrs. Noem,
and I, this issue of water is not isolated to California. And I
have one of our largest meat packing plants, in JBS Swift, in
Worthington can't expand because we don't have water, and it is
not because we don't have a plan. We have a project.
The states and the local communities have not only paid for
it, they have paid ahead. Federal Government has been promising
them, for the better part of the last decade and a half, that
we would get our obligation done. We have not done it, so you
have a half built water project on Lewis and Clark rural water
that is holding back economic growth. I have citizens in 2014
in the United States catching rainwater in cisterns for
drinking water, and the only reason it is not done, we are not
more competitive, we are not creating more jobs, is because we
are not fulfilling our promise. So I know this isn't directly
your wheelhouse, but it is your folks, your producers, my
friends and neighbors across the Midwest.
This is a smart project that, the longer we wait, just
costs more. So anything you can do, Mr. Secretary, to add your
voice. This is wrong, and, in all fairness, it has crossed
several Administrations, who have been equally bad on it, and
it is just not the right thing. So this water issue is
critical. If you could add your voice, I would be grateful. And
with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate my
colleague, Mr. Walz, bringing up water, absolutely critical for
the western United States. An issue, Mr. Secretary, that we
have had an opportunity to be able to visit on before. Noting
some of your comments when we are talking about some of the new
EPA regulations coming forward being able to create certainty
for our farm and ranch community, we have no certainty in the
West for our farm and ranch community when it comes to being
able to protect a private property right, be it for our ski
areas, or for our farm and ranch communities as well.
As you are well aware, through your department, they put
forward rules that were struck down by the court because the
Department did not follow its own rules, but are still now
continuing to pursue a rule. I would just be curious, how much
of your resources are you going to be putting in to develop
taking a 5th Amendment right in the West, when it comes to the
private property rights of water?
Secretary Vilsack. Representative Tipton, you certainly are
correct, in terms of the litigation, and we understood the
court ruling, and we basically pulled that rule, and we started
a different process, a more collaborative process. And the
directive that we are working on now is not designed to take
private property rights at all. It is simply designed to make
sure that we continue to have adequate resources for the ski
areas that are important, and are located in and around our
National Forests.
Mr. Tipton. I appreciate that comment, and--for the ski
areas. This is a broader issue also for our farm and ranch
community. We do have BLM grazing permits, water rights that
have been developed there as well. That being said, we keep
hearing about this vague rule that you are mentioning about to
be able to create some certainty. However, the Loon Mountain
ski area in New Hampshire, are you familiar with that?
Secretary Vilsack. I am not familiar with the specific----
Mr. Tipton. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack.--ski area, but----
Mr. Tipton. Through your Department, as a conditional use
permit, they are requiring them to a forced transfer of their
water rights. This is after all of our discussion. So what kind
of certainty are we really getting in the West, when we are
told that a rule is being developed, and now we have the Loon
Mountain Ski Resort in New Hampshire, and it is going to
require them to sign over their water rights?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, again, I think that there has been
a collaborative process. There have been hearings and public
input on this directive, and I am fairly confident, based on
the court ruling, and based on what our Forest Service folks
understand, that this is not going to be about private water
rights. It is going to be about just maintaining and making
sure that we can continue to have the snow and the water that
we need to make sure those businesses do well, and that the
forests are properly maintained.
We have 166 million visitors that come to our National
Forests every year. We obviously want to make sure that they
have adequate----
Mr. Tipton. Absolutely, and I know you are well aware.
Chief Tidwell gave us testimony and comments that not once has
water been sold off by a ski area, not once. So there is no
need for a rule, but, again, I will remind you, you need to
take a look at this Loon Mountain. This is contradicting what
you are saying you are trying to do right now.
Let us move on to some of the Forest Service issues. Is it
more expensive to fight a fire than to go in and treat an area?
Secretary Vilsack. Most of the time I would say that is
probably accurate, yes.
Mr. Tipton. Okay. As you are aware, the Forest Service
right now, we have made an amendment to the farm bill, which
was accepted under Section 8305, for the leasing of air
tankers. Can you give us an update, now that the farm bill has
been law for, what, 8 weeks, what kind of progress you have
made for the leasing of those air tankers?
Secretary Vilsack. We have had some additional planes that
have been accepted into our forests. We are working through an
appeal process on one tanker issue, which we have to continue
to work through. We obviously attempted to do this in a quick
and speedy way. Concerns were raised about it. We are now in
the process of deciding what the next steps are. We have, and
will have, additional aircraft on site this year. We will have
additional aircraft on site next year because of the transfer
of Department of Defense and Coast Guard aircraft to the Forest
Service.
Mr. Tipton. Right. I appreciate that, and I would like to
be able to touch on these climate hubs. How much are you going
to spend on the climate hub in Colorado?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is already in the budget. It
is not a question of additional----
Mr. Tipton. I know. How much is that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I don't know how much it----
Mr. Tipton. Okay. Just out of curiosity, we have something
called NOAA. Is this a duplicative process?
Secretary Vilsack. No, not at all. This is really designed
to identify--to work with producers and land owners in each
region of the country to identify specifically what they are
seeing on the ground to determine what challenges they are
confronting, relative to production, and develop technologies
and strategies, and disseminate best practice information to
them so that they can adapt and mitigate to whatever climate
challenges they are facing, whether it is drought----
Mr. Tipton. None of that is done by NOAA?
Secretary Vilsack. No. Well, NOAA is about forecasting, and
that obviously is part of it, but NOAA is not in the business
of telling farmers that, if you plant cover crops, you are
going to be able to retain additional water. Or if you plant a
certain type of cover crop, or if you harvest at a certain
time, or if you take certain steps relative to livestock, or
you use certain forage. They are not in that business. We are
in that business.
And so this is designed to basically make sure that we are
analyzing and assessing the vulnerabilities of agriculture, as
it relates to climate, and providing our producers with the
very best and latest information on how best to mitigate it
that is specific to their location, as opposed to some general
concept.
Mr. Tipton. This is something that we would like to be able
to review with you a little bit more, because it is
duplicative, and our farm and ranch community probably has a
pretty good idea, in terms of cover crops, and being able to
deal with it to begin with.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Tipton. I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Ohio, Ms. Fudge, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. Mr. Secretary, the
Healthy Food Financing Initiative in the farm bill seeks to
provide a model solution for access to fresh food outlets. It
builds upon successful initiatives at HHS and Treasury. I am
excited to see this program developed at the national scale at
USDA through the authorization of a national fund manager.
In Ohio, we have a very successful community development
corporation called Burten, Bell, Carr Development that is
leveraging an HFFI grant, along with partner contributors, to
serve families in one of our poorest neighborhoods. BBC has
developed a number of food access related projects, including
Bridgeport Mobile Market, which allows residents of our East
Side to purchase fresh, wholesome, and nutritious fruits and
vegetables from a refrigerated truck. Many of these residents
lack reliable transportation to grocery stores.
This project, like other HFFI projects, increases access to
healthy, affordable foods for families who lack options. At the
same time, it fosters economic development, and creates full
time jobs. How is USDA planning to support the Healthy Food
Financing Initiative, and how might it complement other
programs aimed at providing low income families increased
access to healthy food?
Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, we have asked, in the
2015 budget, for resources to be appropriated into the Healthy
Food Financing Initiative. As you know, it is authorized, but
not--there is no appropriated resource, so we have asked for
funding. It complements value-added producer grants, farmers'
market promotion grants, that business and industry set aside
for local and regional food systems in a way that provides us
opportunities and tools, depending upon the community and the
circumstance, whether it is a mobile unit would be more
appropriate, as is the case with ones we financed in Chicago,
or would it be better for us to actually work on a full scale
grocery store, as we are in some rural areas? So it provides
flexibility. It provides also the ability to partner with the
Treasury Department, and their new market tax credit system,
and HHS, and their grant program.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. Several of my colleagues have
mentioned over the last few weeks loopholes in the SNAP program
that will diminish the effects of the cuts planned by the farm
bill. Can you please compare for us the savings in the farm
bill due to SNAP changes versus the proposed reforms and
changes to the commodity program?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, these savings are all projections.
It was projected to be $8 billion in terms of the SNAP reforms,
and if memory serves me correct, it was somewhere in the
neighborhood of $13, $14 billion relative to the commodity
programs. But the reality is all of those are projections. It
may very well be that we save a lot less in commodity depending
upon commodity prices. It may be that we save a lot less in
SNAP because if our pilots are working and people are getting
jobs, and they are getting better paying jobs, they don't need
SNAP. So it is a little bit uncertain at this point. That is
why they are called projections.
Bottom line, from my perspective, the most important thing
we can do in SNAP is to make sure that these pilots that you
all have authorized work, and to make sure that we do a better
job of working with our states partners to have them do a
better job of connecting the jobs they know they have in their
economy with the people who are looking for work who are
currently receiving SNAP. That is, in my view, the best way to
reduce the SNAP rolls.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. In your testimony you mentioned that
nearly 85 percent of persistent poverty counties are located in
rural areas. While I don't represent a rural district,
obviously, I understand the issues at hand because food
insecurity and poverty are concerns for my constituents as
well.
Rural communities face a number of challenges of which my
district can identify, including low wage employment and
underemployment, less access to services, such as affordable
child care, and public transportation, and higher food costs.
What can USDA do to address the issues of poverty and ease the
burden of rural hunger in a more targeted fashion?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, a couple things. Number one, our
Community Facility program is designed to provide and improve
schools, hospitals, public facilities, libraries. We have
funded over 6,200 projects. Those are also job creators. I
think the most important thing to understand about the rural
economy is that, because agriculture has become extraordinarily
efficient and productive, using fewer and fewer farmers than we
did 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 40 years ago, what we did not
do, and what we are now trying to do is to overlay a
complimentary economy that will help create other opportunities
for folks that are natural resource based. That is why local
and regional food systems, which are job creators. It is why
ecosystem markets and conservation is a job creator. It is why
what you put in the farm bill for bio-processing,
manufacturing, is a job creator.
So if we do a good job of implementing those provisions, we
should see increased job opportunities, and better paying job
opportunities, and the capacity to encourage young people that
they don't necessarily have to leave. They can stay in the town
that they lived in, or a town similar to what they lived in.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
you for being here. Just one quick question about the catfish
program. The 2008 Farm Bill contained a requirement for USDA to
provide mandatory inspection for catfish processing, and it has
yet to be implemented. There was some clarification of that in
the 2014 bill, I understand that--expecting that to be
finalized by December. Since the complaint that the definition
of a catfish in the 2008 bill was too broad, that was all
pretty well addressed in the 2014 bill, so I am just wondering
why it would take so long, why it would be December before that
is finalized and implemented?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the first step in the process is
to make sure that we have a good relationship and understanding
about the responsibilities of Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and USDA. We are completing that MOU that is required. We
craft the rule, and now that the broader definition has been
confirmed by Congress, which was very, very important, because
there are varieties and species of catfish that may not have
been included but for that language, it allows us now to
finalize and put this thing in a process where people can then
comment on what we ultimately come up with. It is really the
administrative rules process that requires time and requires
input, notice, response to what we have. I anticipate that we
will get this done before December. How soon before December
depends on how many comments we get, but we are working through
the process.
Mr. Crawford. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. It is going to get done.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. We have talked a little bit about
trade. As you know, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement
entirely excluded rice, and I am worried that that is--
potentially could set a bad precedent for TPP and TTIP. How is
the Department working with USTR to make sure that we are
providing additional access to rice--additional market access
to rice, and can you assure the Committee that you will
continue to press that issue?
Secretary Vilsack. We are pressing market access very, very
hard in our discussions in TPP. It is right now focused
primarily on Japan and Canada, and specific protections that
they have in their rules. We have the most open market of any
country in the world. What we want is a high standard
agreement, but we also want a fair agreement. So we are
continuing to press this, and we have to see increased market
access, or there may not be a deal, or Japan may not be part of
a deal.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I obviously have concerns about
rice, but--one of those issues that continues to pop for the
rice industry, but also peanuts. I know that there are some
trade barriers to accessing China for U.S. peanut producers,
peanut butter as well. Can you speak to that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we continue to work with our
Chinese friends on a variety of issues in agriculture. We have
a very aggressive presence over there, multiple offices. I
mentioned earlier the China-American ag business forum that is
creating opportunities for us to have additional conversations
through informal channels. We have an ag symposium that we have
with the Chinese. We had the first one in Des Moines 2 years
ago. One is scheduled this year in China. That is an
opportunity for us to talk specifically about issues, minister
to minister. And I am sure that all of the issues that have
been raised, and will be raised on China, will be raised at
that symposium, so there is ongoing conversation.
They are our number one customer for a wide variety of
agricultural products, and they are one of the principal
reasons, obviously, why we have seen record exports. So it is a
delicate balance between making sure that markets continue to
be open, but also preserving the opportunities that we
currently have.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. And, finally, H.R. 933, Continuing
Appropriations Act of 2013, was signed over a year ago. Had
some language in it, Section 742, that required USDA to rescind
sections of the original GIPSA rule, having to do with the
suspension of delivery of birds, and with making the rule
applicable to live poultry. The Department was required to
rescind those within 60 days, and it is my understanding that
hasn't occurred yet. Can you give me an idea when that is going
to be completed?
Secretary Vilsack. I will have to get back to you on that,
Congressman. I don't know.
[The information referred to is located on p. 65.]
Mr. Crawford. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, for
5 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for testifying here today. And as you stated, the
state of the rural economy for many is still very, very
difficult, and there is significant hunger in rural America.
And, in fact, according to USDA data, households in rural areas
are more likely to be food insecure or hungry than in urban or
suburban areas.
And one of the things that really bothered me about the way
we considered the farm bill in this Congress was that the
voices of those who are most desperate, who are most
vulnerable, the voices of the poor, weren't heard adequately.
In fact, I don't believe they were heard at all during the
consideration of the farm bill. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Conaway, raised concerns about state waivers. And, correct me
if I am wrong, states don't have to take waivers. States
request waivers from the Administration, am I right on that?
Secretary Vilsack. That is correct.
Mr. McGovern. And that is because these governors,
Democrats and Republicans, understand that there are still
people struggling in their states. And I should also point out
that a majority of those who are able to work who are on SNAP,
work. And the sad reality is that they are working at wages
that are so low that they still qualify for this benefit. We
should get serious about increasing the minimum wage so that
work in this country actually pays. I think if you work for a
living, you ought not to be stuck in poverty.
But what really concerns me is what I see is this kind of
chipping away at the SNAP benefit. In November we saw an $11
billion cut to SNAP as a result of the recovery monies not
being renewed. That resulted in an average decrease of $30 per
month for a family of three on SNAP dollars. And before that
even went into effect, talking to food banks, and food
pantries, and churches, and synagogues, or mosques all over the
country, what has been made clear to me is that the benefit
even before that cut wasn't adequate to last a family for an
entire month, so people were going to these charities, and
going to these food banks.
And then we had the farm bill, which added, in my opinion,
to the misery of some of these people with the cuts in the so-
called Heat and Eat Program. And that supposedly resulted in a
savings of $8.5 billion from SNAP. I guess maybe we should be
thankful that those cuts only targeted a small percentage of
poor families. But tell that to a family of three that is going
to see another $90 cut from their SNAP benefit each month. That
means in the Heat and Eat States a family of three could see an
average of $120 per month cut in their SNAP benefit, which is
just unconscionable.
Now, thankfully, and I want to publicly thank the
governors, and praise these governors who have taken action for
preventing these cuts from taking effect. These are Democrats
and Republican governors, and this is something that it was
clear in the bill that states had to come up with at least $20
worth of money in order to help increase the SNAP benefit for
some of these poor families. The states have done that. And,
Mr. Chairman, because there has been a lot of complaining by
some Members of your party about this move, including the
Speaker of the House, who called it fraud, and abuse of the
program, this is very much consistent with the law. And, in
fact, it actually doesn't impact the so-called savings.
And I want to put in the record the majority Committee
staff memo that says the press reports assume that the change
of behavior of these states eliminates the savings estimated
from the reforms included in Section 4006. This is false, and
fails to recognize CBO considerations included in the savings
estimate. So it doesn't impact the savings, but I want to
praise these governors for not turning their backs on the most
desperate people in their communities.
[The information referred to is located on p. 61.]
Mr. McGovern. Which kind of brings me to my question, and
that is, Congressman Ryan submitted his budget, which includes
about $120+ billion in SNAP cuts. I think that is immoral,
quite frankly, what that budget does to this program. I would
be interested in your response to Congressman Ryan's proposed
cuts in this program, and how it would affect people not only
in rural America, but all across America.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is safe to say, Congressman,
that a cut of that magnitude would be devastating to the
families that would be impacted. But it is also safe to say
that an increase in the minimum wage would potentially move
people out of the need for SNAP, or out of the need for as much
SNAP as they are currently getting. I think there is some
indication that it could save billions of dollars. But I am
going to deal with the world that I live in, and the world that
I have today, which is really focusing on trying to find more
job opportunities for those folks who are genuinely interested
in working.
You mentioned the fact that more folks in SNAP are working,
and that is absolutely correct: 42 percent of households
receiving SNAP actually have somebody working. I would also
point out that nearly double the number of families have either
no gross income, or no net income. We have seen a dramatic
increase in the number of families that have no income at all
that are receiving SNAP. So these people obviously need help,
and the concern I would have is that the Ryan Budget would do
great harm to those families.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I would
yield myself 10 seconds, at the toleration of my colleagues,
simply to note that the actions of the governors, and the
public discussion, no doubt mean that this issue will not go
away, and whether it is in appropriations this year or next
year, or perhaps in 2017, I have a feeling we will revisit my
friend from Massachusetts's and myself's favorite subject
several more times. With that, the gentleman's time has
expired, and I turn to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
DesJarlais, and recognize him for 5 minutes.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Secretary, for being here today. As you know, on the way in I
mentioned that I was going to talk to you about a subject that
I think you are aware of regarding the black vulture problem
that is plaguing the Southeast. I had received a letter from
Representative Mike Sparks from Rutherford County just a couple
of days ago. He was getting many calls from his constituents
that the vultures were attacking livestock there. I have a
letter from the Tennessee Cattlemen's Association, Charles
Hord, who was addressing this issue, as well as many other
constituents from around my district, and around Tennessee,
that have had a problem with this. As you said, you are aware
of it. Let me give you a few details, and then maybe what I
would like to ask of you in response.
The black vultures continue to be an issue with the cattle
and sheep producers in Tennessee, as well as many other states,
and they actually will attack newborn animals by poking out
their eyes and then consuming them. They also will attack the
backside of cows, causing damage, and sometimes death of these.
In Tennessee last year it was estimated about a $4 million
loss, and other states, such as Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina
all had similar such problems. And right now, to combat this
problem, they are required to go through the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Wildlife Services to get permits for this problem.
The permits cost $100, they take about 2 to 4 weeks to get,
and they expire on March 31 of the next year, so oftentimes the
calving season is over before they are able to get a permit,
which allow them to kill up to 10 to 15 of these birds, who are
protected under the Migratory Bird Act. And they have tried
fireworks, shooting in the air. They are a pretty adaptable
bird. It scares them away temporarily, but they come back. So
what I guess we are asking would be your help in finding a
better permitting process.
The Tennessee Cattlemen Association would like to recommend
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service begin an online permit
process that would permit--so that the permit would be good for
a 3 year period, and that would save producers both time and
money of applying for the permit each year, and help with the
issue of producers having to wait before they can take action
against the black vultures. And the Cattlemen's Association
also recommends the Department of Interior begin studying why
there has been such an increase in black vulture attacks, and
consider issuing a Depredation Order that would allow for the
reduction of black vulture populations, similar to those issued
for blackbirds and Canadian geese.
And also there is a suggestion, why should there be a $100
fee for this application? Is there anything that you could do
to help in this issue, or would you be willing to work with us
if we reached out?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I will be happy to convey
the concerns that you have expressed about the Interior
Department's Fish and Wildlife Service operation of the
permitting. The online suggestion is a good one, and that is
something I will certainly convey to Secretary Jewell. I will
say that our Wildlife Services portion of Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Services (APHIS) is working with producers to
try to give them tips on ways to address this predator issue,
providing technical assistance to help them control the
problem, as well as assisting them in the filling out of and
accessing these permits. We will obviously continue to do that,
but we will certainly convey the concerns that you expressed
here today.
Mr. DesJarlais. All right. I appreciate your time. Thanks
for listening. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
turns to the gentlelady from Washington State for her 5
minutes.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary for being here, and all the work from you and your
staff implementing the farm bill as quickly as possible. We
really appreciate it. I also wanted to take a moment to
recognize the efforts of Forest Service employees in
Darrington, Washington. As you may know, a massive landslide
took place in my district, near Oso, Washington, wiping out an
entire neighborhood with very heartbreaking and devastating
results. As of this morning, at least 30 people are confirmed
dead, and 15 are still missing.
And immediately after the tragedy, Forest Service employees
in the area devoted their time and resources as volunteers.
They did so without pay, and by taking annual leave, and have
done everything they can to help. And having spent much of the
last week in the area myself, their efforts, and the efforts of
all first responders has been truly inspiring, and they should
be commended for their work.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
Ms. DelBene. We talked a little bit earlier about Farm
Service Agency offices, and I know you proposed closing 250,
and you said that none would be closed here in 2014. I wondered
if you could give us a timeline for when you will make the
decision, going forward? We have three offices in my district.
They are incredibly important to our counties, which has
growing agricultural communities, and wanted to know when you
might be releasing a proposal.
Secretary Vilsack. We are going to--we learned a good
lesson from the last effort at reducing these offices, that we
really did need to do a better job of focusing on where the
work is actually being done, and making sure that we have
adequate staff members, commensurate with the workload. So we
are in the process now of doing an evaluation where work is
actually being performed, so that we can essentially rearrange,
if you will, staffing, and then making sure that offices are
adequately staffed to provide the help and assistance that
folks need.
That process, we anticipate, is going to take a good part
of 2014, calendar year 2014. So I don't anticipate making
decisions relative to any potential closures until that is
completed, and until we have a chance to also look at how it
relates to the Congressional directive, vis-a-vis 20 mile
limits. You all basically designated that we need to consider
how close another office is, and so forth, and there is a
process by which we provide notification to Congress, and have
a series of hearings in any county that is impacted by this.
I think it is absolutely essential to reiterate the fact
that our salaries and expense line item for the FSA has been
reduced to the point where we have 20 percent fewer full-time
equivalents (FTEs), or full time employees, than we did just
several years ago. You cannot absorb all of that reduction
without having some impact on the staffing. And we think it is
important to note that there are offices today that literally
do not have a single person in them, that they are a location,
but they are not staffed. And there are those that are within a
few miles of another office that have a number of employees
where there is only one employee.
So when you take that, when you take into consideration the
technology changes that are taking place that is going to
change the way in which people react and interact with FSA
offices, we think the time is right for us to ask the question,
if we were going to produce this system today, would we produce
it in exactly the same way that it is today? And the answer is,
no, we wouldn't. We would make some changes, we would modernize
it.
But I want to emphasize it is not about saving money. It is
about taking those resources that would be saved and
reinvesting them in modernizing these offices, the remaining
offices, and making sure that their responsibilities not only
are focused on their programs, but having at least a cross-
train opportunity on other programs. So we think this is an
improvement. And there may be fewer offices, but we think they
will be much, much better offices.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you. We look forward to seeing your
proposal. You also mentioned the SNAP Employment and Training
Program. That was based on a very successful program we have
had in Washington State. I introduced legislation based on that
program that has led to the program that is in the farm bill,
something I am proud of, and is going to be very, very
important going forward. Is the timeline on creation of these
pilots on target to meet the 180 day window on developing the
processes for a state to apply for these pilots?
Secretary Vilsack. It is. Under Secretary Concannon has
actually traveled to a number of states that have had success,
I believe he has also been in your state, so it is on track. We
have also had conversations with sister agencies, Department of
Labor, Veterans' Affairs. Seven percent of folks on SNAP are
veterans, so we are deeply concerned about that. And so there
has been a series of conversations that are taking place. I am
confident we are going to be on track to get this thing to a
point where we will see some pilots in place, certainly at the
beginning of next fiscal year. The way the money is allocated,
it is $10 million this year, and the balance in 2015. I think
the expectation is that most of the actual work will be done in
Fiscal Year 2015, but we are on target.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, and I look forward to information
as that rolls out too. Thank you for your time again, and I
yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gibson, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gibson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I want to begin by
thanking you and the Ranking Member, really, for your
leadership throughout the process of the farm bill. I mean,
certainly a challenging environment, and the way that you guys
worked together was exemplary, and something the whole Congress
can gain inspiration by. And I also want to thank the staff,
the entire staff, for all the work that they did in the long
couple of years that was the farm bill process.
Secretary, thanks for being here today. I am encouraged by
your testimony. I appreciate your remarks with regard to many
things, but with regard to the beginning farmer program. I do
think it is going to make a difference, and it is going to help
in my area. It is going to help facilitate a trend that we are
already noticing in the marketplace, which is an uptick in the
number of young folks hearing the calling of farming. The
program is going to be complementary and helpful. I also noted,
with interest, your points on exports being up. I think that is
also good for us, conservation programs.
What I would like to do is--I have several areas I would
like to have you respond to. We will see how far we go, in
terms of the timing here, but number one has to do with an
initiative that myself, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Welch, Mr. Schrader,
and other brought forward for the bill, had to do with the
school lunch program, and a pilot that, monies for schools
that, instead of going towards canned goods, commodities, that
they could be used for community supported agriculture, CSAs. I
think this will be not only helpful in terms of nutrition, but
also could be beneficial, in terms of inspiring a new
generation to come to the farm. I was wondering where we are,
in terms of thinking through implementation of that. And
certainly my staff looks forward to working with your team on
that score.
Secretary Vilsack. We have had some involvement with that
in a couple of states, and we are excited about that
opportunity as well. And one of the things that we are
attempting to do is utilize our Farm to School program to make
sure the word gets out about those opportunities, as well as
just generally the opportunity to buy local, and to provide
assistance and help to local producers. We currently have 71
projects in 42 states under the Farm to School program as well,
impacting hundreds of schools. So we think this is an
opportunity, and you will see progress on this for the next
school year.
Mr. Gibson. Well, thanks. And we are going to want to be
competitive. We will work with your team on that. And I am glad
you mentioned the next school year, because that is the sort of
the horizon that we are working with too, hoping to finalize
some of the applications by the summer so that, with the coming
school year, that we could be involved in the program.
And the second area has to do with broadband. Thanks for
your work, and for your team's work on this, and it is very
important to rural areas. And I was interested in an update, in
terms of efficacy in the program, and service for unserved
areas.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have 225 projects that were a
result of the Recovery Act funding. Over 58,000 miles of fiber
have been laid. Over 1,100 wireless points have been
established, and that is providing help and assistance to
140,000 new subscribers, which includes almost 6,000
businesses, and close to 700 anchor institutions, like
universities and school, National Guard armories, and things of
that nature. Many of these projects are still in the process of
being completed, so those numbers will increase. In addition,
there have been roughly 400 distance learning and telemedicine
activities and grants that we have put forward.
And we are working with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) because, at the end of the day, the real issue
here is not so much what we can do, as, we obviously have an
important role, but the private sector is the one that
obviously has to carry the ball, and so that is why we have
asked them to take a look at their most recent ruling relative
to the Universal Service Fee. Maybe create a little more
flexibility in terms of waivers, a little more understanding
about the challenges of implementing these changes, and so
repaying loans that have been taken out in the past, based on
the old system, to expand service. And maybe look at that
Connect America Fund, in creating a little bit more of an
incentive for others to participate.
Mr. Gibson. And I agree with all on that score. Last point,
and you may have to respond for the record, let us see how the
time goes, has to do with a public health scourge that we have
in the Northeast, and, actually, it is reaching across the
country, tick-borne diseases, in particular Lyme Disease. And
in the farm bill we put some emphasis for research, given
changing weather patterns, impact in terms of tick-borne
diseases. We have some experts in the Hudson River Valley who
had been competitive, in the past, and we reach out to you, and
just look forward to working with you. We think this is another
avenue of attack that we can make on this important public
health issue.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I want to make sure the
announcement we are making today relative to the disbursement
of roughly $48 million, which is really focused on better pest
and disease management, whether that impacted the specific
issue you raised. I am told it doesn't, but we, obviously, are
very sensitive to these issues, and we will be happy to work
with you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
would like to note to my colleagues that, based on the
Secretary's hard leave time of 12:15, I have enough time for 14
more Members to ask questions. I have 22 Members, therefore,
any Member has the right to object, but I am going to ask by
unanimous consent that we agree to continue questioning for 4
minutes at a time. Is there any objection to going to 4 minute
questioning period for the remainder of the witness's
testimony? Any objection?
Seeing none, the gentlelady from California is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mrs. Negrete McLeod. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Mr. Secretary, for being here. This is a California-specific
question. There have been several of us from the California
delegation who have been hearing from the grocery stores in our
districts, specifically on the California WIC moratorium for
new vendor licenses. Is it on track? Is it subject to change?
What are the factors involved one way or the other? Is the
timeline published for the public to see?
Secretary Vilsack. We are working on trying to address this
issue, Congresswoman. It is a very serious issue in California,
and we are working with the California folks to get it
resolved. I think we are close. I am not sure we are totally
there yet, but we are very close to making sure that we have
the controls in place so that the WIC program is not abused as
it was being abused by a number of stores.
Mrs. Negrete McLeod. And we understand that, however, is it
possible to provide some level of certainty, at least what time
the publishing date as the start date for the review of the
applications through a vendor alert? And, given the timeline,
would you consider adding additional exemption criteria to it?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the best thing for me to do is
make sure that our folks from Food and Nutrition Service get in
touch with you to give you a more detailed briefing. I just
know that we are on track. We are working with the state, and
we are hopeful in getting this resolved quickly. Honestly, I am
not quite sure about all the details that you are asking for.
So, with your permission, perhaps we can get someone to visit
with you and your staff precisely about what the circumstances
are.
Mrs. Negrete McLeod. Okay. As you know, whenever there are
bad actors, not only do the bad actors get punished, but then
everybody else that is in the system----
Secretary Vilsack. Right.
Mrs. Negrete McLeod.--also gets punished.
Secretary Vilsack. Right, but this was a horrendous thing
that was taking place, so----
Mrs. Negrete McLeod. We understand. Okay. Your Department
would contact me, and that way we can move on, and see where we
are with this issue? Thank you so much.
The Chairman. The gentlelady is wonderful, and yields back
the balance of her time. The chair recognizes the gentleman
from Tennessee, Mr. Fincher, for 4 minutes.
Mr. Fincher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary, for
being here today. Let me just take just a few minutes to say
how much I appreciate the Chairman and the Ranking Member
working on the farm bill for month, after month, after month to
get this finished and completed for the country.
Over the last, I guess, probably 4, 5, 6 weeks, we have
done a variety of farm bill meetings. My district is the
western part of Tennessee, so I border Kentucky, Mississippi,
and Missouri, and we did probably 15 farm bill meetings in my
state, and the surrounding states. Probably 2,000 to 3,000
attended all of these meetings. My background is I am a farmer.
But something that we were running into, Mr. Secretary, is
I guess our FSA offices are very concerned because they have
been cut, they are understaffed. RMA is concerned about getting
all of this information out there to them in a timely fashion.
Do you see, or do you think we may get into a position in the
summer of extending our certification deadlines later in the
year because FSA will not be ready? Can you give me your
thoughts on that?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't anticipate that that is going to
be the case as of today, Congressman. I mean, we are hiring
additional staff with the money that has been provided on a
temporary basis, and we are working very quickly to get the
educational materials and the web-based materials prepared and
disseminated. So I don't anticipate and expect that we are
going to have an inability to get people educated and put in a
position that they can make appropriate elections later in the
year.
Mr. Fincher. Okay. Something else too, in a variety of
counties in our area, I did one meeting down in Mississippi,
and this is the Delta, I mean, big row crop farm land,
commodity farm land, and a lot of these counties do not have
directors in the counties. And these are areas where there is a
lot of work to be done by FSA. And I told one of the directors
I talked to that I would pass along just how important it is
allowing us to move our stuff to control counties, and letting
us put everything in one county, maybe the county that we live
in, even though we may farm in several different counties. Will
help, definitely, but these directors are just very concerned.
They know the extra money is there, but concerned that they
will be able to handle the burden of all of this, but it was a
lot of information. I know it is a new program, but I said I
would pass that along.
And just moving along, to not eat up as much time as I can,
we work with NRCS very often, and I was with some of my local
guys over the past 2 or 3 weeks, laying some structures out on
some of our land, and it seems that morale is down in our NRCS
offices. And these are guys that had been there for years and
years, who I am friends with, who take pride in their work,
pride in what they do for not only the agency, but for the
farmers. And I am just passing this along, Mr. Secretary. I
know you are at the top, but they just said that, look, it is
like they don't care. It is like the Administration doesn't
care, we are just a number, it is not important anymore, the
job that we do, and what we are trying to do.
And I said, well, look, we do care. It is a big process,
all of the changes, and all of the different things that have
happened over the past 15 or 20 years. It is a very different
time. But they just seem to be very frustrated. And these are
guys on the ground, guys that we deal with on a day to day
basis. So I am passing that along.
And the last thing, to Mr. Scott's statement a few minutes
ago about young farmers, and trying to get young farmers into
the business, I have two sons. They love farming. One is at
Mississippi State now, getting an Ag Business Degree. We have a
deeper problem in the country, and I think we see it in
Congress, when we have to spend 3 years trying to pass a farm
bill that should be bipartisan.
It was bipartisan, but we must make sure that we continue
to look at the issues that face our country. And there are many
of us up here, myself, including other Members on this
Committee, that came here to do things, not just make political
statements. And our problem is deeper than just trying to get
young farmers in. We need, as a body in this city, to do what
we can for the farmer all over the country.
So, with that, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate it, and I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, may I just have 10
seconds? Congressman, on the morale issue, that is obviously
something we take very seriously, and, in fact, we have
instituted a process of focusing on the viewpoint survey that
is done for all USDA employees. And we have created a process
by which we are working with our various levels of leadership
to do a better job of reaching out to people and communicating
with people. We are having listening sessions across the
country, including at NRCS, so it is something we take very,
very seriously.
I will tell you that it has been a difficult time to be a
Federal employee, because oftentimes they are criticized
publicly in sort of a broad brush approach, which is unfair. We
went through a sequester, we went through a shutdown, budgets
have been cut. It is not an easy time. However, there is just
extraordinary work being done, and we have expressed, and I
have expressed on numerous occasions, my admiration for the
folks at NRCS as extraordinary problem solvers.
Mr. Fincher. I agree also. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for
4 minutes.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here. I want to note your opening
comments, your reference to the need for immigration reform in
rural America. As far as I am concerned, that is the elephant
in the room. Any event that I go to with the producers, we had
the New England Dairy Council in my district a couple weeks
ago, come ready to talk about the farm bill. Obviously a
historic year, in terms of dairy risk insurance. The
conversation pivoted to immigration reform within minutes. They
demanded to know when we are going to move forward in this
Congress, in terms of getting it done.
I want you to know that, for the folks in that room, the
fact that USDA is going to run the H-2A program and the Blue
Card program by itself, even without referencing the details of
the wait times and record checks, and such, just the fact that
USDA is going to be the vehicle for running the--that alone
sold the entire room. The trust factor that people have for
USDA, despite all the challenges, which my colleague mentioned
a moment ago, that is what people are really yearning for, and
we have to get this done. CBO has told us it will cut the
deficit, it will grow the economy, but particularly in rural
America, it is going to unlock the obstacles for having a
viable workforce.
I wanted to also raise another issue from Connecticut,
which, this past year, the Connecticut Legislature passed, by a
margin of 134 to 3 and 34 to 1, a GMO labeling bill. I know you
have been in the middle of that debate for some time. I am not
here to ask about your own thoughts or position on it. I am the
eternal optimist. I think transparency is inevitable. That is
my own opinion. There are probably more tweets that have
already gone out just in this room in the last 2 hours. We live
in a world of transparency.
What I think is needed, and your department has, I believe,
begun this process with the AC-21 process, is a need to get a
higher level of understanding and engagement of agricultural
biology and research. At some point, the whole issue will find
an equilibrium, in terms of public acceptance, or public
rejection, or public choice regarding this issue.
Could you talk about whether or not the Department is going
to sort of continue a process, being an arbiter for
information, as this debate is inevitably going to continue?
Secretary Vilsack. We are. I would say that one of the
great opportunities that America has is to embrace diversity.
And by diversity I mean diversity in its largest context,
diversity of size of operations, diversity of production
methods, diversity of operators. This is the future of
agriculture, and it is a hopeful future.
There is, obviously, a stress in agriculture, in terms of
this conflict between production systems. Honestly, it is
unfortunate, because agriculture needs to do a better job of
communicating to the broader audience of Americans the benefits
that we get from agriculture, the extraordinary affordability
and accessibility of food, the freedom it gives the rest of us
to be able to pursue other calls of life because we have
delegated the responsibility of feeding our families to someone
else, and they are doing an amazing job.
We are very committed to this. We are implementing the
recommendations of the AC-21 committee. We are engaging the FDA
in conversations about this issue of labeling. The concern,
obviously, is if you label that you are sending, potentially, a
message of lack of safety about these products, unsafe
products. That is not the case, in my view. It is not the case
of the 600 some science reviews I have seen on this issue. GMO
is not a safety issue. There is room for everyone, and I think
we have to have a more collaborative conversation than a
conflicting conversation.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now turns to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for
4 minutes.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary. First I
would like to echo the comments of my colleagues to thank you
and your staff for your hard work implementing the farm bill. I
know it is a huge undertaking, but I appreciate that very much,
and thank you for being here with us today so we can talk about
some important issues.
I would also like to acknowledge a special guest I have
here with me today, Linda Andrews, from the North Carolina Farm
Bureau. Linda and her boss, Larry Wooten, are valuable assets
to our farmers in North Carolina, work very closely with my
office, and appreciate her being here today.
My question to you, Mr. Secretary, is regarding the
Uwharrie Forest, which as you, I am sure, are aware is located
primarily in Montgomery Country, but also extends into Randolph
and Davidson Counties in North Carolina, in my district. I
understand from our folks on the ground that the forest roads
had sustained a lot of very serious damage due to heavy rains
and flooding over the last few months. In some cases these
roads are completely impassable to our residents, tourists, and
first responders. Needless to say, this is a very serious
concern of mine, and I want to find a resolution as quickly as
possible.
I know that quick fixes in Washington sometimes can seem
like an oxymoron, but I believe we can find ways to prioritize
spending within the Forest Service to accomplish these type of
tasks. We simply must fix these roads, Mr. Secretary. It is
more than a headache for our residents. It is really a safety
issue of having access.
Mr. Secretary, can you explain to me briefly how the
funding stream works through the forest regions when it comes
to road projects like this that may be of an emergency nature?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we trust the folks on the ground
to make decisions about prioritization of resources. I can tell
you, with reference to this particular forest, that gravel is
going to be applied soon to the roads that you mentioned, and
many of the areas. Public safety is obviously a primary
concern. Access for the public, and for our Forest Service
personnel to maintain the forests is obviously a priority, and
that there will likely be grading that is going to be done on
those roads at some point in time later in the spring. So there
will be an addressing of that specific issue.
But, Congressman, honestly, the big challenge for us is
that in the past 13 percent of the Forest Service budget went
to fire suppression. Today it is 40 percent. And the reality
is, unless we have a different way of funding forest fires as
we do tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and other natural
disasters, we are going to continue to have uncertainty in all
other aspects of the maintenance, restoration, and resiliency
budgets of the Forest Service.
That is why we have proposed a different way of funding
fires that would give us greater certainty in those key
restoration, maintenance budgets, so that we can continue to do
a better job of maintaining the services that allow 166 million
Americans to visit our National Forests every single year.
Mr. Hudson. Yes, sir, thank you for that, and I am
committed to working with you on this issue. I know how
important it is. My staff reached out to Chief Tidwell of the
Forest Service. We appreciate his cooperation with this. I
appreciate your commitment to get that gravel spread out, and
get those roads active again. On behalf of my constituents, I
thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Maloney, for 4
minutes.
Mr. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here. I want to thank you and your staff
for working so well with my staff. I really appreciate all your
folks have done, I want to say that. One of the things we
worked very hard on in the farm bill were the crop insurance
provisions, and particularly in my part of the world, which is
the Hudson Valley of New York, just above New York City, where
we have a lot of specialty crop farmers.
One of the things that I worked hard to include was the
CROP Act, which allows for the better development of specialty
crop insurance policies, whole farm insurance, weather-based
event insurance. If you can give us an update on that, I would
sure appreciate it.
Secretary Vilsack. Sure. One of the things that has
occurred in the last couple years is more policies being
written that are connected and directed to specialty crop
production. The whole farm policy is one that we are working
on. We think that there is an opportunity at some point in time
this summer to begin the process of putting one of these
together, and having the Board take a look at it, making sure
that it is actuarially sound, and that it will work. And so we
are expecting and hopeful that we will have that available for
2015 crop year, potentially on a pilot basis. See how it works,
see what we learn from that.
Second, it is important for us to continue to also improve
the non-insured crop assistance program. We are in the process
of proposing changes and improvements to that as well.
Mr. Maloney. And are you also interested in having RMA do
more of its own development of these policies, which it can do
now under the new legislation?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think we will continue to use
that opportunity. I think these are very sophisticated and
complicated actuarial decisions that have to be made. You have
to have adequate data to be able to make decisions. So I have
trust and faith that they will make the decision as to when
they feel competent, and when they need outside assistance and
help.
Mr. Maloney. I appreciate that. If you could commit to
briefing my staff on that, I would appreciate it, because we
worked hard to get these policies in action in time to do some
good. You know, the folks in my region are still struggling to
recover from Hurricane Irene, which had a terrible effect on
Central Orange County, and their losses simply weren't covered
by the kinds of insurance they had, so this is an urgent matter
so we don't get another storm. I know you know that, sir.
Can I also draw your attention to the special provisions on
muck soil? Now, I know it is coming up on reunion time at
Hamilton College, and you are probably planning a visit to
Central New York, and I would just point out to you, sir, that
on your way you will find some of the best agricultural soil
anywhere, what we call the muck soil region of New York. If I
could get you up there, it would be great.
There is a provision in the farm bill that encourages you
very strongly to work specifically with muck soil farmers on
the special issues they have. It would be great to show you the
region and get your commitment to giving some life to that
provision so that we can really give these guys the assistance
they need.
Secretary Vilsack. I traveled 120 miles to and from law
school every day on Route 20, so I am pretty familiar with the
landscape of Upstate New York, but I always am willing to
learn, Congressman.
Mr. Maloney. That is right, and your distinguished record
of public service certainly befits someone with a New York
education, sir. And the final provision I would like to draw
your attention to is, or at least the issue I would like to
draw your attention to, and I will bring this in on time, I
promise--we really benefit from the Hudson Valley Research
Lab--which is facing extraordinary cuts from all sorts of
sources. And if your Department can continue to work to find
the funding necessary for the kind of research that goes on
there? I don't need to tell you how important it is to the
farmers in my region, especially crop farmers, who really
depend on it.
Secretary Vilsack. We have taken a look at our entire
internal inspection system, our ARS system. We have prioritized
the labs that are doing the highest priority work, and the labs
that are in the best physical shape. We have identified labs
that are in difficult shape, but doing primary--in other words,
we have a capital improvement plan. The challenge for us,
obviously, is to find the resources.
We are suggesting that perhaps Congress would consider the
possibility of allowing us to retain some of the unspent money
from year to year to put into a capital account that help us
modernize those Agricultural Research Service (ARS) facilities.
Eight hundred different projects right now in the last 5 years,
218 patents, have been approved. This is an innovative center,
that we obviously want to continue to----
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Maloney. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Yoho, for 4 minutes.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and Mr. Chairman. I
want to just also reiterate a heartfelt thank you for the work
you guys have done, not only with the Department of
Agriculture, but with the Committee here. It has just been a
great feeling to be a part of that, to get this bill passed.
And I also want to thank you, as somebody else did, about the
tobacco farmers of Florida, in honoring the buyout program. We
thank you for that, because we had gotten a lot of calls about
that.
And I want to talk to you about the citrus industry, and
you know well that Florida is number one in citrus, and you
know our plight down there with the greening. You know, the
citrus industry accounts for about $1.4 billion in sales,
approximately $8.9 billion economic impact, and with the citrus
greening going on, 80 to 90 percent of the citrus trees are
affected. And, of course, Florida without citrus is like peanut
without butter. They kind of go hand in hand, we need that
together. And so I was real happy, and I know the citrus
producers are real happy in our area, to see the money that was
put into that.
And I commend the Committee, and you, and I hope that gets
allocated as quickly as we can, so that we can bring this under
control. And if there is anything that we can do to help you
with that, please let us know. We are looking for a speedy
resolution of that.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, we put together a multi-
agency approach to this, which is involving local, state, and
Federal folks, to have a coordinated response to this. We
funded it initially with a million dollars, and the $20 million
this year, and then $125 that you have put into the farm bill
will be allocated. We think there are opportunities for us to
deal with the vector issue, with this tiny wasp. There is an
opportunity for us to look at the pH content of the land
surrounding----
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Secretary Vilsack.--trees. That might be an opportunity.
And thermal, using heat on the top of these trees may work. We
are going to continue to fund those projects, look at
additional suggestions, and then make sure we fund the ones
that are working the best----
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Secretary Vilsack.--and ramping them up.
Mr. Yoho. I appreciate that, and I know they do too. And I
want to talk to you about the peanut program, by the way. The
crop insurance industry has introduced the revenue crop
insurance program, but yet it hasn't been, I guess, approved
for the peanut program, and we are hoping that we can get that
implemented just as quick as we can. Are you familiar with
that?
Secretary Vilsack. I am familiar with it. I believe that it
is----
Mr. Yoho. It is the--crop insurance----
Secretary Vilsack. Rights. It is a policy that would
require Board approval. And if the Board approves it, we will,
obviously, move forward with it.
Mr. Yoho. And you brought up that China was a big importer
of our peanuts. Is that because the South American market took
a hit on peanut production, and so, for the last 2 years, they
have been buying more of our peanuts? And if so, do you see
that continuing?
Secretary Vilsack. I would like to say it is because we
have a better product at a better----
Mr. Yoho. I would like----
Secretary Vilsack.--price.
Mr. Yoho.--to think that too. My concern is, due to the
incentives, and some of the language, especially with the
reference price of $5.35, that we are seeing an increase in
peanut production already nationwide by 29 percent: 53 percent
in Georgia, 35 percent in Mississippi, and seven percent in
Florida. With this large increase in production, I can't help
but think it is going to drive the price of the peanut down,
and it could affect a lot of things that we talked about here
today, one of them being the young farmers.
These guys have just gone into the business in the last 5
to 10 years. These are the very people that we are trying to
help. And if there is an oversupply of the product, and the
price drops, it could be devastating to that whole market, the
very market that we are trying to preserve. Do you have any
thoughts on that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that is obviously a challenge. I
think some of the changes in the farm bill relative to
eliminating the term limit on guaranteed loans might provide
some assistance. If somebody has been finding it difficult,
they have to refinance their loan at a time when they are term
limited coming back to FSA, now they won't have to worry about
that. That may be of some benefit. And we are obviously going
to work with producers with forbearance, trying to make sure
that we give them every opportunity to succeed.
Mr. Yoho. My time has expired.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I turn to
the gentleman from Minnesota next for 4 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, and I apologize for coming
in late, but thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for your testimony
here today. Who was next?
The Chairman. The gentlelady may continue.
Ms. Kuster. No.
The Chairman. One of my dear friends needs to use the 4
minutes.
Mr. Nolan. And Secretary Vilsack, welcome. I had the good
fortune to be in Mount Pleasant the day you announced your
candidacy for the Presidency of the United States, and, having
been in politics for the better part of 50 years, it was the
purest, best, most wholesome outpouring of community support
for one of their favorite sons that I have ever witnessed in
politics. The----
Secretary Vilsack. It was also short-lived.
Mr. Nolan.--are still vivid in my memory. I trust they are
yours as well. I have a couple of quick questions here, and if
they have been asked--I had to step out for another meeting.
Did anybody ask about the sugar program, and the lawsuits that
have been recently brought? And they have been hurting badly,
and I know a number of us, myself included, were heard, hoping
that you would be supportive of the American sugar producers in
the suit that they brought to the International Trade
Commission.
Secretary Vilsack. I have to be candid with you,
Representative, from my perspective, it is a bit ill timed. I
am not suggesting there isn't an issue. There is, and the
Mexicans have identified willingness to work on this by
redirecting 700,000 tons of sugar that they would have put into
the United States into an export opportunity elsewhere.
We are at a very delicate circumstance and situation with
Mexico on a variety of issues, and I am sure that they don't
see this as a particularly friendly gesture. So, in a perfect
world, I would have liked to have seen this perhaps not occur,
or not occur at this time. But I recognize----
Mr. Nolan. Well, thank you for your thoughts on that, and
they would like not to have had this occur at this time, but
the circumstances were such they felt that they didn't have any
alternative. So please continue to take a good hard look at
that. They need our help.
The Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, we had that
attached to the farm bill. Did anybody ask about that at all?
Secretary Vilsack. No, sir.
Mr. Nolan. Okay. Could you share with us your thoughts on
that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are obviously going to follow
the direction of Congress. I think the challenge for us is to
come up with a long term strategy to work with state and local
folks to make sure that, over time, if Congress makes a
decision not to continue to re-up this on an annual basis, or
provide long term certainty that there is a replacement
economy--it is one of the reasons why we have been working
really hard to try to address new wood opportunities.
We recently had a conference at the USDA where we created a
prize to look at using wood not just as a framing opportunity
in construction, but as structural members in construction.
Europeans are now doing this. There are now multi-story
buildings being built out of a new cross-laminated timber. We
think it is a new opportunity. Wood to energy, a new
opportunity. So we are trying to figure out ways in which we
can stimulate--we are treating more wood, as we promised we
would, but we need to do more. And I think that is----
Mr. Nolan. Is that part of your biofuels----
Secretary Vilsack. Part of it is biofuels, but it is also
new products, bio-products. You can take wood nanotechnology,
you can take wood fibers, and you can make optical materials
that can be used in computers, and other sensitive technology.
You can use it to create new armor for police and fire. There
is a whole new opportunity here to use bio-based products,
which is what this farm bill that you all worked so hard on and
passed, it is going to provide us that opportunity to bring
those kinds of industries to small towns, which may, over time,
allow you to navigate away from the payment in lieu of taxes
and secure rural schools issues.
Mr. Nolan. Good. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I mean, it
was so apparent that the people who knew you best in Mount
Pleasant had great faith and trust in you, and you raised a lot
of important issues in that campaign. I want you to know that
there are a lot of people here in Washington, all over the
country, that have an equal amount of faith and trust in you,
and we thank you for the great job that you are doing there.
Keep up the good work.
The Chairman. With that, the gentleman's time has expired.
I turn to the gentleman from Georgia, Austin Scott, for 4
minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
will try to be brief. Secretary Vilsack, the timeframe for the
USDA's review of biotech products improved, still beyond 180
days. What do you attribute these delays to, and what can we
do, as Members of Congress, to help remove these impediments?
Does it take legislation, and would you support that
legislation?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, we have cut quite a bit of
time off the regulatory process, and I think there is more.
Part of the challenge is that we are using a new system, but we
are still having to work with some of the holdover that we had
from the previous Administration, working through that----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--under the old system. But as this new
system is fully embraced, you are going to see significant time
reductions, again, above what has already been done. We have
knocked off at least a year.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Sure.
Secretary Vilsack. But you can't prevent people from
questioning whether or not we have done the right assessment,
whether we have done the right environmental review, and that
is oftentimes what slows the process down. We are trying to
short circuit this without sacrificing the quality of the
inspection, and making sure we are doing our job to assess
whether there is a risk or not.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay. And I agree that it has
moved in the right direction significantly, but you don't
believe that it needs additional legislation to help?
Secretary Vilsack. I am not sure how you would craft it. I
would be open to any suggestions that you have, but you would
find it difficult to craft it in a way that would get a
majority of the House and Senate.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Well----
Secretary Vilsack. Of course, that may be----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia.--might be just as difficult
these days.
Secretary Vilsack. That is true.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Reducing those delays just
helps the rural community so much, and agriculture is the
foundation of our economy, and these new products are extremely
important to us. They are extremely important to the nation,
and the world, with regard to food supplies. So thank you for
your service, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield the
remainder of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and I am proud of
him. And continuing down the list, I turn to the very patient
gentleman from Texas for his 4 minutes.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, when I
took office in January of last year, one of the first things
that I heard about was an issue with the cattle crossing in
Presidio, which at one time was the number one port.
I have worked with your office, I have had several
conversations with your Under Secretary, Mr. Avalos. I have had
conversations with the Administration, Mr. Shea of APHIS, and
all I have asked is tell me why you have closed that inspection
station over on the Mexican side, Ojinaga, which is the city on
the Mexican side, doesn't have any travel advisories. And I
have worked with the State Department, who told me that it is
all clear. Having been a former prosecutor out there, I went
with the law enforcement community, both Federal and state, who
tells me that there is not a problem.
And yet, when I deal with the USDA--and I am told we are
having a meeting, and we will call you next week, and we are
having a meeting, and we will call you next week, and I never
get a return phone call. With all due respect, I am getting the
impression that there is some national security--and I am happy
to reserve a secure room so that we can have a conversation
about what is going on over at USDA, because I am, in all
honesty, pretty frustrated that I can't even get an answer. If
it is unsafe, I want to know that. I would like to know why. It
would seem that the State Department, and all your sister
agencies, would disagree with your assessment of the situation
on the ground.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, first of all, to the extent
that you are not getting return phone calls, I sincerely
apologize. That is not the way we should be doing business with
you, or any other Member of Congress, and we will make sure
that that doesn't happen, and I apologize for that.
Second, you are entitled, and should have an answer
directly to the question that you are raising. It is my
understanding that our folks do have a disagreement with the
State Department as it relates to the ability of our folks to
travel through a section of town to get to that facility that
they believe, our folks believe, raises a serious security
threat to our personnel, which is why we established, on the
other side of the border, an inspection process. And I think
that is the fundamental issue.
And I have asked our team to sit down with the State
Department and see whether or not they are right, and we are
wrong, or we are right, and they are wrong, so that there is a
consistent message provided to you. I can understand that it is
frustrating, especially when one Department says one thing,
another Department says something differently. All I can do is
trust, in terms of what I do, I am obviously, first and
foremost, concerned about the public safety of my employees. If
they have concerns, then I have to take them seriously. But
they have to be justified, and they have to be reasonable.
Mr. Gallego. And I will tell you that I certainly don't
disagree with that. My frustration is that you would think that
you would be able to get an answer within--again, I mean, I am
more halfway through--this is, like, nearly 18 months into my
term, and it was one of the first conversations that I had with
your agency. And it would seem that 18 months would be more
than sufficient time to meet with your sister agencies and have
an answer.
Because when you open temporary facilities, it is not
unusual to have a temporary facility at some of the points of
entry, but in Laredo, for example, or in different places,
Eagle Pass, they are closed, and they are opened a couple of
months later. This situation has been this way for over 2
years, and there doesn't seem to be any incentive on the part
of the agency to move it off center.
Frankly, I would like to invite you to come to Presidio,
and I would like to invite you to help me move this issue off
of dead center. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time, and the Secretary's word is good, and he will get you an
answer, I am confident.
With that, the chair turns to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for 4 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, to you and your staff for your work and
collaboration putting this farm bill together. I look forward
to working with you as we serve our oversight function, as you
work for implementation.
Just a couple of things to touch on. Obviously, the bill
contained language to ensure the bio-based market programs
includes forest products, and just wanted to check on the
status of that, and how will we be promoting those changes so
that there is broad inclusion of forest products.
Secretary Vilsack. We are moving forward on those changes,
and excited about the opportunity. And we have the lead
responsibility, as you know, Congressman, so we are going to
make sure our sister agencies are fully aware. The first step
in the process for us is to change the regulation, which we are
in the process of doing, then notifying our sister agencies.
And then we have established recently some kind of
reporting system where we can actually look at contracts that
are being issued by Federal agencies to make sure that they
have the bio-based, bio-preferred language in the contract.
Then, from that point, once we get everyone pretty disciplined
to do that, then it is basically, how much are you actually
purchasing that is bio-based of all types? And we have, as you
know, thousands of products that are in that category, and in
that program. So we are moving on that issue. We know it is
important to you.
Mr. Thompson. And I appreciate it. I think it is important
to our healthy forests too, as you know. And you were very
encouraging during our hearings when we talked about this in
the past, and I appreciate your support for what we did. I
think we have probably one of the strongest forestry titles,
maybe ever, with the farm bill.
I wanted to touch some bases, and I always do, whether it
is with you, or the Forest Supervisor at the Allegheny National
Forest, so my first question is always timber harvesting, as
timber harvesting makes sure that we have healthy forests, but
also healthy rural communities. We did make some changes in the
farm bill, but I wanted to see, any estimates on how many board
feet we anticipate producing from the National Forests this
year, in terms of which ways it is going, and what can we do to
increase that level of harvest? Which, again, I think you would
agree, when we are at a sustainable rate of harvest, we have
healthy forests, and we have healthy rural communities.
Secretary Vilsack. We would anticipate somewhere in the--I
want to make sure I answer your question correctly. I think our
goal this year, in this fiscal year, is 2.8 billion board feet,
which would be more than last year, and more than the year
before that. Our goal for Fiscal Year 2015 is 3.1 billion board
feet. And I get reports on this every month, so I can tell you
that it is obviously early in the process, but we have already
treated 300+ million board feet, and we are on our way to
making sure we meet those goals.
I would also say that I think this wood conference that we
recently had may spur additional opportunities for us. This
cross-laminated timber is a tremendous opportunity for us, and
I hope folks take advantage of the challenge we have put
forward on that issue.
Mr. Thompson. I think that is very exciting, actually. That
increases the market, so, obviously, that is a big part of it,
not the only part. And I appreciate what you are doing, pushing
out to architects and engineers to educate them on the
opportunities.
We seem like we are behind. I have some schools and others
who have National Forests too who haven't really received their
Secure Rural Schools payments yet. For whatever reason, we are
a bit behind. Didn't know if you had any kind of update on
the----
Secretary Vilsack. Those----
Mr. Thompson.--status of that?
Secretary Vilsack. I am pretty sure the Title I and III
payments went out, Congressman, earlier in March, and I believe
the Title II payments are going out tomorrow.
Mr. Thompson. Okay. Tomorrow, that is a pretty quick
turnaround then, thank you. We will take credit from the
hearing when I talk----
Secretary Vilsack. All right. I expect the press release--
--
Mr. Thompson. I appreciate----
Secretary Vilsack.--to say nothing less.
Mr. Thompson. Yes. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair
enthusiastically turns to the good lady from New Hampshire for
her 4 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I just
want to commend my colleague across the aisle for the
incredibly swift results that he was able to get out of that
last question, very impressive.
Thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for your leadership. Just to
join my colleague, Mr. Nolan, in his effusive praise, I met you
the first time when you came to New Hampshire for the First of
the Nation Presidential primary, so my main goal is to invite
you to come back.
And I just wanted to say, it has been a tremendous honor
for me to be a part of this Committee, the first Member in 70
years from New Hampshire. But I have some great news to report
to you, and to share with my colleagues. Under USDA's most
recent Census of Agriculture, New Hampshire has grown by about
five percent over the past 5 years, with regard to the number
of young farmers and new farmers joining our community. So our
agricultural sector may not be the size of the Midwest, but we
certainly are making up for it in terms of enthusiasm. Robust
local food networks, an emphasis on a healthy connection
between fresh food and our lifestyle, as well as Farmers'
Markets, and organics, and growing in every way.
I also had an excellent meeting this morning with a group
of foresters, and I want to join my colleague in terms of
encouraging the use of our National Forest lands. One of the
issues that came up this morning had to do with--and this may
be a local preference, but the foresters are not allowed to
forest on Saturdays and holidays.
And we are coming up in New Hampshire on a very special
fifth season that we have that is called mud season, when the
frost goes out, and our foresters are not able to work for
about 6 weeks, so every day during the winter is actually very
precious, and during the summer, when the roads dry out, it is
very precious. So I would just ask you to take that back on
advisement, and we will follow up with the staff.
But we would love to get you to New Hampshire, and tourism
and agriculture are our top two industries, and so our working
landscape is extremely important, and thank you for your
leadership. I don't know if you had any comment on that.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I look forward to going back to
New Hampshire. It is a great state. It is a beautiful state.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for your patience.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for 4
minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
you. I just want to point out I sent a letter to your office on
March 6, inviting you to come into my district in central and
southwestern Illinois to discuss the issue I am going to bring
up today, which has to do with the school nutrition programs. I
would love for you to come out and visit some of our school
professionals and hear directly from them about the impacts of
the implementation of the 2010 Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act.
I think we all share a common goal. We want kids to eat
healthier. We want to address childhood obesity. But the good
intentions have led to some challenges in our school districts.
And I have heard from many of our local school districts about
how they have once taken profitable parts of their school
district portfolio, and, because of the new rules and
regulations, and the lack of participation, school districts,
like in Monticello, Illinois, have now lost $100,000 a year,
and recently decided to pull out of the school nutrition
program, which I don't think is a goal of any of ours.
The School Nutrition Association actually said that there
are 1.2 million fewer kids that participate in the school
nutrition program since the enactment of the 2010 Healthy
Hunger Free Kids Act, and we are seeing up to 70 percent of the
fruits and vegetables that are being served being thrown away,
which is costing school districts hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
And I just read an article, I thought it was an April
Fool's Day article, because it was April 1, but it was from the
Los Angeles Times, talking about the second largest school
district in the nation, in Los Angeles, that is losing upward
of $18 million a year because of food waste. And that is only
at a ten percent estimate. And if you add the 60 percent to
that, that is $28.8, almost $29 million a year that it is
costing that one school district.
This is why I have written to ask for some flexibility, and
I just want to make sure that you saw the language in the
Omnibus spending bill, and it directs the USDA to come up with
some waivers for schools that are having a hard time complying
with the new rules and regulations. Los Angeles being one, but
Monticello, and my school district, Hillsboro, Illinois,
Calhoun County, Illinois.
And I want to give you some credit too, when we identified
some problems with the protein and grain requirements, your
agency did offer some flexibility. Thank you for that, and
thank you to my colleague, Kristi Noem, for making that issue a
priority also. But I want to know, have you developed any
procedures----
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. Davis.--for the Omnibus language for the school
districts that ask for flexibility?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, my staff, Todd Batta,
handed me a copy of the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act, which talks about our authority, and I will be happy
to give this to you. It is fairly clear from this that we don't
have the authority that you would like us to exercise.
Statutorily, we simply do not have the capacity to waive. And I
will read from it, ``The Secretary may not grant a waiver under
this subsection that increases Federal costs, or that relates
to--(A) the nutritional content of meals served,'' or, ``(J)
the sale of competitive foods.'' So if you are looking at
waiver authority, this is something that you may want to take a
look at.
Mr. Davis. So basically, beyond the spending language that
we put forth, you can't offer those waivers?
Secretary Vilsack. That is correct.
Mr. Davis. Okay. I have a problem--who, then, is going to
be able to offer the waivers that we have asked to be----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, you would have to change the law
to give me the permission and the capacity to do this. I don't
have the power to do it.
Mr. Davis. Well, we did change the law in the Omnibus
spending bill, and----
Secretary Vilsack. No, you directed us to grant waivers.
You didn't give us the authority to do so.
Mr. Davis. I would like to point out that this
Administration doesn't have a problem changing and offering--on
other legislation, but that is another----
Secretary Vilsack. That is----
Mr. Davis.--that is a different subject.
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. Davis. I just would ask you to come visit so that we
can get your support, and the support of this Administration,
to offer some flexibility to these school districts that they
obviously need.
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, may I--Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. The gentleman may respond.
Secretary Vilsack. Very quickly, first of all, 92 percent
of school districts in this country have either already been
certified, or are in the process of receiving certification
under these new standards, so there has been acceptance. I am
not sure that the School Nutrition Association is absolutely
correct, as it relates to the people that aren't participating,
because we have seen a dramatic increase in the school
breakfast program, so I wonder about those numbers.
And on the issue of food waste, we have to be very careful
about this issue, and here is why: 30 percent of all food that
is produced in the United States of America is wasted, 30
percent. It happens in restaurants, it happens in homes, it
happens in schools, it happens everywhere. And that is an
unfortunate circumstance, and it is something, frankly, I would
be happy to work with you on, trying to figure out how to
reduce food waste, because it is not only a terrible waste of
production, but it also is the single largest part of solid
waste in our landfills, and it is a methane producer. So there
are many reasons to get focused on that issue.
Mr. Davis. I would love to work with you on that issue. I
would love to work with you on addressing some of the concerns
I brought up, but I don't want you to confuse the 85 to 90
percent compliance rate with satisfaction from the school
district. And I would appreciate your ability to work with me
on addressing some of those concerns too, sir. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico for 4 minutes.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Vilsack, you recently visited my home state, New Mexico, and my
district, and I really appreciate that, and thank you for your
efforts to be present, and on the ground. And I would like to
follow up on an issue that we briefly spoke about, because we
have such a high proportion of minority farmers and ranchers in
New Mexico.
In June of last year the Forest Service conducted a civil
rights compliance review that included Region 3 in New Mexico,
and found that they were non-compliant with several civil
rights requirements. Now, the report detailing these findings,
and suggested corrective actions to be taken, directs the
Forest Service to develop a detailed corrective action report,
within 60 days of the receipt of the report. It states that the
plan must also include any progress made in these areas since
the review. Can you provide me with any updated information
related to both the corrective action plan, and progress to
date on implementing, and going through those review processes?
Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, I would be happy to have
our team and our staff provide you with details. So, if you
don't mind, I am going to answer your question a bit more
generically and generally.
[The information referred to is located on p. 65.]
I receive a monthly report relating to Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) complaints and program complaints for each
department of the USDA. I can tell you that both are at record
lows, which is good, in terms of the overall department. When
we see high numbers of program complaints, or Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints, we ask our civil
rights folks to look into it, and to create a collaborative
effort with the mission area to work out difficulties. I know
that Joe Leonard in our civil rights office has been working
very closely with the Forest Service. I know Region 5 has been
an area that he has spent a lot of time on, but, honestly, at
this point in time, I will have to check on Region 3, in terms
of precisely what has happened there.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Right.
Secretary Vilsack. But I would be surprised if we aren't on
top of this.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. And, Mr. Chairman, if I might, and just
to respond to that with the Secretary, you were responsive to
me when you were in the district. You offered staff to come
back on the ground. That has not yet come to fruition, and so
continuing your efforts on our behalf, I would be very
grateful, make sure that we do have the Department engaged to
the highest degree possible, and do appreciate that you spend
time on corrective action plans, and reviewing how the
Department is doing in a variety of levels. I think that that
is an encouraging effort that many more departments in the
Administration should be doing.
So I look forward to having you back in the district, and
we are ready to work with you. We are more than ready to work
with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her
time. We have the gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman from
California, and the gentlelady from South Dakota remaining, and
there is time. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. McAllister, is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. McAllister. Thank you, sir. It is tough being the low
man on the totem pole, waiting until the end. First I just want
to tell you thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary.
I appreciate the bipartisan support. You know, I represent one
of the largest row crop districts in the state, so when this
farm bill came about--now, obviously I am the new kid on the
block, and I ain't never had no public office, so I went to the
people, and I asked them about the farm bill. And over 253
different constituents, from every part of the industry that I
asked, not a single one of them said no. They all said, please
make sure this farm bill passes, please get it in.
The Chairman. I like your constituents, sir.
Mr. McAllister. So I just want to commend you, Mr.
Chairman, and you, Secretary, for that. And, heck, I would
definitely appreciate it if you want to come down to my
district and check out these guys. And, remember, crawfish goes
out about May, so if you want to come, now is the time to come,
if you want to eat good, and enjoy some corn, potatoes, and
crawfish.
But one concern I have, and I was just in the district this
past week, and, look, I know we have to live in the reality of
the world that we live in, and I know there are some certain
things that need to be changed out, but the FSA program is one
of them. That is a serious concern to me, with the rural
farmers and all that we have in the rural communities.
And my main concern is most of these farmers--we live in a
technologically challenged area for us, one, with the Internet
capabilities, and even some of these older farmers--and I heard
the other gentleman talking earlier about trying to get younger
farmers into the program, which absolutely we need to, but that
one on one, and filling out those applications, and what the
FSA program does for my district is very vital.
So the only thing I just--and it is really not a question,
per se, to put you on point or ask, it is just, please be
mindful when it comes to how we do. Try to regroup and
restructure this, that we make sure that Mr. Bud down the road,
that don't turn on the computer, and only thing he has is to
set that appointment and go meet with his FSA officer, and
still being represented, and still gets programs, and get them
done.
And I am all about efficiency, and whatever we can do to
help, being one of the largest row crop districts in the
country, I do sincerely wish that, if you get the opportunity
to come down and visit, and we will get all the farmers
together, and we will send you back with loads of peaches, and
sweet potatoes, and everything else we are growing. It would
mean a lot to them to know that--they feel like they are kind
of being disenfranchised with this FSA.
Because, I mean, all they hear is the media, and the hype,
and people want to point the finger at you, say that you are
cutting because you are doing other things in the budget. But
it is the world we live in, and how we have to be more
efficient about what we do, and how we do it. At the end of the
day, we are all on the same page, that we want to support the
farmer, and make sure that we are still producing enough crops
to feed this country, and export as much as we can to be
sustainable.
So I just--whatever your comments might be on that, but I
definitely appreciate your time coming here today and visiting
with us.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Representative, the reason why we
learned from the previous experience of taking a look at where
the work is required, we will take into consideration those
areas that are technologically isolated, so that it makes it
more difficult for folks to take advantage of whatever
technology advances are being made in service. So that is
something we definitely should take into consideration, and we
will take into consideration.
This is not about denying people the help they need. This
is about ensuring that we give them not just the help they
need, but even working to maybe give them some ideas that they
never even thought about to be able to connect farmers to rural
development programs, to conservation programs more
effectively, and to deal with the budget realities that we
face. So we will be sensitive to the concerns you have
expressed here.
Mr. McAllister. Well, I appreciate it, and I look forward
to working with you. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
LaMalfa, for 4 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary. 4 minutes, I will hurry. I appreciate the earlier
commentary. California, I am from there, big drought. Anything
you can do to help expedite the disaster assistance, especially
as it affects the Livestock Indemnity Program, we stand to help
you assist with that as well.
We have issues going on also with--we were talking about
the section 404 permits and such, and we have people running
into problems with the EPA, and those folks, and doing crop
changes, and that somehow it involved some kind of Clean Water
Act problem, when they are merely changing crops, and getting
in trouble with the Federal Government and that. So we might
come to you, seeking some assistance on getting through that,
because we think that is a wrong interpretation, as was
commented earlier.
Thank you, again--Ms. Negrete McLeod mentioned the WIC
program in California. We need to see how we can lift that
moratorium get more vendors out there being able to compete,
provide more choices, and hopefully better pricing for people
in the WIC program. To reiterate, do you know when there might
be a start date for reviewing the applications for----
Secretary Vilsack. I don't know the specific date, but I
know that there has been a real focus on trying to get this
done, and getting it resolved quickly. This was a major
problem, and we have been working with the state for a long
time.
So with the questions that are being asked here, I am more
than happy to get back to my office and make sure that Kevin
Concannon and his team get in touch with your office, and some
of the other folks who have asked this question, to make sure
that we get you the latest information.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you so much. Jumping to forestry, I
mean, in California, that old saying, you can't see the forest
through the trees, got too dang many trees. So we need to get a
lot more yield out of our forests. One of our units up there in
the northeast, they had, as an original goal, 32 million board
feet. I hear now they are only going to come up with 12 million
board feet in this year. A couple of my colleagues did mention
board feet, and yield, and all that, and we need a lot more
help. We need a lot more help on the salvage side of it too,
where we have frustrated vendors out there, foresters that
would like to get after salvage.
We are getting some movement on the Rim fire, but a lot of
others are very frustrated because, as you know, you have a
short amount of time to get at the salvage timber before it
becomes insect infested. And then, instead of a positive to the
economy, and a positive getting it out of the forest, now it
becomes a cost to whoever is going to have to remove it later,
or you have a tinder box.
Some local constituents visited my office this morning and
spoke with Forest Service folks, and what they are getting is
that that is kind of a circular argument. Like, they say, well,
the local folks have the authorization to push forward on
salvage, and on the amount of board feet. You talk to them,
they say, well, it is coming from Washington, D.C. So we could
really use your help on clarifying who has the authorization to
push forward on--is it just salvage, or, in general, getting
these permits out.
The frustration is that the harvest permits are not moving
quickly enough, and they actually are part of the solution to
funding. You know, you hear about funding, there is not enough
staff to get the harvest plans or other forest activities done.
We would have a positive income if we are getting those out
timely, and getting the forests working again.
So I throw all these things out as--could you help us
clarify a little bit later too on where the authorization
really lies to make the decisions on the forest units? Is it in
California, in Vallejo, or is it in Washington, D.C.?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I know that in D.C. we basically
set a goal, and, as I indicated earlier, I track it on a
monthly basis. I am under the assumption that these decisions
are not made in D.C. In terms of specifics, they are made at a
much more local level, but I want to verify that, and make sure
that I am giving you correct information.
The information referred to is located on p. 66.]
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota for 4 minutes.
Mrs. Noem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, I
want to thank you for making livestock disaster programs a
priority, and getting those implemented. You know what South
Dakota has kind of gone through the last couple of years, with
the drought in 2012, the devastating blizzard we had in October
of last year, and tens of thousands of cattle that we lost.
Western South Dakota has gone through another 2 day blizzard
here in the middle of calving season, and it is hitting eastern
South Dakota today. So it has been rough, and the fact that you
have made it a priority means a lot to the producers at home.
It means a lot to me.
I know sign-up starts April 15. How soon do you think some
payments might reach the individuals?
Secretary Vilsack. I have been told that our goal is to do
it relatively quickly. I don't want to pin myself down, or our
team down, to a specific timeline, but I can tell you everybody
understands that these folks have waited far too long for
help----
Mrs. Noem. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--and everyone understands that every day
that goes by that they don't get help, somebody who is on the
bubble may get out of the business, so----
Mrs. Noem. Typically in the past it has taken how long for
the payments to go out?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't anticipate it is going to take
very long.
Mrs. Noem. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. Folks have been assuring me that they
are prepared to get this money out as quickly as they possibly
can. That is the hope, and----
Mrs. Noem. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--that is the goal.
Mrs. Noem. I have another problem. And, as far as when it
comes to FSA closures in the past, what we have seen in South
Dakota is that an FSA office will be listed for closure, where
the NRCS office that is right in the same building, located
next to it, is not. A lot of the producers recognize the FSA
office has a big workload, and they are wondering why that is
focused on, rather than NRCS, when they are co-located. I
believe you talked about this earlier, before I came in the
room, of wanting to have a one-stop shop that could meet all
the producers' needs, but I think that is priority.
Two things I would like you to focus on when you look at
producing where those potential closures might come is the
workload, which you have indicated you would. The other one is
distance.
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mrs. Noem. Because I believe in law it says that each
office cannot be more than 20 miles apart as you drive, on the
road miles. In South Dakota, some of those that were listed,
and have been closed, were 50, 60, 70 miles apart. And when we
called USDA and visited with FSA about it, they were
interpreting it as the crow flies. I don't believe the law says
that. I believe that law says driving miles, and I hope that
that is followed when you look at this list, in trying to
become more efficient, and better serving the producers.
Another thing, in northeastern South Dakota, when it comes
to NRCS, we have some specific issues in some counties where
producers who are trying to get wetland determinations done
feel like they are being treated unfairly. And, honestly, they
tell me they feel like they are being prosecuted. So I need
some help with that. I think that when you have land in one
county that is adjacent to another county, and the land in this
county is treated completely different, and the wetland
determinations are happening in a timely manner, whether it is
yes, no, whatever they like, is favorable, doesn't matter, but
it is timely, and it happens, and the county right next to it
takes a year, 2 years, sitting on the wetland determinations,
it is extremely frustrating for those producers to make
decisions. So I don't think it is a whole South Dakota problem.
I do think it is a northeastern South Dakota problem.
Secretary Vilsack. And we have attempted to change the
method in which these determinations are made to raise it up a
level----
Mrs. Noem. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack.--so that we don't have quite the
disparity that you have mentioned. Hopefully that will mitigate
that uncertainty.
Mrs. Noem. Okay. I might need your help with that. If we
can focus on northeastern South Dakota, and make sure that that
district within NRCS is complying with the direction that you
have given to them, that would be great.
The last thing is Section 8204 of the farm bill, that looks
at Forest Service land, and some of the new authorities that we
have given them, and how to deal with Forest Service land in
regards to invasive species. We have the pine beetles going on
in the Black Hills, and I know that you would probably agree
that this is an important provision. Chief Tidwell has told us
that he thinks it is an important provision. And it requires
the government of a state to make a declaration to you to ask
to use these authorities so that treatment areas can be
detected. I know that my governor has done that. Have other
governors asked for that authority in that provision?
Secretary Vilsack. They have. We had a meeting with the
Western Governors, and they all expressed a desire to
participate in this, and we encouraged them to get to us their
designation so that we can----
Mrs. Noem. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack.--determine whether or not it is
expansive enough, or significant enough. You are correct, the
Forest Service is anxious to use this authority to streamline
the process, and hopefully to get a better handle on some of
the problems that we are confronting.
Mrs. Noem. Super. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. All time for
questions has expired. The chair now turns to the Ranking
Member, before we adjourn, to make any closing remarks that he
might choose to.
Mr. Peterson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the
Secretary for his patience, and his willingness to answer
questions. And I guess there are some questions that need to be
answered in writing, so we look forward to that. I look forward
to working with the Secretary and his people getting this bill
implemented, and getting the information out to the farmers on
a timely basis, as timely as we can. Thank you for being here.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair wishes
to note also the Secretary's appreciation for the 2 hours and
45 minutes here, and would note that we are about to adjourn in
a timely fashion. After 2\1/2\ years of farm bill, I like doing
things in a timely fashion indeed.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, if I could, let me close
by--a number of your colleagues have indicated the
extraordinary work that you and Congressman Peterson
individually did on the passage of the farm bill. I would like
to associate myself with those remarks as well, to acknowledge
the great work that was done by both of you to get this farm
bill through, and certainly appreciate the bipartisan nature of
the work that this Committee is engaged in. It is an example
not just for this Committee, but it is an example, hopefully,
for the rest of the Congress, and the country.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Under the rules of
the Committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open
for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and
supplemental written responses from the witness to any question
posed by a Member. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
California
March 31,2014
Dear President Obama,
On this day, marking the birthday of Caesar Chavez, as Bishop of
the Catholic Diocese of Fresno, I join my brother bishops and other
Californians of good will to exercise restraint in the use of water as
an expression of solidarity with those whose livelihood and welfare are
a risk due to extreme drought conditions. The lack of water is
impacting everyone: farmers, ranchers, dairymen, their employees, faith
communities, and the businesses that serve them. The situation is
quickly deteriorating into a humanitarian crisis.
Businesses are shutting their doors and others are laying off
employees. Access for children and families to clean, drinkable water
is uncertain. Legislators struggle to craft an equitable public policy
ensuring the state's present and future water needs. Lines at Food
Banks and Human Service Agencies have doubled due to the issue and in
fact our Catholic Charities services went from 87,000 units of service
in 2012 to 137,000 units in 2013. These numbers will double in the next
year if we don't see a change with the water situation.
We are reminded in this time of drought of our dependence on the
Creator. Our human dignity relies on access to water. The creation
entrusted to us is a common heritage and requires us to work together
as responsible stewards for the common good, especially mindful of the
vulnerable. As the economic and health impact of the drought grows,
those with limited resources will be the first to suffer.
May I respectfully ask that you read the attached letter * from
Senator Feinstein and our bipartisan Congressional delegations and take
action on those recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the letter is printed as received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sincerely,
Most Reverend Armando X. Ochoa, D.D.
Bishop, Diocese of Fresno.
______
Submitted Memo by Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress
from Massachusetts
Memo
To: Republican Members, House Committee on Agriculture
From: Majority Committee Staff
Date: March 14, 2014
Re: Farm Bill Nutrition Savings Estimate
Committee staff have received questions regarding Section 4006 of
the Agricultural Act of 2014 (``the Farm Bill'') related to the manner
in which Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) payments
are treated in the calculation of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) benefits. Background and explanation on the provision
can be found in the attached Congressional Research Service (CRS)
report.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CRS Report R42591, The 2014 Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment
of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits, by Randy Alison
Aussenberg and Libby Perl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Farm Bill's Reduction in SNAP Spending
Section 4006 of the farm bill requires that LIHEAP assistance to a
SNAP participant must be greater than $20 per year in order to trigger
the standard utility allowance (SUA) deduction for that household.
Section 4006 is intended to reduce artificially inflated benefit levels
in households receiving nominal LIHEAP checks from their respective
state. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that this change
will reduce SNAP spending by approximately $8.6 billion over the 10
year budget window of Fiscal Years 2014-2023.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate: H.R. 2642:
Agricultural Act of 2014, January 28, 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/
default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr2642LucasLtr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States' Reaction and Effect on Savings
Seven of the 17 states that currently send nominal LIHEAP checks
have recently announced that they intend to issue minimum $20 LIHEAP
checks for this fiscal year to a portion of their SNAP population to
maintain the artificial benefit levels.
Various media outlets have reported on the announcements of these
states. The press reports assume that the change in behavior of these
states eliminates the savings estimated from the reforms included in
Section 4006. This is false and fails to recognize CBO considerations
included in the savings estimate.
Prior to enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014, the House
Committee on Agriculture (``the Committee'') requested that CBO score a
policy that fully severs the interaction between LIHEAP and SNAP. With
this policy, a state-sent LIHEAP check of any amount would no longer
trigger the SUA that allowed for increased SNAP benefits. Instead,
states would only be allowed to provide an SUA to households incurring
an actual utility expense. CBO estimated that ending the practice of
sending households LIHEAP checks of any amount to trigger the SUA would
save approximately $11.6 billion.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Congressional Budget Office, Preliminary Cost Estimate, October
30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO estimated that the Senate-passed farm bill S. 954 would save
$4.1 billion with a minimum LIHEAP payment of $10 a year. CBO arrived
at the $8.6 billion savings estimate by making certain considerations
about how states would respond to the $20 minimum LIHEAP payment
required under Section 4006.
Significantly, the CBO estimate accounted for the following
considerations:
Raising the minimum LIHEAP payment deters additional states
from artificially increasing SNAP benefits.
The 10 year SNAP baseline assumed that additional states would
start issuing nominal LIHEAP checks. By moving the minimum
LIHEAP payment to $20, CBO assumed that non-LIHEAP states would
maintain the status quo in lieu of shifting scarce LIHEAP
resources toward the SNAP interaction.
Some of the 17 states would increase their minimum LIHEAP
payment to $20 for some or all of their SNAP beneficiaries.
Thus, the decision of these seven states to increase their
LIHEAP payment does not affect the CBO estimate.
As of the date of this memo, seven states have reportedly
committed to increasing their LIHEAP payments to $20 for this
fiscal year in order to maintain artificially-increased
benefits for certain SNAP beneficiaries. While CBO does not
provide state level data, CBO's estimate reasons that some
states would increase their minimum LIHEAP payment to $20, at
least for a portion of their beneficiaries. Thus, the decision
of these states to increase their LIHEAP payment does not
affect the CBO estimate.
Some states will only continue the increased LIHEAP payment
in the near term.
LIHEAP states have an incentive to meet the $20 minimum in the
first few years after passage of the farm bill so that current
SNAP recipients will not see a reduced benefit. As current
beneficiaries move off of the rolls, states have a reduced
incentive to take scarce LIHEAP funding from its intended
purpose to increase benefits for a newly certified SNAP
participant. Some, or all, LIHEAP states may only continue the
$20 minimum LIHEAP payment for a portion of the 10 year
baseline.
LIHEAP Funds
States are using Federal LIHEAP funds to trigger the artificial
SNAP benefit increase. The CRS reports that ``because of the budgetary
constraints associated with LIHEAP funds, it seems unlikely that a
state would give more than $20 to every household that had been
receiving less than $20, but it is an option that is open to states.''
CRS also notes that ``unlike SNAP, LIHEAP is not an open-ended
entitlement, and funding is not sufficient to assist every household
that is eligible for the program. In FY 2009, 7.4 million households
received heating and/or winter crises assistance and 900,000 received
cooling assistance. The number of households assisted may now be lower.
FY 2009 was a year in which states received a total of $5.1 billion for
LIHEAP, compared to about $3.4 billion in FY 2014.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CRS Report R42591, The 2014 Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment
of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits, by Randy Alison
Aussenberg and Libby Perl, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP beneficiaries with an actual utility expense already qualify
for the SUA and do not benefit from the LIHEAP SNAP interaction. Thus,
states choosing to provide the $20 minimum LIHEAP payment are diverting
Federal energy assistance dollars away from citizens with legitimate
energy needs and the intended use of the program. CRS reports that ``.
. . the LIHEAP statute provides that states may use LIHEAP funds to
provide direct assistance to households in several ways: to help meet
`home energy costs' (defined as heating or cooling), to assist in
energy crisis situations, for home weatherization, or for services to
reduce the need for energy assistance such as needs assessment or
counseling on how to reduce energy consumption. CRS is not aware of the
way in which states with nominal LIHEAP payments determine whether
households have need of LIHEAP for the statutory purposes. Payments to
households that are not provided for one of these purposes could be
inappropriate.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid, pp. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by U.S. Department of Agriculture
Insert 1
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The other thing is
that recently Fish and Wildlife, last week, listed the Prairie
Chicken as threatened. I am on the record saying that I don't
believe that was necessary. But one of the things I do
understand is that supposedly Fish and Wildlife did consult
with USDA about this issue. And what I was wondering is did
they ask, or did you furnish them any information that would
lead them to have information of the economic impact of listing
this species, and the hardship or burden that it might place on
producers?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, our primary conversations
with Fish and Wildlife Service on this particular issue was how
we might be able to provide the same kind of regulatory
certainty for Lesser Prairie Chicken that we have provided for
Sage Grouse. So we have been able to enter into an arrangement
with Fish and Wildlife for the benefit of landowners and
producers in which we lay out specific conservation practices
that, if farmers, pursuant to Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), working with NRCS, adopt these conservation
practices, then they don't have to worry about incidental
takings, relative to conservation practices, or relative to
their operation for a period of 30 years. So our focus has been
primarily on trying to figure out ways in which we can mitigate
the impact on farming operations.
I will have to check with my staff as to whether or not
economic information was provided, but I know that I did direct
the staff to look at ways in which we could create more
regulatory certainty for folks who may be impacted by this
decision.
NRCS did not provide data or information related to the economic
impact of listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken. The Agency's effort
was invested in working with FWS to develop a regulatory certainty
framework for producers who take conservation steps to benefit Lesser
Prairie Chicken habitat, similar to the approach that has been used
successfully for Sage Grouse. Under this approach, producers follow the
suite of conservation practices and then don't have to worry about
incidental takings related to conservation or operations for a period
of 30 years.
Insert 2
The Chairman. . . .
I want to talk about cotton a little bit, China has, by some
reports, a 57 million bale strategic reserve, something on the
order of four to five times U.S. production. We are not real
sure what they are going to do with it and why, and it has a
big overhang on the market that is having some impact. Can you
talk to us about what you and the USDA have done to
communicate, either directly to the Chinese or to the WTO, our
concerns about what they might or might not be doing with
respect to their cotton policy, and the high subsidies they are
paying?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I appreciate you bringing
this issue to--bringing it up. You know, our conversations with
China in the last several years have been focused primarily on
their regulatory system and process, and trying to get it
better synchronized with ours, in terms of regulatory
approvals. If I can ask for your permission, I would be happy
to get you a more detailed conversation on what the
communications have been relative to cotton in China.
I can tell you that we have established a China-American
business group in China, the purpose of which is to allow us to
not only inform the Chinese through official circles, but also
to engage Chinese officials and Chinese business leaders in
these conversations. But let me get you more information on
cotton.
Over the past year, USDA and the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) have used the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Committee on Agriculture (COA) to seek increased transparency on
China's domestic support policy for cotton and cotton stocks. In
written questions to China, the United States has pushed for China to
come up-to-date on its required domestic support notifications. China's
last notification was for 2008. The United States with the support of
other WTO members has also asked for information on subsidy measures
associated with China's price support and management of cotton stocks.
Most recently, at the WTO COA meeting on March 21, 2014, the United
States requested that China provide an analysis of the economic impact
and effects of China's management of cotton stocks. Currently, USDA's
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and USTR are preparing a response to
China's submitted analysis provided in late May, which states that
``China's cotton reserve has limited impact on the world cotton
market.'' Questions posed by the United States and responded to by
China are publicly available on the WTO COA website, https://agims-
qna.wto.org/public/Pages/en/Search.aspx. The most recent question and
response is identified as ID: 73035.
Recognizing that China's official cotton market information
collection system lacks reliable data, FAS Agricultural Affairs Office
in Beijing is following the cotton stock situation closely and has
reported on changes in policy, starting from the creation of the price
support program in 2011. Most recently, in April 2014, FAS/Beijing
published the Cotton and Products Annual Report for China, reporting
that the government's changes to its cotton production support policy
for Marketing Year 14/15 narrows eligibility and is expected to lower
farmer payments and financial incentives for planting. The report is
available at http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/
Cotton%20and%20Products%20Annual_Beijing_
China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_4-1-2014.pdf.
Insert 3
The Chairman. . . .
Let us talk a little bit about the SNAP program, and the able
bodied adults of age--under the age of 50 with no dependents.
Now that unemployment nationwide has come down to 6.7 percent,
can you talk to us a bit about what your plans are to continue
granting waivers to states who have asked for those waivers for
folks in that category to stay on food stamps beyond the normal
3 month category?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, there is a real opportunity
in this area, and, for that matter, the entire SNAP population,
to do a better job of connecting work opportunities with folks
on SNAP who are interested in working, and who are capable of
working. That is why we are excited about the portion of the
farm bill that creates the opportunity for us to have up to ten
pilots with states to do a better job of connecting. The fact
that we have these pilots is going to send a strong message
about the important work that states must do a better job of
using the education and training money that they have to
actually do a better job of getting folks better connected.
We think there is a disconnect between economic development
and workforce development offices at the state level and human
services offices. These folks know where the jobs are. These
folks know who is looking for a job. For whatever reason, they
are not doing a particularly good job of talking. We provide
several hundred million dollars to encourage that kind of
conversation. We need to do a better job of compelling that
conversation.
We will be happy to take a look at the waiver issue. . . .
We will communicate with the Committee once we have the results of
the pilots in 2015.
Insert 4
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
the Secretary for his good work, and his staff. Speaking of
which, I want to acknowledge that one of your staff members who
is departing used to work for many of us here in the House
Agriculture Committee, and that is Ann MacMillan, and we wish
her the very best in her future endeavors, Mr. Secretary.
Your opening statement talked about the good, and the bad,
and the challenges American agriculture faces. On the plus
side, you noted that record profits, due in large result to
trade activity, has been occurring throughout American
agriculture. Have you done any evaluations, the Department, on
what the benefits would be if the TTIP, the trade negotiations
between ourselves, and the Europeans, and the TPA, were to be
successfully negotiated?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we are confident that it would
substantially increase trade activities, Congressman. I can get
you the specific dollar amounts.
A TTIP agreement that delivers meaningful market access would
provide a significant boost to U.S. exports and the rural economy. U.S.
agricultural exports to the European Union are now projected to be $12
billion for FY 2014, a figure that can and should be much higher, but
is hindered by EU tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
The EU imported nearly $135 billion of agricultural products from
global sources in 2013, up more than 150 percent from 2000. Yet, U.S.
agricultural exports to the EU grew by only 82 percent during this
period while our exports to the world grew by 181 percent. The EU's
average agricultural tariff is 30 percent, while the average U.S.
agricultural tariff is only 12 percent. The Administration is seeking
in TTIP to eliminate tariffs on exports. Through the TTIP we are
seeking commitments from the EU to eliminate or reduce non-tariff
barriers, such as unwarranted sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)
restrictions, unjustified technical barriers to trade (TBT), and other
``behind-the-border'' barriers, including the restrictive
administration of tariff-rate quotas and permit and licensing barriers,
which impose unnecessary costs and limit competitive opportunities for
U.S. exports. The dollar value of the benefits of a TTIP agreement will
hinge on how rapidly tariffs fall and non-tariff barriers are
dismantled, clearing the way for increases in U.S. agricultural
exports.
Insert 5
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. And, finally, H.R. 933, Continuing
Appropriations Act of 2013, was signed over a year ago. Had
some language in it, Section 742, that required USDA to rescind
sections of the original GIPSA rule, having to do with the
suspension of delivery of birds, and with making the rule
applicable to live poultry. The Department was required to
rescind those within 60 days, and it is my understanding that
hasn't occurred yet. Can you give me an idea when that is going
to be completed?
Secretary Vilsack. I will have to get back to you on that,
Congressman. I don't know.
At the present time, there are no plans to rescind those
regulations.
Insert 6
Ms. Lujan Grisham. . . .
In June of last year the Forest Service conducted a civil
rights compliance review that included Region 3 in New Mexico,
and found that they were non-compliant with several civil
rights requirements. Now, the report detailing these findings,
and suggested corrective actions to be taken, directs the
Forest Service to develop a detailed corrective action report,
within 60 days of the receipt of the report. It states that the
plan must also include any progress made in these areas since
the review. Can you provide me with any updated information
related to both the corrective action plan, and progress to
date on implementing, and going through those review processes?
Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, I would be happy to have
our team and our staff provide you with details. So, if you
don't mind, I am going to answer your question a bit more
generically and generally.
Civil rights compliance reviews are part of USDA's ongoing effort
to determine how well its programs and activities are being conducted
and to help ensure that they are available to all communities in a fair
and even-handed manner pursuant to law. We view the compliance review
as an opportunity to better serve our constituents.
The Forest Service has been working in collaboration with in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights within USDA to
implement solutions to the areas of improvement noted in the review.
Importantly, the Forest Service is engaged in an extensive, long term
effort to update handbooks and manuals regarding grazing permits, and
is committed to working with the Hispanic ranching community as well as
other stakeholders during this process. Regional leadership is engaging
with local stockman's associations and listening to their concerns. In
addition, FS has undertaken several intiatives designed to improve
service such as civil rights training for FS regional staff, technical
training for customers, and the development of a Forest Service plan to
address customers with limited English proficiency. FS will continue to
work with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to
ensure better program delivery and equal access to FS programs.
Other accomplishments to date:
Program Delivery (Title VI) Training has been conducted to the
following regional staff areas:
Regional Civil Rights Committee, which are FS employees
representing the 11 Forests within the region. (c. May 28,
2014)
Special Emphasis Program Mangers and Civil Rights Action
Group Members, Coronado National Forest. (c. March 12, 2014)
Recreational Staff, Coronado National Forest, Special Uses
Permit, 101 Training (c. April 10, 2014)
Region 3 (New Mexico and Arizona Forests) leadership is also
working to develop strategies and action plans as necessary to address
the issues identified in the CR compliance review. Plans will include
identifying training needs for program managers, field leaders and the
public.
Insert 7
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you so much. Jumping to forestry, I mean,
in California, that old saying, you can't see the forest
through the trees, got too dang many trees. So we need to get a
lot more yield out of our forests. One of our units up there in
the northeast, they had, as an original goal, 32 million board
feet. I hear now they are only going to come up with 12 million
board feet in this year. A couple of my colleagues did mention
board feet, and yield, and all that, and we need a lot more
help. We need a lot more help on the salvage side of it too,
where we have frustrated vendors out there, foresters that
would like to get after salvage. . . .
So I throw all these things out as--could you help us clarify
a little bit later too on where the authorization really lies
to make the decisions on the forest units? Is it in California,
in Vallejo, or is it in Washington, D.C.?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I know that in D.C. we basically set
a goal, and, as I indicated earlier, I track it on a monthly
basis. I am under the assumption that these decisions are not
made in D.C. In terms of specifics, they are made at a much
more local level, but I want to verify that, and make sure that
I am giving you correct information.
The national and regional offices provide policy direction and
targets for a variety of restoration work activities, including timber
volume sold. The environmental analysis and the decision memos that
lead to individual timber sales and stewardship contracts are typically
completed and signed at the National Forest level.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Submitted Questions by Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in
Congress from Oklahoma
Question 1. Last week the EPA released its ``waters of the U.S.''
proposed rule. Within that rule the EPA has issued an ``interpretive
rule'' to ``clarify'' that a long list of conservation practices are
exempt from ``dredge and fill'' permit requirements under the Clean
Water Act section 404 exemption for ``normal'' farming and ranching
activities--so long as the practices comply with NRCS standards. So as
I understand it, a farmer only qualifies for any one of these
exemptions if the farmer follows NRCS standards. Is that correct?
Answer. The proposed rule preserves all existing agricultural
exemptions under the Clean Water Act. The interpretive rule clarifies
the scope of the existing statutory exemption found in section
404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act. Under the interpretive rule, 56
conservation practices do not require a Clean Water Act Section 404
permit when occurring in waters of the U.S., if they are implemented in
accordance with NRCS conservation practice standards. The corresponding
NRCS conservation practice standards provide guidelines for
implementation of those practices, which ensures that these
conservation activities meet the intent of protecting and enhancing
water quality.
Question 1a. Will it be NRCS or the EPA who will inspect each
farming operation who claims this conservation exemption?
Answer. The conservation practices identified in the interpretative
rule will be treated the same as all other long-standing agricultural
exemptions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act; there is no
requirement for approval, notification, or inspection, prior to
installing the conservation practice nor is there a requirement for
verification of the installed practice.
The EPA and the Army/Corps will not seek out operations that may
have performed exempt activities; however, they may respond to
notifications or reports of potentially unauthorized non-exempt
activities.
Question 1b. If a farmer does not follow an NRCS standard, is that
farmer violating the law and subject to a $37,500 per day fine?
Answer. Under the interpretative rule, the identified conservation
practices do not require a CWA Section 404 permit when they occur in
waters of the U.S., if they are implemented following NRCS conservation
practice standards. Failure to follow the requirements of the CWA
exemption is a violation of the CWA. The agencies' intent is to work
with farmers to help them meet applicable standards and to correct any
problems that may develop--not to seek fines.
Question 1c. Will farmers be subject to the citizen suit provision
of the Clean Water Act for alleged failure to comply with NRCS
standards?
Answer. The interpretative rule does not modify the scope of rights
afforded to citizens under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act.
Question 2. What role will the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have
in future revisions of these standards?
Answer. The development, review, and revision of conservation
practice standards are the sole responsibility of USDA/NRCS. NRCS
develops these standards to guide its work with farmers, ranchers, and
forest landowners in conserving natural resources in balance with a
productive agriculture. In accordance with the Memorandum of
Understanding that guides how the three agencies will cooperate in
implementation of the interpretive rule, NRCS will meet with the EPA
and the Army/Corps annually to discuss appropriate adjustments to the
list of practice standards exempt from CWA section 404 permitting.
Question 3. Is it true that any--or all--of these ``exemptions''
can be changed, curtailed or even eliminated by NRCS without notice to
the public and without public input?
Answer. NRCS reviews its existing conservation practice standards
on a rolling schedule and the standards are subject to a public process
including a public notice and comment period through the Federal
Register.
Question 3a. How does that compare to current law? Must a farmer
currently meet NRCS standards to qualify for `normal' activities that
are exempt under Sec. 404?
Answer. Under current law, normal farming activities, such as
plowing, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for the production
of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water
conservation practices are exempt when they are part of an established,
on-going farming operation and do not change the use of waters and
impair the flow or circulation or reduce the reach of waters.. The
interpretive rule clarifies the scope of the normal farming exemption
to include conservation activities occurring in waters of the U.S.
Question 3b. Could you please tell the Committee--or submit for the
record--the process by which NRCS establishes these standards, what
input farmers have in their development, and what happens if farmers
disagree with NRCS?
Answer. The NRCS conservation practice standards are science-based,
drawing upon agricultural, academic, and practitioner input. NRCS
reviews its existing conservation practice standards on a rolling
schedule. The standards are subject to a public notice and comment
process through the Federal Register to ensure opportunity for input.
Final standards reflect public comment and the best science--basic and
applied--at the time. Following these standards is voluntary; farmers
may obtain a permit for activities regulated under Section 404 of the
CWA if they do not want to follow the conservation practice standards.
Question 3c. What role will the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers
have in future revisions of these standards?
Answer. EPA and Army Corps may provide input on NRCS conservation
practice standards through the public process along with other
commenters; however, the development, review, and revision of
conservation practice standards remain the sole responsibility of NRCS.
Question 4. Exemption No. 382 on the list says simply ``fence.'' Am
I correct in concluding that a farmer must build a fence on his
property according to the way NRCS says it must be done, otherwise that
farmer no longer qualifies for the conservation exemption and is then
subject to penalties under the Clean Water Act?
Answer. The agencies believe that in the vast majority of
circumstances, fencing does not require a CWA permit and therefore the
404(f) exemption is unnecessary and construction of fences is not
subject to enforcement. In the unusual case where construction of a
fence is subject to the statute, no permit is needed if the fence is
built in accordance with the conservation practice standard.
Question 5. Section 404(f) states in part that ``the discharge of
dredged or fill material . . . from normal farming, silviculture, and
ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor
drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest
products . . . is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation
under this section.'' Of course, there is also the `recapture'
provision which takes away those exemptions if there is a change of
use. But my question is this: How can you read Section 404(f) and
arrive at the conclusion that the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to
fine farmers $37,500 per day if they do not follow Federal fence-
building requirements?
Answer. In the vast majority of circumstances, fencing is not
expected to involve a discharge of dredge and fill material and does
not require a section 404 CWA permit and would not be subject to
enforcement. In the unusual case where construction of a fence is
subject to the statute, no permit is needed if the fence is built in
accordance with the conservation practice standard.
Question 6. The agreement you have with EPA on NRCS practices only
impacts 404 permits correct? Producers will still need 402 permits for
any spray drift that touches any ditch or stock pond because your
Administration's agencies have made them Federal waters, isn't that
true?
Answer. The proposed rule is not expected to alter the scope of
waters, including ditches and farm/stock ponds, subject to the CWA. As
a result, the agencies do not expect to see any significant change in
waters on agricultural lands subject to the 402 program.
Question 7. What agency will spot check and enforce the NRCS
Standards on these ``exemptions''? Does NRCS have the staffing and
budget for this role?
Answer. This exemption is treated the same as other long-standing
agricultural exemptions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. There
is no requirement for approval, notification, or inspection prior to
installing the conservation practice, nor is there a requirement for
verification of the installed practice. NRCS does not have a Clean
Water Act enforcement role. The EPA and the Army/Corps will not seek
out such operations which may have performed exempt activities;
however, they may respond to notifications or reports of potentially
unauthorized non-exempt activities.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. Do you have a timeline for when the education and web
tool funds provided in title I of the farm bill will be available to
extension and land-grant economists and specialists?
Answer. On May 29, USDA announced the University of Illinois (lead
for the National Coalition for Producer Education [NCPE]), along with
the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the
University of Missouri and the Agricultural and Food Policy Center
(AFPC) at Texas A&M (co-leads for the National Association of
Agricultural and Food Policy [NAAFP]), will receive a total of $3
million to develop the new online tools and train state-based extension
agents who can in turn help educate farmers.
USDA also announced on May 29 that it will also award $3 million to
state cooperative extension services--a nationwide network of experts
based at land-grant universities--for outreach and education on the new
farm bill programs. Funds will be used to conduct public education
outreach meetings where producers can speak with local extension agents
and Farm Service Agency (FSA) staff. Outreach meetings will begin late
this summer to help farmers and ranchers understand the new programs
and their options.
Question 2. Do you have a timeframe yet for when you may start the
rulemaking on updating the actively-engaged rule in regard to
management?
Answer. USDA intends to publish the proposed rule by the end of
2014.
Question 3. FSA computers--With passage of the farm bill and
changes to current programs, it will be vital for FSA county offices to
be able to handle the workload. With that in mind, could you please
give me details on the much needed upgrades to FSA's computer system,
or ``MIDAS'', and the reception of the improvements in field offices?
Have there been any bumps in the road?
Answer. The two remaining business applications on the 1980s-era
AS/400 systems, the Marketing Assistance Loans (MAL) application and
the Farm Storage Facility Loans (FSFL), are scheduled to be modernized
to the web by 2015, allowing for the previous hardware to be
decommissioned.
MIDAS seeks to modernize the current system, in which our 2,175
state and county offices and the 9,000+ employees in them utilize
multiple systems when dealing with producers who come into the county
offices and move between systems (e.g., on the AS400, the web systems,
mainframe systems, GIS systems, etc.) to enroll producers into
programs. Prior to MIDAS going live with its first release last year,
county office employees used hard copies of farm maps to work with the
producers on acreage volumes/content, as well as perform a great deal
of manual processes in these activities. Once MIDAS deployed its first
release, Farm Records, in April 2013, which established foundational
data and processes allowing field offices to update farm, producer, and
Common Land Unit records and prepare for taking acreage reports, it
provided county office employees a consolidation visualization of the
farm, eliminating the reliance on paper maps. The deployment also
included farm records with GIS integration, producer information, and
common commodity data. FSA has also completed the consolidation of
geospatial data into a centralized database, eliminating dependency on
outmoded servers and extending the GIS functionality for FSA's service
center personnel. Together, GIS modernization and MIDAS enable FSA to
enhance program delivery and support, allow for timelier implementation
of programs, and allow for the integration of geospatial data with
business operations.
While it is common for a temporary decrease in operational
performance to occur with the implementation of most new technologies,
concerns experienced by users with the Farm Records release have
largely been addressed, and by polling the information technology and
field office staff, we know they are generally positive about the
current release and upcoming MIDAS releases.
Since the deployment of Farm Records last year, we have been
reworking our vision for MIDAS. While we are still finalizing this
vision, we anticipate future releases will include functionality for
acreage and inventory reporting, customer self-service, streamlined
creation and maintenance of producer information and maintenance of
historical information and report capabilities. This will provide
farmers and ranchers with the opportunity to access their records
online and to manage their farming operation information using the
Internet anytime and anywhere. MIDAS will also streamline acreage and
inventory reporting for both customers and staff, and enable data-
sharing across programs, agencies, and offices, greatly simplifying the
administration of these programs. When completed, our vision is that
MIDAS will provide a `single view' of producer data, bridging system
related activities behind the system, so producers' crop and acreage
reports, farm records and `maps', or the geospatial views of their
farms are combined with their farm information.
Question 4. Office of Civil Rights--I continue to hear concerns
about your Office of Civil Rights. Please provide a picture of the
status of civil rights claims pending in that office, including an
accounting of claims pending or that have reached the statute of
limitations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
Answer. In 2009 USDA had an inventory of 1,718 employment
discrimination complaints. Today, the Office of the Assistant for Civil
Rights (OASCR) has reduced its inventory to 1,119: 681 of these
complaints are in abeyance pending a decision by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. USDA has led the Federal government in
enforcement through administrative findings in each of the last 4 years
and brought the ratio of complaints per employee below the Federal
average.
In 2009, USDA faced a backlog of thousands of complaints of
discrimination in USDA programs. The inventory had not been organized
to safeguard complainants' rights to file in court. Many contained
claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and USDA faced
the risk that the ECOA statute of limitations would expire before
complaints could be resolved on a daily basis. Today, OASCR has
resolved all but 356 program civil rights complaints. USDA carefully
tracks all open complaints against the statute of limitations to ensure
that complaints are resolved before it expires. The statute of
limitations has not expired on any program complaint since 2010.
OASCR's inventory includes 112 complaints on which the statute of
limitations expired. OASCR continues to pursue options to provide a
fair and consistent framework for addressing these complaints.
Question 5. FSA offices--There is a lot of concern about the
possibility of FSA county office closures. I have read that you don't
anticipate any closures this year. Do you have any more details you can
share on the ``spoke and hub'' concept that we are hearing about?
Answer. FSA is working to develop a new service delivery concept to
restructure and modernize how FSA services are provided to farmers and
ranchers. The concept proposes to classify each of FSA's county offices
as central, branch, or satellite, based on service needs and available
resources. FSA will be sharing additional details of this concept as
they become available.
Question 6. When will you be able to share your plans for this
effort with Members of Congress?
Answer. As required by the 2008 Farm Bill, plans will be shared
with Members of Congress before announcing a new policy.
Question 7. Are you going to work with your State Executive
Directors and county office and credit employees, along farm and
commodity groups in each state on how best to ``right size'' FSA and
still provide adequate service in the field?
Answer. Yes, FSA has created an advisory group of its State
Executive Directors, and has solicited information from its employee
association stakeholders on the Model Service Center concept and
implementation strategies.
Question 8. USDA field offices--With anticipated office closures,
either in FSA or in Rural Development offices, what is the 3 year
picture at USDA for downsizing in both field locations and employee
numbers?
Answer. During the last several fiscal years, reductions in
appropriations for salaries and expenses have led to significant
reductions in personnel and administrative expenditures for both FSA
and RD. Through staff attrition, voluntary early retirements and buyout
programs since 2010, FSA has eliminated more than 3,000 staff, or a 20
percent reduction and RD has decreased their workforce from over 6,000
in 2008 to less than 4,800 in 2014. The FY 2015 budget proposes closing
or consolidating 250 offices. This level assumes continued reductions
in appropriations for salaries and expenses, as evidenced in previous
years, and a shift in workload activity. No office closure plan has
been approved at this time, however, and FSA has not compiled a list of
specific offices to close.
Given significant decreases in staffing levels over the past few
years, RD is also in the process of evaluating whether or not to close
or consolidate offices. To date no approvals have been granted for
office closures or consolidations. RD will continue to collaborate with
state leadership, employee associations, and stakeholders to maintain
efficient delivery of our programs while taking into account the need
to modernize and align staffing levels with, program delivery and
available resources.
Question 9. NASS Reporting--Given budget constraints, NASS had to
suspend some reporting that was critical to the livestock industry.
What is the current status of that reporting? Is NASS doing anything to
refocus their efforts on critical reports?
Answer. In an effort to meet stakeholder needs, NASS works
diligently to identify opportunities to provide data to support the
agricultural industry. Many programs were suspended during fiscal year
2013, including many critical to the livestock industry. Of the seven
programs suspended, five have been restored. Specific program level
updates are included below.
NASS Catfish Processing: After a period of stakeholder input,
it was decided this report would not be restored.
Catfish Production: In February 2014, the Annual Catfish
Production report was issued, and in July 2014, the July
Catfish Production will be issued.
Catfish Feed Deliveries: After a period of stakeholder input,
it was decided this report would not be restored.
Trout Production: In March 2014, the Annual Trout Production
report was issued.
July Cattle Report: The survey program was restored and July
Cattle report will be issued in July 2014.
Mink Program: The survey program was restored and the annual
Mink report will be issued in July 2014.
Milk Production: The survey program was restored and full
Milk Production report was restored in fiscal year 2014.
Question 10. NASS Reporting--NASS releases preliminary data before
the final month prices are available, given the volatility in the
market place, should those reports continue? Would NASS efforts be
better focused on releasing price information on a timelier basis?
Answer. In an effort to evaluate the Price Program, NASS embarked
on a ``Voice of the Customer'' initiative to listen to data users'
concerns. As part of this initiative, NASS has found that data users do
not find preliminary prices useful in projecting full month prices.
This is particularly difficult during times of volatile price movement.
Preliminary prices represent spot market prices collected around the
15th of the month for some commodities or sales transactions during the
first two weeks of the month for others. As a result of this
initiative, NASS will eliminate preliminary prices beginning with the
January 2015 monthly Agricultural Prices report. The methodology for
producing commodity prices will remain unchanged. The indexes will be
based solely on full month prices and will lag 1 month. The elimination
of preliminary prices allows the Agricultural Prices report to be
released a few days earlier in the month, since significant price data
are not available until later in the following month. The release of
the January report will remain on the last business day, as mandated by
law.
Question 11. NASS Reporting--Are we facing a situation where
private companies may end up having more and better data regarding
agricultural production in the U.S. than the Federal Government? Is
this a concern, and are there discussion underway on how to increase
the quality of NASS' data?
Answer. NASS forecasts and estimates have always been subject to
question by those that use the data. This happens primarily when the
NASS results do not match what is expected. These expectations can be
based on many factors, however each individual entity has their own
biases and motives affecting their opinions. NASS provides the only
unbiased estimates, based on the most comprehensive data source
available.
NASS takes these and all concerns very seriously and evaluates all
estimating programs on an ongoing basis to ensure that all processes
and procedures are statistically reliable and utilize the best methods
possible.
NASS continues to provide the most comprehensive, unbiased
estimates available within the agriculture industry. These estimates,
though sometimes scrutinized, remain the ``gold standard'' against
which all other estimates are measured. As new technologies emerge and
various industries evolve, NASS will continue to adjust and adapt as
necessary to maintain the best data available in service to U.S.
agriculture.
Question 12. Office of Advocacy & Outreach--The Office of Advocacy
and Outreach was created to serve a varied but growing--and
increasingly important--sector of agriculture. Can you please tell me
if you feel it is meeting the needs of small, beginning, veteran, and
minority producers, especially given the increasing budget pressure on
USDA?
Answer. The Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO) is committed to
accomplishing its mission of meeting, the needs of small, beginning,
veteran and minority producers (subject groups) in light of current
budget challenges. OAO works across all USDA agencies in a coordinated
approach to provide outreach, training and education to the subject
groups. OAO has built relationships with numerous community-based and
agricultural organizations to carry out its mission. OAO participates
in numerous outreach conferences and meetings throughout the country.
OAO hosts USDA Partners and Outreach Coordinator Meetings encouraging
dialogue between the subject groups and partners, stakeholders and USDA
officials. Below are some specific actions OAO takes to further this
mission:
Provides oversight and coordination with the Beginning
Farmers and Ranchers Advisory Committee, as well as the
Minority Farmers Advisory Committee, providing recommendations
for the Secretary to improve service to small, beginning,
veteran and minority producers.
Manages the Minority Farm Registry in an effort to improve
communications with registrants.
Provides oversight and management of the REGStats system to
demonstrate transparency on the utilization of farm-related
programs by race, ethnicity and gender.
Collaborates with other Federal agencies and non-
governmental organizations in an effort to provide education
and outreach to our constituents through Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs).
Manages USDA's customer service line.
Serves as the lead on the Small and Beginning Farmers
Working Group.
Enforces the requirement for completing the USDA Cross
Training course to ensure field staff is equipped with
knowledge to effectively assist customers in USDA Service
Centers.
In addition, OAO is working to implement two provisions of the 2014
Farm Bill: Receipt for Service, in coordination with FSA, NRCS, and RM,
and the Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran
Farmers and Ranchers Grant Program under section 2501 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990.
Our fostered partnerships formed with internal and external
officials serve as the mouthpiece for providing feedback to USDA
agencies on issues of concern from these groups. This has been an
effective means of increasing equitable access to all USDA programs and
services.
Question 13. ``Rural Corps''--Your FY15 budget talks about a
``Rural Corps'' to put economic development staff in the field to focus
on ``high-need'' areas. Can you elaborate on this concept and what you
consider to be ``high-need'' areas?
Answer. In total, the budget proposes 250 additional staff years
for Rural Development in FY15. Of this total, approximately 100 would
fill portfolio management and other core functions in the national
office. The remaining 150 staff would be located in the field. Of the
150 placed in the field, a very small number--no more than 50--would be
part of the proposed 21st century workforce pilot called Rural Corps.
This pilot would test ways of
(1) Serving high-need areas, like the Delta, Appalachia, the
Southwest Border, and Indian country.
(2) Modernizing Rural Development' field structure to suit a 21st
Century workforce and to reflect the changing dynamics of rural
America, new technology, and the deep challenges in areas of
persistent poverty.
(3) Leveraging federal investments through increased coordination
among Federal; state, local, private, and nonprofit partners;
and
(4) Building a modern workforce that is mobile, flexible,
responsive, outcome-oriented and accountable.
This new staff would deliver technical assistance and coordinate
and leverage resources from all Federal agencies. These
responsibilities would differ in a few key ways from the
responsibilities of current Rural Development employees.
For example, most Rural Development staff who work in State, Area,
and Field offices are hired for a very specific and relatively narrow
set of duties. In many offices more than 50-60% of staff work
specifically and exclusively on Rural Housing Service loans, loan
guarantees, and Multi-Family housing programs. In a state with 50-60
employees, this means approximately 30 people are doing housing work
and ten are running Rural Development's other programs, including
community facilities, water/wastewater, business, and energy programs.
To better serve and meet the needs of rural communities and to do
more to respond and support locally-identified to the economic
development priorities, staff who are part of Rural Corps would be
selected for a different and broader skill set. For example, Rural
Corps staff might be selected for expertise in community planning or
economic development, and be cross-trained to understand resources and
opportunities across USDA and across the Federal Government, as well as
in the state and region where they work.
As you noted, Rural Development is particularly interested in
serving areas of high need, so in determining locations for this pilot,
we would look to areas of low income and persistent poverty.
Persistent poverty counties are those where 20% or more of the
county population has had poverty level household incomes for the past
30 years. Because counties vary so much in size and population, Rural
Development is also making use of census tract data to identify areas
of high need.
Question 14. Microloans--You have announced that a number of
changes that were made in the farm bill to FSA credit programs are now
effective. On microloans, is the $50,000 limit included in the statute
in place? If not, when will it become effective?
Answer. The limit for microloans remains in place at this time; the
rulemaking process is required to increase the limit from $35,000 up to
$50,000, a process that is expected to be completed in the fall of
2014.
Question 15. Microloans--When will the microloan relending pilot be
up and running?
Answer. Evaluation of the feasibility of this project is
continuing. Loans made under this authority would be the responsibility
of the third party lender, who then would be subject to the loan
eligibility and servicing requirements required by statute. At this
time, it is not clear whether, given the complex requirements involved,
a pilot could be effectively utilized, or whether the Agency should
instead focus efforts on alternative approaches through pilot authority
to reach urban and other underserved areas and sectors with microloans.
Question 16. CRP sign-up--Are you planning on a general
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) sign-up in Fiscal Year 2014? If not,
are there plans to do an extension of contracts expiring on September
30th of this year?
Answer. USDA has announced plans to offer a 1 year extension for
expiring contracts in lieu of a general sign up in Fiscal Year 2014.
Question 17. CRP early out--The farm bill allows the Secretary to
allow for existing contracts that have been in CRP for 5 years to take
an early out option in FY15. How soon will landowners be able to
utilize this option?
Answer. Section 2006 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 requires the
Secretary to offer producers the opportunity for early termination of
CRP contracts in FY 2015 if the contracts have been in effect for at
least 5 years. The following are excluded by statute from the early out
provisions: filter strips, windbreaks, and shelterbelts; wetlands; land
with an erodibility index greater than 15; land devoted to hardwoods
trees; special habitat acreage; farmable and restored wetlands; land
that contains diversions and other control structures; land located
within designated wellhead protection areas; land within an average
width of perennial streams or permanent water bodies; and, land in
CREPs. Producers who exit their contracts may continue to keep the land
in grass or plant crops, subject to conservation compliance
requirements. USDA plans to provide further information on this option
later this summer.
Question 18. CRP early out--I realize the statute directs you to
allow for the early outs in FY15, but with the other additional
authority to allow land prep in the last year of a CRP contract, I
think participants in some northern regions of the country are hoping
that might allow them to be able to work the land yet this year in
preparation for planting a 2015 crop. Will this be possible?
Answer. USDA is aware of this interest among some participants and
recently announced that producers will have the opportunity to sign-up
this summer for early outs in FY 2015. Details on this sign-up are
expected this summer to allow producers to prepare for a 2015 crop.
Question 19. Compliance + Sodsaver--When should we expect to see
rulemaking further clarifying conservation compliance relinkage with
crop insurance as well as the changes to the crop insurance program and
NAP required under the Sodsaver provision in the farm bill?
Answer. For conservation compliance, USDA plans to amend crop
insurance policies effective for the 2015 reinsurance year (July 1,
2014-June 30, 2015) to inform every policyholder of the new
conservation compliance requirements, and publish a rule (7 CFR, part
12) late this summer to provide the details involved with connecting
conservation compliance with crop insurance. Under Section 2611 of the
Agricultural Act of 2014, the Secretary shall use existing processes
and procedures for certifying compliance with the conservation
compliance provisions for crop insurance purposes. Therefore, RMA plans
to use the same processes that FSA has used since enactment of the 1985
Food Security Act. A Fact Sheet and Frequently Asked Questions will be
published to assist in educating producers.
For program changes and impacts relating to the tilling and
production of annual crop on native sod acreage, known as ``Sodsaver,''
regulations are expected to be published by June 30 and will be
applicable to most crops for the 2015 crop year. In addition, program
procedures and training will follow shortly thereafter.
Question 20. Cellulosic--There has been a lot of press lately about
cellulosic ethanol and how there isn't enough production to meet even
lowered targets. However, it is my understanding that there are several
projects underway that will start producing cellulosic ethanol this
year. Are you aware of the status of the POET and DuPont plants in Iowa
and the Abengoa plant in Kansas?
Answer. At this time, USDA is not playing a financing role in any
of the plants listed.
Question 21. RESPA--The farm bill established separate authority
for the Rural Utility Service to work with local electric co-ops to use
on-bill financing to encourage their customers to undertake energy
efficiency upgrades. Can you tell us when the RESPA authority will be
available? Does it need new funding?
Answer. The 2008 Farm Bill added energy efficiency and conservation
as explicit purposes for which RUS could make and guarantee loans. RUS
issued a Final Rule implementing this authority in December 2013. The
RESPA provision in the 2014 Farm Bill is similar in many respects to
the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Program RUS recently began
implementing under that new rule. The key difference between the RESPA
provision and the RUS Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program
is the RESPA provision's zero interest rate loan feature. This major
feature would require budget authority to implement and none has been
appropriated.
Question 22. There has been some criticism of work being done on
climate change by the Administration. Can you tell the Committee what
USDA's role has been in the Administration's efforts on mitigation?
Answer. USDA continues to support voluntary, incentive driven
approaches to cutting emissions using the tools available in farm bill
conservation programs. These programs can help farmers and ranchers
reduce emissions through actions they are already taking such as
improved nutrient management, on-farm energy efficiency and other
conservation measures. Specifically, USDA has been involved in the
President's Climate Action Plan in the following ways:
USDA has invested in more than 6,600 projects from 2009-2012
to help thousands of rural small businesses, farmers, and
ranchers improve their bottom line by installing renewable
energy systems and energy efficiency solutions that will
generate and save enough energy to power 680,000 homes
annually. Recently, Secretary Vilsack announced a new $250
million loan program aimed at helping rural utilities finance
energy efficiency and renewable generation investments for
producers and rural communities.
USDA has also entered into a unique partnership with the US
Center for Dairy Innovation to voluntarily reduce the
industry's methane emissions from dairy cows and to increase
the adoption of methane digesters. To date, USDA investments
have supported over 80 anaerobic digesters to help farm
operations produce electricity from captured methane. While
only roughly 200 U.S. farms currently operate digesters,
according to EPA estimates, there are approximately 8,200 dairy
and hog farms nationwide that could successfully operate a
digester. Under the President's Climate Action Plan, USDA and
the dairy industry are working to develop a Biogas Roadmap to
broaden incentives for greenhouse gas reductions.
In an effort to more effectively mitigate climate-related
risks, USDA announced in February 2014 the establishment of
seven regional hubs for risk adaptation and mitigation to
climate change. These Hubs will deliver science-based knowledge
and practical information to farmers, ranchers and forest
landowners on a regional basis to support decision-making
related to climate change. The Hubs will develop and
communicate voluntary, science-based solutions for our nation's
farmers, ranchers, and foresters to utilize in solving drought,
pest and other problems they are facing on their lands.
Carbon offsets offer additional opportunities. In 2010, NRCS
invested $17 million through farm bill programs to help
farmers, ranchers and forest landowners develop and implement
carbon sequestration and emissions reduction activities. In
2013, NRCS, along with partners Ducks Unlimited, The Climate
Trust, and the Nature Conservancy, announced a new methodology
adopted by the American Carbon Registry for carbon credits
generated from grassland conservation in the prairie pothole
region. The project is expected to begin sales of voluntary
credits later this year. Other NRCS-sponsored offset projects,
ranging from methane reductions in rice production to improved
nutrient management, are nearing this point as well.
Question 23. The EPA Administrator was asked at a hearing in
another Committee about the work done by USDA with the dairy industry
on methane digesters. Would like to elaborate on your partnership with
the dairy industry?
Answer. The Department has teamed with the Innovation Center for
U.S. Dairy for the purpose of reducing bovine related greenhouse gas
emissions. In 2009, a goal and Roadmap were established to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by the year 2020 across the entire
dairy value chain. The team is also committed to accelerating and
streamlining the process for adopting anaerobic digesters by the United
States dairy farm operators through various USDA programs including the
Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). Since 2009, REAP has awarded
almost $45 million in grants and loan guarantees toward 53 anaerobic
digester projects.
Question 24. ``Waters of U.S.''--It sounds as if USDA was involved
in the proposed rulemaking that EPA and the Army Corps published last
week on trying to define ``waters of the United States''. Can you give
us your take on if a farmer or rancher continues to use their land for
agricultural activities; are they are facing any changes in what's
needed of them under the Clean Water Act as a result of this proposed
rule?
Answer. It is USDA's understanding that the proposed rule preserves
all existing statutory and regulatory agricultural exemptions under the
Clean Water Act. As a result, farmers, ranchers and foresters can
continue to conduct the same normal farming, ranching and forestry
practices as part of an established ongoing operation without the need
for a CWA permit.
Question 25. ``Waters of U.S.''--There are concerns that the
proposed rulemaking goes beyond the definition of ``navigable waters''
found in the Clean Water Act. Did the agencies struggle with how to
reflect the Supreme Court's decisions via rulemaking? How important do
you think it is for Congress to further clarify what constitutes
``navigable waters'' under the Clean Water Act?
Answer. USDA feels this question would be better posed to EPA and
the Army Corps because they are the agencies in charge of the proposed
rule and the rulemaking process.
Question 26. ``Waters of U.S.''--There was an MOU signed between
USDA and the EPA and Army Corps. Can you tell us more about this and
the ``interpretive rule'' that was also a part of the proposed
rulemaking on defining ``waters of the U.S.''?
Answer. The interpretive rule addresses the scope of the ``normal
farming, silviculture, and ranching activities'' exemption found in
section 404(f)(l)(A) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The interpretive
rule clarifies that ``normal farming . . .'' activities is not limited
to but does include certain conservation practices that may occur in
waters of the U.S., if the practices are planned/designed/constructed
in accordance with NRCS practice standards and are part of an
established, on-going farming operation. Discharges from these
practices are exempt from CWA section 404 permitting requirements.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between USDA, the EPA and the
Army Corps describes how the three agencies will work together to
implement the interpretive rule, to protect and enhance water quality
and ensure consistency and predictability for the public. The MOU also
identifies how the agencies will coordinate to maintain the list of
conservation practice standards exempt from section 404 permitting,
including revisions to the list.
Question 27. EPA Science Advisory Board--Has the EPA contacted your
office regarding the establishment of an Agriculture Committee under
the EPA Science Advisory Board, Section 12307 of the farm bill?
Answer. Yes, EPA has contacted USDA about this provision.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress
from Virginia
Question 1. You have noted that USDA will use farm bill programs to
promote ethanol exports. How does USDA plan do this?
Answer. To date, USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service allocations of
FY 2014 Market Access Program funding to the US Grains Council (USGC)
for ethanol market research total about $120,000.
The USGC plans to use the FY 2014 funding to conduct market
research of export opportunities for U.S ethanol in China, Japan,
Europe and Mexico.
Question 2. Are you concerned that such a move could exasperate
some of the stock-to-use problems we have seen in the past,
particularly as we enter a year where USDA has warned that there is a
decline in about 4 million acres of planted corn? What, if anything,
will USDA do to consider the corn stocks-to-use ratio and the
availability of corn for both food and fuel demands when pushing
exports of ethanol?
Answer. USDA is not concerned at this point in time about ethanol
promotion given the record corn supply projected for the upcoming year.
Producers have indicated they would plant 91.7 million acres this
spring, down 3.7 million from the previous year. However, in its early
look at the 2014 outlook at the Agricultural Outlook Forum in February,
USDA projected another record large corn crop of nearly 14 billion
bushels and record supplies for 2014. This was based on planted area of
92 million acres, and a return to higher trend yields. The updated
planting number would result in a decline of 50 million bushels in
prospective production, but still result in record supply.
Market promotion for ethanol will help alert foreign buyers to
market opportunities and help us develop markets. Compared to the 2010-
12 period, when prices averaged over $6.00 per bushel, USDA projects
that corn prices are expected to remain closer to $4.00 over the next
few years as growth in domestic demand for ethanol has moderated.
Facing these lower corn prices, surplus ethanol has recently been
moving to foreign markets as U.S ethanol is priced competitively. In
contrast, if the stocks-to-use ratios fell markedly, the resulting
higher corn prices would reduce ethanol plant margins and the incentive
to export product.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary you have been quoted in the media
expressing the need to ``push back harder on food versus fuel'' and
have been quoted as calling the alliance of affected organization that
want to see reform of the ethanol mandate as ``unholy.'' Should we take
those comments to mean that you do not think the RFS mandate has
negatively affected some industries, particularly those in the
agriculture community?
Answer. The RFS mandates have diverted certain quantities of
agricultural commodities, namely corn and soybean oil, from the animal
feed sector to the biofuel sector, and such a diversion has not had
some small price effects for those commodities. However, it should be
noted that the ethanol industry returns a significant amount of the
corn processed back as high value animal feed. Those distillers grains
are widely fed and exported as livestock producers have realized their
value in many livestock rations.
Recently, the loss of pasture due to persistent drought in the
Southern Plains coupled with high feed prices brought primarily on by
the 2012 drought further tightened livestock sector margins. Those
margins have become more favorable now with high meat prices and record
corn and soybean harvests in 2013 although lingering drought in
California and the Southern Plains as well as diseases pressures in the
hog sector continue to pose challenges. Nevertheless, the effect of the
mandates on livestock returns is expected to be minimal. Even at the
height of the drought, it was determined that the mandates were likely
affecting commodity prices by only $0.07 per bushel as the refining
sector desired a large amount of ethanol even in the absence of a
mandate to blend with gasoline for E10 purposes.
Question 4. During the 2012 RFS waiver request, the EPA's analysis
said that had a waiver been issued it would have provided relief of
over $80 million to the pork industry in Virginia and North Carolina. I
am sure other livestock in those states would have felt similar relief,
as would all livestock throughout the county. Yet during the debate in
2012 you opposed a waiver citing concern of bringing long-term harm to
the ethanol industry. Why did you not also balance the needs of all of
American agriculture in this debate, particularly the livestock sector
who was immediately affected?
Answer. EPA's 2012 waiver decision was based on the criteria for a
waiver established in Section 211(o)(7) of the Clean Air Act-whether
implementation of the RFS volume requirements would severely harm the
economy of a state, a region or the United States. EPA determined that
it was highly unlikely that waiving the RFS volume requirements would
have a significant impact on ethanol production or use in the relevant
time frame for a waiver. Thus, it would have little to no impact on
corn, food, or fuel prices, with an average impact on corn prices of
$0.07 per bushel. Waiving the mandates in 2012 was estimated to have
minimal effects on the livestock sectors under a short run waiver as it
would likely result in little relief from high feed prices brought on
by the severe drought. Taking into account ethanol and crude oil prices
at the time of the waiver decision, EPA's analysis indicated that
refiners would be unlikely to reduce ethanol blending over the relevant
timeframe for a waiver.
Question 5. The farm bill that was recently signed into law, made
changes to the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) to prevent the
funding of ethanol blender pumps. This change was made to reflect how
Congress originally intended the program to be administered. You have
made recent statements claiming you will use other authorities to fund
blender pumps. What programs or authorities will you use fund ethanol
blender pump projects? How do you justify this against the intent of
Congress to prevent the funding of ethanol blender pumps?
Answer. We recognize the restriction which Congress imposed on
retail infrastructure to deliver higher blends of renewable fuel
through the Rural Energy for America Program. This retail
infrastructure problem remains as a constriction in the supply-chain
and we will explore all options available to help alleviate this
problem and capture the tremendous opportunity for farmer, foresters
and the nation as a whole to create economic development from renewable
fuel production, as well as the air quality improvement and national
security benefits that these products deliver.
Question 6. Last week the EPA released its ``waters of the U.S.''
proposed rule. We understand they worked with USDA to develop the rule.
Within this rule the EPA issued an ``interpretive rule'' to ``clarify''
that a long list of conservation practices are exempt from ``dredge and
fill'' permit requirements under the Clean Water Act's section 404
exemption for ``normal'' farming and ranching activities--so long as
the practices comply with NRCS standards. So as I understand it, a
farmer only qualifies for any one of these exemptions if the farmer
follows NRCS standards. Is that correct?
Answer. The proposed rule preserves all existing agricultural
exemptions under the Clean Water Act. The interpretive rule clarifies
the scope of the existing statutory exemption found in section
404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act. Under the interpretative rule, 56
conservation practices do not require a 404 permit when occurring in
waters of the U.S., if they are implemented following NRCS conservation
practice standards. The corresponding NRCS conservation practice
standards provide guidelines for implementation of those practices,
which ensures that these conservation activities meet the intent of
protecting and enhancing water quality.
Question 7. Could you clarify, will it be NRCS or the EPA who will
inspect each farming operation that claims this conservation exemption?
Answer. The conservation practices identified in the interpretative
rule will be treated the same as all other long-standing agricultural
exemptions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act; there is no
requirement for approval, notification, or inspection, prior to
installing the conservation practice nor is there a requirement for
verification of the installed practice. The EPA and the Army/Corps will
not seek out operations that may have performed exempt activities;
however, they may respond to notifications or reports of potentially
unauthorized non-exempt activities.
Question 8. Under this rule, if a farmer does not follow an NRCS
standard, or does not fully implement a NRCS standard is that farmer
violating the Clean Water Act and subject to a $37,500 per day fine?
Answer. Under the interpretative rule, the identified conservation
practices do not require a CWA Section 404 permit when they occur in
waters of the U.S., if they are implemented following NRCS conservation
practice standards. Failure to follow the requirements of the CWA
exemption is a violation of the CWA. The agencies' intent is to work
with farmers to help them meet applicable standards and to correct any
problems that may develop--not to seek fines.
Question 9. Will farmers be subject to the citizen suit provision
of the Clean Water Act for alleged failure to comply with NRCS
standards?
Answer. The interpretative rule does not modify the scope of rights
afforded to citizens under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act.
Question 10. My district contains the George Washington National
Forest which is currently under a management plan from 1993. In 2007,
the Forest Service began the process of public meetings to begin a new
Forest plan. I understand that there have been many issues outside of
the Forest Service's hand that has delayed the completion of this plan.
However, at this point the delays seem to be political in nature. When
can we expect to see the GW forest plan completed?
Answer. USDA expects to release the environmental impact statement
and record of decision for the GW plan revision within the coming
weeks. We will notify your office once the plan is complete.
Question 11. When you testified before the House Appropriations
Agriculture Subcommittee, you mentioned that the best way to decrease
the number of individuals enrolled in SNAP is to link the number of
able bodied individuals to jobs that we know are out there. The farm
bill is a good opportunity to do that. Does USDA have a timeline for
rolling out the state work pilots?
Answer. The farm bill provision for employment and training (E&T)
pilots requires USDA to publish the request for applications by August
2014 (180 days from enactment) and to give states 90 days to respond.
USDA must announce pilots by February 2015 and the first report to
Congress on the status of pilot projects is due by December 31, 2015.
USDA is gathering information from interested stakeholders including
other Federal agencies, state agencies, and organizations that provide
work services as we move forward to meet this required timeline.
Question 12. Some states are concerned that this Administration
will not look favorably on state applications that implement state-wide
mandatory work requirements. What are you doing to ensure that a wide
array of projects are selected, include state-wide mandatory
requirements
Answer. The farm bill requires that the pilot projects be designed
to increase the number of work registrants who obtain unsubsidized
employment, increase their earned income, and reduce their reliance on
public assistance. The farm bill also requires that USDA select pilots
that test a range of strategies, including strategies that target
certain populations such as those with low skills, be in both urban and
rural areas, emphasize rapid attachment to employment, and test both
mandatory and voluntary E&T participation. USDA will further clarify
the criteria for selecting projects through the request for
applications as a part of the process in awarding these competitive
grants.
Submitted Question by Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in Congress
from Missouri
Question. In respect to the implementation of the livestock
disaster programs, I wanted to highlight some concerns I am hearing
from Missouri Extension agents in regards to standard stocking rates
for intensive grazing dairy farmers in Missouri. With stocking rates on
these intensive grazing operations upwards for 1 to 1.6 cows per acre,
the traditional FSA guidelines for livestock disaster programs have
lead to a lengthy and more rigorous reporting requirements for these
types of farmers. While I commend the USDA for their commitment to
fraud protection, have the guidelines for the disaster programs been
updated to compensate for these newer, more intensive grazing
operations?
Answer. With respect to each type of grazing land or pastureland in
a county, normal carrying capacity is the capacity that would be
expected from the grazing land or pastureland for livestock during the
normal grazing period in the county, in the absence of a drought or
fire that diminishes the production of the grazing land or pastureland.
Livestock producers that are using intensive grazing methods should
work with their local Extension Service and Natural Resources
Conservation Service to provide grazing management data to their local
FSA County Office. FSA county offices will provide this documentation
to their FSA State Office for review to support a differing carrying
capacity based on intensive grazing from an already approved carrying
capacity for the specific type of grazing land or pastureland.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. Many of my constituents, from farmers to anyone who
shops at the local grocery store, are all preoccupied with the drought
in California, the worst in recent history. I am convinced that the
drought will change the agricultural landscape of California, the
number one ag state in the nation. What is USDA doing, and what means
are available through the farm bill, to keep our farms, crops, and
livestock thriving in the midst of the drought?
Answer. The Department is committed to assisting the State of
California as well as other drought-impacted States through the use its
available authorities. As co-chair of the National Drought Resilience
Partnership along with the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USDA is working in tandem with
the White House, other Federal partners, and state agencies to address
the health and human safety implications of the drought, including
mitigating the severe economic impacts, as well as assisting with
preparing communities and regions for future severe weather events. To
date, the Department has designated 57 of California's 58 counties as
natural disaster areas due to damages and losses caused by extreme
drought. Agricultural operators in all counties designated as natural
disaster areas, as well as those counties contiguous to such designated
counties, may qualify for low interest emergency loans from USDA's Farm
Service Agency (FSA) up to a maximum of $500,000. Farmers and ranchers
have 8 months from the date of the declaration to apply to help cover
part of their actual losses. Also, upon enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill
on February 7, 2014, I directed the Department to have our four major
disaster assistance programs available starting April 15, 2014.
Eligible farmers and ranchers now may apply to receive payments under
the Livestock Forage Disaster Program, and the Livestock Indemnity
Program for grazing losses and livestock deaths due to drought. In
addition, the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-
Raised Fish Program provides emergency assistance to eligible producers
of livestock (including emergency transportation of water for
livestock), honeybees and farm-raised fish that have suffered losses
because of severe weather, disease, or wildfires, and the Tree
Assistance Program, which provides financial assistance to qualifying
orchardists and nursery tree growers to replant or rehabilitate trees,
bushes and vines damaged by natural disasters. California alone could
potentially receive up to $100 million for 2014 losses and up to $50
million for previous years. Applications have been received and
payments have already been issued to many farmers and ranchers in the
state.
On February 7, FSA announced a signup for its Emergency
Conservation Program to provide emergency funding and technical
assistance to livestock producers with emergency water needs. The FSA
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program is available for producers
who have enrolled in this annual protection program prior to the
deadline earlier this year. On April 29, the Department's Natural
Resources Conservation Service launched a $1.5 million chipping
initiative through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
to help orchard and winegrape growers manage fallowed trees and vines.
Sixty million dollars has been made available to food banks in
California through the Department's Emergency Food Assistance Program
to help families that may be economically impacted by the drought, as
well as an additional $6 million in bonus food purchases, and the
Department is working with the California Department of Education to
establish approximately 600 summer meal sites throughout the drought-
stricken region. USDA's Rural Development has made $11 million in
Emergency Water Assistance Grants available to help rural communities
experiencing a significant decline in the quality or quantity of
drinking water due to drought.
The Department has participated in informational drought meetings
throughout California that are sponsored by the California Department
of Food and Agriculture and drought forums assembled by the National
Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Program. We are
diligently addressing questions from growers, insurance companies,
industry groups, the Farm Bureau, and other interested parties on the
impact of water availability. We have provided explanations of crop
insurance policy coverage and prevented planting provisions. As a
result of significant concern over saving perennial crops, the
Department has provided information that allows producers to consider
options to mitigate the impacts of drought without jeopardizing their
insurance coverage.
In February, USDA announced that $25 million has been made
available through EQIP to help California farmers and ranchers
implement conservation practices including irrigation efficiency, cover
crops, orchard pruning, and the protection of grazing lands, and $5
million in Emergency Watershed Protection funds to help protect
vulnerable soils, stabilize stream banks and replant upland sites
stripped of vegetation. Also in February, the Forest Service and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service launched a landscape restoration
partnership to improve the health of forest ecosystems, including the
Mid-Klamath and San Bernardino-Riverside areas, to mitigate wildfire
threats, and the Department's National Institute for Food and
Agriculture announced it will make $6 million in grants available this
year, and up to $30 million total over the next 5 years, to provide
solutions to agricultural water challenges.
Question 2. I appreciate the funding the Administration has set
aside to mitigate drought disaster. I would like to know, and my
constituents would like to know--where did the money come from and what
impact will that have on other programs? Also, when will this funding
actually produce real water?
Answer. The primary funding to address the drought disaster came
from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP). This funding should have
little impact on other NRCS programs. The funding will enable producers
to better manage water resources and mitigate the impacts of severe
drought.
Question 3. Are you engaged with FDA in crafting their Produce
Safety rule under the Food Safety Modernization Act? My constituents
are concerned with the final result, since time is getting short before
FDA has to publish their rule. How is USDA helping prepare farmers for
the uncertainty and changes coming down the road in implementation of a
Produce Safety Rule.
Answer. Yes. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has an
ongoing partnership agreement with FDA, including a Memorandum of
Understanding that has enabled our staff to work closely with FDA on
the FSMA rulemaking process, including our participation in listening
tours around the nation and several webinars, which has provided forums
for the agencies to share information with hundreds of participants and
receive input from interested persons. AMS bridges the gap between its
stakeholders and FDA to address questions about the proposed produce
safety regulation and other FSMA-related activities.
When the produce safety regulation is final, AMS will modify its
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Good Handling Practices (GHP)
program to reflect metrics embedded within the rule. AMS also is
developing a Group GAP certification program that will allow groups of
producers to work collaboratively and pool resources to achieve
conformance with both the requirements of the Produce Safety Rule and
the USDA GAP & GHP Program.
Furthermore, AMS is an active partner in a cooperative agreement
with Cornell University, funded by AMS and FDA, which has established
the Produce Safety Alliance (PSA). The PSA broadly engages with other
land-grant universities and the Cooperative Extension Service offices
across the nation to develop standardized training curriculum for
farmers, growers, packers and shippers of fresh produce in GAP. PSA
currently is developing a curriculum that will educate growers on the
requirements of the FSMA's Produce Safety Rule. The PSA will certify
extension personnel and others to deliver the PSA curriculum to growers
in training sessions across the country.
Submitted Joint Questions by Hon. Gloria Negrete McLeod, Hon. Doug
LaMalfa, Hon. Juan Vargas, Hon. Jeff Denham, and Hon. Jim
Costa, Representatives in Congress from California
Question 1. As you know, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
program moratorium is going on its third year. Small businesses in our
districts are closing due their inability to secure WIC vendor permits
and families are traveling significant distances to reach stores that
will accept their WIC vouchers. We hear the uncertainty that this
moratorium creates to entrepreneurs that want to bring business to our
districts. What is your view of the current timeline for lifting of the
California WIC moratorium for new vendor licenses? Is it on track? Is
it subject to change? What factors may be involved one way or the
other? Is this timeline published for the public view?
Answer. FNS continues to work closely with the California
Department of Health in meetings and conference calls to discuss and
resolve issues related to the ongoing effort to correct and improve
California's vendor management policies and procedures in the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).
We are anticipating the release of the California final regulation
shortly. More recently, beginning on June 1, 2014, USDA permitted the
state to begin lifting in phases the Federal moratorium on accepting
applications for new vendor authorizations. The state may make
additions to current master agreements, provided applicants meet all
selection criteria including a clean business track record. FNS will
continue working closely with CDPH to monitor the phased-in lifting of
the moratorium and will consider an appropriate timeline for subsequent
phases contingent upon the sState's success in meeting targets
identified in the approved Plan for Cost Containment and Program
Effectiveness. Subsequent phases will include additions of new full-
line grocery stores and new above-50-percent and other vendors.
Question 2. Is it possible for USDA to provide some level of
certainty to our constituents by publishing the start date for the
review of applications through a vendor alert?
Answer. The California WIC State Agency is responsible for
reviewing applications and authorizing vendors to participate in the
California WIC program. California WIC will publish the start date for
the acceptance of applications through its Vendor Alert System, and
through other media as necessary, once the moratorium is lifted.
Question 3. How can we meet the demand for WIC with new vendor
locations in the interim while we work out some of the finer points of
the new regulation package?
Answer. On April 10, 2014, the Department issued a policy
memorandum that explains implementation of the vendor preauthorization
provision of P.L. 113-76, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014.
The legislative provision allows WIC state agencies upon the lifting of
a federally-mandated vendor moratorium to seek a waiver from the
requirement to conduct an on-site visit prior to or at the time of a
vendor's initial authorization. This new provision may offer some
relief to a WIC state agency (such as California) facing a backlog of
vendor applications to be processed after a federally-imposed
moratorium is lifted, should it request such a waiver.
Beginning on June 1, 2014, USDA permitted California to begin
lifting in phases the Federal moratorium on accepting applications for
new vendor authorizations. The state may make additions to current
master agreements, provided applicants meet all selection criteria
including a clean business track record. FNS will continue working
closely with CDPH to monitor the phased-in lifting of the moratorium
and will consider an appropriate timeline for subsequent phases
contingent upon the state's success in meeting targets identified in
the approved Plan for Cost Containment and Program Effectiveness.
Subsequent phases will include additions of new full-line grocery
stores and new above-50-percent and other vendors.
Question 4. The criteria for exemptions to the moratorium was
narrow, there are about 200 site locations in California that fall
right outside this exemption criteria that are still waiting for the
moratorium to be lifted and they cannot afford to continue on without
certainty. Since USDA has adopted price caps on products which address
the abuse that caused the moratorium, would USDA consider adding
additional exemption criteria?
Answer. It is anticipated that California WIC will begin accepting
new applications this summer. Coupled with the ability to seek a waiver
of the pre-authorization visit, the Department does not believe there
is a need to expand the exemption criteria at this time.
Question 5. These same 200 stores are in limbo because original
communication from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) in
2011 gave the green light to proceed with a Letter of Intent. A year
later, the Department and CDPH reneged on the original understanding
that the Letter of Intent would grant these stores exemption. This move
cost our communities new investments. Moving forward, will USDA honor
front of the line passes to these stores once the moratorium is lifted?
Answer. California WIC will establish the procedures for processing
applications upon the lifting of the moratorium. On April 10, 2014, the
Department issued a policy memorandum that explains implementation of
the vendor preauthorization provision of P.L. 113-76, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014. The legislative provision allows WIC state
agencies upon the lifting of a federally-mandated vendor moratorium to
seek a waiver from the requirement to conduct an on-site visit prior to
or at the time of a vendor's initial authorization. This new provision
may offer some relief to a WIC state agency (such as California) facing
a backlog of vendor applications to be processed after a federally-
imposed moratorium is lifted, should it request such a waiver.
Question 6. We understand the issue of partial reimbursement may
create problems among the industry. How do we ensure that ``cost'' of
reimbursement will not impede on the timeline and if we ignore this
issue and go live by lifting it, how do we know we aren't creating
another problem long term?
Answer. WIC State agencies may submit a request to exclude
partially-redeemed food instruments from redemption averages to FNS for
approval at any time. The methodology must be based on empirical data,
and a process that is able to identify partially redeemed food
instruments for exclusion. As such, if a state agency identifies an
improved method for identifying partial redemptions it can submit a
request to change its current system. As more state agencies implement
electronic benefit transfer the issue of partial reimbursement will be
eliminated because reimbursement will be based on prices of individual
food items instead of food instruments that may combine several food
items onto one check.
Question 7. The most concerning question is what WIC participating
families do without options of stores that accept WIC vouchers. More
and more families are turning to corner stores to do their family
shopping. At corner stores, families purchase WIC and non-WIC items
although these stores do not offer the most competitive prices on non-
WIC items. Since these corner stores do not have price caps on the
remaining products costumers' purchase, some products can be marked up
10 to 20 percent more. The lack of store access exist for these
families, regardless of the exemption criteria that seeks to assure
that stores are within 5 miles from each other. How are we helping the
very people this program was designed for by limiting their options?
Answer. WIC state agencies authorize vendors that have competitive
pricing for WIC authorized foods, while ensuring adequate access for
the WIC participants. Unlike WIC authorized foods, WIC state agencies
do not have the authority to set price caps for non-WIC items; however,
the nutrition education that is provided to participants is intended to
help them make wise shopping choices whether shopping with WIC benefits
or other means.
Submitted Question by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative
in Congress from Arkansas
Question. Can you provide the Committee with a detailed explanation
as to why the Department missed the required 60 day statutory deadline
to publish a final rule implementing the catfish inspection program?
How far beyond the 60 days do you expect it to take for the final rule
to be published in the Federal Register?
Answer. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service has been
submitting regular status reports to Congress every 30 days on the
development of the final rule establishing a catfish inspection
program. On April 30, USDA and FDA signed a Memorandum of Understanding
intended to improve interagency cooperation on food safety and fraud
prevention and to maximize the effectiveness of personnel and resources
related to examination and inspection of catfish. By the end of May,
USDA will be prepared to send a final rule establishing a catfish
inspection program to the Office of Management and Budget.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in Congress
from Illinois
Question 1. Some of our rural areas were the hardest hit and have
been the slowest to recover from the economic recession. Given the high
unemployment rates in rural areas, I believe it's important to protect
existing jobs and work to strengthen the rural economy. National Beef
Packing announced they would shut the doors of their Brawley, CA plant
on April 4, 2014 citing diminished herd sizes and new COOL regulations
as the cause of the closure. Industry leaders continue to highlight the
negative impact of mCOOL regulations. I have a Tyson plan in Joslin, IL
which employs roughly 2,200 individuals. I'm curious to know what the
agency has done to measure the economic impact of mCOOL. Also, what has
the agency done to ensure consumers have access to valuable information
about the origin of their food without causing major disruptions within
the industry?
Answer. As required under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, USDA
assessed the costs and benefits of regulations to implement mandatory
COOL. Numerous comments on rulemakings confirmed that certain U.S.
consumers value country of origin information; however USDA has been
unable to quantify these benefits. USDA estimated the likely range of
industry adjustment costs to the May 2013 amendments to the mandatory
COOL regulations at $53.1 to $137.8 million. In addition, as directed
by the Agricultural Act of 2014, USDA is conducting an economic
analysis of the final rule published on May 24, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg.
31367). Since mandatory COOL became law as part of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171), USDA has sought and
responded to input and comments from industry and consumers to
promulgate the least burdensome regulations necessary to meet our
statutory obligation while ensuring that the United States complies
with its international trading obligations.
Question 2. This year the USDA has launched exciting new research
projects and will soon establish the Agricultural Research Foundation.
Agricultural research is critical to maintaining a safe and affordable
food supply and while I commend your efforts to promote new research
projects, I am concerned by the proposed cuts to the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) and in particular the proposed cuts to the
National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, commonly
referred to as the Ag Lab. Under the President's proposed budget, the
Ag Lab will lose ten percent of its funding. What impact will this cut
have on the innovative work taking place at the Ag Lab? What is the
rationale for the ten percent cut? What will the USDA do to mitigate
the effects of this funding shortfall on the ongoing research currently
underway at the facility?
Answer. Much of the research at the National Center for
Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) in Peoria, IL, and at ARS'
three other USDA regional laboratories has focused on utilization of
agricultural commodities and development of new products, which were
high priorities when these laboratories were established and during
times when U.S. farmers needed new markets to absorb commodity
surpluses. Successful growth of the corn ethanol and biodiesel
industries are prime examples of how utilization research has
benefitted U.S. agriculture and rural communities.
Due to reductions in ARS budgets over recent years, ARS is
challenged to direct increasingly limited resources to the nation's
most critical, high-priority needs. Today, the most beneficial outcomes
from agricultural research in the U.S. and globally are those that can
expand the supply of agricultural commodities to meet increasing
demands, whereas research intended to increase demand through
development of new products for commercialization is a lower priority.
Thus, funding for utilization is being redirected to solving problems
that limit production.
ARS is working hard to redirect resources at its utilization
laboratories, including NCAUR in Peoria, towards higher-priority
research objectives.
Question 3. As you know, Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDv) has
spread to 27 states in the U.S. and has had a disastrous effect on the
pork industry. Looking at the USDA's quarterly report, the U.S. pig
inventory is down five percent from 3 months earlier which is the
smallest number since 2007. Additionally, market analysts are
predicting a major increase in consumer prices at the grocery store.
While industry groups have invested heavily in research and made
progress, what can and is the USDA doing to assist the pork industry in
terms of relief funds, research funds or disaster assister?
Answer. USDA continues to take a number of actions to combat the
spread of PEDv in the U.S. swine herd. Most recently, on June 5, 2014
we received approval from the Office of Management and Budget to spend
$26 million to combat PEDv. This funding will be used to take actions
such as providing some reimbursement to producers for cleaning and
disinfection, hiring veterinarians to inspect premises, assisting
states with program operations, testing samples, and conducting
research on issues such as pathogenicity and disease transmission.
Also, on April 18, 2014, we announced that USDA will require reporting
of PED virus and porcine deltacoronavirus, in addition to monitoring
disease on affected farms, monitoring movements of pigs, vehicles, and
other equipment leaving affected premises, all with the aim of slowing
the spread of this disease across the United States. USDA is working
with industry and the states to finalize a plan for implementation and
will be issuing a Federal Order in the coming weeks enforcing the
reporting requirements. USDA also announced that it is transferring $5
million immediately for related activities while USDA works to refine
the program and funding needs. These actions are intended to help
identify gaps in biosecurity, as well as additional steps that can be
taken to stop the spread of these diseases and assist producers and
ultimately consumers.
Since PEDv was detected in the United States last year, USDA has
been working closely with the pork industry and our state and Federal
partners to learn more about the disease, its spread, and how best to
assist producers. Together with these partners, USDA has established
testing protocols, sequenced the virus and investigated how the virus
is transmitted, as well as risk factors to minimize its impact on
producers and industry.
USDA is also:
Providing assistance to researchers looking into this
disease, with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) working
with the National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa to make
models of the disease transmission and testing feedstuffs. This
modeling work is contributing to some experimental vaccines to
treat animals with the disease. ARS also has a representative
serving as a member of the Swine Health Board. USDA also
provides competitive grant funding through the Agriculture and
Food Research Initiative program and anticipates some
applications on PEDv research will be submitted soon. In
addition, USDA provides formula funds to states and
universities through the Hatch Act and the Animal Health and
Disease Research Program, Section 1433 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (NARETPA) for research activities surrounding this
disease.
Working as a key member of a task force with industry
stakeholders, including the American Association of Swine
Veterinarians (AASV), National Pork Producers Council (NPPC),
National Pork Board (NPB), veterinary diagnostic laboratories
(VDLs), and State Animal Health Officials (SAHOs). The
objectives for the task force are to investigate the virus,
identify and trace risk factors in the transmission of the
disease, and keep producers informed. The group is voluntarily
collecting epidemiological information on PED and
deltacoronavirus that will help us identify additional cases;
determine how the disease got here and how it spreads; evaluate
strategies for PED control and elimination; and evaluate
options for a disease monitoring plan.
Working with producers through the Farm Loan Programs to
provide credit options, including restructuring loans, similar
to how the Farm Service Agency successfully worked with
livestock producers affected by the blizzard in South Dakota.
In the case of guaranteed loans, USDA is encouraging guaranteed
lenders to use all the flexibility available under existing
guarantees, and to use new guarantees where appropriate to
continue financing their regular customers.
Through these collaborative efforts with states and industry, we
hope to further enhance the biosecurity and health of the U.S. swine
herd while maintaining movement of pigs in the United States.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Steve King, a Representative in Congress
from Iowa
Question 1. The Department released a memo dated March 5, 2014,
titled ``Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program--Section 4006,
Agricultural Act of 2014--Implementing Memorandum.'' This memo states,
``FNS encourages states to move forward with implementation of section
4006 in a manner that adheres to the original intent and basis for the
connection between LIHEAP and SNAP.'' In the time since enactment of
the Agricultural Act of 2014, several states have announced their
intentions to work around Sec. 4006 by awarding $20 in LIHEAP payments
to some SNAP beneficiaries in order to increase the maximum SNAP
benefit. It is clear that practice falls outside the ``original intent
and basis'' of the law.
Is the Department taking any action to work with the states to
reverse this practice?
What interactions have you had with the Governors of the so called
``LIHEAP states''?
Does the Department see this as a sustainable way to administer
SNAP benefits?
Is this a proper use of LIHEAP funding?
In response to this, should Congress choose to completely sever the
relationship between LIHEAP and SNAP, would it address the concern that
the Department raised in its memo?
In response to this, should Congress choose to block grant food
stamps to the states, and allowed the states to have some interest in
the administration of the program, would that eliminate the incentive
for states to ``game the system?''
What effect does this practice in the states have on LIHEAP
recipients? How many potential LIHEAP beneficiaries will not receive
any LIHEAP assistance because the states have chosen to administer it
in this way?
Answer. States have the authority to determine how to use their
LIHEAP funding, in accordance with that program's requirements. LIHEAP
is not administered or funded by the USDA. USDA is in the process of
collecting information about how states are implementing the LIHEAP
provision of the farm bill to ensure statutory compliance. In
communications with states, we have encouraged them to move forward
with implementation in a manner that follows the original intent of the
law and the basis for the connection between LIHEAP and SNAP, as well
as recent changes made by the Farm Bill.
SNAP is a critical automatic stabilizer--designed to expand quickly
to help meet increased need when the economy is weak, and contract as
the economy recovers, ensuring that food gets to people who need it and
that SNAP benefits flow to communities that face rising unemployment or
poverty. One reason that proposals to convert the program to a block
grant are so troubling is that, unlike SNAP, block grants are simply
not designed to be as responsive to economic changes.