[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 6, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-13
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-966 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JIM COSTA, California
STEVE KING, Iowa TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
BOB GIBBS, Ohio JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia FILEMON VELA, Texas, Vice Ranking
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas Minority Member
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
DOUG LaMALFA, California CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TED S. YOHO, Florida STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
MIKE BOST, Illinois DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi JIMMY PANETTA, California
JAMES COMER, Kentucky DARREN SOTO, Florida
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DON BACON, Nebraska
JOHN J. FASO, New York
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
JODEY C. ARRINGTON, Texas
______
Matthew S. Schertz, Staff Director
Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma;
on behalf of Todd Lafferty, Co-Chief Executive Officer and
General Counsel, Wheeler Brothers Grain Company, LLC, submitted
statement...................................................... 45
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 3
Witness
Perdue, Hon. Sonny, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C................................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Submitted questions.......................................... 45
STATE OF THE RURAL ECONOMY
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Conaway, Thompson,
Goodlatte, Lucas, King, Gibbs, Austin Scott of Georgia,
Crawford, Denham, LaMalfa, Davis, Yoho, Allen, Bost, Rouzer,
Abraham, Kelly, Comer, Marshall, Bacon, Faso, Dunn, Arrington,
Peterson, David Scott of Georgia, Costa, Fudge, McGovern, Vela,
Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Bustos, Maloney, Plaskett, Adams, Evans,
Lawson, Panetta, Soto, and Blunt Rochester.
Staff present: Bart Fischer, Callie McAdams, Jackie Barber,
Matthew S. Schertz, Mollie Wilken, Anne Simmons, Evan
Jurkovich, Keith Jones, Kellie Adesina, Liz Friedlander,
Matthew MacKenzie, Troy Phillips, Nicole Scott, and Carly
Reedholm.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. Good morning. I will call our hearing to
order. Please join me in a brief prayer.
Heavenly Father, we thank you, Lord, for the privilege of
serving this great nation. We ask, Lord, for wisdom and
discernment and understanding as we go about these difficult
decisions that affect so many lives across this country and
livelihoods as we work on the decisions that this Committee has
responsibility for. We ask, Lord, that we are worthy of the
blessings of being able to do this. We ask for your help and
assistance. Forgive us for our failures. We ask this in Jesus'
name. Amen.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture entitled,
State of the Rural Economy, will come to order.
I would like to thank our star witness, the Honorable Sonny
Perdue, for being with us today. It is customary for the
Secretary of Agriculture to help the Committee kick off a new
year. This hearing is an opportunity for the Secretary to offer
his assessment of the rural economy and to visit with Members
of the Committee about the full range of issues impacting rural
America and agriculture.
Of course, it does not take a hearing to appreciate the
hardships that rural America and our nation's farmers and
ranchers face today. Over the last 4 years, we have witnessed
the steepest decline in net farm income since the Great
Depression. Producers, who always operate on thin margins, are
struggling to cover their costs. Thankfully, we have taken some
important steps in lightening their load.
The Administration has been moving to unburden farmers and
ranchers of unnecessary regulations that cost producers a
fortune and put them in legal limbo. And, late last year,
Congress approved and the President signed into law a tax
reform bill that provides meaningful tax relief for American
agriculture. Regulatory and tax relief are already helping
America's farmers and ranchers by reducing their cost of doing
business. In turn, this means more economic activity and jobs
on the farm and on main street America.
Unfortunately, on the earning side of the equation, the
news has not been nearly as favorable. Natural disasters and
high and rising foreign subsidies, tariffs, and non-tariff
trade barriers have resulted in lost crops and chronically
depressed prices. And uncertainty over the direction of trade
has exacerbated the anxiety in rural America because the U.S.
farmer and rancher depends so much on access to global markets
to make ends meet.
Crop insurance has been an extraordinary success story,
providing critical risk management to farmers and obviating the
need for Congress to approve ad hoc disaster assistance over
the past decade. However, the most costly hurricanes on record
have shed some light on the areas where we need to make
improvements so crop insurance can serve, as an example, the
Florida orange producer as well as the Iowa corn farmer. Some
weaknesses in the farm bill's safety net have also become
apparent, especially for our nation's cotton and dairy farmers.
We on this Committee are going to do our best to address
these and other issues through pending legislation and a strong
new farm bill that the President has declared he wants sent to
his desk on time.
Toward this end, Mr. Secretary, you developed and presented
some very thoughtful and constructive principles to help guide
us in charting the course toward that new farm bill, and I want
thank you for that.
On the trade front, the ball is naturally more in the
Administration's court than it is in ours. I appreciate the
Administration's strong desire to strike better deals for the
United States and to reduce, if not eliminate, our trade
deficit. But, as you know, Mr. Secretary, there is also a deep
concern in the countryside that none of the gains we have made
in the way of market access for farmers and ranchers should be
lost in the process. In this regard, you have been a critical
friend and advocate and, again, I thank you for that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
I would like to thank our star witness, the Honorable Sonny Perdue,
for being with us today.
It is customary for the Secretary of Agriculture to help the
Committee kick off a new year.
This hearing is an opportunity for the Secretary to offer his
assessment of the rural economy and to visit with Members of the
Committee about the full range of issues impacting rural America and
agriculture.
Of course, it does not take a hearing to appreciate the hardships
that rural America and our nation's farmers and ranchers face today.
Over the last 4 years, we have witnessed the steepest decline in
net farm income since the Great Depression.
Producers, who always operate on thin margins, are struggling to
cover their costs.
Thankfully, we have taken some important steps in lightening their
load.
The Administration has been moving to unburden farmers and ranchers
of unnecessary regulations that cost producers a fortune and put them
in legal limbo.
And, late last year, Congress approved--and the President signed
into law--a tax reform bill that provides meaningful tax relief for
American agriculture.
Regulatory and tax relief are already helping America's farmers and
ranchers by reducing their cost of doing business.
In turn, this means more economic activity and jobs on the farm and
on Main Street USA.
Unfortunately, on the earning side of the equation, the news has
not been nearly as favorable.
Natural disasters and high and rising foreign subsidies, tariffs,
and non-tariff trade barriers have resulted in lost crops and
chronically depressed prices.
And, uncertainty over the direction of trade has exacerbated the
anxiety in rural America because the U.S. farmer and rancher depends so
much on access to global markets to make ends meet.
Crop insurance has been an extraordinary success story, providing
critical risk management to farmers and obviating the need for Congress
to approve ad hoc disaster over the past decade.
However, the most costly hurricanes on record have shed some light
on areas where we need to make improvements so crop insurance can serve
the Florida orange producer as well as the Iowa corn farmer.
And, some weaknesses in the farm bill's safety net have also become
apparent, especially for our nation's cotton and dairy farmers.
We on this Committee are going to do our level best to address
these and other issues through pending legislation and a strong new
farm bill that the President has declared he wants sent to his desk on
time.
Toward this end, Mr. Secretary, you developed and presented some
very thoughtful and constructive principles to help guide us in
charting the course toward that new farm bill, and I thank you for
that.
On the trade front, the ball is naturally more in the
Administration's court than it is in ours.
I appreciate the Administration's strong desire to strike better
deals for the United States and to reduce if not eliminate our trade
deficit.
But, as you know, Mr. Secretary, there is also a very deep concern
in the countryside that none of the gains we have made in the way of
market access for farmers and ranchers should be lost in the process.
In this regard, you have been a critical friend and advocate and,
again, I thank you.
With that, I would like to recognize my friend, the Ranking Member,
for his opening statement.
The Chairman. With that, I recognize my friend, the Ranking
Member, for comments he would like to make. Collin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Secretary, back to the Committee. We appreciate you being here.
As those of us here today are well aware, commodity prices
have dropped since the farm bill was last reauthorized, and
milk prices are also softening as we speak. I am very concerned
that if prices continue to fall and we have any kind of average
year or below average year, that we could be in some real
trouble.
This is one of the reasons that if I had my way, I would
like to see a farm bill that had an improved safety net going
into this situation, but with no new money, I don't know how we
are going to do that.
Last year, the President's budget called for $231 billion
in cuts to the mandatory farm bill programs. You were not yet
at USDA when the budget was released, but I hope that we will
be able to see some of your influence in the new budget that is
going to come out next week, and I am not sure anybody in the
Administration, other than yourself, has much of an
understanding of what goes on in agriculture. So we appreciate
what you are trying to do, and you are the voice of reason at
the table. I wish you luck with that.
As I said, I appreciate your efforts to give us some
guidance in writing the new farm bill, and I hope you will work
with us to write a bill that provides an adequate safety net
and other tools for our farmers and ranchers, and we look
forward to working with you on that.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The chair would
request other Members submit their opening statements for the
record so our witness may begin his testimony and ensure there
is ample time for questions.
I would like to welcome to the witness table this morning
the Honorable Sonny Perdue, Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Mr. Secretary, the floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY PERDUE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Peterson, and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is an
honor to be with you today. I have submitted for the record
comments, but you all know it comes as no surprise that we are
in a very different situation then when you last contemplated a
farm bill regarding commodity prices. The facts are I wish
there was better news, but there is a lot of stress and a lot
of duress on the farms today. The only saving grace for that is
we are talking about a constituency that is probably the most
resilient among Americans, and the most optimistic, or they
wouldn't continue to do what they do year in and year out by
putting a lot of the risk of their equity in the ground, hoping
for that next good crop.
The state of the rural economy is fragile. It obviously
depends on some things that you all will struggle with in this
environment, as Ranking Member Peterson talked about. That was
a heavy burden of the budget in this time period in trying to
create a farm bill with a better safety net in light of the
financial situation that we find ourselves.
But the good news is that, for the most part, the 2014 Farm
Bill was a good pathway forward. As you all indicated and
everyone recognizes, there are a couple of sectors there,
particularly dairy and cotton, that didn't fare as well, and I
know that you all in this Committee having been working toward
a solution on that, and I am hopeful that we can have a viable
solution for those two sectors, as well as our specialty crops
and others that have fared well.
By and large, a safety net is really the goal of the farm
bill, as well as providing for those who don't have the
resources for enough food. But there are a lot of challenges
out there. We have lower commodity prices, as you well know,
and frankly, there is a very specific example of that for those
of you in grain sorghum country, we know just with a mention of
China considering ante upping and countervailing duty taxes,
the cash price on sorghum dropped over $1, which was 25
percent, just yesterday on the cash prices. So we see how
fragile we are from a trade perspective, how dependent our ag
economy is on trade, as well as the labor issue. And I know
that Chairman Goodlatte and others have mentioned a permanent
legal workforce in agriculture that is especially needed. The
good news is we have made some progress on the deregulatory
environment and will continue to do that as we seek out
comments and opinions from our producers and those interested
in the industry about how we produce our food and how we can do
better in the regulatory environment.
Certainly, a lot of progress has been made there, but our
farmers are more leveraged than they were 5 years ago, and that
is a challenge. There is rising debt, not to the level
necessarily of the 1980s, but concerning particularly for those
beginning farmers, the ones that didn't quite have the
advantage of the 2008-2013 run up in commodity prices.
All of those are challenges that we see, going forward. We
have submitted to you our principles on the farm bill. By and
large, you have a good format to begin with, and I want to
applaud, Mr. Chairman, you and the Committee for getting out
around the nation over this last year to hear directly from
producers over the things that they believe have been working
for them, some of the things they believe might have been
working against them, and to understand how we can do better.
As you may know, I have followed many of you in your
districts and I have been there, and I appreciate the
hospitality. We are at 32 states in 9 months, and hearing a lot
of genuine comments there. As we all know, farmers are not very
timid when it comes to telling us what is on their minds, and
they have done so. We have a good understanding of where they
are, but also our consumers. We were in a food bank in
Pennsylvania the other day and saw a great network of providing
for people who don't have enough food, and the great news about
America, it is a great generous and compassionate nation, and
the farm bill does a wonderful job in that as well.
So with those comments, I will try to reserve my answers to
be concise, and if I am not informative enough, you are welcome
to ask for comments on the record and I will be happy to submit
those. So thank you. We are glad to be with you here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perdue follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sonny Perdue, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and
distinguished Members of the Committee. It is an honor to be with you
today. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to provide
an update on the status of our rural and agricultural economy. Not
quite a year ago, I was provided the honor and privilege of taking the
helm as Secretary of Agriculture. Since then, USDA has made
breakthroughs in agricultural trade, moved to reduce burdensome
regulations, produced the report from the Task Force on Agriculture and
Rural Prosperity,* responded to an inordinate number of natural
disasters, and battled through an extreme fire season, among other
notable achievements. USDA employees have worked tirelessly to serve
the American people during this time. As we look ahead, we will
continue our efforts to be the most effective, efficient, and customer
focused department in the entire Federal Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The report entitled, Report to the President of the United States
from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity, has been
retained in Committee file. It can be accessed online at: https://
www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/rural-prosperity-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of the U.S. Rural Economy
In updating you on the state of the rural and agricultural economy
today, I can report that farmers are continuing to adjust to low
commodity prices using a number of strategies, such as by borrowing,
which has increased overall debt-to-asset levels in the farm sector.
However, while conditions are testing the resilience of the American
farmer, the Trump Administration and USDA are focused on creating
economic conditions where they can prosper. With the help of farm
disaster programs and crop insurance, many producers are recovering
from some difficult times following a series of disastrous droughts,
wildfires, and hurricanes in many parts of the country.
The U.S. farm sector has faced declining prices and farm incomes
following the near record levels reached in 2014, leaving some
producers more vulnerable to the production disruptions posed by
natural disasters. Net farm income has fallen nearly 50 percent from
its peak in 2013, as most commodity prices have fallen over the past 4
years while global stock levels have rebounded with several years of
record production. We project continuing low commodity prices and trade
challenges in the face of large global supplies and a relatively strong
dollar for the coming year. As a result, many farmers will continue to
face tight bottom lines, even negative returns in some cases. In 2016,
for example, almost half of wheat farmers had negative cash farm income
and higher levels of debt relative to assets compared to other farm
sectors. We are seeing the effects of those conditions across the
agricultural economy, as farmers cut costs by spending less on inputs,
services, and capital investments.
While crop receipts have fallen with lower commodity prices,
returns to the livestock sector have been mixed with some sectors
seeing higher margins in 2017 relative to 2016. Overall, the record
levels of crop and livestock production we have seen over the past few
years, while contributing to continuing low prices, have helped to keep
farm incomes from falling further. We saw the largest soybean crop ever
in 2017, corn production was the second highest ever, and cotton yield
hit a record high. However, some of our competitor countries have seen
similarly high production numbers. We expect global production to
continue to expand and that will keep stocks abundant and maintain the
pressure on prices.
Producers have reduced spending on inputs and tapped a combination
of savings, loans, and off-farm income and assets to remain in business
in the face of continuing stresses in the farm economy. After 4 years,
however, those resources are dwindling for many. Farm debt has also
been rising more rapidly over the last 4 years, increasing by 22
percent since 2013--up from $315 billion to $385 billion according to
USDA data--and reaching levels last seen in the 1980s. Demand for
commercial farm operating loans continues to increase in most regions
despite a steady, if slow, rise in interest rates on agricultural
loans. The Farm Service Agency's (FSA) Farm Loan Program has seen a
slight annual decline in lending following the record 2016/17 harvests,
but loan demand still remains historically high. While delinquencies
have been stable, FSA has seen a significant increase in restructuring
of direct loans to assist producers during these difficult economic
times.
Relatively firm land values have kept farmer debt-to-asset levels
low by historical standards, and relatively low interest rates, despite
their upward trend, continue to keep the cost of borrowing low. But
those average values mask areas of greater vulnerability. The strength
of land values varies geographically, with some regions seeing greater
weakness even as others hold steady or see modest increases. Debt-to-
asset ratios vary among farm businesses by commodity specialization,
with some commodity specializations showing a much larger share of
highly leveraged operations. About one-in-three poultry farms, one-in-
four wheat farms, and one-in-five cotton farms are highly or very-
highly leveraged, making them more vulnerable to low prices and
impacting their ability to recover from natural disasters.
Commodity programs authorized under farm bill commodity title
provisions have transitioned over the last 3 decades from coupled
income and price support measures linked with supply management to
decoupled income support measures focused on risk management and
market-oriented planting flexibility. The primary goal of Federal farm
programs is to provide an effective financial safety net for farmers
and ranchers to sustain viable production of food, fiber, and fuel in
the face of changing market and production conditions without
distorting markets.
The farm safety net created by the 2014 Farm Bill has provided
significant support to producers as commodity prices and farm incomes
have fallen steadily over the last 4 years. The Agriculture Risk
Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs are a vital part
of the farm safety net and assist producers struggling from low
commodity prices and natural disasters. Payments under ARC and PLC
programs have totaled $20 billion for crop years 2014-2016, with $6.9
billion for crop year 2016 alone provided to assist producers in Fiscal
Year 2018.
Producers continue to find the farm safety net less effective for
dairy and cotton than for other commodities. Cotton production in 2017
was high as a result of increased acres and high yields in some areas.
However, not all producers have benefited, as disasters have affected
some crops, and the increased production has kept pressure on prices
for cotton lint and especially for cotton seed, a co-product that can
help producers meet costs. The 2014 Farm Bill removed cotton as a
covered commodity, and therefore it is not eligible for payments under
ARC or PLC. The cotton STAX program was the tradeoff, but due to lower
cotton prices, it has provided lower revenue protection than producers
expected at the time of the bill's passage. Similarly, some dairy
producers have faced milk prices near or below the cost of production,
but because of the way in which margins are calculated, payments have
been infrequent under the current Margin Protection Program (MPP).
Premiums and fees paid by producers have been consistently higher than
payments under the Program. Last fall, USDA provided producers
participating in MPP the opportunity to opt-out of the Program in
calendar year 2018, and we saw a roughly 75 percent drop in
participation, showing producers were unhappy with the lack of support
provided by the program.
In addition to low commodity prices, the vagaries of weather made
last year a challenge for many of our agricultural producers. U.S.
farmers faced a large number of natural disasters in 2017, including
wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and severe freezes. In
those impacted areas, USDA responded with all the tools available to
it, making timely payments for loss claims on crop insurance policies
and through FSA's suite of disaster assistance programs for noninsured
crops, livestock, trees, vines, and bushes. USDA also provided
assistance to producers to install conservation practices on land
damaged by severe weather, and continues to provide help to communities
to restore and enhance damaged watersheds and floodplains.
Positioned for Success
Since I was named Secretary of Agriculture, my goal has been to
better position USDA to support agricultural producers, while providing
increased accountability to American taxpayers. Through the OneUSDA
call to action, we are creating a new operating model for USDA to
better serve its customers. Through OneUSDA, I am challenging every
employee of the Department to help and listen to those who rely upon
the Department and to be transparent, consistent, and objective in all
decision making. As a result, we will modernize USDA operations and
service delivery; reduce burdens on our stakeholders; serve customers;
and ensure responsible use of the Department's resources. During the
past year, we have initiated the realignment of a number of offices in
the spirit of OneUSDA to improve customer service and maximize
efficiency. These actions reshaped certain offices into more logical
and commonsense organizational structures.
The newly established Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC)
Mission Area has put a stronger focus on domestic agricultural issues
and has provided the foundation for achieving a simplified one-stop
shop for USDA's primary customers, the men and women farming, ranching,
and foresting across America. Through this organization, USDA supported
an effective safety net for the more than two million agricultural
producers who provide food and fiber to over 300 million Americans, and
millions more around the globe. This was never more critical than
during the response to the destructive hurricanes in 2017. In response
to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, thousands of FPAC staff were
deployed across hurricane-stricken regions to provide timely assistance
through various emergency conservation, clean-up, and indemnity
programs while authorizing additional time flexibility for reporting
losses and completing requests for assistance. In the aftermath of
these disasters, FPAC employees successfully coordinated the handling
of over 7,500 requests for assistance or claims, providing the billions
of dollars in much needed assistance mentioned earlier. In addition,
our employees assisted Puerto Rico with a one-of-a-kind program that
provided feed for dairy cattle to prevent herd losses, following
virtually complete destruction of feed sources across the island.
While creating the FPAC mission area, it became apparent that there
were redundancies and inefficiencies in FPAC mission support activities
and that improvements in program delivery could be realized. To reduce
these redundancies and improve operations, we have created a Farm
Production and Conservation Business Center. Through the FPAC Business
Center we have begun to centralize administrative and information
technology operations of the three agencies, which will ultimately
strengthen customer service and capitalize on efficiencies across FSA,
NRCS, and the Risk Management Agency (RMA). An immediate success was
the consolidation of assets that allowed us to dispose of more than
1,000 under-utilized vehicles, generating a $3 million annual reduction
in operating costs. In addition, we are making it easier for producers
to interact with FPAC employees by modernizing IT systems, creating
agency-specific portals for customers to learn about, leverage, and
enroll in our programs. More specifically, we are in the process of
building an online portal for our tech-savvy customers to access their
crop insurance records and their FSA and NRCS contracts, maps, and
more. Just last week we unveiled the new home for that portal,
Farmers.gov, which we are continuing to build upon. America's
foresters, farmers and ranchers have overcome significant barriers to
ensure a reliable food supply, support job growth, and promote economic
development. We will continue to improve our systems to make us more
responsive to their needs so we can optimize the time we spend with
producers in our county offices.
The goal of the creation of the Under Secretary for Trade and
Foreign Agricultural Affairs is to ensure that American producers are
well equipped to sell their products and feed the world. International
trade continues to be an engine for economic growth in rural America,
with U.S. farm and food exports reaching $140.5 billion for the 2017
Fiscal Year, the third-highest total on record. Agricultural exports
generate 20 percent of U.S. farm income, stimulate rural economic
activity and support more than a million American jobs. USDA has worked
tirelessly to find, open, and expand markets for the high-quality food,
fuel, and fiber that our farmers and ranchers produce. USDA scored
significant trade victories, including the reentry of U.S. beef to
China after a 13 year hiatus; signing of a phytosanitary import
protocol for U.S. rice to enter China; easing of regulations on U.S.
citrus into the European Union; gaining approval for new biotech
varieties in China; resumption of U.S. distillers dried grains into
Vietnam and China; reentry of U.S. chipping potatoes into Japan; and
lifting of South Korea's ban on imports of U.S. poultry.
The creation of the Assistant to the Secretary for Rural
Development (RD) recognizes that the economic health of small towns
across America is crucial to the future of the agricultural economy.
Rural America possesses inherent strengths that can be used for
enhancing the prosperity of its people and its contribution to the
economic well-being of the nation. It is our responsibility to use our
resources and expertise to work with these communities to achieve a
higher quality of life for the 46 million rural Americans. In 2017,
USDA made significant investments in rural infrastructure, including
telecommunications, e-connectivity, water and sewer systems, and
critical community facilities that have improved educational, health,
and economic opportunities for rural residents. These vital services
are part of the foundation of a high quality of life and enable
communities to overcome the effects of remoteness and low population
density by connecting them to the rest of the world through high-speed
Internet. In addition, USDA--along with a wide range of Federal
departments and agencies--is focused on crafting an effective response
to the opioid epidemic, including supporting rural communities in
designing and building solutions based on their own specific needs and
strengths.
Through these and other actions, USDA has improved customer service
across all the mission areas of the Department. In the area of food and
nutrition services, we responded to the concerns of local school
nutrition workers and students by restoring flexibility to serve
wholesome, nutritious, and tasty meals in schools across the nation. We
successfully eradicated New World screwworm after the first detection
in the U.S. in 35 years, quickly eradicated outbreaks of Low Pathogenic
Avian Influenza and High Pathogenic Avian Influenza, made significant
progress toward the elimination of two cotton pests, reduced the
destruction caused by feral swine, and reduced sanitary and
phytosanitary barriers to trade. In, 2017, these efforts helped
preserve trade valued at $7.5 billion through resolution of foreign
market access issues related to U.S. export detainment, technical
barriers to trade, and other impediments to trade. We have proposed
regulations to modernize the inspection of swine slaughter and egg
products. These changes will improve the effectiveness of the
inspection process and allow for more rapid adoption of food safety
technologies. Our cutting-edge research program has led to improved
productivity and competitiveness, while improving crop quality,
nutritional value, and food safety. As we look ahead to 2018, USDA will
continue our efforts to be the most effective, efficient, and customer-
focused department in the entire Federal Government.
In addition, the Forest Service responded to an extreme fire
season, deploying over 28,000 personnel and spending $2.4 billion
fighting fires across the nation. To ensure we can continue to meet our
responsibility for fighting fires and preserving the health of National
Forests, we need to find a legislative solution to address the way the
Forest Service funds wildland firefighting. We need a new arrangement
to end the practice that requires the agency to routinely transfer
money from prevention programs to combat ongoing wildfires. For
example, in 2017, Forest Service wildfire suppression spending
necessitated transfers of $527 million from other programs.
Historically, these transfers have been repaid in subsequent
appropriations, however, ``fire borrowing'' impedes the missions of
land management agencies to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and
restore and maintain healthy functioning ecosystems that are vital to
our rural communities. We are close to a legislative solution to our
forest management and fire funding challenges, and it is important to
bring it across the finish line.
We have a strong plan in place to ensure we continue to improve our
service to rural America. On my first day in office, President Trump
signed an Executive Order, directing me to lead the Interagency Task
Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity. We were charged with
identifying legislative, regulatory, and policy changes to promote
agriculture, economic development, job growth, infrastructure
improvements, technological innovation, energy security, and quality of
life in rural America. On January 8, 2017, we released the findings of
the task force. The report is the result of an intensive 6 month effort
made by 22 Federal agencies in partnership with state, local, and
Tribal leaders. The recommendations centered on five areas: E-
Connectivity, Quality of Life, Rural Workforce, Technology, and
Economic Development. To ensure that the findings of this report have a
meaningful impact on rural America, we are moving forward to implement
the initial recommendations and to expand stakeholder participation.
While we have many actions we can take at USDA, we realize it will take
the entire Federal family to make a difference. We are working closely
with the White House so that we can move forward together in making a
lasting impact in rural America.
While the Task Force worked tirelessly to identify solutions to the
problems plaguing our rural communities, there is more work ahead. No
doubt, rural America has struggled under burdensome regulations, but
this Administration is taking aggressive action to reduce confusing,
burdensome regulations that impair productivity, and USDA is not an
exception. As we visit with producers and rural residents in the coming
year, we will continue to listen intently and communicate to our
Federal partners if there are regulations that are unfair or overly
burdensome. Whether it is duplicative paperwork or unneeded process
requirements, we want to hear about it. Regulations must be consistent,
affordable, and practical enough for our customers and staff to
continue doing the important job of feeding, fueling, and clothing the
nation. Under President Trump's leadership, this Administration has
made it a top priority to get rid of excessive regulations, and has
eliminated 22 existing regulations for every new one that comes on the
books. At the President's direction, regulatory reform is one of the
cornerstones of the Department's strategies for creating a culture of
consistent, efficient service to customers, while reducing burdens and
improving efficiency. USDA has identified 27 final rules that will be
completed in Fiscal Year 2018 and result in over $56 million in annual
savings.
We are strengthening our work with our interagency partners in
furtherance of these efforts. At USDA, we are driving interagency
coordination to ensure that we can address the challenges that affect
our stakeholders, whether they are under our jurisdiction or beyond.
For example, just last week, we signed an agreement with FDA aimed at
making the oversight of food more efficient and effective by bolstering
our coordination. The formal agreement outlines efforts to increase
interagency collaboration, efficiency and effectiveness on produce
safety and biotechnology activities, while providing clarity to
manufacturers. We also are working closely with the Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Interior and other Federal partners to
coordinate on issues such as pesticides, endangered species, Federal
land management and other cross-cutting issues.
Finally, I would like to turn to the drafting of the 2018 Farm
Bill. I recognize that it is the job of Congress to write the farm
bill. But we at USDA stand ready to provide whatever counsel Congress
may request or require. Over the past 9 months, my team and I have
traveled to more than 30 states to talk with the men and women who are
at work in the fields on America's farms and ranches to produce the
food and fiber that feeds and clothes every American, and also much of
the world. Whether we were holding town halls, or listening sessions in
fields, machine sheds, community colleges, or front yards, we were
gathering good advice. We heard about what works from previous farm
bills, and what is not working right now. We took what we heard from
the field and have developed a set of principles to aid Congress in
drafting the next farm bill. I have already shared those principles
with you and I hope they serve you well as you go about your important
work of drafting the 2018 Farm Bill. I would like to submit a copy of
the principles for the record. As you move forward with crafting the
farm bill, it is important that it be fiscally responsible in
consideration of our future generations, and reflect the
Administration's budget goals. As you deliberate, it is imperative that
you improve the tools the Department has to address pressing and
difficult situations faced by our producers, and to provide us the
authority to react quickly and provide additional assistance if current
market conditions persist or worsen, within a streamlined budget
constraint.
Conclusion
The economic success of the United States today and in the future
depends on optimizing rural America's productivity and quality of life.
Unleashing the potential and ingenuity of rural communities is an
integral part of making America great again, and will help build a
safe, strong, and proud America. Our whole nation's prosperity is
intrinsically tied to rural America's ability to thrive in the new
global economy, using its abundant natural resources to provide food,
fiber, forest products, energy, and recreation to the world.
I look forward to working with you to implement policies that will
harness the innovative spirit of the hard-working men and women in
rural America and help them improve the quality of life and economic
opportunities across America.
I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Attachment
2018 Farm Bill & Legislative Principles
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) uniquely touches the
lives of all Americans daily, through the food they eat, the fibers
they wear, and the fuels they use. And U.S. producers make it all
possible. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue's motto to `Do Right and
Feed Everyone' has served as the inspiration to travel to more than 30
states across the nation, hearing from the men and women on the front
lines of U.S. agriculture. Through these interactions, USDA developed a
set of principles to share with Congress for consideration as they
craft the farm bill and other legislation beneficial to the
agricultural economy. USDA stands ready to provide counsel to Congress,
and strives to be the most efficient, most effective, and most
customer-focused department in the Federal Government. Our goal is to
be responsive to the American people and improve services while
reducing regulatory burdens on USDA customers.
USDA supports legislation that will . . .
Farm Production & Conservation
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Damaging winds and record rainfall from Hurricane Harvey
ruined hay bales, fences, and farm equipment on Jack Carraway's
Liberty County, Texas farm.
Provide a farm safety net that helps American farmers
weather times of economic stress without distorting markets or
increasing shallow loss payments.
Promote a variety of innovative crop insurance products and
changes, enabling farmers to make sound production decisions
and to manage operational risk.
Encourage entry into farming through increased access to
land and capital for young, beginning, veteran and
underrepresented farmers.
Ensure that voluntary conservation programs balance farm
productivity with conservation benefits so the most fertile and
productive lands remain in production while land retired for
conservation purposes favor more environmentally sensitive
acres.
Support conservation programs that ensure cost-effective
financial assistance for improved soil health, water and air
quality and other natural resource benefits.
Trade & Foreign Agricultural Affairs
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A cargo ship.
Improve U.S. market competitiveness by expanding
investments, strengthening accountability of export promotion
programs, and incentivizing stronger financial partnerships.
Ensure the farm bill is consistent with U.S. international
trade laws and obligations.
Open foreign markets by increasing USDA expertise in
scientific and technical areas to more effectively monitor
foreign practices that impede U.S. agricultural exports and
engage with foreign partners to address them.
Food, Nutrition & Consumer Services
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue tours the Hunger
Task Force vegetable farm, which administers USDA commodity
programs and services area food pantries and food banks in and
around Franklin, WI.
Harness America's agricultural abundance to support
nutrition assistance for those truly in need.
Support work as the pathway to self-sufficiency, well-being,
and economic mobility for individuals and families receiving
supplemental nutrition assistance.
Strengthen the integrity and efficiency of food and
nutrition programs to better serve our participants and protect
American taxpayers by reducing waste, fraud and abuse through
shared data, innovation, and technology modernization.
Encourage state and local innovations in training, case
management, and program design that promote self-sufficiency
and achieve long-term, stability in employment.
Assure the scientific integrity of the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans process through greater transparency and reliance
on the most robust body of scientific evidence.
Support nutrition policies and programs that are science
based and data driven with clear and measurable outcomes for
policies and programs.
Marketing & Regulatory Programs
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Carrots.
Enhance our partnerships and the scientific tools necessary
to prevent, mitigate, and where appropriate, eradicate harmful
plant and animal pests and diseases impacting agriculture.
Safeguard our domestic food supply and protect animal health
through modernization of the tools necessary to bolster
biosecurity, prevention, surveillance, emergency response, and
border security.
Protect the integrity of the USDA organic certified seal and
deliver efficient, effective oversight of organic production
practices to ensure organic products meet consistent standards
for all producers, domestic and foreign.
Ensure USDA is positioned appropriately to review production
technologies if scientifically required to ensure safety, while
reducing regulatory burdens.
Foster market and growth opportunities for specialty crop
growers while reducing regulatory burdens that limit their
ability to be successful.
Food Safety & Inspection Services
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Inspector shows
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue around the processing floor
of the Triumph Food pork processing facility.
Protect public health and prevent foodborne illness by
committing the necessary resources to ensure the highest
standards of inspection, with the most modern tools and
scientific methods available.
Support and enhance FSIS programs to ensure efficient
regulation and the safety of meat, poultry and processed egg
products, including improved coordination and clarity on
execution of food safety responsibilities.
Continue to focus USDA resources on products and processes
that pose the greatest public health risk.
Research, Education & Economics
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Summer Hispanic
Association of Colleges and University (HACU) intern alumni
panel.
Commit to a public research agenda that places the United
States at the forefront of food and agriculture scientific
development.
Develop an impact evaluation approach, including the use of
industry panels, to align research priorities to invest in high
priority innovation, technology, and education networks.
Empower public-private partnerships to leverage Federal
dollars, increase capacity, and investments in infrastructure
for modern food and agricultural science.
Prioritize investments in education, training and the
development of human capital to ensure a workforce capable of
meeting the growing demands of food and agriculture science.
Develop and apply integrated advancement in technology
needed to feed a growing and hungry world.
Rural Development
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development's
(RD) Jacki Ponti-Lazaruk with husband James and daughter
Abigail, 5, came to Miller Farms in Clinton, MD.
Create consistency and flexibility in programs that will
foster collaboration and assist communities in creating a
quality of life that attracts and retains the next generation.
Expand and enhance the effectiveness of tools available to
further connect rural American communities, homes, farms,
businesses, first responders, educational facilities, and
healthcare facilities to reliable and affordable high-speed
Internet services.
Partner with states and local communities to invest in
infrastructure to support rural prosperity, innovation and
entrepreneurial activity.
Provide the resources and tools that foster greater
integration among programs, partners and the rural development
customer.
Natural Resources & Environment
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chelan District Ranger, Kari Grover Wier, reviewing progress
at the reclamation site.
Make America's forests work again through proactive cost-
effective management based on data and sound science.
Expand Good Neighbor Authority and increase coordination
with states to promote job creation and improve forest health
through shared stewardship and stakeholder input.
Reduce litigative risk and regulatory impediments to timely
environmental review, sound harvesting, fire management and
habitat protection to improve forest health while providing
jobs and prosperity to rural communities.
Offer the tools and resources that incentivize private
stewardship and retention of forest land.
Management
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Navy-veteran Lenny Miles, Jr. works on some lesser-seen
business operations for his farm in the office, before heading
out to harvest his corn crop in the afternoon.
Provide a fiscally responsible farm bill that reflects the
Administration's budget goals.
Enhance customer service and compliance by reducing
regulatory burdens on USDA customers.
Modernize internal and external IT solutions to support the
delivery of efficient, effective service to USDA customers.
Provide USDA full authority to responsibly manage properties
and facilities under its jurisdiction.
Increase the effectiveness of tools and resources necessary
to attract and retain a strong USDA workforce that reflects the
citizens we serve.
Recognize the unique labor needs of agriculture and leverage
USDA's expertise to allow the Department to play an integral
role in developing workforce policy to ensure farmers have
access to a legal and stable workforce.
Grow and intensify program availability to increase
opportunities for new, beginning, veteran, and under-
represented producers.
The Chairman. Well Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for
being here and being with us. We are looking forward to your
comments.
The chair would remind Members that they will be recognized
for questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here
at the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be
recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate Members'
understanding.
We have votes at about 11:30. The Secretary has a hard stop
at 12:00, and so I will ask unanimous consent that we go to a 3
minute clock for our questions in order to give everybody a
chance to get their comments in. The 3 minutes will be comments
as well as answers to a question if there is a question in the
comments, so I am going to be pretty Rambo about that gavel. If
we have time at the end to do a second round we can do that,
but in order to try to get everybody through properly, I am
going to be pretty strict on it so we can get this done.
With that, I recognize myself for 3 minutes.
Mr. Secretary, you mentioned sorghum. One of the things
that I tell folks is that we have a President who is defending
America's trade policies, which means going after folks who are
violating it. China has a lot of issues going on, and they have
recently, over the weekend, announced that they are going to go
after our sorghum producers.
The United States had a tremendous run up in sorghum
exports to China over the last 3 years. Can you visit a little
bit about what the agency can do in the interim while this is
being played out for our sorghum producers?
Secretary Perdue. Well obviously the trade environment has
created a lot of anxiety over the last year. I believe that our
President is absolutely convinced that we can do better.
Generally, we believe that NAFTA, for instance, has been
helpful to agriculture in most sectors, but as I look at some
of the provisions and some of Canada's policies regarding the
prohibitions against U.S. products, and we can do better. I
think that Mexico and Canada are coming to that conclusion.
You mentioned China specifically, and we know that in world
trade, China has a policy of dominance in many sectors. The
good part about it is American producers are so productive, we
have to have good trade policies, and the Administration,
Ambassador Lighthizer, is working toward policies that will
right those. We cannot be responsible for China's reaction.
Obviously the Administration knows that we have to be prepared
for that, and we have advocated on behalf of the ag economy to
be prepared for any kind of situation that may arise on actions
they may take.
We think the sorghum issue will mollify over a period of
time. This just shows you, as an example, how fragile and how
sensitive the ag economy and commodity prices are now to trade
disruptions, and we need to be very careful as we take actions
there.
No one is saying that we should not again take actions over
bad actions from China and others regarding intellectual
property theft, other types of dumping there. We just need to
be very careful how we handle the ag economy, because as you
know, agriculture typically is the point of the spear of
retaliatory measures, and we see even the conversation of
considering countervailing duties, what that can do to a market
like sorghum.
Everyone in the Administration is aware of that, and we are
discussing that, frankly, on a weekly basis.
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I appreciate
those efforts.
I yield back the rest of my time. Collin, 3 minutes.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I have said to many people what I am
concerned about with this farm bill is that we are going to get
wrapped around the axle on SNAP like we did last time, and it
seems like all of the rhetoric I hear in regards to work
requirements for ABAWDs, able-bodied adults.
Since 1996, we have work requirements in the Federal law.
You can only get 3 months of benefits if you are an able-bodied
adult unless there is a waiver. So we have nine states that
have statewide waivers. We have 27 states that have some kind
of waivers within their boundaries, and we only have 17 that
don't have waivers. Now at one time, when we had high
unemployment, that was maybe one thing, but as I understand it,
you have the authority to approve these waivers.
One of the things that it says in there is that an
unemployment rate in excess of ten percent, at that point you
don't really have any option. If it is ten percent, you have to
do it. It also says that it does not have sufficient number of
jobs. I am not sure how you determine that. All I can tell you
is that in my district, the number one issue that I have day in
and day out is how do we get enough people to fill the jobs
that we have. These are manufacturing, good jobs, good pay. We
can't get enough people.
The other thing it says is on the request of the state
agency, the Secretary may waive the applicability of paragraph
two of any group of individuals. My question is, in light of
all the rhetoric about how we got to get these people back to
work and somehow or another the SNAP Program is the problem,
which I don't buy into, is there any effort now in USDA to try
to reign in these waivers and to get people back to work?
If I had my way, we would give them money and move them to
my district and we will put them to work.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, sir. Within the limits of the
law, Mr. Peterson, we are doing everything we can to reign in
the waivers.
You mentioned some statutory prohibitions there, and any
time we run up against those, in fact, even from a regional
basis, it is not a statewide unemployment number, but if they
can do that, states have been fairly aggressive. The ones you
identify that have waivers, they have been fairly aggressive in
requesting those waivers for which we see no statutory or
administrative authority at USDA to deny. And we have discussed
it that if we don't find a way to do that, that is one of the
areas that probably that could be addressed in the farm bill
regarding the parameters around those issues of the waivers.
We have had other types of waivers, as you know, that we
have denied that, again, as long as it is a federally mandated
program, it would be very difficult to pick winners and losers
in that regard. So we would welcome, really, more statutory and
administrative authority in order to manage that program in a
way that becomes temporary and becomes a pathway back to
independence and job creations.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Thompson, 3 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, always great to see you. Thank you for
spending some time with us in Pennsylvania a couple weeks ago.
It was really appreciated.
I want to talk about the spotted lanternfly, actually, a
little different. An invasive species, a growing problem in
Pennsylvania. It is already found in 13 counties, continues to
wreak havoc on agriculture producers and land owners. This pest
hosts and is a threat to apples, grapes, peaches, stone fruits,
maples, walnuts, oaks, pines, hardwoods, big part of our
agriculture economy.
Last month at the Pennsylvania Farm Show, Members of this
Committee along with Under Secretary Greg Ibach, thank you for
having him come up in joining us, heard directly about the need
for more resources to combat the spread of this destructive
invasive. Can you advise on how APHIS plans to assist with this
extremely urgent matter?
Secretary Perdue. Well as we know, there are a lot of pests
that are threats internationally. This is a new one. The
Florida industry, citrus industry certainly learned about how
those international pests can damage an industry, and you
mentioned your fruit crops and grapes and others. The spotted
lanternfly is one of those that we hope to get control of, and
the good news is Under Secretary Ibach has already approved the
resources to get it under control in working with your local
people there at Penn State, and within the state, in order to
try to hem that in and stop that spread. It could be a very
critical pest for our fruit and grape industry in that way, as
those affected counties already know.
We are doing our best from APHIS and Under Secretary Ibach
is on the job and we have approved those resources to try to
get control of the spotted lanternfly.
Mr. Thompson. Thank for that. Also, thank you for what you
have done with our nation's school lunch programs. I
specifically am appreciative of the interim final rule you
produced last year that would allow, among other things, to
reinstate low fat flavored milk. That policy is right in line,
obviously, with legislation I have introduced.
Is it safe to say that schools can follow the interim final
rule to include one percent flavored milk as they put out their
bids for the 2018-2019 school year without waiting for the
final rule in the fall of 2018?
Secretary Perdue. That is certainly our intention, Mr.
Thompson, but the fact is many school districts are reticent
over following those kind of waivers, and we would welcome the
kind of legislation you proposed that could ensure that they
could do that. Any kind of waiver process you have is always
problematic and more paperwork, and it would be wonderful if it
were in statute.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is up. Mr. Costa, 3
minutes.
Mr. Costa. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I too want to thank you for your efforts in
getting around the country and coming to California. We look
forward to continuing to see you. You are doing a good job.
Because of time, I have some quick questions and would like
some quick answers.
As it relates to efforts with the Federal Marketing Order
in California, some of us worked very hard on that 4 years ago
to set that up to allow that opportunity to take place under
the right conditions. We are there. We are getting upheld by
solicitor's general opinion on a court decision that is
separate, in my opinion, from the matter dealing with this
Marketing Order. Can you tell us how you are going to get this
resolved? Obviously if you had made a response before December
31, it wouldn't be an issue. Where are we?
Secretary Perdue. Right. It is complicated. Obviously it
has to do with the Department of Justice essentially changing
their minds or their opinion regarding whether the
Administrative Law Judges are constitutional or not. As you
know, the Federal Milk Marketing Order has to be under formal
comment, which is adjudicated.
Mr. Costa. I understand that. Is there another way we can
deal with this?
Secretary Perdue. I have asked my General Counsel that, and
he fears until this Lucia case (Lucia v. Securities and
Exchange Commission) is there, we will be litigated if we
proceeded under that formal comment period.
Mr. Costa. The dairy industry has, as you know, suffered
around the country and as well in California. Obviously they
are very desperate for something to happen on this. What is
your plan of action for finalizing the California Milk
Marketing Order?
Secretary Perdue. One of the efforts we have made in
others, this statute requires this be a formal ALJ type of
adjudicated process. Other steps we have taken are the informal
notice and comment on other regulations. So until this is
determined, I am not sure what----
Mr. Costa. Well we want to continue to work with you on
exploring what other options might be available, given the
circumstances.
Let me segue over to trade. You have been a voice of
reason. It has been difficult for many of us to follow what
direction the President is pursuing with regards to whether it
is TPP or NAFTA. Thirty percent of California's milk goes to
Mexico. Mexico and Canada are our second and third largest
agricultural trading partners. What is your quick assessment on
NAFTA at this point in time?
Secretary Perdue. NAFTA negotiations are a little bit like
Congressional bills. It doesn't ever happen until the end, but
the good news I am more hopeful than I have been.
Mr. Costa. Don't tell me that.
Secretary Perdue. Probably, we will see more movement on
Mexico's side than we do Canada. I believe, frankly, we will
get a better deal from both of them and preserve the benefits
for all three countries.
Mr. Costa. Before the end of this year?
Secretary Perdue. Yes, sir. Again, we have the Mexican
elections coming up. We have one more round here which, in my
opinion, will be extended; but, again, we get the Mexican
politics out of the way, we will have a deal before the end of
the year.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time and I will
submit the other questions for the record.
The Chairman. All right. Mr. Goodlatte, 3 minutes.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. You and I have discussed the issue
of the agricultural workforce a number of times in the past,
and we both agree that our current H-2A Agricultural Guest
Worker Program is deeply flawed.
From those conversations we have had with farmers all
across this country, it makes sense that a guest worker program
should help, not punish, farmers who are willing to pay a fair
wage for law-abiding, dependable workers when American workers
are not available. With the state of the rural economy front
and center this morning, unnecessary burdens place H-2A
employers at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace,
therefore threatening the future of U.S. agricultural
production. Most farmers and ranchers do not even use the
program. How do you feel an overhaul of the H-2A program would
benefit the rural economy of America?
Secretary Perdue. Chairman Goodlatte, as we have discussed
publicly and privately, I applaud your efforts and your
interest in creating a permanent legal workforce for
agriculture. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it is one of
the top three things that we hear about on a continuing basis,
not just the seasonal workers, but obviously in the dairy and
year-round type workers as well.
What you have contributed to this effort is amazing in the
fact that what we have told our constituency that you are
working on some tweaks. It is not everything that all of them
would like, and we have issues from the California transition
to others, but I know that we are working on a good resolution
on those. But we have advised them to be very favorable in
those discussions. I am very hopeful that the legal
agricultural workforce can work its way into any of the
immigration debate and discussion and resolution that Congress
comes up with in the future.
My thanks to you for continuing to put it in the forefront.
It is one of the most critical issues facing American
agriculture.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well thank you, and we will continue to work
with you and the agricultural community to make sure that we
get it right, but now is the time. This is an important issue.
This is the one sector of our economy that is the most affected
by the lack of workforce. Agriculture is impacted by
international competition. Everything that is grown and
produced in America can be produced in dozens of other
countries around the world, and unless we have a workforce and
a program that works to obtain that workforce and one that
works for both employers and the guest workers, and for
American citizens, we are going to lose out. And so I am hoping
that we can get that done and get that done now.
Secretary Perdue. I am very hopeful.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Fudge, 3
minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
Mr. Secretary, do you know if the Administration has made
any progress towards, or even any efforts to, nominating an
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights?
Secretary Perdue. Yes, that person is in vetting right now.
We have an individual that you will be very proud of and we are
moving forward with that. We have been disappointed, frankly,
in our nomination process and how slowly it has proceeded. We
need a lot of help there, but we have identified and the
President hopefully will have a nomination before you very
quickly.
Ms. Fudge. Thank very much. Let me just go a little further
with that.
It is my understanding that you recently considering
realigning the Office of Civil Rights by combining and
centralizing them in D.C. Now quite frankly, I am really
surprised because we all know that the Department does not have
a stellar record of civil rights. I mean, we settled Pigford
for black farmers. We settled Keepseagle for Native American
farmers. So it is very, very important that we don't make those
same mistakes.
I understand about budgetary constraints, no question about
it. I know that this year we are going to borrow 80 percent
more than we borrowed last year because of lagging tax revenue.
I understand that. I also understand that the tax bill that we
just passed is going to make that even worse this year. So I
understand about resources, but I don't understand why we would
punish socially disadvantaged farmers by centralizing something
that we know needs to be in the states. Can you help me with
that? Are we still talking about doing that?
Secretary Perdue. Sure. We are making reorganization in
many ways over centralization of enterprise efforts. The good
news is, and I would invite you to come to the USDA and let us
share with you how we have cleared up the backlog of cases in
less than a year, many that have been there for 18 months to 2
years. We were outside the statutory limits, and the people
that we have had in that situation have cleared those up within
that time limit. Our goal is within 90 days over any kind of
civil rights case or anything being filed to give any
individual externally or internally a hearing and an
adjudication of their complaint.
Ms. Fudge. So again, are you still planning to centralize
all of this civil rights offices?
Secretary Perdue. We are planning to, again, manage the
Department of USDA to be the most efficient, the most
effective, and the most customer focused. That includes,
again----
Ms. Fudge. Mr. Secretary, is that a yes or a no, sir?
Secretary Perdue. I am sorry?
Ms. Fudge. Is that a yes or a no?
Secretary Perdue. Yes, we are going to enterprise manage
that, absolutely.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Lucas, 3
minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, I
want to thank you. It took you all of 11 days to get to my
district after you were confirmed and sworn in, and I have 12
quotes on my iPhone from that speech you gave from that hay
rack that day. I put them there because I thought it was a
composite wisdom. It tells me how your philosophy is about
running this Department. I just wanted to pass this along that
I am thinking about this labor situation, and I have the answer
right here in front of me. More babies and less welfare, but
that is a long-term plan.
I want to shift off that topic and not ask you a question
on it, and turn to this and say to you in this record today
that the nomination of our state Secretary of Agriculture, Bill
Northey, to be Under Secretary of Farm Production and
Conservation in your Department is very important to me, and I
am doing all I can, especially behind the scenes, to try to
bring that together so that can be resolved. I wanted to open
that topic up in case you had any comment you would like to
make regarding that subject.
Secretary Perdue. I would encourage you and all your
colleagues to help in that regard. This is a very important
position. The Under Secretary oversees our FSA offices, our
NRCS offices, and the crop insurance. These are the producers.
That is the customer facing issues that we have. We need good
leadership there. Bill Northey has demonstrated himself. The
frustrating part is it has nothing to do with Bill Northey. It
is a total other issue. If there were issues regarding his
answers or other things like that, I could accept that more and
we would work to cure that. We feel as if we are caught in a
crossfire, so I hope you will use your personal relationships
in that regard to help us remove that hold as soon as possible.
Mr. Lucas. I will continue with that, Mr. Secretary, and I
appreciate your response.
Shifting topics, the foot-and-mouth disease vaccine, many
of us agree on expanding and establishing a bank, a vaccine
bank. But I wanted to ask you specifically to speak to the
issue of genetically modified vaccine and how that might
dramatically change the way we produce a vaccine, how we
inventory it, and how we distribute it.
Secretary Perdue. Surely. There are, if I can use the term,
two strains of thought regarding that right now. One is a
traditional vaccine that cannot be produced in the United
States of America by statute. We would have to procure that.
Really the only effort there now is in France. That is still a
longer term type of thing before they get a line up. The ARS
has participated in what is called a leaderless or attenuated
vaccine that could be produced here. Many people feel like that
is a ways away as well.
Honestly, Congressman, that is an issue where USDA owes
this Committee and Congress more specific information and
advice and counsel over how you make the decisions of which way
to go. Certainly from an appropriation, this is not a cheap
issue. The money is not there. You have to find it, and I
challenged my team this week to get more specific advice and
counsel regarding what recommendations, the pros and cons of
each step, so you all can be as informed you need to be.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
McGovern, 3 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being
here.
Mr. Secretary, I am deeply worried about the future of SNAP
and our nutrition programs. I am worried because, as the
ranking Democrat on the Nutrition Subcommittee, we haven't seen
a paragraph, a sentence about what might be in the farm bill,
and that usually tells me that when it comes out, it is going
to be something I don't like. And I am worried because I read
today, the Chairman of the Committee saying that the Freedom
Caucus will be very happy with the so-called reforms on SNAP.
We have no idea what they are going to be. I am assuming that
our USDA is working with the Majority on this Committee, in
drafting the farm bill, and if you are, maybe you can give us a
copy of what we are supposed to be dealing with. I don't think
it is a classified document.
I would just say that I want a farm bill just as much as
everybody else does on this Committee, but if it eviscerates
our nutrition programs, our SNAP Program, there is going to be
one hell of a fight on the floor.
Last year, you said when you came before the Committee, and
you were new, that, ``SNAP is a very effective program'' and,
``You didn't want to fix things that aren't broken.'' That was
music to my ears. Yet a couple of weeks later, the
Administration's budget came out and it was $193 billion in
cuts in the program. Now to be fair, you had just started so
that wasn't your work. I hope that we get an assurance that we
won't see those kinds of cuts when the new budget comes out.
I saw the USDA's farm bill principles in which you advocate
for legislation that will support work. We all support work,
but I am just wondering what the specifics of that might be,
and then you said that, you don't want SNAP to become a
permanent lifestyle for some, and all the numbers show that
that is not the case. That even with able-bodied adults without
dependents, that the time on the program is relatively short. I
am worried about some of these words because they have
meanings, sometimes, that justify deep cuts in this program
that might throw people off.
Is there any kind of assurance you can give us that we are
not going to see in the Administration's budget deep cuts in
SNAP, or that the Administration will not stand for this
Committee coming up with a farm bill that would have deep cuts
in the SNAP program.
Secretary Perdue. Certainly, Congressman. Our role at USDA,
and we would be happy to visit with you specifically as well as
we do all Members to talk about ideas of where we feel like we
can inform you and give you counsel and advice of the farm
program. Obviously, the role of this Committee and Congress in
general is to write the farm bill. Our goal is advice and
counsel in those areas where we see some advantages.
You may be looking at different statistics than I am, but
obviously, we believe that work for those people who are able
is a transition to a more independent lifestyle----
Mr. McGovern. And the majority of people who can work
actually do work who are on SNAP.
I guess my point is simply that if you have any influence
with the Majority in this Committee, please get them to release
the text so that we can actually look at it and know what we
are going to be voting on, and to find out whether it is going
to adversely impact the most vulnerable amongst our society.
Secretary Perdue. I will speak to the Chairman right after
this meeting.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Scott,
3 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, always good to see you.
We have had a lot of discussions about a lot of things. I
want to talk with you briefly about rural broadband, and as you
know, the digital divide is one of the things that we have to
bridge as we talk about the rural economy. How do we get
industries to prosper there, whether they be large or small?
And obviously, access to the digital infrastructure of the
country is one of the most important things.
Right now, USDA and the FCC both have programs to assist
rural broadband deployment. Can you speak to the coordination
between the two agencies and if there are any improvements that
can be made, and as we begin working on the infrastructure
package, what suggestions do you have for improved access to
the under-served areas without overbuilding or duplicating
services?
Secretary Perdue. Thank you for the question, Congressman
Scott. This, again, could be one of the most transformative
things we do in the 21st century regarding ubiquitous broadband
to allow everyone from wherever they may live in the United
States to participate in the modern data-driven economy.
We are, again, working with FCC. We are working with the
Department of Commerce in the Rural Prosperity Task Force. We
made it one of the primary points. The good news is the
Administration, the White House has picked up on this and we
are now working with the Center of Innovation out of the White
House and trying to focus and understand from a census of where
all the Federal dollars are, and how they can be, again,
concentrated in an effective way, not only just for Federal
dollars, but in the infrastructure bill to leverage with state
and local dollars. Many states already have ideas about this,
as well as the private-sector. Our Administrator of Rural
Utilities Service and Rural Development was just announced. He
is a former electric co-op president who led in Missouri in a
very less than dense area a profitable transition in that. We
think there are a lot of partners out there that could be
effective, not in a hothouse type of environment, but a general
strategic goal of broadband everywhere. It has sociological
input, it has economic benefits for e-commerce, it has
telemedicine, distance learning, all those kinds of things,
plus the sociological benefits of keeping those kids in areas
where they would love to live.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Well Mr. Secretary, thank you
for your service. I hope that as you continue to serve, we will
remember the hard times that we had with the Federal agencies
in trying to run the State of Georgia and hopefully get those
barriers out of the way where we can remove the barriers and
get the government closer to the people.
So thank you for your service. He was a great governor and
he is going to be a great Secretary of Agriculture.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Kuster,
3 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Secretary, and thank you again for coming to New Hampshire. We
had a wonderful meeting with you and I appreciate it.
I am going to cut right to the chase. You and I had a nice
colloquy last time you came about your experience with the
Appalachian Regional Commission. In my part of the country, the
Northern Border Regional Commission is crucial for our rural
development, and I am very concerned that that has been
eliminated from the proposed budget. I just want to cite a
couple of things that are happening in my district. Financing
the construction of a 32 bed treatment facility for our opioid
epidemic in a town called Bethlehem, New Hampshire, crucial.
This is the northern part of my district. No other treatment
facility is available. We are in the process of constructing
affordable housing units for veterans in Plymouth, New
Hampshire. We opened a new health facility in Bristol, New
Hampshire. Crucial funding for our infrastructure in rural
communities.
Can you make a commitment to me today that you will help us
get the funding for the Northern Borders Regional Commission?
Secretary Perdue. Well again, I will commit to you that
Rural Development and the USDA will do all that we can in these
areas to help. Obviously I wish that I were in charge of the
whole budget, but I am not, and obviously there is an
organization called OMB that has a lot of say in that. We try
to advise and counsel them as well, but oftentimes they don't
listen as well to us as we would like for them to in that
regard.
But certainly for the needs, as you indicated, I saw
firsthand the beneficiary of the Appalachian Regional
Commission. I know what these can do, but we also are committed
and dedicated to making sure rural development in these kinds
of spaces, whether it is treatment facilities, transition
facilities, or the other things that you mentioned, still as a
strong participant in our rural communities, whether it be the
Northeast, the Southeast, the Southwest, or the Northwest, and
all across America.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, and just a heads up to my
colleagues, I have bipartisan support from my Republican
colleagues and Democratic colleagues. I hope this will be in
the upcoming farm bill. If not, I will be back with an
amendment.
So thank you, and just very briefly, could you comment
about rural broadband deployment? That was an issue we had
talked about when you were in New Hampshire, in 30 seconds.
Secretary Perdue. Certainly. We are working feverishly,
actually, not only the FCC, Department of Commerce, other
partners where billions of Federal dollars are already going,
but with our state and local partners as well as our private-
sector partners in trying to develop a nationwide strategy for
deployment of that. We believe, again, as I indicated to
Congressman Scott, that it could be one of the most
transformative things we do in America for the 21st century.
You look at the Federal highway interstate system, you look at
the REA, you look at the telephone system. That is what we need
today, and we are working toward that.
Ms. Kuster. Well thank you, and I would love to work with
you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. Gibbs,
3 minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary,
for being here. It is great to see you again.
I have a question in regard to what happened in the tax
bill, and you may or may not be familiar, but hopefully you
have some comment on it.
In the Senate, Section 199 and they created a new Section
199A, and it is causing an issue with farmer co-ops and other
grain elevators, and it is because of the 20 percent deduction
for co-ops, and then the tax rate is on gross, but I know the
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and the National Grain
Feed Association are trying to work together to fix this in the
Senate, because it originated in the Senate, because it does
kind of pick winners and losers, and it is really going to hurt
our small businesses that buy grain from farmers and other
things.
Can you comment on that, do you see what is happening?
Secretary Perdue. Yes, sir. We are on the record obviously
early on after that came out, and it was acknowledged some of
the inadvertent consequences of the language in the section
199A is we felt like that was unintended consequences, and we
would love to see a resolution as quickly as possible. It was
going to affect the marketing of various crops and we hope, and
I trust that the cooperative community as well as the
independent community are working together on a fair
resolution. We wanted to see the previous provisions of section
199 preserved, and that was really the intent of Congress, but
kind of moved from the meter a little too far. Hopefully we can
get back in there in an effort where we don't see the
diminishment of what the previous section 199 provisions were,
but certainly what happened was a very unfair advantage, and
probably everyone, whether you are a co-op or not, recognized
that.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, the goods news is the National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives and the National Grain Feed Association are
working together, because they would kind of be on maybe both
sides of the issue there, and I think that is positive.
I have to apologize, I had to step out and I just caught
the end of Representative Scott's comments on the broadband. I
will just say because I am going to run out of time, but I
totally agree with you 150 percent. We need to get broadband
deployed in the rural areas. One vehicle might be working with
some of the electric co-ops. I have a couple of electric co-ops
in my State of Ohio, and I know there are some in Indiana that
have actually tried to lay fiber and do that. It needs to
happen. We are kind of like we were probably when President
Eisenhower did the interstate highway system. This is the new
economic development in rural America and it has to happen.
Secretary Perdue. I agree.
Mr. Gibbs. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Adams, 3
minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
Our 1890 land-grant universities have played an important
role in the rural economy, many in rural districts in the South
where they are among the largest employers in their towns. The
1890s contributed $4.4 billion to their local economies, but as
you know, Mr. Secretary, more than half of our 1890s are not
getting 1:1 matches from their states. In my home state, North
Carolina A&T provides extension services in 51 of our 100
counties and is doing a good job in helping our farmers and the
community, but they are not getting their state match.
I understand that as governor, you helped Fort Valley State
to get 1:1 matches. We need your leadership in USDA and to
ensure that all of our 1890s receive their funding. So how can
we work with states to encourage them to act more equitably
when providing a match, and what did you do in Georgia to make
it work?
Secretary Perdue. Again, it is a recognition of the
contributions of our 1890 land-grant schools have. We were
fortunate in Georgia with Fort Valley State that they had the
great programs that were recognized. We visited around. We were
at the Florida A&M and I was really amazingly surprised at the
amount of scientific research those students were doing there
was quite an indication of the good work that is being done.
One of the things that we are working on with your
colleague, Congressman David Scott, my friend from Georgia, his
bill, H.R. 51, Funding for Student Scholarships for the 1890s
Land-Grant African-American Colleges and Universities Act. We
have been discussing with the White House how we can enhance
through scholarships some of that.
The challenge is obviously, from a state perspective and
state budgets, we are somewhat constrained by how we can
influence that other than encouragement over them matching the
Federal dollars there. There is a tendency, obviously, among
education and research when the Federal Government moves a step
forward, sometimes our local governments move two steps
backward and we can't continue to backfill that with more
funding. But we can also be helpful. We have created the Office
of Partnership and Public Engagement that is reinvigorating our
USDA relationship with our 1890 schools, as well as our Tribal
colleges as well.
Ms. Adams. Let me just quickly ask you about Centers of
Excellence and what your thoughts are on that. We had just a
temporary project, and so what is your thought about creating
Centers of Excellence and moving them forward?
Secretary Perdue. Would you repeat that question? I am not
sure that I understood.
Ms. Adams. Well Centers of Excellence, three of them were
started with only discretionary funding, and we haven't had any
permanent centers. I was just wondering about that.
Secretary Perdue. I don't know that I have a specific
answer for you. I will get one for you on the Centers of
Excellence.
Ms. Adams. Well I appreciate that. Thank you very much. I
yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
Crawford, 3 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
thanks for being here.
Two or 3 weeks ago, we had the opportunity to visit with
you a little bit about some of the challenges of young farmers
and ranchers and some of the barriers to how they can enter
production agriculture. Farm bill principles, one of them
states is to encourage entry into farming through increased
access to land and capital for young beginning veteran under-
represented farmers. What do you think we can do from a policy
perspective to help facilitate that, because it is a huge
challenge and we are really not moving the needle very
measurably.
Secretary Perdue. Sure. One of the things that Ranking
Member Peterson and I have talked about is making sure that our
CRP programs don't outbid land higher than rental rates for
keeping it away from the beginning farmers many times. Another
policy we need to look at the indexing of our farm loans. As
you know, the access to capital is very important. There is a
another statutory provision regarding direct farm loans and FSA
is that beginning farmers have to have 3 years of experience,
and we need to look at how we can modify that and make sure
that we do good underwriting on that. But particularly in the
Northeast, we have seen a lot of young entrepreneur farmers,
not necessarily from farm background, getting in and we need to
be more mindful of how we can facilitate those types of
efforts.
Mr. Crawford. I want to switch gears a little bit with you
here. Not that long ago, it has been about a year or so ago
when you were confirmed, and you mentioned in your Senate
confirmation hearing we should have Cuba as a customer. They
would love our products. I agree with that quite a bit. I would
ask you if you could kind of give me a bit of a read on the
Administration's perspective with regard to ag trade in Cuba,
specifically our legislative efforts, H.R. 525, Cuba
Agricultural Exports Act, to effect that.
Secretary Perdue. Yes. Again, from the Administration's
perspective, I don't know that a lot has changed regarding ag
trade. In fact, if you look at the statistics, our ag trade in
Cuba this past year went up significantly. Poultry and other
products went up fairly significantly to Cuba. Cuba has been
mostly a cash flow issue. It is a payment issue, and that
obviously whatever Congress wants to do in that way, but we are
still shipping ag products to Cuba. Again, it is a very good
logistical play for us, and again, as I said in the testimony,
they love the products and would love more of them. It is a
matter of how they pay for it.
Mr. Crawford. Correct. Is there a sense among your peers in
the Administration, your counterparts say at Commerce and
Treasury that they might accept a change to the statute that
allows for the financing of those transactions?
Secretary Perdue. I haven't had specific conversations.
Early on the President's comments regarding Cuba may make that
problematic at this point, but we haven't addressed that
specifically.
Mr. Crawford. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Soto, 3
minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, in Central Florida and around the country,
we are developing new high tech sensors and photonics
technology, and in your January 8, 2018, Report to the
President of the United States from the Task Force on
Agriculture and Rural Prosperity, a task force you chaired, the
task force recommended increasing research and use of precision
agriculture technology, specifically sensors and imagery
technology.
Can you elaborate on the Department of Agriculture's
support for expanded research in sensors, image technology, and
other smart ag technologies?
Secretary Perdue. Well I believe that technology research
and advancement has been really the result of our productivity,
or really the precursor to our productivity here to now. When
we see other countries, both in the EU and in China and other
people putting more and more money into research, it is
important that we continue that.
The great news about the overall ecosystem that we have of
delivery of information in the United States is we have a great
basic research through our land-grant universities, 1890s and
others, include over basic research the kind of ``what if''
questions. We have great applied research ecosystem of how that
really affects what happens in the fields and the farms and the
forest out there, and then we have this great delivery system
of extension service that helps that. USDA and the Federal
Government all participate in that in a great way. We have just
got to make sure that we continue to focus it.
USDA, as you well know, has the Agricultural Research
Service that works very closely with our other independent
researchers in our universities across the campus, so I can't
say forcefully enough how important that is to continue our
research efforts both on the kind of pests that we have, like
the spotted lanternfly, the greening issues there, and other
types of things. Research will be the solution. When you look
at the productivity trends of American farmers and ranchers,
that is what has contributed to their success and it is not a
time to stop now because we have other nations who are rapidly
catching up on research appropriations.
Mr. Soto. And we appreciate you being a champion of
fighting citrus greening. As our neighbor to the north from
Georgia, Florida continues to have issues. What commitments can
we count on going into the rest of 2018 and 2019 with regard to
combating citrus greening?
Secretary Perdue. One of the things we have been waiting on
obviously is the disaster supplemental, which can have a huge
impact over that. We know that Florida citrus industry was
devastated at a point there, so we are anxious to see how that
can flow into what permanent solutions we can make.
There has been some progress, and the hurricane kind of set
people back in that progress, but the Florida citrus industry
was really kind of getting up on the plane, having the
devastation of the last 10 years, but then understanding the
kind of things. APHIS will continue to work with them over the
things that really matter, and hopefully our disaster
supplemental appropriation can help as well.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Davis,
3 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, great to
see you again. I have to commend you and your staff for
listening whenever we have had a concern, and acting on those
concerns. So thank you once again.
In USDA's, 2018 Farm Bill and Legislative Principles
document, the Department mentions the need to develop an impact
evaluation approach to ag research. I agree with the need for
such a system, and I actually plan on introducing legislation
soon to ensure the research we are conducting is research that
is most needed.
What additional changes can Congress make to better improve
ag research, to make our ag research dollars go further?
Secretary Perdue. Again, we are looking at different
focuses on priority issues. Just as you mentioned, we looked at
some of the things that NIFA had funded in the past and caused
some consternation among myself. From a Congress perspective, I
don't know that I would like to encourage you to be more
specific about that, but again, hold me accountable to make
sure the research we are funding through USDA contributes
directly to the productivity for the American farmer and
rancher, and for resolving the most difficult issues and
problems out there. And that is a management issue. If you find
things we are not addressing then we want to hear about that,
but that is very hard, difficult, and challenging to be
specific enough in statutory language because the dynamic of
problems changes, and we need to be flexible as we move forward
in researching those issues, just like the spotted lanternfly
which just recently appeared, then we need research to help us
there.
I would love the flexibility, but I also want you to hold
us accountable for us doing the most needed type of research
available.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Since I do not have a lot of time left, I am just going to
make a couple comments.
As Chairman of the Congressional Biofuels Caucus, biofuels
and the RFS are very important to my farmers and in my
district, and I would hope that you can be a strong biofuels
advocate in this Administration, and again, I greatly
appreciate all you are doing at USDA.
RUS, I know there has been a lot of discussion on rural
broadband. I guess my comment would be as we move ahead, can we
ensure that the USDA and the Rural Utilities Service can go
back to some of the projects that they funded in the past and
make sure that those companies that have been taking those
dollars and leveraging them with RUS loans are actually being
able to provide the service that they have promised, especially
as we go into more fiber necessities in just our average
everyday home life? Can we ensure that if they are not
providing that service, that we might open it up for more
competition to be able to leverage those RUS dollars from
companies that will provide that new fiber-related service?
Thank you.
Secretary Perdue. Yes, sir. I would welcome that again from
an outcome kind of based person, and if we are delivering
grants or loans in a way, then we need to have a quality
control audit to make sure we are getting what we are paying
for.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Blunt
Rochester, 3 minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Mr. Secretary. It is good to see you. We want to thank you
on behalf of the first state for coming to visit us and being a
part of our state fair. It was a highlight that people are
still talking about.
You had an opportunity to see some of rural Delaware, and
one of the major issues that faces us, like many other states,
is the issue of the opioid epidemic. Delaware is actually,
according to the CDC, we are the eighth in drug overdose death
rates, and so I wanted to focus a little bit on that and what
USDA is doing.
You guys have a portal which I am not sure if you are
aware, but that opioid portal is not working and I know that in
the FSA, NRCS, and Rural Development offices you would have
pamphlets and I am not sure if you still do, but could you talk
a little bit about what resources support or jurisdiction you
feel are insufficient right now, and then what you think
Congress can do to assist in that?
Secretary Perdue. Certainly. Well first of all, I
appreciate you pointing out the fact that we have a portal on
the USDA website that is not functioning. I am a little
embarrassed by that, and you will go back and check in the next
couple of days, that should be resolved. But what we are trying
to do, again, is to coordinate between our Federal partners and
HHS, who has the primary responsibility here, how does USDA
impact that? We know from RD perspective, Rural Development,
many of these issues, unlike other drug issues, are probably in
many rural areas, and whether it is transition centers,
treatment facilities, or those kind of things, we have an
aggressive approach through Rural Development, to help local
communities address their needs in that.
This is a terrible type of situation that is somewhat,
frankly, difficult for easy answers, but we want to participate
with our Federal partners from Congress's perspective, again,
the awareness and acknowledgment is the first thing, and any
types of ideas that you have that USDA can implement better,
then we are open to a hearing from that.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Fantastic. This is one of the areas
that I can see there is a lot of bipartisan support on.
Congresswoman Kuster has been one of the leaders as well, so
that is the one question.
The other that I will submit in writing because we might
not have enough time is I just would love to hear an update on
your restructuring. The last time you were here, we talked
about that and I would love to hear specifically what things
you hoped to achieve, and whether or not you actually achieved
those things in the restructuring.
Secretary Perdue. That is a good question. We would love to
tell you very specifically and at length where we have been and
what we have done.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great, thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. Bost,
3 minutes.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being back here.
Representative Davis actually touched on this slightly, but
I want to go into more detail. Domestic energy production
continues to rise in the United States, and the use of
renewable fuels are helping the U.S. take steps towards energy
independence. Renewable fuels and RFS are extremely important
to the district I represent, and they provide good paying jobs,
added value to commodities, alternative feedstock, and in some
instances, new opportunities for capitalizing on investments
and research and development made in advance of biofuels like
cellulosic.
Can you tell us where the USDA is, what is it doing to
further improve opportunities in the renewable fuels area?
Secretary Perdue. Surely. We have had a lot of discussions
here based a lot on the challenge of the hold of our Under
Secretary in that area, which that seems to be the real issue
there. One of the things that we have looked at, I visited
actually yesterday with the Chairman of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission about a more transparent market of RINs that
may help to understand where the RIN trading is going. One of
the things I have had a discussion with our EPA Administrator
about is the RVP waiver going from ten to 15 percent. I have
tried to get the industry to look at further than just 2022
when the statutory volumes disappear, how can we build up and
build in a demand base moving from ten percent to 15 percent
there, helping with our energy independence? Some of this from
a natural gas perspective and both an oil perspective, many
people have lost some of the enthusiasm they had when the RFS
guidelines were put in. It has obviously been good for American
energy independence, as well as for the American farmer. We
just want to help facilitate a movement further there into the
RVP waiver of 15 percent.
Mr. Bost. Thank you.
I want to switch gears if I can. I am down on time here,
but we have previously discussed bringing our waterways into
the 21st century. My district is kind of unique. It is one of
the only districts in the nation that has three navigable
waterways, the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the Kaskaskia Rivers.
The locks and dams and the thousands of miles that are up and
down the inland waterways, the concerns I have with not only
the levees, but also the locks and dams and maintenance and
everything. What are you doing, and maybe you can express the
concerns you might have as we try to move our grain and
biofuels as our commodities, because when we compete in a
worldwide market, if we move forward with the infrastructure
bill, my big fear is what the fees are put in place will put us
at a disadvantage.
Secretary Perdue. Certainly one of the things we benefitted
from in the United States of America is a great logistical
system of which inland waterways are part of it, as well as our
ports. And you have heard the President stand on the banks of
the Ohio River and talk about that crumbling infrastructure.
Some of those locks and dams are over 50 years old. So I am
hopeful that in the infrastructure bill, we will see dedicated
money for agricultural logistical services, including those
that you described.
Mr. Bost. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Scott,
3 minutes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, sir.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Secretary Perdue, as always, it
is a pleasure. Let me commend you on the excellent job you are
doing. You visited what, 32 or 33 states already, and that is
wonderful, and I just want to commend you for that. And I also
want to thank you for your work with me and other Members of
this Committee on H.R. 51, which would help to be able to
address the issue of getting more young people into farming,
into agriculture. It is the world's most important industry.
The food we eat, the clothes we wear, our comfort level for our
homes, our clothes. So this is very important that we be able
to get scholarships into these schools. And these are very
important schools, the 1890s, which are the African American
land-grant schools and colleges. And of course, they may be
African American, but they have students from every single
race. So it is a beautiful, beautiful thing we are doing, and I
deeply appreciate you talking to President Trump about this,
and give him my regards, won't you? And tell him I thank him
for his support. It is going to take a team effort to do that,
and we are very delighted with that. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, friend. We suggested this
February might be a good time to get that H.R. 51 across the
line.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Oh, we hope so, man. We will be
pushing.
Secretary Perdue. Before you----
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. You are the running back that
can get it through from your days at the University of Georgia.
Secretary Perdue. While you were out, I mentioned the fact
my visit to Florida A&M, your alma mater, and how impressed I
was with the students. If you could have seen the research
projects that those students do, they would equal any land-
grant university in the country. I know you would be proud.
Your colleague, Mr. Lawson, was there with us and we were happy
to be there.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Good. If it weren't for Florida
A&M, I wouldn't be sitting here today.
Secretary Perdue. Right.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thanks to that fine university,
and of course, it is a land-grant school and I know they are
grateful for your work on H.R. 51.
Let me lift up in my last 15 seconds, I am concerned about
cotton. I wanted to make sure we are able to get that cost-
share program and get the financial help to our cotton farmers
that we need. As you know, Georgia is number two in cotton,
next to my good friend Mr. Conaway's Texas.
Secretary Perdue. We had worked on that prior to really
after the hurricanes, kind of in the midst of y'all's
discussion regarding the disaster supplemental. We had a PAYGO
solution in that. We still have that prepared to go for the
2016 crop. We were advised to sort of wait and see how the
disaster supplemental goes. It looks like if it continues to go
on and not be funded, then we may have to go ahead with the
cost-share program there. But that would be for the 2016 crop
in that way, so we have something in the pipe ready to go, and
it is a matter of timing on that.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well that is great. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Abraham, 3 minutes.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Perdue,
thanks for being here. Thanks for allowing and facilitating the
USDA to be more customer service related, certainly more
responsive to requests. It has been a delightful turn of
events. Thank you for coming to Louisiana, talking to my rice,
sugar, cotton, and corn farmers there. It is much appreciated.
I am going to kind of pony on Mr. Scott's statements as far
as cotton. As we know, the 2014 to the 2016, even the 2017
years, have been tough on cotton. We are to the point in
Louisiana where production costs are about $100 more than
actual revenue costs, it is a net loss situation. So we
understand with Chairman Conaway's leadership, we will address
that in the farm bill and make some steps to at least remedy
some of that, because there is such an urgent need. And I am
grateful for your commitment, as Mr. Scott has alluded to, for
the short-term reliefs for our 2016 and now 2017 cotton
producers, mainly for the fact that they can simply still go to
the bank and be bankable for another year. And as you know,
having been a grower yourself, that is critical to be able to
walk into a bank and obtain a loan just to put a crop in the
ground.
In your opening statement of how optimistic our farmers are
when they know the odds are against them, it was a testament to
their courage and their willpower.
Again, just a thanks for what you are doing, and looking
after all our farmers. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Evans, 3
minutes.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I would
like to thank you for the recognition of Walter B. Saul High
School of Agricultural Sciences and our future farmers, and you
raised a highlight on that. I really appreciate that.
I know you are a veterinarian, and I am concerned we have
University of Penn in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Can you
share with me the important veterinary programs that you look
to strengthen as it relates to the nation's veterinarians?
Secretary Perdue. Well certainly. If I understand the
question, USDA employs a lot of veterinarians. They are at the
forefront of our food safety program, and very critical in
that. My short time in the Air Force, my job was public health
and food safety, so obviously the veterinary education aspect
from how we can encourage that, particularly in the food animal
medicine perspective. As you well know from your constituents,
it is difficult to get larger and food animal veterinarians in
many parts of the country today. We ought to look at, again,
some scholarships similar to what we have with medical students
where they go and practice in areas that are needed and vital
where they get some, again, loan forgiveness in those areas.
As a veterinarian, I am very close to that community and
anxious. I may have told you this before, but my wife and I
endowed a scholarship at the University of Georgia for students
in the Department of Agriculture who want to go into food
animal medicine, because it is a critical need and our ranchers
and producers need that.
Mr. Evans. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I was at the
Pennsylvania Farm Show, just like as you have visited one of
the best farm shows in the nation. Dairy farmers, the Margin
Protection Program is not providing the needed relief. Is there
anything that the USDA can do through administrative actions to
improve this vital safety net for our dairy farmers?
Secretary Perdue. Well again, what we did do this fall was
to allow farmers who had signed up for the Margin Protection
Program to withdraw from that, and by the virtue of the number
that withdrew, 75 percent of those, it gave us an indication
this program wasn't working for them. I know Ranking Member
Peterson and I have had some discussions about how to improve
that program. Again, that is really and vitally needed in the
farm bill coming forward about how we utilize that program,
whether it is margin protection or LGM program for dairy
producers. That is the sector, as we indicated, that didn't
fare as well in the 2014 Farm Bill as we would hope for.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Marshall, 3
minutes.
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Secretary, let me start by saying thank
you for your comments on the section 199A. Like you, we are all
looking for a solution that is fair to all concerned, so I
greatly appreciate that.
I want to address the biggest problem in Kansas, and I say
not agriculture, but the biggest problem in Kansas, because
Kansas is agriculture and agriculture is Kansas. The biggest
problem in Kansas is the price of wheat, the price of sorghum,
the price of corn, the price of milk, the price of beef, and
the price of pork. You have addressed NAFTA already. Please
take the rest of my time and address what you are seeing the
future looks like in Japan. It is a huge market for our wheat
and our beef. It is a $200 million problem, going forward, with
our competitors when it comes to the wheat issues as these
tariffs come in place, and I want you to be reassured, I
interviewed ten people from Japan and they all preferred Kansas
beef over Australian beef. So it is ten out of ten people. So
we would like to get that Kansas beef over there.
Secretary Perdue. I understand. Again, you may have heard
and I was very encouraged to hear our President in Davos talk
about potential interest in rejoining TPP. As we know, the TPP
11 have moved forward, but when we talked to Japan, when we
look at the other countries involved in TPP, they were very
regretful that the United States was not part of that. And I am
going to take the President's word. Again, he is a tough
negotiator. He is American, and he believes in America; but,
again, we understand how vital trade is to our ag economy, not
just in Kansas, but virtually everywhere else. Wheat has not
fared that well. We were on a good road with sorghum. I never
thought I would see sorghum at a premium to corn, and that is
why the hit took a place with China. Even an announcement there
was disheartening in that regard. NAFTA, as I indicated
earlier, I am hopeful that we can really close that out and
have an improved NAFTA, a modernized NAFTA that is better for
the American producers as we go forward.
But our farmers need certainty. They are optimistic. They
are resilient. They are courageous, but like any business, they
really deal in uncertainty, and there is a lot of trade anxiety
out there. So I wish there was some way that the Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture could just waive a magic
wand and fix prices. You and I both know that is not possible,
but you are absolutely right. The farmer is great for the ag
economy. It is great for the economy in general, because if
farmers make money, they are going to spend money. And they
rotate it through the economy in a mighty way. You see that
green paint riding everywhere, as well as other things, but it
is good for main street. The ag economy in those rural Kansas
communities is good for main street as well.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you for the hope, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired. Mr. Panetta,
3 minutes.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary,
good morning. Thank you for being here, as always, as we are
coming up on the 2018 Farm Bill, and obviously I appreciated
meeting you out in California. Although, please know that the
salad bowl always has an open welcome for you to come there on
the Central Coast of California as well. And if you go there,
you are going to hear the number one issue that is out there on
the Central Coast, and probably number one issue in California
when it comes to our agriculture, and that is labor, as you
mentioned.
You have shown a great deal of empathy and understanding
when it comes to this issue and how it affects our specialty
crops on the Central Coast and in California, and I appreciate
what you have said, and I appreciate some of the actions that
you have taken. I appreciate the fact that you have hired a
senior advisor, Christy Boswell, to address these issues. What
I would like to find out is as you, as we know, immigration
reform, dealing with this issue is very politically sensitive,
and policy complex. But has Ms. Boswell given you any sort of
advice and how we can think outside the box in dealing with
addressing our workforce issue? And I know that in your Report
to the President of the United States from the Task Force on
Agriculture and Rural Prosperity, page 29 you talked about the
H-2A. I think that is the only area in that report that you
deal with labor in agriculture, and you mentioned interagency
efforts to improve H-2A.
My second question would be then can you elaborate on those
interagency efforts as well?
Secretary Perdue. Certainly. As you mentioned Christy
Boswell, we have worked diligently with Chairman Goodlatte on
his bill. Obviously, that was one of the issues your western
growers didn't address many of the challenges they have, that
is, the transition from their current workforce into a new
program here, and that is one of the things we would like to
see addressed. We are working with DHS and helping them to
understand that the criminals they are looking for are not on
our farms or out there producing food for the Americans as well
as worldwide, and they are not there. It is a challenge,
obviously, because as the agents show up, it affects everyone
in the community. What you know and I know is that many of
these workers have been on some of these farms for years. They
become part of the family. In fact, many of them have very
serious management responsibilities in that. So I would love to
see some sort of transition environment where we could
recognize that and move toward a legal workforce.
The problem with H-2A, it involves certainly Department of
Labor, Department of Homeland Security, as well as Department
of State. Now some of the ideas that Chairman Goodlatte has in
his bill we embrace. We think that farmers typically would be
more comfortable as an intake mechanism of USDA rather than
DOL. There are a lot of very onerous moving parts dealing with
the H-2A program, and many of your producers have given up
using that as a tool. That only contributes to, again, the
perpetuation of the non-legal workforce that we have in
America, and we would love to see that resolved.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Dunn, 3
minutes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here today, and thank you for your
commitment in your recent 2018 Farm Bill & Legislative
Principles to make America's forests work again.
The district I represent has many counties that are
dependent on working forests to fuel their economy, and so I
promise that you in addition to promoting sound management of
working forests, I am going to look forward to working with
your Department on legislation such as H.R. 1380, Timber
Innovation Act of 2017, to spur innovation of the forestry
sector and to grow those markets.
On another note, as you know, the Food and Drug
Administration regulates products of animal biotechnology.
Regrettably over the last 20 years, the FDA has managed to
approve just two animals. The developers (AquaBounty
Technologies, Inc.) of the GE salmon first applied for FDA
approval in 1995, and received that in 2015, 20 years later.
The producers (Oxitec Ltd.) of GE mosquitoes applied for FDA
field trials in 2011, did not get approval to do those trials
until the Zika outbreak came out in 2016. So this undertow of
the FDA's regulatory regime is preventing potential products
live avian influenza resistant poultry and foot-and-mouth
resistant cattle from being commercialized.
Can you tell us if the USDA plans to engage the FDA on
their broken animal biotech system, and have you or has the
USDA ever considered seeking to regulate the animal biotech
products in house?
Secretary Perdue. You mentioned two issues close to my
heart. Obviously one is the forestry issue, and to make forests
work again, we strongly need the legislation that is before
Congress now. We need both sides to come together, not only
with fire funding, but also with forest management where we can
actually do that. Without the forest management proposals, the
funding doesn't really matter. We are going to continue to
fight forest fires. So I hope you and your colleagues can ask
your leadership to make sure we get that done here quickly.
There is a window of opportunity that is passing on that, so in
order to make forests work again, we need those tools.
You mentioned a really interesting issue. We have just
signed an agreement with FDA over cooperation. Dr. Gottlieb and
I have visited on a fairly regular basis on different areas.
This is one particular that has not come up over the veterinary
regulation, the veterinary approvals, but I love your last
suggestion. Again, from a pharmaceutical perspective dealing
with animals, we would love to have that responsibility. We are
making progress on a personal level there, there are embedded
attitudes in all these agencies that sometimes don't have the
same desire for collaboration that the leadership does. Dr.
Gottlieb and I are becoming fast friends over the kinds of
things that we can talk about, particularly FSMA and those
types of issues, but this is one area that I have not pursued.
But you have given me another idea.
Mr. Dunn. I will help you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms.
Plaskett, 3 minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much, and good morning, sir.
Secretary Perdue. Good morning.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you for being with us here.
The supplemental appropriation bill for disaster relief
that the House passed before adjournment included $2.6 billion
for crops, trees, bushes, vines, et cetera, losses due to the
2017 hurricanes, including Irma and Maria. In order to be
eligible for funding, all producers receiving payment must
purchase crop insurance, and it says, ``Where crop insurance is
available for the next 2 available crop years and producers
receiving payments shall be required to purchase coverage under
the non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program.'' And that is
to be determined by the Secretary.
I don't know if you are aware, USDA does not offer crop
insurance in the Virgin Islands, which of course received
enormous damage during the hurricanes. If this bill is approved
by the Senate and signed into law, would it be possible and
would you be willing to use the discretion provided to you
under this program to help producers in the Virgin Islands
purchase coverage under NAP so that they may be eligible for
their share of this funding that has been put in the disaster
aid package?
Secretary Perdue. I think that is absolutely the intent of
the legislation as you read, and we would certainly commit to
that when you read the fact that where crop insurance is not
available, that is exactly what we would expect to have happen.
Ms. Plaskett. That would be great. I appreciate that.
And as you may recall, a special ad hoc relief program was
created by the Department of Agriculture in October for farmers
in Puerto Rico which provided vouchers to buy feed from local
dealers. This was not extended to the U.S. Virgin Islands,
which were similarly devastated by Hurricane Maria. Do you know
why that was not extended to them?
Secretary Perdue. I am not aware of the request that we had
there. Puerto Rico's dairy industry and poultry had some
specific requests that we addressed, too, and I am not aware
that we had those from the Virgin Islands.
Ms. Plaskett. So it was mostly for livestock, for poultry,
you believe?
Secretary Perdue. Yes, it was for the feed for the dairy
industry primarily. I don't know why we would have not
responded in likewise to the Virgin Islands, had we had similar
requests.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay, thank you.
A big issue for agriculture in our island territory is lack
of data, in part because the local agriculture offices have
limited means to collect data chronically. What is the status
of the Department's assessment of agriculture and rural
community needs in the Virgin Islands, and what actions has the
Department taken to get more USDA expert staff to help the
badly damaged agriculture sector there where lack of technical
assistance has been an issue, even before the two Category 5
hurricanes?
Secretary Perdue. I don't know that I can answer
specifically, other than committing to you that we will look at
that from a data-driven perspective. Our fiscal service, we
rely on data quite a bit. We talk about being facts based, data
driven. We can't make good decisions if we don't have good
data, so I will have to look at that and see how we can improve
our efforts in our territories.
Ms. Plaskett. We would appreciate that. It has been a real
issue for us over the years.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
The Chairman. I hate to be abrupt, but they have called
votes and we are trying to get everybody through before we go
over there, so thank you for that. Mr. LaMalfa for 3 minutes,
and again, we are going to be pretty tight on the time.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, Mr.
Secretary, I really appreciate your accessibility and your
diligence in traveling the country and hearing all our issues.
A lot of effort on broadband, greatly appreciated.
Bringing it back to some California issues, we produce some
of the highest quality food and the safest handled food in the
country, and so when you look at the FSMA, the Food Safety
Modernization Act, I am afraid there might be a little more
than what is needed. Yes, we had a flare-up over 10 years ago
in the spinach and some of the other leafy greens where E. coli
and in some cases Salmonella came up, and that is being
addressed. But what I am afraid of is that the bureaucracy of
this is going to go so far that we are going to continue to
hamper the ability to grow these products in California or the
U.S. effectively.
When you are talking about bird droppings which, folks,
these things grow outside, okay, and not allowing the food to
touch the soil from which it came, it seems, again, the
bureaucracy might be overreacting to what had been a serious
problem, but with the protocols in place, we have seen pretty
good success since then.
Mr. Secretary, I guess we can go a couple different ways on
this. We can see how the new regulations are going to indeed
impact growers in our states, or maybe try and get ahead of the
curve a little bit and fix the problems preemptively that could
flare up and still have a very safely grown product.
My understanding is that most of the authority for the
produce safety rule were indeed given over to HHS and the FDA.
Some of us like to see the USDA have a lot wider role in that,
since you all understand farms and that more directly. And I
know that you have been really working for regulatory relief.
Is there anything Congress can do legislatively to help in the
farm bill more immediately that could make your job, and I know
Dr. Gottlieb over there with the FDA as a Commissioner has been
really working well and trying to work through this path. What
best thing could we do to get this to be a more farmer-friendly
and USDA-friendly process?
Secretary Perdue. Sir, I couldn't agree with your concern
more. It has been one of my major concerns as I look at how we
create and produce a safe food supply. We probably overpaid the
meter a little bit with the Food Safety Modernization Act. You
mentioned bird droppings. I mean, people have been written up
for deer tracks out in the fields as well. These are not
biological sanitary sterile conditions over which these
vegetables are grown.
Again, as you know, Congress gave the Food and Drug
Administration the primary oversight of that, and while Food
and Drug Administration does a lot of good things, they are not
experts in the field of examination. There are a lot of
challenges that Dr. Gottlieb is trying to delay. I would
welcome Congress to look at this again, see if there is any
opportunity in the farm bill to rebalance what is the balance
between safety and productivity here. No farmer produces a crop
intentionally to harm people or handle it in a way to do that,
but some of the regulations are, as we are in this deregulatory
environment, it is going to be a huge regulatory issue. I am a
little bit concerned that some of the unintended consequences
of FSMA may move us into the same area as the Endangered
Species Act and those kind of ways, so your concern about that
is my concern, and I would implore you and your colleagues to
look at that in the farm bill to see if there are opportunities
you may have.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs.
Bustos, 3 minutes.
Mrs. Bustos. In the interest of time, I will ask one of my
three questions because I know we have been called for votes.
But Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here, and I
appreciated one of your earlier answers where you mentioned
green paint in reference to John Deere, and that is where I am
from, Molina, Illinois, where the world headquarters for Deere
is. But if you go east of that, it is the home of yellow paint,
which is Caterpillar in Peoria, which is also part of my
Congressional district. And in Peoria, Illinois, is the largest
USDA ag lab in the entire country, and you and I have had a
chance to talk about that before, but in the President's
earlier budget, he had slated that for closure, and thank you
for your help in intervening and making sure that didn't
happen.
And I know you have also mentioned the importance of being
able to hire staff. That is something that has been important
to you, and I appreciate that as well. And also the importance
of attracting and retaining a long-term workforce.
It is my understanding that the hiring of much needed staff
at the ag lab in Peoria in particular, and this might apply to
other ag labs as well, but it has been delayed. There have been
some challenges filling slots there, and I didn't know if you
were aware of that, but I really wanted to ask you if you had
an understanding of why it is happening. We have these job
openings. I know that the hiring freeze ended in April of 2017,
but what are you hearing about that and perhaps what we can do
and how we can work together to address that?
Secretary Perdue. Certainly. Not just in our ag labs, but
obviously USDA-wide we are trying to right size that workforce
in a way. I have also tried to respectfully wait for our Under
Secretaries to be in place, because I am going to hold them
responsible for those, and that is one of the delays there.
Mrs. Bustos. Okay.
Secretary Perdue. And that is just my preference is if I am
going to hold them responsible, I want them to understand and
to help guide that workforce as well. But we are making some
hires in different areas. I have to look at the specific ones
in the research lab there, but we are hiring in the Forest
Service, we are hiring in FSA, and we are hiring in AMS and
other places that way. And a way to understand what the
attrition rate is, but it is the right people in the right
place doing the right things is our goal, and part of the delay
has been trying to get people in from all the way at the top
down, but we can look at that specifically. We do have some
personnel gaps in various agencies.
Mrs. Bustos. Is there anything we can do to be of help on
this? I mean, these are some of the best paying jobs in our
community there, and I really want to move on that if we can.
Secretary Perdue. Again, urging your colleagues to move on
our nominees and getting people in place.
Mrs. Bustos. You think that is the biggest problem on this?
Secretary Perdue. Yes, right.
Mrs. Bustos. Okay, all right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you.
Mrs. Bustos. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Comer, 3
minutes.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, it
is great to have you back. Before I ask my one question, I want
to thank you for all that you do and all the attention you pay
to the FFA and 4-H. Those of us in the agriculture community
notice that and we really appreciate your commitment to the
next generation of farmers.
People in my district are very happy with the tax cuts
plan, very happy with the focus on reducing the regulatory
burden. The one concern that a lot of the farmers have, and you
and I have discussed this in the past, is trade. Obviously with
the commodity process where they are, what exactly is the
process now? I know that the President has kind of changed his
stance a little bit on NAFTA and TPP. What is the process,
moving forward? Are there representatives from the USDA
negotiating with some of these countries like Vietnam, Taiwan,
South Korea? Are there representatives from the U.S. Trade
Representative's office? What exactly is the process?
Secretary Perdue. Well the way it works is the USDA Under
Secretary Ted McKinney, who is the head of Foreign Agricultural
Services there, he is our chief salesperson. Now I have used
this metaphor before. It is a little bit like some banks today.
They have salespeople and they have credit people, so Ted
McKinney is our salesperson, and Ambassador Lighthizer is our
credit check.
Mr. Comer. Right.
Secretary Perdue. And so they actually do the legal
negotiation of the deals, but we are out there trying to get
interest worldwide. Ted McKinney has hit the ground running. He
is a great professional. He has already logged 30,000 miles
there internationally and domestically here over trying to
benefit trade.
We think there are some real opportunities in the Asian
Pacific area for countries, maybe not those big hits like
China, but there are some routing areas there that we are
focusing on moving into.
Mr. Comer. Well I want to thank you, because I am confident
that you played a big role in helping the President alter his
message a little bit to help benefit agriculture and trade is
probably the most important thing we can do to help stabilize
the commodity market, so I appreciate you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. We are
getting real close to having to leave, if my remaining
colleagues can try to go to 2 minutes, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Lawson, 3 minutes, but if you could shorten that, we would
appreciate it.
Mr. Lawson. Yes, I want to be real short.
Secretary, welcome and I just want to thank you for coming
to Florida A&M. The interaction with the students, the FFA, the
4-H club that came from the high schools and stuff was really,
really great. Your leadership and trying to make sure that with
those agriculture students, the opportunity that will be
available for them to go into farming and all that was really
great.
I don't have a question, so to speak. What I would just say
as how you work on how to alleviate fraud and abusive behavior
and all this other stuff with the SNAP program, I would like to
keep abreast of it because during the course of the hurricane
and everything, that program was so important to people who
didn't have anyplace else to turn. I know the Chairman probably
is going to be working on that in the farm bill, but anything
that I can do and have the opportunity to sit down with you, I
would be willing to do it.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Arrington, 3 minutes.
Mr. Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good
to see you. I echo what my colleagues have said in that you
have been incredibly accessible, and your leading by example
with respect to your principle of customer service and it is
just quite amazing, really, with the job that you have. Every
time that I have needed to talk to you, you have made yourself
available and I just thank you so much for that. Thanks for all
your efforts on cotton and the section 199A. You get it. You
understand it. You are engaged, and so greatly appreciate that.
Because I have so many questions, but in the interest of
time, to me, the biggest issue for us all as ag advocates is
the culture of this country and the culture and the mentality
of the Representatives here in Washington, especially urban and
suburban, on ag safety net, and that it is not just the 20
million jobs, it is not just rural economic development. It is
national security. It is agriculture independence, food
security, as you have said so eloquently. While we are trying
to influence the culture here, I am praying that you are
influencing the culture of the White House and the
Administration. The President has a heart for the forgotten
man. Does he understand and does the Administration--we had a
briefing yesterday with Mick Mulvaney, good guy. I think his
heart is in the right place. I don't know that he understands
this issue of the national security implications of the ag
safety net and getting it right.
Tell me about that and that mentality among your peers
throughout the Administration. Are you making headway there,
because I know you are a champion for it?
Secretary Perdue. We do. We have weekly trade meetings, and
obviously people know what I am going to say, but we keep on
saying it. Again, the interesting thing from your concern, I
think the NSC gets it. The DOD gets it, and other people of
national security jobs understand that food security is
national security. We are blessed in this country not to have
to import food. You think about the efforts over oil, what
would happen if we were battling over food. And that is a
benefit.
The problem is some people are so complacent about that. We
have taken it for granted, and it is insidious over the
policies that we make if we don't stay on top of that through
research and other types of safety net products. It can be gone
before we know it, and it is difficult to recover. So we are
trying to spread that message certainly internally and
externally all across the country.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Faso, 3
minutes.
Mr. Faso. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be very short and
maybe your staff can reply in writing to these questions.
First is not a question. Mr. Secretary, you are a great
Secretary of Agriculture. You are a credit to the Department
and our country. Thank you so much for your service.
Second, this is the first question. The meat processors in
my area are having a terrible time getting access to a
facility. I can't get a USDA grader to come in and inspect
chickens. They have to come from Pennsylvania or Connecticut.
It poses an expensive situation for the farmer, so I would like
to talk to the Department about that. Third, how can we enhance
dairy consumption, milk consumption in particular? You have
done a great job allowing the flavored low fat milk into the
school lunch program. We need to really promote that to get a
new generation drinking good quality milk. And fourth, Mr.
Secretary, I really appreciate your efforts on broadband and it
is vitally important to our rural economies, and I hope that we
can continue to work with you.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Mr. Allen, 3 minutes.
Mr. Allen. I, too, will be brief, but Mr. Secretary, I just
wanted to let you know how proud Georgia is of you and your
work here in this body and at USDA. Thanks for your work
clarifying the domestic program. That has been a big help to
our folks.
I do know that there are real concerns out there with rural
credit. I met with a group of our farmers. They need some
flexibility, and I will be happy to meet with your folks about
that and about that meeting, but we do need some flexibility
because credit it seems to be tight, and our farmers, as you
know, are really in a tough spot.
As far as cotton, thank you for your help with that.
Obviously we have to get something done on that and I
appreciate your efforts there.
And then I will just also talk about rural broadband. I
mean, that is a critical issue. But again, you are on top of
these things, and I really appreciate what you are doing. Thank
you for all you are trying to do over there, and if I can help
you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Bacon, 3
minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you for being here, sir. You are doing a
great job.
I want to talk to our folks in Nebraska. Number one concern
is affordable crop insurance, and two, they are really worried
about trade. Every other row of soybeans is exported, every
third row of corn, largest beef exporter. So they are very
nervous about the talk that comes out of the Administration, as
you know, so we got to really work hard to make sure we don't
throw the agriculture export successes out as we deal with
other issues in NAFTA.
I want to ask you a question for the record, but we will do
a written response. What is your assessment for FMD vaccine,
and how can we get to that the best? I hear a lot of that from
our pork and cattlemen, and I will just formally ask that
question down the road and we can get a response back.
The question I have for you today is there is a series of
articles out right now talking about how we are losing about
$60 million in pork due to a disease called PRRSV (porcine
reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus), and there is a
way to do gene editing to stop it, but FDA treats it as a heavy
drug treatment, and therefore, it is under heavy regulation. We
can't get this thing treated like we could. Can we ask FDA to
change its approach? Is there a better way to go about it?
Thank you.
Secretary Perdue. Okay, thank you.
The Chairman. Well Mr. Secretary, again thank you so very
much for being here. I appreciate your willingness to answer
the questions for the record. I was particularly thankful for
your comments about FMD and getting your team to give us better
data, better information about the various opportunities that
we have in that regard. You are doing a terrific job at USDA.
You have become a terrific partner, and your agency has as
well. Thank you for helping us get a farm bill written, and we
look forward to working with you on the implementation values
once we get this thing done and in on time. So thank you for
being here.
The chair would remind Members, before we adjourn, under
the Rules of the Committee, today's hearing will remain open
for 10 calendar days to receive additional materials,
supplemental written responses from the witness. With that, the
Committee on Agriculture hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Statement by Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in
Congress from Oklahoma; on Behalf of Todd Lafferty, Co-Chief Executive
Officer and General Counsel, Wheeler Brothers Grain Company, LLC
Our locations are in close proximity to several co-ops, in some
locations less than 1 mile. If section 199A is not changed, a producer
with any tax liability will have incentive to take their grain to a
cooperative over us. We are a fourth generation family owned
independent grain company that was started in 1917. Section 199A stands
to destroy the relationships we have built over the past century
because we cannot compete with the incentives producers now have under
section 199A to take grain to cooperatives. We have had an accountant
tell us that he is advising clients they are better off taking their
grain to a cooperative and that we need to reorganize as a cooperative.
One of our customers inquired whether he will be penalized by selling
grain he currently has in storage with us. We have not had a forward
contract entered into with us since section 199A was passed. Even if
section 199A is fixed, we are concerned that some customers have
already forward contracted with cooperatives as a result of section
199A, and we will not discover this until harvest. We are deeply
concerned about the future of our company if section 199A is not
changed promptly. We will be forced to reorganize as a cooperative,
merge with a cooperative, or sell to cooperative if there is not a fix
to level the playing field.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Sonny Perdue, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Submitted Questions by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. I am hearing concerns about the enforcement of 7 U.S.C.
1981a(b), which is a moratorium on acceleration and foreclosure
proceedings against any farmer or borrower who has a valid pending and
accepted discrimination claim against USDA. Please provide us with the
following data:
(a) number of Title VI and Equal Credit Opportunity Act program
complaints filed against the Farm Service Agency and
private guaranteed lenders; and
(b) number of moratoriums on acceleration and foreclosures currently
issued in compliance with 7 U.S.C. Section 1981 a.(b).
Answer. Ranking Member Peterson, as of March 15, 2018, there are 78
open civil rights complaints that involve Farm Service Agency (FSA)
Farm Loan Programs, lower than we have historically seen in the past. 7
U.S.C. Section 1981a(b) does not apply to loans made by private sector
lenders and guaranteed by FSA. FSA has no civil rights enforcement
authority over private-sector lenders--complaints must be filed with
the appropriate financial regulator, based upon the size and type of
lender (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve
Board, or Farm Credit Administration).
As of March 15, 2018, there are 80 cases for which further
servicing or liquidation action is suspended pending resolution of a
civil rights complaint.
FSA implemented the requirements of 7 U.S.C. 1981a(b) several years
ago. FSA regulations require that once a Civil Rights complaint is
filed, FSA may only service the loan to the point of acceleration, and
then hold further action in abeyance pending the outcome of the
complaint.
Question 2. What is the status of hiring in the agencies with field
presences, FSA, NRCS and the Forest Service? Is there a plan to address
vacancies in field offices, many of which have been empty for months?
Most folks in the countryside, both employees and customers believe
there is a hiring freeze in place.
Answer. USDA is currently hiring, and across the Department we are
taking a thoughtful, strategic, and data-driven approach to hiring. In
regard to your specific question about the Farm Production and
Conservation (FPAC) mission area, NRCS and FSA are establishing
productivity expectations to ensure the optimum performance of the
workforce and to make sure our hires are placed in the right locations,
focused on the right work, and doing that work as efficiently and
effectively as possible. Additional hiring is being evaluated across
the mission area, with a goal to focus the available hiring on the most
critical workload that best addresses customer needs, and with keen
attention to optimum efficiency and effectiveness.
The Forest Service is also currently evaluating its hiring needs
with a focus on field-based vacancies in order to deliver results on
Forest Service mission priorities and USDA 2018 Strategic Goals.
Question 3. Under the ``Management'' header in your farm bill
principles, you mention ``provide USDA full authority to responsibly
manage properties and facilities under its jurisdiction''. Can you
elaborate on what you mean by that?
Answer. In order to be nimble and successfully manage the
Department in a timely, responsible manner, USDA needs to have the
authority to manage its leases, procurement, vehicle fleet, properties,
etc., and the taxpayer dollars appropriated to us efficiently and
effectively.
Question 4. Can you elaborate on the FY19 budget submission and
appropriations request for the Office of Public Partnerships &
Engagement, including the specific funding lines for the Office of
Advocacy and Outreach as well as the Office of Tribal Relations and the
various coordinator positions such as the Military Veterans
Agricultural Liaison and Center for Faith Based and Neighborhood
Partnerships.
Answer. The FY 2019 appropriations request for the Office of
Partnerships and Public Engagement (OPPE) is $1.7 million. This amount
includes: $1.2 million in discretionary funding resulting from the
transfer of the former Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO)
appropriation into OPPE, and about $500,000 resulting from the transfer
of the Office and Tribal Relations (OTR) funding into OAO. In addition,
the budget includes $10.5 million in activities for which funding is
provided through the Departmental Shared Cost Program, including: $8
million for outreach to higher education institutions and their
students; $1.7 million for the Intertribal Technical Assistance Network
to support Tribal member engagement in USDA programs; $343,000 for the
Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships activities; and other
advisory committee and outreach activities.
Question 5. What do you envision as your role in advocating for
corn, sorghum and soybean farmers who have invested in biofuels
infrastructure? Will you be advocating for the Renewable Fuel Standard?
Answer. The RFS plays a vital role in rural America. It serves as
an important source of demand for corn, soybeans, sorghum, and other
crops--and as such is a strong supporter of prices and farm incomes. I
also understand the RFS creates well-paying, stable jobs in our rural
communities at a time of declining income and a poor agriculture
economy. I have and will continue to advocate for RFS.
Question 6. Have USDA economists shown you the impacts on commodity
prices with any reductions in RFS goals or what the positive impact
would be of resolving the Reid Vapor Pressure issue that would allow
more ethanol to be blended in summer months
Answer. Here at USDA, we have spent a great deal of time and effort
to understand this complex subject. Having been a grain merchant in the
past, I clearly understand that reducing corn demand will have a
negative effect on commodity prices, and USDA's economists have
confirmed that for me.
I have consistently responded that reductions in the volumes
outlined in the RFS, specifically the 15 billion gallons accessible to
corn ethanol, are detrimental not just to corn prices but other crop
prices and to farm income and are incompatible with the President's own
statements on maintaining the Renewable (fuel) Volume Obligation (RVO).
I also understand the desire to reduce the costs of Renewable
Identification Numbers (RINs) associated with the program. The Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver would allow for year-round blends from E11-
E15 (11% to 15%) and would bring down RIN prices by allowing
flexibility in achieving the goals of the RFS, expanding the market for
ethanol and the corn to make it. To that end, the RVP waiver, along
with improved RIN market transparency are cornerstones to any updates
to the RFS program.
Question 7. The farm bill requires USDA to have an Office of
Advocacy and Outreach (OAO), Office of Tribal Relations (OTR), and a
Military Veteran Liaison. Yet the President's FY 2019 Budget Request
proposes to delete references to all three entities, and instead to
consolidate them into a single Office of Partnerships and Public
Engagement (OPPE).
Do you intend to keep the names of the OAO, OTR, and
Military Veteran Liaison as part of the new OPPE?
Please explain how the Administration will ensure that this
change complies with the farm bill directive to maintain an
OAO, OTR, and Military Veteran Liaison.
Do you intend to retain the purposes, functions, and other
statutory duties of each of the OAO, OTR, and Military Veteran
Liaison as part of the new OPPE? If so, please describe the
ways in which such purposes, functions, and statutory duties
will be retained?
Will any current functions of either OAO or OTR be
eliminated or modified? If so, which and how?
Will OTR continue to function as a special and unique office
through which USDA interfaces with sovereign Tribal nations?
Answer. We are committed to carrying out these important functions
regardless of name and to being in compliance with the farm bill. We
will work with the Committee on any needed name changes. Our intent is
that, while all functions, purposes and statutory duties of each office
will remain the same, we will better coordinate them within OPPE and
with agencies across USDA. The Director of OTR will continue to report
directly to the Secretary, while also working closely with our Office
of Partnerships and Public Engagement. OTR will also continue to serve
as a single point of contact for Tribal issues at USDA, working to
ensure that USDA programs and policies, such as the Rural Prosperity
Taskforce, are developed in consultation with the American Indians and
Alaska Native constituents we serve.
Question 8. Does your reorganization of Rural Development effect
state and local Rural Development offices at all? Do you still have the
same amount of Rural Development employees at the state and local
level? And do you have any plans to change the number of state and
local Rural Development employees?
Answer. As part of the reorganization and realignment of Rural
Development (RD), we are examining mission support activities
(administrative support, human resources, etc.) in order to maximize
collaboration between the national office and state and local offices.
We will be reviewing the program delivery requirements and the staff
necessary to complete those activities. This review will allow targeted
hiring within the state and local offices. As change occurs, any staff
reductions at the state and local level will take place through
attrition. Rural Development's ability to deliver the programs in its
portfolio will not be impacted and the elimination of duplicative
functions in the agency will allow the RD workforce to better focus on
the agency's core mission.
Question 9. Everyone in this room knows how bad the wildfires were
this past year. The devastation reached well beyond our forests, and
yet Congress still can't pass a suitable fix to the wildfire budgeting
problem that is crippling the Forest Service's ability to get work done
on the ground. To what extent have you been engaged with House and
Senate leadership stressing the need to solve this problem? Are you
demanding new forest management authorities must be a part of a
wildfire funding fix?
Answer. I was very pleased to see a forest fire funding fix
included in the FY 2018 Omnibus passed by Congress. I made this a
priority when I became Secretary and had ongoing discussions to
encourage Members from both the House and Senate leadership to find
ways to help the Forest Service get more forest management work done to
reduce the fire hazard and protect local communities while creating
rural jobs.
Question 10. Please provide the Committee with the number of local
projects, timber contracts, NEPA evaluations, road repairs, recreation
enhancements, etc., which were either delayed or stalled because of
fire borrowing this year?
Answer. No projects were impacted by fire borrowing this year. The
agency utilized prior year unobligated balances that were not tied to
work on the ground.
Question 11. Due to the runaway fire budget--both with fire
borrowing and the rapidly expanding 10 year average--how much
management on the ground do you think has been foregone just since
you've been Secretary? How much more work do you think the Forest
Service could do if we solved the fire budget problem and allowed the
Forest Service to work at full capacity?
Answer. While no projects were impacted by fire borrowing during my
tenure as Secretary, I certainly appreciate that Congress enacted the
much-needed fire suppression funding fix this year. The 10 year average
increased $109 million from FY 2018 to FY 2019. In a relatively flat
budget, this increase in fire suppression appropriations means a
reduction in non-fire programs. The increasing role of wildland fire
operations in the agency has caused a downward shift in the number of
National Forest System personnel, down 39 percent from 1998 to 2016.
During this time, reductions to non-fire programs because of the
shift of financial and human resources to the Wildland Fire Management
accounts have been significant. These programs not only support the
Forest Service's restoration work that would help prevent catastrophic
fires, but also the protection of watersheds and cultural resources,
upkeep of programs and infrastructure that support thousands of
recreation jobs and billions of dollars of economic growth in rural
communities, and the range of multiple uses, benefits, and ecosystem
services, as well as research, technical assistance, and other programs
that deliver value to the American public.
Question 12. This Administration has been focused on looking at
trade deficits and the imbalance U.S. trade agreements have created for
U.S. workers. USDA has the most influence on day-to-day market
expansion for U.S. agriculture. Both FAS and APHIS work hard to resolve
non-tariff and phytosanitary trade barriers that can cost U.S.
producers millions of dollars in lost exports. And as you know the U.S.
is an attractive market for foreign suppliers and granting foreign
market access to the U.S. is a key to trade relations and lower
consumer prices.
To understand the cumulative gains and losses U.S. agriculture has
had with USDA's policy decisions, I you provide the last 3 years on
U.S. out-bound and foreign in-bound agricultural market access. I want
to make sure that for the gains we are making in expanding market
access for U.S. producers we are not unfairly creating an imbalance of
foreign imports in the domestic market.
Please include the date access was granted and the in-bound and
out-bound volumes shipped by country and commodity. I hope we can gain
a better understanding of which commodities are winners and losers at
trade and put the appropriate resources where they need to be directed
in USDA.
Answer. The U.S. agricultural sector consistently produces a trade
surplus. USDA projects the agricultural trade surplus to reach $21.0
billion in FY 2018. In 2017, the agricultural trade surplus was $21.3
billion. For 2016, this surplus was $16.6 billion. Major markets where
the U.S. had large trade surpluses include China, a $15 billion
surplus, and Japan with an $11 billion surplus. During the last 10
years, U.S. agricultural exports have increased by $48 billion with the
largest increases going to China ($11.3 billion); Canada ($6.4
billion); Mexico ($6.0 billion) and South Korea ($3.4 billion).
Over the last 10 years the commodities with the greatest growth in
export values are soybeans ($11.6 billion); tree nuts ($5.4 billion);
beef ($4.6 billion); and pork ($3.3 billion).
The commodities with the greatest import growth include tropical
products not produced extensively in the U.S. such as coffee, avocados,
and bananas; fresh fruits and vegetables that are imported when U.S.
production is out of season; and wine, beer, and specialty goods not
produced in the United States. If the Committee has questions regarding
specific commodities, USDA can provide additional information.
Submitted Question by Hon. Frank D. Lucas, a Representative in Congress
from Oklahoma
Question. Sec. Perdue, Oklahoma just had the largest cotton crop
harvested since 1933. This was a result of many contributing factors
(rain, boll weevil eradica-
tion . . .) but chief among them was the awesome increase in the number
of acres planted to cotton This increase is due partly to the fact that
the price of wheat is roughly the same now as when I first started
farming back in the 1980s and folks are changing their operations to
get through this any way they can.
This record crop has caused an immense ginning backlog throughout
the state, some estimations state that we will still be ginning cotton
come June. Producers are concerned that they will not have enough
cotton ginned and marketed by the May 31st date of maturity for their
FSA seed cotton recourse loans. Additionally, producers worried that
the 2017 crop cannot be ginned in time to meet the RMA reporting
deadline of May 1. Can you speak to these unique problems my
constituents are facing?
Answer. Congressman Lucas, seed cotton loans are recourse loans
which must be repaid at principal plus interest to settle the loan. In
cases where a recourse loan may be open after maturity, FSA has worked
with producers to market the collateral rather than deliver it for
settlement.
Current RMA procedures allow producers in these areas to use
temporary yields from the previous reporting period for 2017 in the
event that production records are not available from the gin by May 1,
2018. Current procedures also allow producers to report their cotton
production using cotton module measurements, as well as gin records, as
supporting production evidence. RMA has worked to explain these options
to producers and Approved Insurance Providers in the area and will
continue to monitor the situation to determine whether relief measures
are needed closer to the May 1, 2018, production reporting deadline.
FSA is aware that one or more individual gins is experiencing gin
capacity issues. Like RMA, FSA is closely monitoring the situation and
will make appropriate determinations based on circumstances that exist
when recourse loans mature.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in
Congress from Missouri
Rural Broadband
Question 1. Rural broadband is the number one economic issue across
my district, and there seems to be consensus from all levels of
government that we need to tackle this issue.
Based on your work with the Rural Prosperity Task Force, what steps
have you identified that USDA can take administratively to address the
digital divide? How will USDA implement the recommendations from the
Rural Prosperity Task Force?
Answer. USDA Rural Development has a long track record of investing
in broadband connectivity to offer the same access to rural America
that urban areas currently enjoy. By focusing on indicators that
improve the quality of life--including connections to education, health
care and community services--combined with delivering skills to support
a productive, growing workforce and innovation, we can build stronger
rural economies. The Agriculture and Rural Prosperity Task Force report
was issued in January 2018 and outlined five objectives and recommended
actions for achieving e-connectivity for rural America: (1) Establish
Executive Leadership to Expand E-connectivity Across Rural America, (2)
Assess the State of Rural E-connectivity, (3) Reduce Regulatory
Barriers to Infrastructure Deployment, (4) Assess the Efficacy of
Current Programs, and (5) Incentivize Private Capital Investment.
Continuing with a similar multi-agency approach that the
Agriculture and Rural Prosperity Task Force used, USDA is collaborating
with the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the
General Services Administration, and other Federal agencies on the Task
Force recommendations through the work of the Broadband Interagency
Working Group. Preliminary work is underway, including work to execute
recommendation No. 3 on reducing regulatory barriers--President Trump
has signed an Executive Order (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
actions/presidential-executive-order-streamlining-expediting-requests-
locate-broad
band-facilities-rural-america/) and a Presidential Memorandum (https://
www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/14/secretary-perdues-
prepared-opening-statement-rural-infrastructure) that all relevant
agencies have begun work to fulfill.
Question 2. What steps can be taken administratively within the
Rural Utilities Service to help streamline the application process for
the telecom loan programs? Would changes in statute help aid in this
process?
Answer. USDA Rural Development is constantly looking at ways to
improve and streamline the application process. For example, in 2015,
the Rural Utilities Service started accepting loan applications on-line
which assists applicants in ensuring that all parts of an application
are completed and makes it easier for applicants to understand the
requirements of the programs. In FY 2018, we are making some changes in
the funding announcement for the farm bill Broadband Loan Program which
will improve how applications are submitted and processed with the goal
of getting more funds out to rural America as quickly as possible. With
the FY 2018 Notice for the Broadband Program, we are now accepting
applications on a rolling basis throughout the FY and will periodically
rank them for processing every 90 days giving priority to the
applications that propose to serve the most unserved households. This
rolling process with periodic evaluations will allow us to better
interact with the applicants and make more applications acceptable.
USDA welcomes further suggestions of changes that help aid in loan
program processes.
Question 3. How does lack of access to rural broadband play into
the overall outlook for our rural and farm economies?
Answer. Rural e-connectivity, or broadband, supports economic
development for the whole nation through access to capital and global
markets, job training and workforce development, innovation and
technology and enhanced quality. ``e-Connectivity'' is the digital
superhighway of our nation's economy and so much more than just
connecting households, schools, and healthcare centers to each other as
well as the rest of the world through high-speed Internet. It is the
21st Century productivity tool for farms, factories, forests, mining,
and businesses. E-connectivity for rural America is essential for
ensuring America's economic competitiveness and enabling all Americans
to be plugged in to a world of opportunity.
Without adequate broadband service, farmers and rural communities
are not able to be as productive and efficient which slows economic
growth. Additionally, rural families without broadband suffer as
schools at all levels are requiring online access. Homework assignments
are now dependent on a broadband connection. Children whose household
does not have a broadband connection are forced to travel to a local
library or WiFi hotspot to complete homework assignments.
High-speed Internet also provides access to real productivity
increases through precision agriculture, enhanced educational
opportunities, and broader and more efficient access to markets. With a
broadband connection, someone in a rural area can manufacture and sell
their products simply by advertising on-line. Without the broadband
connection, it gets expensive very quickly when trying to advertise in
papers and magazines and this type of advertising is not as efficient
as on-line advertising. Additionally, broadband connection allows a
business in a rural area to participate in the global marketplace.
Without broadband, customers may be limited to the surrounding areas.
School Lunch
Question 4. In your short tenure, you have already made great
strides to improve the school lunch program, which is incredibly
important to my constituents. I look forward to working with you to
provide more long-term flexibility and certainty to USDA school lunch
and breakfast programs.
Can you briefly outline the key reforms you have made thus far to
the program and any planned or potential reforms moving forward?
Answer. USDA seeks to offer school meals that are nutritious,
tasty, and wholesome and to provide streamlined procedures and
regulatory relief for program operators. Recent actions demonstrate our
commitment:
The May 1, 2017 ``USDA Commitment to School Meals''
proclamation propelled our efforts to provide targeted
flexibilities and regulatory relief in the School Meal
Programs. Following the Proclamation, we issued policy guidance
providing flexibilities for milk, whole grains, and sodium
requirements for School Year (SY) 2017-2018 and began the
process to amend the regulations to allow long-term
flexibility.
On November 30, 2017, we issued the interim final rule,
``Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole
Grains, and Sodium Requirements'', to ease regulatory
requirements and help Program operators serve nutritious and
appealing meals that reflect local preferences, consistent with
the intent of the May 2017 Proclamation. This regulation allows
operators to offer more choices in the type of milk they serve,
recognizes the need for flexibility for whole grain-rich
products, and maintains sodium Target 1 for SY 2018-19. The
interim final rule will be followed by a final rule scheduled
for fall 2018.
On March 6, 2018, we issued the proposed rule ``Hiring
Flexibility under Professional Standards'', which is intended
to remove barriers that limit the pool of qualified local and
state directors for the School Meal Programs. The proposed rule
would expand the range of experience and training that is
required to serve as a food service director, reflecting the
fact that the expertise needed to serve great school meals can
come not only from training and education, but also from real-
world experience. The comment period for this proposed rule
ended May 7, 2018; We are now beginning development of the
final rule.
On December 17, 2017, we issued a Request for Information
regarding ``Food Crediting in Child Nutrition Programs''. The
comment period closed on April 23, 2018. We will use the
feedback gathered from stakeholders to determine, what, if any,
changes need to be made to food crediting.
Child Nutrition Programs play a critical role in ensuring that
millions of America's children have access to the nutritious food they
need to learn and succeed in the classroom. USDA looks forward to
continuing to work with Congress and interested stakeholders to
determine additional regulatory reforms that are needed in these
programs while ensuring standards are commonsense and are workable for
states and local schools.
Question 5. Based on your experience thus far, what type of
legislative changes would help you accomplish your goals for the School
Lunch Program?
Answer. USDA is committed to these critical programs, and to
ensuring that our partners in states and local schools have the tools
and flexibility they need to provide nutritious meals and great service
to their student customers, while promoting operational integrity. We
look forward to working with Congress on Child Nutrition
reauthorization and other legislation to improve the programs based on
these important principles. USDA continues to examine regulatory
changes to improve the program. USDA welcomes further discussions with
Congress and interested stakeholders on this topic.
Meat Processing
Question 6. I appreciate your focus on reducing unnecessary Federal
burdens on job creators. I have been working with small meat processors
in my district and their regulators FSIS to make sure we maintain high
food safety standards along with smart regulations that don't push good
businesses out of the market and create large barriers to entry. The
local food movement is great for Missouri agriculture, and I hope you
will work with me to ensure FSIS regulations are consistent and as
minimally invasive to businesses as possible while maintaining world
class food safety standards.
Will you commit to working with me on addressing issues facing
small and very small processors?
Answer. Yes, I wish to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens.
Question 7. Has the USDA identified any specific administrative or
legislative options that will improve the working relationship between
USDA inspectors and the regulated community?
Answer. Small and very small plants make up more than 90% of the
6,000 federally-inspected plants, and I am committed to improved
customer service for these establishments. Beginning in FY 2018, FSIS
has committed that its Enforcement, Investigations and Analysis
Officers (EIAOs) will increase to 25 percent of the time spent for
outreach to small and very small plants, to make sure they understand
compliance requirements, can get answers to any questions, and to
strengthen relationships with the establishments.
Question 8. What is the USDA currently doing to ensure small and
very small processors looking to enter the market can receive the
technical assistance necessary to navigate the Federal bureaucracy?
Answer. USDA recognizes the unique needs of small and very small
processors and those looking to enter the market and has a dedicated
Small Plant Help Desk ready to assist. Its contact information is
available on the FSIS website. As part of my commitment to improve
customer service across USDA, in December 2017, FSIS also updated the
resources available for small and very small establishments on its
website to make it easier to navigate. We also encourage individuals to
reach out to the FSIS District Offices in their area for assistance, as
well as to the Enforcement, Investigations and Analysis Officers
(EIAOs). Additionally, the District Offices have a District Veterinary
Medical Specialist (DVMS) who can be contacted with humane handling
questions.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. Secretary Perdue, the California dairy industry
continues to face hardship and rock-bottom prices. They are still
waiting for completion of the years-long Federal Milk Marketing Order
process. Now we are told the process cannot move forward until the
Supreme Court rules on an ongoing case concerning administrative law
judges. Such a ruling is not expected until June 30 of this year.
Our dairy producers have been very patient and cooperative during
this long process. You can understand the frustration felt by me and my
fellow California representatives, as we watch the state continue to
lose production and farms--completely opposite of the nationwide trend.
Preparations for the 2018 Farm Bill are already underway, but we still
have this unfinished business from the 2014 Farm Bill.
Can you provide insight as to why USDA made the decision to release
a proposed rule to announce this delay that's tied to a pending Supreme
Court decision? Why the announcement was made this way?
Should any of USDA's existing rules be impacted by the outcome of
the case, does your agency have contingency plans to address it?
During your last appearance before this Committee, we received
assurances that the Marketing Order would be completed by end of 2017.
Would you again commit to working with the industry, to ensure our
producers see solutions and relief as soon as possible?
Answer. On February 6, 2018, USDA posted a notice of delay in the
California Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) rulemaking proceedings
due to the pending case before the United States Supreme Court in Lucia
v. Securities Exchange Commission, 868 F.3d 1021 (D.C. Cir 2017) (en
banc) (per curiam). In order for the California FMMO to proceed with
rulemaking proceedings as expeditiously as possible, an independent de
novo review of the hearing record was required to either ratify or
modify any decision made by the Administrative Law Judge in the
previous proceeding. USDA communicated these actions in the Federal
Register in order to comply with ex parte prohibitions under the
Administrative Procedures Act.
USDA is not aware of any other rules that will be impacted by the
pending Supreme Court case. I commit to continuing to work with
industry to develop solutions as soon as possible. On March 30, 2018 we
published in the Federal Register a final decision to establish a
Federal Milk Marketing Order for California. As required under Federal
Milk Marketing Orders, USDA is conducting a voter referendum among
California dairy producers to determine whether they support the final
decision. The referendum vote is being held from April 2, 2018 through
May 5, 2018. USDA held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 10, 2018 in
Clovis, California with stakeholders to answer questions related to the
proposed Order and how eligible dairy producers can participate in the
referendum. USDA will continue to work with our California dairy
partners on this issue and will receive the results from the referendum
in early June.
Question 2. As a Member of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, I was pleased to see the Administration's
preliminary infrastructure framework proposes a grant program for rural
America. This country has long needed innovative improvements and
solutions to bring our economy and society into the 21st century.
One area of note is that of rural water development.
Could you provide insight into the Department's expertise in
administering infrastructure grant programs and what role it expects to
play, as this framework continues to be fleshed out in Congress?
Answer. The USDA role in rural infrastructure is longstanding--the
predecessor of the Rural Utilities Service was the first investor in
rural connectivity to electricity and telephone service, and such
programs continue today. USDA Rural Development invests billions of
dollars each year in rural infrastructure projects, from water
utilities to modernizing rural America's electric grid to expanding
broadband access. USDA has $57 billion of outstanding loans in rural
infrastructure, all with less than a 1.3% default rate. These
investments include nearly $13 billion in water, wastewater and solid
waste projects, with many of these projects relying on a grant portion
of the funding awards to make clean water possible in rural
communities. We are working with public and private partners to
leverage funding that will help rural systems build capacity and
sustainability. The Rural Utilities Service also awards approximately
$27 million in grants from annual appropriations for broadband
infrastructure deployment in America's most remote and under-served
communities through the Community Connect Program. The FY 2018 Omnibus
Bill also contained funding to support new investments in broadband,
with an additional $600 million in funds appropriated to the USDA for a
new broadband loan and grant pilot program. We are working diligently
to develop the best way to administer these funds and ensure the new
program provides the most benefit to the rural communities we serve.
Question 3. It is no secret that the recent tax reform passed by
Congress has intentionally created a new complication for the industry
as a whole.
Given the state of the rural economy, coupled with your firsthand
observations, could you comment on how important a resolution to the
Section 199A matter is for rural America and the agriculture industry?
Answer. As Under Secretary Ibach stated in January, ``The aim of
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was to spur economic growth across the entire
American economy, including in the agricultural sector. While the goal
was to preserve benefits in Section 199A for cooperatives and their
patrons, the unintended consequences of the current language
disadvantage the independent operators in the same industry. The
Federal Tax Code should not pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
We applaud Congress for acknowledging and correcting the disparity.''
Question 4. Mr. Secretary, the almond export industry is one of
California's top economic drivers. Unfortunately, it continues to be
challenged in its relations with India--specifically ongoing smuggling
through Pakistan and deliberate mislabeling.
Could you provide an update as to what USDA is doing to ensure
fairness and transparency with this key trade partner?
What about USDA's work with the U.S. Trade Representative on this
issue?
Answer. USDA has urged India to strengthen border control of
agricultural goods and is also working in strong partnership with the
U.S. almond industry, including the Almond Board of California and Blue
Diamond Growers, to dramatically increase U.S. almond sales to India.
In fact, U.S. almond exports to India climbed from $180 million in 2008
to a record $660 million in 2017, making India our largest export
market for almonds, worldwide.
The recent Senate confirmation of the Chief Agricultural Negotiator
in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative enhances USDA's ability
to collaborate on agricultural market issues such as these where we
believe that the Government of India has the ability to remove the
incentive for smuggling and counterfeiting by lowering tariff rates for
high demand U.S. agricultural products. USDA will work closely with the
USTR Agricultural Negotiator to ensure this is on his radar as he gets
up to speed in his new role.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Don Bacon, a Representative in Congress
from Nebraska
Question 1. What is your assessment of FMD vaccine and how can we
best work to prevent FMD from becoming a devastating problem for our
livestock producers?
Answer. A three-legged stool approach that encompasses a vaccine
bank, preparedness, and prevention model would improve our preparedness
and response capabilities for FMD and other foreign animal diseases.
USDA takes the threat of FMD very seriously, and we will work with
Congress, states, and industry to ensure that we are all prepared for
this disease or any other foreign animal disease. APHIS has
acknowledged a gap in its current FMD vaccine capabilities and they
have had conversations with their partners about ways to address that
gap. We certainly look forward to continuing those conversations.
Question 2. Secretary Perdue, Agri-Pulse has been running an
article series recently on gene editing in agriculture. In an article
just last week titled ``Protecting the Herd: New Opportunities Through
Gene Editing'', the article detailed a pig variety that through simply
deleting one gene already present in a pig--something that could easily
happen in nature, though it could take years or decades to produce--
they can make pigs resistant to a horrible disease called PRRS (porcine
reproductive and respiratory syndrome). This disease is devastating to
pigs, and costs North American pig farmers more than $600 million every
year.
Yet, the article detailed how the product is having trouble coming
to market, because FDA wants to treat this product and other gene
edited animals as ``animal drugs'' and require very heavy regulation as
a drug. Mr. Secretary, our farmers, consumers, and the animals
themselves could immensely benefit from treatments like this. Has USDA
engaged with FDA, or are there plans to engage, to get them to revise
their approach so that products like this have an appropriate pathway
forward?
Answer. I agree that the Federal role should be to regulate these
products in a way that allows them to come to market quickly and
safely. We support science-based policy that does not stifle innovation
or impede the development of successful new products. USDA is currently
evaluating gene-editing animal biotech and options for addressing
regulatory challenges that may be limiting agricultural innovation. We
intend to engage FDA on these issues as this evaluation evolves.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Timothy J. Walz, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, the USDA recently announced that they
would be canceling funding for BPI payments to companies that are
refining biofuel in the United States from certain domestically grown
feedstocks converted to drop-in biofuel for delivery to supply biofuels
to the Navy. The Navy is supportive of the program and BPI payments.
The program has numerous benefits, among them promotion of homegrown
renewable fuel. Can you explain why exactly the USDA has made this
decision in contravention of the benefits and support of our armed
services?
Answer. USDA, in consultation with its agency partners and the
Office of Management and Budget, determined that the cost of
implementation of these initiatives significantly outweighed the
benefits to taxpayers. The Navy was supportive of this decision. As
part of our efforts to ensure fiscal responsibility, we discontinued
these programs; however, USDA will continue to make payments under
existing commitments.
Question 2. In the Department's Farm Bill Legislative Principles
document you highlighted the importance of conservation programs--
particularly those that benefit soil health, water and air quality and
other natural resources. However, overall funding for conservation
programs was substantially reduced in the 2014 Farm Bill. Funding for
ACEP, for example, was cut in half between Fiscal Year 2017 and 2018.
Consequently, USDA and its agencies have fewer resources to assist
private landowners in preserving working lands. The next farm bill
presents an opportunity to restore funding for programs, like ACEP,
which were reduced in the 2014 bill. Would you support restoring
funding for conservation programs so that our farmers and ranchers can
continue to work the land and produce the food and fiber that we all
depend upon?
Answer. The Department looks forward to working with the House and
Senate Agriculture Committees to provide technical assistance and
programmatic insight during the farm bill process to improve all of
USDA's resources available to farmers, including NRCS- and FSA-
implemented conservation programs.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, we have seen the very positive benefit
biofuels have had on our farm economy and rural communities. In fact,
many Minnesotans would like to use even more biofuels in their
vehicles. Can you please tell the Committee what the USDA is doing to
ensure that a robust RFS is continued?
Answer. FSA, along with our Rural Development agencies, NIFA, and
ARS provide a suite of programs that support a robust RFS. FSA extended
the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) through 2018, due to
hurricane impacts and market changes. This extension allows for more
time to fully construct the targeted installation of nearly 5,000
higher-blend ethanol pumps and 400 tanks. These pumps and tanks are
being installed in 1,538 fueling stations in 20 states. The extension
also provided flexibility to the state grantees, allowing them a chance
to respond to market demands and setting an increased total of over
1,000 pumps for E15-E25.
Submitted Questions by Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in
Congress from Massachusetts
Question 1. USDA has proposed converting about half of SNAP
benefits for more than 80% of SNAP recipients into a food box. USDA
says that on average that it can buy food at half the price as it is
available on the retail market thereby allowing them to replace the
lost benefits with a non-perishable food box and use the balance for
deficit reduction. The proposal would also allocate $250m per year to
state for the cost of shipping, warehousing, packing, shipping and
establishing distribution centers for the food boxes. But, the budget
does not provide an estimate of the administrative costs associated
with the proposal. And, the budget would also cap state administrative
expenses. So there is no estimated increase in state administrative
expenses associated with the Harvest Box administrative and
distribution overhead. The budget assumes states and private networks
would absorb these costs. TEFAP and CSFP provide administrative
overhead that ranges from 14% to 33% while program operators claim is
it much higher. Can USDA provide an estimate of the costs to states,
localities and private charities of operating this program? While those
costs would not be borne by the Federal Government, policy makers need
to understand the full implications of the proposal.
Answer. America's Harvest Box is a bold, innovative approach to
providing nutritious food to those in need. USDA has estimated that the
proposal will save taxpayers approximately $129 billion over the 10
year period between Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and FY 2028. This estimate
accounts for about $2.5 billion annually in additional administrative
funds for states, which states can use to provide funding to public
and/or private partners. It assumes administrative costs at a similar
scale to the existing Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which
currently serves approximately 600,000 elderly participants across 48
states.
States will be given substantial flexibility on how to distribute
these food benefits to participants. States can distribute America's
Harvest Boxes through existing infrastructure, public-private
partnerships, or choose to deliver directly to residences through
retailers or commercial delivery services. Direct delivery has shown to
be an appealing option for both rural states and urban areas with food
access issues.
This proposal combines the best elements of SNAP and the USDA Foods
programs. America's Harvest Boxes allow states the opportunity for
participants to have a choice in selecting components of the box, while
some states may choose to include additional items, such as fresh
fruits and vegetables, through public-private partnerships. The
remainder of the SNAP benefit will continue to be available through
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards to purchase food at approved
retailers.
While the proposal that has been presented offers a useful starting
point for discussion, this bold proposal will require innovative
thinking from many sectors. We are continuing to hear from the private-
sector about their innovative ideas regarding access to food. USDA
welcomes creative approaches to address the needs of SNAP participants
and looks forward to working with Congress to consider impactful and
cost-effective strategies to serve those most in need.
Question 2. In addition to USDA's Harvest Box proposal, the
Department has included some $85 billion in SNAP cuts, including
multiple cuts that would terminate benefits to millions of individuals.
Would USDA please provide an estimate of the number of individuals that
would have their benefits terminated (e.g., under the categorical
eligibility, three ABAWD time limit provisions, minimum benefit and
household cap proposal) as well as the number of people impacted and
the average benefit cut under the remaining proposals such as the SUA
changes?
Answer. Under the President's 2019 Budget request, savings are
achieved through a new proposal, America's Harvest Box which uses
government purchasing power to buy food for some SNAP participants. It
streamlines a number of programs to make them more efficient and
effective, and also targets SNAP participation to households most in
need. As unemployment continues to drop, and the economy continues to
improve, our goal should be to structure our programs so that we can
best help participants to move from SNAP to self-sufficiency in the
long-term.
Limiting ABAWD waivers to counties with an unemployment rate
greater than ten percent would lead to approximately 1.7 million
additional ABAWDs facing time limits in Fiscal Year 2019. This proposal
will lead to a consistent method for states to utilize waiver authority
that is directly tied to the economy. However, ABAWDs meeting work
requirements, including those participating in work training programs
will not lose their benefits.
Limiting categorical eligibility to households receiving TANF cash
assistance would affect about 3.2 million SNAP participants, or about
eight percent of the SNAP caseload. Those currently qualifying for SNAP
under broad based categorical eligibility (BBCE) will continue to
qualify if they meet the current SNAP eligibility criteria. This
proposal would establish a nationwide policy to restore confidence that
the pool of eligible applicants is consistent with SNAP eligibility
limits.
Establishing a national standard for State Heating and Cooling
Standard Utility Allowances (HCSUA) levels based on the 80th percentile
of low-income households' utility costs would streamline variability
across states and impact benefits for approximately 7.2 million SNAP
households.
Eliminating the minimum benefit would eliminate benefits for about
1.5 million SNAP participants. Another 270,000 participants would
receive a lower monthly benefit, which aligns the benefit level with
the actual need of the individual in accordance with household
circumstances. Capping the maximum benefit would reduce benefits for
about 580,000 participants.
Submitted Question by Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Representative in
Congress from New Mexico
Question. Secretary Perdue, on January 8, 2018, President Trump
expressed his desire to find ways to expand rural broadband access
while speaking at the American Farm Bureau in Nashville, Tennessee.
That same day, the President signed an Executive Order directing his
Administration to use ``all viable tools to accelerate the deployment
and adoption of affordable, reliable, modern high-speed broadband
connectivity in rural America.'' Just 2 weeks ago, the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its farm bill priorities
which included a desire to, ``Expand and enhance the effectiveness of
tools available to further connect rural American communities, homes,
farms, businesses, first responders, educational facilities, and
healthcare facilities to reliable and affordable high-speed Internet
services.'' I agree. Finding ways to increase broadband access in rural
America should be a key part of the farm bill.
Broadband increases economic activity, produces jobs, enables
telehealth services and improves health outcomes, increases crop
yields, and so much more. Today, anyone without broadband access faces
significant challenges to competing in a modern economy. Unfortunately,
rural and frontier states, like my home state of New Mexico, have
limited broadband service. In 2015, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) reported that 61% of New Mexicans living in rural
areas lacked fixed (wired) broadband access. Overall, 39% of Americans
living in rural areas (23.4 million people) lack access to high speed
broadband, and access is even worse in Tribal lands where 80% of the
population does not have access to fast broadband.
Members of this Committee on both sides of the aisle share your
goal of expanding broadband access in rural America. Secretary Perdue,
as we draft the next farm bill, do I have your commitment to work with
me and the House Agriculture Committee to promote the expansion of
broadband access in rural America?
Answer. Yes, we at USDA will provide any technical assistance
requested by the House Agriculture Committee during development of the
farm bill, for the purpose of supporting expanded and enhanced tools to
further connect rural American communities, homes, farms, businesses,
first responders, educational facilities, and healthcare facilities to
reliable and affordable high-speed Internet services.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress
from Virgin Islands
Question 1. The Administration's infrastructure plan released on
February 12 calls for ``$200 billion in Federal funds to spur at least
$1.5 trillion in infrastructure investments with partners at the state,
local, Tribal, and private level.'' In addition, ``$50 billion of the
$200 billion in direct Federal funding will be devoted to a new Rural
Infrastructure Program to rebuild and modernize infrastructure in rural
America.''
The legislative outline of the plan further adds that ``[a] portion
of the Rural Infrastructure Program funds would be set aside for Tribal
infrastructure and territorial infrastructure, with the remainder
available for states.''
Will the Department of Agriculture be the Federal agency
administering this $50 billion Rural Infrastructure Program?
Answer. We look forward to working with Congress to determine the
most appropriate way to administer the Rural Infrastructure Program.
Regardless of the administering agency, the President's proposal
envisions that funds under the Rural Infrastructure Program would be
provided to the governor of each state as a block grant via formula
distribution.
Question 2. How much of the $50 billion in Rural Infrastructure
Program funding would be set aside for territorial infrastructure?
Answer. A portion of the Rural Infrastructure Program funds are
proposed to be set aside for Tribal infrastructure and territorial
infrastructure. Of the $50 billion identified for rural infrastructure,
$1 billion will be set aside for Tribal areas and territories.
Question 3. How would the total amount of funding set aside for
territorial infrastructure be apportioned among each of the
territories?
Answer. The apportionment of the dedicated funding for addressing
infrastructure needs of U.S. Territories Rural Infrastructure Program
would be dependent on Congressional authorization and appropriation of
funding for the program.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Al Lawson, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from Florida
Question 1. In the mid-1980s, I understand that the Secretary of
Agriculture during the Reagan Administration created a USDA/1890 Land-
grant University Task Force to identify priorities that would enable
the 1890 universities to participate more actively in USDA programs and
contribute to increasing the diversity of the USDA workforce.
This task force was very effective and allowed the universities to
become more engaged with many USDA agencies. Many innovative and
successful programs were implemented. The Task Force has been
nonfunctional for the past 2-3 years--during the 2016 election year and
your first-year transitioning into the role as Secretary.
I am hopeful that you will reimplement and rejuvenate this Task
Force with the appropriate leadership structure to ensure success and
sustainability. Have you given this any consideration and can we work
on this effort together? The President of Langston University, Kent
Smith, who is in or near Congressman Lucas' district is the current
chair of the 1890s group and would be happy to work with you and your
team to stand this Task Force up again.
Answer. We agree that this task force is an effective and important
link between the 1890 Land Grant Universities and USDA agencies. We are
currently in the process of identifying representatives in order to
stand up the task force and appreciate your suggestion to work with the
President of Langston University, Kent Smith, we will be sure to
contact him.
Question 2. The current farm bill authorizes 20% of Smith-Lever
funds be appropriated for 1890 Extension programs and 30% of Hatch
funds be appropriated for 1890 Research programs. Currently, the 1890
Extension program receives 15% and 1890 Research receives 25% of Hatch
funds. So, both are 5% short.
Will the Administration support the 1890 universities receiving
full funding at the authorized levels?
Answer. USDA is committed to our 1890 land-grant university
partners and will continue to implement 1890 grant programs at the
levels legislated by the Congress.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and for
promoting the focus on developing rural communities and economies
through the farm bill. In my district in northern Florida, we have a
robust forestry industry, which represents a key economic driver for
our communities and employs close to 2,000 people. These private acres
filter our water, provide habitat for species, and produce the raw
materials for 77 manufacturing facilities throughout Florida, infusing
$16 billion into our state's economy. I was pleased to see that the
agency's framework for the farm bill included addressing healthy forest
management and incentivizing private stewardship of forests. One way to
achieve this is to expand and promote new, innovative markets for
forest products. Can you confirm USDA's support for research and
development of these innovative products that can create new jobs and
new enthusiasm for this traditional industry?
Answer. I am very interested in new, innovative products made from
wood that can help create new jobs and new uses for wood from our
nation's forests. As I emphasized in my farm bill principles, my aim is
to increase coordination with states to promote job creation and
improve forest health through shared stewardship and stakeholder input.
Question 4. Federal policies, such as those created and supported
through farm bill programs, have a significant impact on the ability of
private forest owners to manage their land effectively. The industry
took a significant hit during the Great Recession, from which it has
still not fully recovered. Industry is a natural partner to the Forest
Service given that wildfires, insects, and invasive species do not
recognize the boundaries of Federal vs. private forests. Through the
Good Neighbor Authority, the Forest Service is already partnering with
states for similar purposes. To better combat these threats, forest
owners of all kinds must have somewhere to move their wood from
hazardous fuel reduction and other forest health management techniques.
To that end, how do you see USDA and the Forest Service working with
private landowners to tackle the problems that are facing our forests?
Answer. As I emphasized in my farm bill principles, I am committed
to offering tools and resources that incentivize private stewardship
and retention of forestland. The Forest Stewardship program at the
Forest Service plays a central role in assisting private landowners--
who own more than \2/3\ of our nation's forests--in addressing their
most pressing resource management concerns.
Question 5. Now that the Federal agriculture relief package for
Florida agriculture has been approved, how quickly do expect a program
to be up and running and receiving this badly needed relief to Florida
farmers? Days? Months?
Answer. USDA is working to provide the disaster assistance as
expeditiously as possible and sign-up for the new program, authorized
by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, will begin no later than July 16.
We will first roll out the program parameters as we begin to finalize
necessary regulations and develop software to provide meaningful
assistance to affected producers. For some existing programs that were
changed by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and that do not require
regulatory changes, we expect to begin making payments within weeks.
Question 6. USDA-FNS cites that SNAP trafficking has dropped to 25%
of the levels in 1993. In addition, GAO has found that from 2006 to
2016 SNAP had an improper payment rate of only between 3.2 and 5.8
percent. Mr. Secretary in your 2018 Farm Bill & Legislative Principles
you said that you are looking to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse within
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services. Can you explain the reasoning
behind why you did not highlight any high-risk programs in the FSA as
targets to reduce abuse but highlighted FNS programs?
Answer. Since taking office, I have been working hard to crack down
on fraud and abuse in all our various agencies and programs while
ensuring we provide excellent customer service to those that need our
assistance. That said, this area was highlighted given the significant
total dollars being provided to our stakeholders through these FNCS
programs, which equates to nearly 70% of USDA spending.
Question 7. In USDA's FY 2019 budget it outlines over $500 million
in cuts to Water and Wastewater Grant Programs in our rural
communities. Can you explain how these cuts will affect rural
communities' ability to grow their economies?
Answer. The budget made some very difficult choices to control
spending and to ensure water projects are coordinated with other
Federal programs like the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) state
revolving fund. Improved targeting of Federal water funding,
elimination of regulatory barriers, support for existing stakeholders,
development of new partnerships and enactment of infrastructure
investment legislation will contribute to rural prosperity. I look
forward to working with the Committee on these and other innovative
ways to meet the water needs of rural America.
Question 8. In USDA's FY 2019 budget it outlines a $32 million cut
to specialty crop pests support in the plant health section of APHIS.
Can you explain how this will affect the specialty crop industry?
Answer. Several of the reductions are intended to better balance
the portion of the costs of these programs borne by the Federal
Government. These include the reductions to the glassy-winged
sharpshooter (GWSS), European grapevine moth (EGVM), and pale cyst
nematode programs.
If cooperators are able to increase their contributions towards the
efforts, there will be no impact to the current programs. If they are
unable to increase their contributions, we will work with the
cooperators to determine how best to leverage the resources available
to continue program activities. The remaining decreases bring funding
back to the FY 2016 funding level for the Fruit Fly Exclusion and
Detection and Citrus Health Response Programs (CHRP).
Question 9. In USDA's FY 2019 budget it outlines a $29 million cut
to tree and wood pests support in the plant health section of APHIS.
Can you explain the effects of these cuts?
Answer. The reduction to APHIS' tree and wood pest programs is
intended to better balance the portion of the costs of these programs
borne by the Federal Government and would reduce the Federal cost-share
to 50 percent. If cooperators are unable to increase their
contributions, USDA would reduce the rate at which it conducts surveys
for these pests and would reduce control measures in the field. APHIS
would continue to evaluate program activities and identify the highest
priorities with state partners.
Question 10. In USDA's FY 2019 budget it outlines the elimination
of the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program (FINI grants), can
you explain the rationale behind cutting this funding?
Answer. Authorization for this farm bill mandatory program expires
at the end of FY 2018 and therefore was not included in the President's
FY 2019 Budget request.
Question 11. Can you give a breakdown of total funding provided to
each category of land-grant institutions over the last twenty years?
Simply give the following three numbers: (1) All USDA funding that went
to the 1862 institutions over the last twenty years, (2) All USDA
funding that went to the 1890 institutions over the last twenty years,
and (3) All USDA funding that went to the 1994 institutions over the
last twenty years.
Answer. USDA obligations for the 1862 institutions from FY 1998 to
FY 2017 was approximately $13.5 billion. Obligations for the 1890
institutions for the same period was about $1.5 billion. Obligations
for the 1994 institutions for the same period was approximately $262
million. Please note that data prior to FY 2009 are incomplete and that
final data for FY 2017 are not yet available.
Question 12. In the proposed SNAP legislation, you cited that the
USDA Foods Box will have ``the potential to reduce waste, fraud, and
abuse.'' Please cite the data that used to take this position?
Answer. Today, we know that SNAP benefits administered through an
EBT card carry risks of being misused through trafficking--the sale of
benefits for cash--and other program violations. While the SNAP
trafficking rate is low, we do have many systems in place to catch
violators and we are continuously looking to improve those efforts.
Currently, USDA Foods are provided in ready-to-use form to
participating households, which reduces, but does not eliminate,
opportunities for benefits to be diverted for other purposes. While we
have not conducted a formal study on the impact of America's Harvest
Box on fraud or waste, we estimate that using the boxes will have a
positive impact because of the nature of the benefit.
Question 13. In the proposed legislation there is now a delivery
mechanism for the USDA's Harvest Boxes. Can you explain the
administrative plan that will be used to prepare these boxes and
deliver these packages as these will be going out to 81% of SNAP
households, tens of millions of Americans, starting on October 1, 2018?
Answer. As is currently done for other USDA nutrition assistance
programs, USDA would purchase staple, shelf-stable foods (such as
shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, ready-eat-cereals, pasta, peanut
butter, beans, canned meat, poultry or fish, and canned fruits and
vegetables) and have them delivered to states. SNAP state agencies
would be responsible for the administration of the program at the state
level and would have substantial flexibility in doing so. USDA would
partner with states to determine the most efficient food box
distribution model which they could then utilize to implement the
program.
While the proposal that has been presented offers a useful starting
point for discussion, this bold proposal will require innovative
thinking from many sectors. USDA welcomes creative approaches to
address the needs of SNAP participants and looks forward to working
with Congress to consider impactful and cost-effective strategies to
serve those most in need.
Submitted Questions by Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. My colleague, Congressman Neal Dunn, and I sent a
letter to USDA, FDA, and EPA on October 17, 2017 stressing the
importance of interagency coordination on the regulation of
biotechnology. Recently, USDA and FDA entered into a formal agreement
focused on strengthening interagency coordination on critical topics
such as biotechnology and food safety. Can you elaborate on what you
see as USDA's role in this relationship, how the two agencies will
coordinate moving forward, and the intended goals of this agreement?
Answer. USDA oversees the safety of meat, poultry, catfish and
processed egg products while the FDA has authority over all other foods
such as dairy, seafood, produce and packaged foods. USDA and FDA are
partnering in many key areas, including the implementation of produce
safety measures and biotechnology efforts.
This agreement is the agencies' newest initiative to expand those
efforts and take new steps to streamline regulatory responsibilities
and use government resources more efficiently to protect public health.
It aims to increase clarity, efficiency, and potentially reduce the
number of establishments subject to the dual regulatory requirements of
the USDA and the FDA. USDA and FDA are currently establishing the
workgroups enumerated in the agreement to ensure action is taken as
soon as possible.
Question 2. USDA recently released their ``2018 Farm Bill &
Legislative Principles'' document. Under the ``Research, Education, and
Economics'' section, you note that you want to ``commit to a public
research agenda that places the U.S. at the forefront of food and
scientific development.'' However, China has been outspending the U.S.
for almost a decade on investments in agriculture research. To remain
competitive, I believe that we should be making strong, strategic
investments in both basic and applied agriculture research. This is
especially true in our specialty crop industry as we work to cope with
labor shortages, improve pest management, and strengthen soil health.
What do you believe is needed in the 2018 Farm Bill's research title to
put the U.S. back at the forefront of agriculture research? Should
Congress be devoting more resources to domestic, public agriculture
research?
Answer. In the next 50 years, agriculture will be called upon to
produce more food than in the previous 10,000 years combined with
little or no increase in the amounts of arable land, water or resources
available. The efficiencies and increased productivity needed to meet
these agricultural challenges cannot be achieved without a renewed
focus on agriculture research. I support research to advance the
competitiveness of U.S. agriculture and promote food security. Broad
research priority areas should be established, such as for more
efficient water and nutrient use, improved health and resilience of our
soils and production systems, genome mapping and enhanced breeding of
specialty crops and food animals, enhanced nutritional and health
benefits of food, and reduction of post-harvest losses. In addition,
knowledge gained through research and education funded by USDA is
brought directly to end users across America, including farmers and
ranchers, and those in rural and urban communities through extension.
Strengthening the Extension system will also help to create positive
changes.
Question 3. Organic production is extremely important to the
agriculture industry of my district, particularly organic strawberry
and leafy greens. In the ``2018 Farm Bill & Legislative Principles''
document issued by USDA, you state that Congress should ``protect the
integrity of the USDA organic certified seal'' and ``ensure organic
products meet consistent standards for all producers.'' I completely
agree. What additional resources or authority does USDA need to do
this? Additionally, what goals do you have for the organic program
during your tenure as Secretary to support this sector?
Answer. Protecting the integrity of the organic seal is something I
strongly support. The President's Fiscal Year 2019 budget request
includes an addition of $3 million for the National Organic Program
(NOP). This increase would fund increased enforcement and technology
investments for greater transparency and integrity. For example, NOP
would allocate additional resources to conduct complaint
investigations, complete supply chain audits in high-risk areas, and
invest in technology improvements that implement electronic
certificates and support traceability and accountability. Going
forward, I want to place a strong emphasis on strengthening enforcement
to protect the integrity of the label and allow for the industry to
continue to grow.
Question 4. As my district is home to a significant percentage of
organic production, I appreciate the Department's recognition in the
``2018 Farm Bill and Legislative Principles'' document of the need to
protect the organic certified seal, one of the most recognizable food
labels in the world. As the industry continues to grow, how is the
Department positioning itself to capture and encourage technological
advancements in the organic sector? Specifically, is there a role for
the Department, and the National Organic Program, to take a more active
role in setting standards at the front end to provide certainty for
business investment, thus reducing the occurrence of proposed
regulatory changes that seek to change decades of certain organic
farming methods?
Answer. The President's Fiscal Year 2019 budget request includes an
addition of $3 million for the National Organic Program (NOP) to fund
both enforcement activities and technology investments to protect the
traceability of organic commodities for greater transparency and
integrity. USDA will collaborate with other USDA agencies, such as
APHIS and FAS, as well as Customs and Border Protection, to use
enhanced technology for targeted oversight of organic products at ports
of entry and in other countries, protecting U.S. producers.
In terms of standards, USDA will continue to maintain the USDA
organic regulation's National List of allowed and prohibited materials
in organic agriculture. Other standards projects will focus on
strengthening organic enforcement, to eliminate existing exclusions.
For example, an exclusion in the current process allows entities that
are not certified organic to handle importation paperwork or even take
possession of an organic shipment. When this occurs, there is the
potential that the chain of custody is interrupted which presents
challenges for verifying an organic claim.
Question 5. One of the challenges in oversight of existing organic
production practices are sometimes inconsistent application of organic
requirements by organic certifiers. How is the Department working to
ensure more consistent certification procedures across varying regions?
Answer. It is important that organic requirements be applied
consistently across the country. USDA's National Organic Program (NOP)
diligently works to ensure the consistent application of organic
standards by certifiers through regular certifier audits, certifier
training, and certifier instructions and policy memos.
First, NOP audits its certifiers every 2.5 years to assess
compliance with the USDA organic regulations and the NOP Handbook. When
audits reveal inconsistencies in certifier implementation of
requirements, the program issues non-compliances, which the certifier
must address. Second, NOP provides annual face-to-face and periodic
webinar trainings for certifier staff worldwide. Training topics
specifically focus on areas where inconsistencies have been detected
across certifiers. Third, NOP issues policy memos and instructions to
certifiers when clarification of existing requirements is needed. For
example, in October 2017, NOP published an interim instruction
detailing requirements for certifiers who oversee organic products
imported into the United States. The instruction:
Clarifies responsibilities for certifiers in the U.S. and
around the world;
Recommends best practices for reviewing and issuing import-
related documents;
Highlights handling instructions needed to maintain the
integrity of the organic status for imported organic products;
and
Details required documentation and recordkeeping.
Together, NOP's audits, training, and instructions increase
consistency across the 80+ certifiers accredited to oversee organic
certification in the United States and around the world.
Question 6. Could you elaborate on the 4th bullet of the ``2018
Farm Bill and Legislative Principles'' document under the ``Marketing &
Regulatory Programs'' section regarding technologies scientifically
required to ensure safety? Is that specifically referencing organic
products, or rather all industries covered under the Marketing and
Regulatory Programs mission area? Could you provide an example of a
technology that has been stalled or prohibited in the past, even though
required for safety?
Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill and Legislative Principles state,
``Ensure USDA is positioned appropriately to review production
technologies if scientifically required to ensure safety, while
reducing regulatory burdens.'' To improve life in rural communities,
the President's Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity
recommended over 100 items, including better harnessing technological
innovation, such as biotechnology. In keeping with the Task Force's
recommendations, USDA is considering an update to the Department's
biotechnology regulations to modernize USDA's biotechnology regulatory
framework. USDA envisions an approach that allows for these products to
come to market quickly and safely. USDA wants a science-based policy
that ensures the plant health safety of these products and does not
stifle innovation or impede the development of successful new crop
varieties.
Question 7. I appreciate your emphasis on developing new export
markets for U.S. agricultural products. It is a priority that we all
share. USDA administers two farm bill programs that have a long running
track record in facilitating export promotion and market development--
the Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development
program (FMD). These public-private partnerships give American farmers
a presence in key markets, having increased net farm income by $27.3
billion and supported an additional 93,000 farm and food jobs since
they were created. These programs are oversubscribed and funding has
remained stagnant, which is why I am a cosponsor of the CREAATE Act, to
increase funding for MAP and FMD. Last year, the President's FY 2018
budget proposed to eliminate funding for these programs. In the
President's FY 2019 budget, MAP is fully funded at $200 million yet
other trade promotion programs like FMD and Technical Assistance for
Specialty Crops are eliminated. Can you explain the rationale for the
proposed cuts to these critical export programs?
Answer. Authorization for MAP, FMD, and Technical Assistance for
Specialty Crops (TASC) under the current farm bill expires in 2018. In
general, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and OMB assume that
expiring programs with mandatory spending of less than $50 million per
year are discontinued; however, expiring programs with mandatory
spending in excess of $50 million per year are assumed to be
reauthorized by Congress. Accordingly, the CBO baseline assumes
continuation of MAP at $200 million. However, programs such as FMD and
TASC with mandatory spending below $50 million are not continued in the
CBO baseline. Historically, USDA has followed the CBO convention and
has done so for the purposes of the FY 2019 President's Budget.
[all]