[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
_______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama, Chairman
KEVIN YODER, Kansas SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
DAVID G. VALADAO, California CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the
full committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Tom O'Brien, Pam Miller, Andrew Cooper,
Justin Masucci, and Sarah Doese
Subcommittee Staff
_____
PART 3
Page
U.S. Department of Agriculture................................ 1
Members' Day.................................................. 1463
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_______
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\ NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM GRAVES, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
KEVIN YODER, Kansas C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. VALADAO, California GRACE MENG, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada PETE AGUILAR, California
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
----------
\1\}Chairman Emeritus
Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019
----------
Wednesday, April 18, 2018.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WITNESSES
HON. SONNY PERDUE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DR. SETH MEYER, CHAIRMAN, WORLD AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK BOARD, OFFICE OF
THE CHIEF ECONOMIST, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
MRS. DIEM-LINH JONES, ACTING BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Opening Statement--Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Aderholt. The hearing will come to order. Good
afternoon, everyone, and I want to welcome all of you to
today's hearing. Our primary goal this afternoon is to examine
the Department of Agriculture's fiscal year 2019 budget while
also reviewing the use of funds past and present.
Our primary goal for this hearing is to examine the
Department of Agriculture's fiscal year 2019 budget while also
reviewing the use of funds past and present.
Our witnesses before us today is the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Honorable Sonny Perdue. Welcome. Good to have
you here. Also, you are joined by Dr. Seth Meyer of the Office
of the Chief Economist. Welcome, Dr. Meyer. Good to have you
here. And Acting Budget Officer Mrs. Diem-Linh Jones. Welcome.
Good to have you here.
Before I delve into the budget request, I want to commend
you, Mr. Secretary, for your leadership during your first year
in office. Due to the Department's vast responsibility, the
work of you and your employees at USDA have touched the lives
of hundreds of millions of people in the United States and
abroad in many different ways.
In particular, I want to express my appreciation to you for
providing assistance to the producers of the cotton ginning
cost-share program, for reducing regulatory burden on the
agricultural sector by withdrawing the organic livestock and
poultry rule as well as the GIPSA interim final rule. Those are
all very important.
I also appreciate you providing schools with long-overdue
flexibility, which is similar to the flexibility the annual
appropriations process has provided in regard to whole grains,
syndromes, and flavored milk requirements. I look forward to
USDA issuing the final rule on school nutrition standards so
that schools have long-term relief.
During your first year in office, you have also had to
assist producers, rural communities, those who are hungry as
they faced extreme devastation brought by hurricanes,
wildfires, and other natural disasters. And we appreciate you
moving quickly to get food to those in need, working with
States and territories to establish disaster SNAP programs.
We recognize you and the employees of USDA in implementing
emergency disaster programs for producers, and assisting rural
communities in the recovery.
Lastly, we look forward to the Department's plan on
implementing the disaster assistance programs Congress provided
in the last supplemental so that all producers and communities
can receive financial relief.
We would also this afternoon recognize your actions and
efforts toward streamlining certain functions of the
Department, and engaging with customers and striving to improve
service and hence engagement. As we learned in the last
presidential election, many constituents voiced their
frustration with the Federal Government.
You are clearly trying to repair and improve the
relationship between the USDA employees and the customer, from
the farmer and the rancher to the recipient of a housing loan
or weak benefits. The change in processes and practices are
part of the One USDA effort, will probably be uncomfortable to
some, but sometimes change can be uncomfortable. But I feel
that you are on the right track. The subcommittee will need to
be kept abreast of the Department's actions and planned actions
as it relates to those efforts.
And turning to your fiscal year 2019 budget request, as you
are aware, it comes at a time where the rural economy, and
particularly the agricultural economy, remains under a
significant amount of stress. Given the concerns of rural
Americans and upon initial review, there can be several
elements of the budget that are somewhat difficult to support,
to be honest.
While the subcommittee has always supported responsible
investment, a 16 percent funding reduction from fiscal year
2017 and other presentations contained within the budget are a
bit unrealistic, I think, to many of us. The Administration's
use of a scalpel for several programs and the axe for other
programs is what I think we find most concerning.
Popular programs with proven track records receive some of
the steepest reductions or were right-out eliminated. Similar
to last year, many in agriculture and rural America are likely
to find little to celebrate within the budget request.
Whether items in the budget are true policy positions or
mere budget gimmicks, I look forward to listening to your
thoughts and your rationales on some of these reductions,
especially given the challenges that are facing the farm
economy and rural America.
As we conduct our oversight responsibilities and craft the
agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2019, I want to
outline what I see as my goals for this subcommittee, and I
think all the members of this subcommittee would also agree.
The first goal is to bolster prosperity and economic well-
being in rural America and also in the farm economy. The second
is to conduct fair and transparent oversight of agency
activities and public relations. The third is to promote
economic growth through effective and efficient regulation and
the minimization of regulatory overreach. And last but not
least is to protect the health and the safety of people,
plants, and animals.
As we move forward, we will use these goals to guide as we
consider the budget requests that inadequately fund all the
critical programs. We will find resolutions to effectively meet
the needs of rural Americans, including but not limited to IT
infrastructure needed by farmers, effective common-sense
regulation that does not create barriers to economic
prosperity, and investments in critical infrastructure.
Simply put, our objective is to create a spending bill that
is fiscally responsible, reflecting the needs of the American
people while protecting the future of American agriculture.
Part of USDA's budget requests that are concerning include,
and certainly not limited to, a nearly $300 million reduction
in research activities. And we will follow up with some
questions on that. But agricultural research is critical to our
ability to continue to feed a growing population and also to
compete internationally.
Over $3 billion in program-level reductions in rural
development programs, including the elimination of the Rural
Business Service, which provides economic support for rural
communities, and the elimination of the water and waste
disposal grant program, that provides small communities access
to clean and safe drinking water is also concerning.
The budget request also proposes major changes to the SNAP
program, a discussion better suited probably for the farm bill,
and a termination of the international food aid programs,
funded at over $2 billion in fiscal year 2017, including the
Food for Progress account.
I am especially concerned about the major changes proposed
to crop insurance and marketing loan programs, including the
elimination of cotton marketing certificates, something that I
and many of my colleagues have worked hard to include in the
fiscal year 2016 omnibus.
The budget request includes proposals that would reduce
crop insurance funding by nearly $30 billion over a 10-year
period despite continuing decline in net farm income of 56
percent from its recent high of $123.3 billion in 2013. Farmers
continue to experience tough economic times and with sharply
decreasing crop prices and also a number of natural disasters.
Not only does the budget include sharp reductions for
several programs, it makes numerous assumptions about staff
reductions that could be premature. For example, if we reduce
the size of field staff, we had better make sure that the IT
systems are accessible and productive and comparable service is
in place to support our farmers, ranchers, and rural residents.
If such staffing reductions were to occur, it would
seemingly make adequate operation, management, and oversight of
USDA programs challenging without improvements made in delivery
services. We share the same vision of a smaller government, but
we need to achieve the goal in somewhat much less drastic
measures.
The aforementioned items are just a scratch to the surface
of the issues that we will probably touch on today in the
hearings. As a subcommittee, we must analyze the request. We
have to focus on allocating funds using the goals that I have
outlined just a minute ago to the most effective, highest
priority programs.
But again, we appreciate your service to our country, and
especially into the ag sector. And thank you for being here
today.
And with that, I would like to recognize the distinguished
ranking member, a fellow Georgian, Mr. Bishop, for any opening
remarks that he has.
Opening Statement--Mr. Bishop
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to welcome
Secretary Perdue before the subcommittee today. Having worked
with the Secretary in his various capacities, as a State
senator, as the Governor of Georgia, over the last year as
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, I know firsthand of
his professionalism and his passion for rural America.
I believe that the cooperative relationship that we
developed over the years has proven to be a great asset as we
work together to ensure that our farmers, ranchers, foresters,
agribusinesses, and consumers have the resources they need to
prosper in today's competitive and global environment, not to
mention having the resources to weather the unprecedented
storms and other disasters our Nation has been through in the
last year. I have a lot of respect for the Secretary, and I
know that he is uniquely familiar with the importance of
supporting farmers, ranchers, producers, and consumers.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the
chairman, Chairman Aderholt, as he chronicled many of the
accomplishments of your first year, Mr. Secretary, particularly
as it relates to cotton, the disaster relief, the tree program
for our pecan farmers, as well as the goals that he has set
forth for our subcommittee.
But before going further, I want to specifically recognize
USDA's regionalization agreement with South Korea and USDA's
work to open Argentina's border to U.S. pork. These efforts
help our farmers while also strengthening our relationship with
important allies.
I thank the Secretary for his leadership on these issues,
and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, to
ensure that our farmers and ranchers remain globally
competitive.
As many of you have heard me boast about before, Georgia is
a major agriculture State, with 42,000 farms, 9.6 million acres
of farm land, of which 2.5 million are in my district.
Agriculture contributes $71 billion annually to our State and
our national economy, and Georgia is the number one State for
the production of poultry, peanuts, pecans, blueberries, and
privately-owned timberlands.
My district specifically leads the State in peanuts,
cotton, pecans, fruits, and vegetables, as well as family-owned
timberlands. Chairman, I would hope we will see how this
following season fares for all of us, but I understand Georgia
is nipping at number one for cotton.
More importantly, of the 29 counties that I represent, 26
of those counties are rural, with average populations between
10,000 to 15,000 people. These counties are some of the most
economically challenged counties in the State and in the
Nation, meaning they face severe challenges in healthcare,
nutrition, rural housing, utilities, broadband, and economic
development, one of the more pressing issues being a lack of
grocery stores in my district.
In fact, we recently learned that 19 grocery stores are
about to close in Georgia, nine of them in my district.
Alarmingly, three counties in my district have no grocery store
at all. I believe we need a new, robust strategy to solve the
issue of food deserts in America, and I am very supportive of
the healthy food financing initiative funded partly by this
subcommittee.
Agencies under our jurisdiction, especially USDA, are
uniquely positioned to solve this problem. It is important that
these agencies are well-funded, and that is why we are here
today.
Mr. Secretary, last April the President appointed you chair
of an interagency task force on agriculture and rural
prosperity. The purpose of the task force was to identify
legislative, regulatory, and policy changes to promote
agriculture, economic development, job growth, infrastructure
improvements, technical innovation, energy security, and
quality of life in rural America. In October, you issued your
first report.
In response to the President's call to action to promote
agriculture and rural prosperity in America, the task force
envisioned a rural America with world-class resources, tools,
and support to build robust, sustainable communities for
generations to come, to ensure that you set the right
priorities. You and members of the task force met with
stakeholders and held listening sessions to hear directly from
the communities that comprise rural America. I want to commend
you for this extraordinary and exhaustive effort.
In close collaboration with local, State, and Tribal
leaders, more than 21 Federal agencies, offices, and executive
departments identified over 100 actions the Federal Government
should consider undertaking in order to achieve this vision.
You organized these recommendations around five key
indicators of rural prosperity: e-connectivity, quality of
life, rural workforce, technological innovative, and economic
development. I enjoyed and was very pleased reading the report,
and I share the great vision you have for a prosperous rural
America for generations to come. I look forward to working with
you and the chairman and the subcommittee to ensure these
recommendations become reality.
But Mr. Secretary, you said that you support programs to
fund agriculture research, develop infrastructure in rural
communities, and to help landowners preserve soil and water
quality. So do we. And that is why I was severely disappointed
to see that all of these programs face cuts under the budget
submitted by OMB for USDA.
In fact, overall this budget cuts the USDA by 32 percent
below the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. And I understand that OMB
is planning a rescission package to reduce that dramatically.
Many of the cuts that had bipartisan opposition last year are
repeated again this year--cuts to Water and Wastewater Disposal
Grants, school meals and equipment grants, Food for Peace,
McGovern-Dole, and single-family housing direct loans.
And there are new eliminations this year--for Community
Facilities Grants, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Program. These and other
programs are of vital importance to my constituents and to
people around the country. And I have to be brutally frank and
honest and say that I am disappointed in the funding levels
that are being requested.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, I am deeply concerned about
the impact of these proposed cuts on the Department and on the
Nation as a whole. We are duty-bound to uphold the laws of this
country, and that includes promoting the welfare of its people.
To me, that means we are to feed and clothe our citizens by
using sound, scientific best practices to ensure a safe and
abundant supply.
USDA is the Department to do that. But how can that happen
with a 12 percent cut in the Agricultural Research Service? How
can we do that with the proposed budget that zeroes out the
Watershed and Flood Prevention program account, and Water and
Wastewater Disposal Grants? And how can we do that with a 10
percent cut to the critical staff around the country who carry
out the rural development programs?
There is also a 21 percent cut proposed in the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service. This is a far larger cut for
this area than those that have been proposed in previous
budgets. And again, I am troubled by the proposed zeroing out
of the Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole programs.
I feel compelled to mention that there are 15 legislative
proposals related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, otherwise known as SNAP or food stamps. One of the
most egregious is to convert almost half of the funding of the
EBT payments that SNAP beneficiaries receive to actual food
boxes or packages, which is estimated to save $129 billion over
10 years.
However, it seems not enough thought has been given to how
these boxes will be delivered, and the severe logistical
challenges, including security. So I wonder if that number will
hold up.
Also, as it is currently conceived, there will be no fresh
fruit or vegetables in these boxes, and virtually all of my
colleagues are strongly opposed to this wrongheaded attempt to
save money. And I have significant concerns over the logistics
of the program and its ability to cater to individualized
nutritional and health requirements.
Furthermore, restricting food choice would take away
business from local grocery stores, which are already too few
in number, and further contribute to the prevalence of food
deserts in rural communities and low-income urban communities
all across America.
Mr. Secretary, I believe that you are honestly trying to
bring positive changes to USDA. We are always looking for ways
to do things more efficiently. My concern is that the
Administration has not asked for appropriate resources and
staffing. I want to ensure that the resources this subcommittee
provides are used correctly and efficiently, and that the USDA
has the necessary resources to successfully carry out its
mission.
There are limits, however, to doing more with less. And it
appears that in the Administration's haste to make good on one
promise, they have now told the American public that they
expect less with less. OMB is still trying to squeeze blood
from a turnip, as I said last year, and it is still not
working.
You said that you will make rural America a priority, and I
believe that you want to do that. However, we both know that
this budget does the exact opposite of fulfilling that promise.
I pledge to do my best to work with you, Chairman Aderholt, and
our subcommittee to see that that promise is fulfilled.
I guess you can see we have a lot to discuss. But I thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to welcome the Secretary
with some brief concerns. I yield back.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
We are privileged to have the full committee chairman today
with us, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would like to recognize him.
Opening Statement--Mr. Frelinghuysen
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
your strong leadership of this subcommittee, ably assisted by
your ranking member, Mr. Sanford Bishop of the great State of
Georgia.
I also want to welcome Secretary Perdue to the
Appropriations Committee again, and we look forward to your
testimony and hearing your frank and candid views. And we
always appreciate your stopping by my office. There are a few
secretaries that have yet to find my office, but I know that
you were one who did, and you are a class act.
And furthermore, I suspect maybe your second or third visit
had to do with the bowl of M&Ms we have in our office, which is
what we call a good New Jersey product. Thank you very much.
As I say, Mr. Secretary, at every meeting, the power of the
purse lies in this building, and it is the constitutional duty
of Congress to make spending decisions on behalf of the people
we represent at home. And it is my pleasure to work very
closely with Ms. Lowey. We did on the recent omni.
I think we did some good things for cotton farmers. I
learned more about cotton in the last 12 months than I ever
knew about cotton. Seventeen States, I think grow it. But I
want to thank Chairman Aderholt and the cotton world for
educating me in how important it was that we include some good
language and direction in our recently-passed omni.
Conservation and farm programs administered by your
Department are instrumental in promoting agricultural
production around the country, including in New Jersey, what we
call suburban America. We are known as the Garden State. We are
homes to many farms and farmer's markets.
And may I say that Haddonfield, New Jersey, is known as the
Blueberry Capital of the World. I am not sure what they are
doing down in Georgia, but we claim the capital. We also
obviously claim cranberries as well and tomatoes because it
used to be--it still is--home to many of those things that goes
into Campbell's Soup.
The last couple things I would say is that the focus is on
trade, focus on what is going on with steel and aluminum. I am
not a great believer in trade wars, and I am concerned, as a
citizen, that many of the people who--I come from the school no
farmers, no food. A lot of the things that we are reading in
the newspaper here are going to disadvantage a lot of our
agricultural basis.
As a citizen, I am concerned about the future of a lot of
different markets. I may not have a lot of expertise, but I am
sympathetic to some of the trials and tribulations that many of
these good people face each and every day when they walk out of
their house and till the fields and look after their crops.
And the last thing I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is put
a plug in for the great work of Dr. Richard Olsen at the
National Arboretum outside the city here. Sometimes they mix up
the Arboretum with the Botanic Garden, which is right at the
foot of Capitol Hill.
Dr. Olsen and his crew, aided by Friends of the National
Arboretum, and I know you are familiar with the good 400 acres
down there outside on the Anacostia side, they do some
remarkably great things. I am here to boost their spirits and
hope that you will always hold them close to your heart.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Aderholt. We are also privileged to have the ranking
member for the full committee, Mrs. Lowey. Glad to have you
here today. If you would like to make some opening remarks.
Opening Statement--Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much. And I want to thank you,
Chairman Aderholt and ranking member Bishop, for holding this
hearing. And it is always a pleasure for me to be here with
Chairman Frelinghuysen. We have put our roller skates on, and
we are managing to travel from hearing to hearing. But this is
a very important hearing, and Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure
for me to welcome you today.
Last year I expressed my frustration that your budget would
leave more Americans hungry and increase hunger and insecurity
around the world. Frankly, this year's budget is worse. It
doubles down on harmful cuts and, frankly, adds condescending
proposals that disrespect American citizens.
While I was very pleased that summer EBT and other school
meal programs were requested, your budget would cut the USDA
budget by 32 percent; threaten the ability of some poor rural
communities to access clean drinking water; jeopardize SNAP
benefits for 46 million Americans; reduce nutritional foods for
women, infants, and children; eliminate Food for Peace and
McGovern-Dole, which feeds vulnerable children across the
globe. But that is not all.
Perhaps most surprising is this bit of hypocrisy my
Republican friends repeatedly say--that bureaucrats in
Washington should not be making decisions for families, that
families should be making these decisions for themselves. So
you can imagine my surprise with the Administration's proposal
to replace about half of SNAP benefits with box of
nonperishable food.
I would not want to have to depend upon a box of
nonperishable for feeding my family. To me, it was so
condescending, a take it or leave it approach, without regard
to the nutritional needs and preferences of American families.
Let's get a few things clear about SNAP. Recipients are
less hungry, are less likely to take sick days, even spend less
on healthcare compared to others, and studies have even shown
that children who receive SNAP are more likely to graduate from
high school and be self-sufficient adults.
SNAP benefits work out to about $4.20 a day. Now, I am not
going to poll my friends on both sides of the aisle, but $4.20
a day? Mr. Secretary, I wonder if you and your family ever
spent a week trying to live on $4.20 a day.
So I think it is important that we are honest with each
other about this proposal. It is just a mean way to hit
Americans who need a hand up, not a handout. And you know, I
believe this from the bottom of my heart. In New York years ago
I worked on several of the anti-poverty programs. And people
really do want a hand up, not a handout.
So Secretary Perdue, as I mentioned last year, I find it
hard to believe that you will tout this budget to the men and
women you used to represent in Georgia. I am sure you are not
traveling around the District and talking about this budget.
So I look forward to your testimony. I know you really care
about these issues. You have a distinguished career. And I hope
that we can get together in a bipartisan way with the good men
and women of this subcommittee and improve this budget. Thank
you so much for being here. We appreciate hearing from you.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey.
Secretary Perdue, without objection, your entire written
testimony will be included in the record. And at this time, I
would like to recognize you for any comments you would like to
make, and then we will proceed with questions.
Opening Statement--Secretary Perdue
Secretary Perdue. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking
member Bishop and Mr. Chairman and ranking member Mrs. Lowey,
for the opportunity to be with you today.
First of all, I want to thank you all for the compliments
that you have talked about with our passion and our concern and
our desire to do well for the American people as well as
American agriculture. You were very kind in those remarks, and
also very articulate in some of your concerns regarding the
budget, frankly, some of which I share. And we will have a
conversation about them today and talking about that.
Mrs. Lowey, I particularly look forward to explaining our
plans regarding the Harvest Box idea, some of which received
rather negative press, and the fact that we were not able to
explain that ahead of time with the timing there. But I look
forward to describing those things as our vision for how we can
do a nutritious program in that regard. But thank you for your
concerns.
I am going to be relatively brief because I think most of
the time should be reserved for your members, Mr. Chairman, to
inquire and to ask questions with their comments. And we will
be happy to respond to all those.
Almost 10 days short of a year in office, we have visited
35 States and your constituents. And we hope to get to all of
them. Have not been to the Garden State yet, Mr. Chairman, but
we hope to get there. We will be there soon. But we understand
the number of farms are growing. The farm-to-table is very
aggressive there.
I would be remiss if I did not thank this subcommittee for
the supplemental disaster program, which will help our ag
constituents and producers primarily recover from the
devastating hurricanes that Mr. Rooney's district and others
underwent this last year in many severe ways.
We are working diligently over designing a program
hopefully that will be announced, I am hoping, next week. We
have pressed our people and our team repeatedly over the weeks.
I have told them that many times I have seen disaster programs
in the past; by the time the producers receive the money, they
have forgotten what the disaster was about. So we are hoping to
move out very quickly in that area, and I will be happy to
answer any questions specifically about that.
I also want to thank you all for the omnibus which, again,
backfilled many of those deficiencies you all enumerated last
year. And we are going to commit to you to use that money
wisely. It gives us some certainty regarding staffing. We are
undergoing strategic staffing efforts in every mission area,
all eight missions there. So we will have some better
information for you with certainty and budgeting in that regard
over our plans for serving your constituents in each and every
State.
So I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear with
you today here. You mentioned broadband and a lot of other
concerns. And certainly, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the
anxiety that is currently in the whole ag community regarding
trade disputes and things like that.
Agricultural producers know that they are always the tip of
the spear because they are more successful and productive in
their work than most anyone. When it comes to a trade dispute,
they are there, the tip of the spear. I am thankful that
President Bush [sic] has indicated that he does not plan for
our agricultural producers to be the only casualties or the
casualties in this war, and we will have to plan on how to do
that.
Once again, my thanks, Mr. Chairman and this subcommittee,
over giving us the flexibility. We may need to use all the
authorities residing in the USDA budget to help out if it comes
to that. We are hopeful that the negotiations will be
successful, and we are hoping that that will be productive.
You mentioned Argentina. You mentioned Korea. And we have
some successes over this last year, but there are more to come.
And we are hopeful that we can see the success there; and these
trade disputes and the saber rattling be just that, get to the
negotiating table and stop the unfair trade practices we have
seen, particularly from China and many areas that we can again
utilize as a huge market for our agricultural producers.
So with those comments, I want to thank you again for the
opportunity, and I look forward to addressing any of the
comments, questions, that you may have in, I think someone
said, a frank, transparent, and honest way.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Perdue follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And just for the
record I think you meant President Trump instead of President
Bush.
Secretary Perdue. Did I say President Bush? Well, I guess
Barbara Bush is on my mind, so----
Mr. Aderholt. Well, we all are. And thank you for
mentioning that because our hearts are certainly saddened about
the loss of a former First Lady and mother of the President
George Bush. So our hearts go out there. So that is a very good
point.
Secretary Perdue. If we could strike that from the record,
I would appreciate that. [Laughter.]
BROADBAND LOANS AND GRANTS PILOT PROGRAM
Mr. Aderholt. Let me begin and just touch base about the
Harvest Box issue. We have got a lot of topics to cover this
afternoon, but I do want to acknowledge that issue proposed by
the USDA's budget request. Some groups, some Members of
Congress, as you have seen, and media have had a negative
reaction to that proposal.
But I do want to give you credit for thinking outside the
box, no pun intended--well, maybe it was intended. [Laughter.]
But regardless, it is a good way to think, thinking outside
the box, literally, in how we can try to deal with hunger
issues. I am certain that some of my colleagues want to discuss
this in much detail today, but in reality, this subcommittee is
probably not the best place to make such a sweeping priority
change.
This proposal is probably left better to the farm bill
discussion, which I understand is currently going on as we
speak. But I hope we can remain focused on the programs that
will be part of the fiscal year 2019 process.
Let me turn now to--you referred to the comment that was
made about broadband. You testified last week that USDA is
actually working with the FCC and Commerce to ensure that the
loans and grants that your Department makes for rural broadband
are strategically deployed to the areas of greatest need
instead of duplicating existing networks.
This will become all the more important as USDA works to
implement the $600 million, that rural broadband loan grant
pilot program recently enacted in the omnibus spending bill.
Your efforts to efficiently deploy government resources are
greatly welcomed.
My question to you this afternoon would be: What can
Congress do to help ensure that this level of coordination is
sustainable, and that the Federal programs will be working with
each other to complement rather than to conflict with one
another?
Secretary Perdue. Well, thank you for the opportunity to
address this, Mr. Chairman. And I think, again, it is vitally
important. I passionately believe this is a potentially
transformative item, just as we have seen in the Rural
Electrification Administration--REA--in the 1930s, the
telephone bill in 1934, and the interstate highway system.
We know that to prosper today and to have rural prosperity,
you have got to have connectivity, whether it is telemedicine,
distance learning, e-commerce, precision agriculture, or just
the sociological impact of having young families and young
children feeling connected to the world out there through apps
and Fortnite or whatever it is out there to be involved with.
So we want to demonstrate to this subcommittee and to
Congress and to the Administration that the $600 million that
you have allowed us to deploy as pilots to effectively target
underserved areas, not solely by ourselves--we are calling. We
just had a meeting today in the Whitten Building over calling
together the Rural Electrification Co-ops, the Rural Telephone,
Rural Broadband Association, the Farm Foundation both. The
financing through the ag credit system and others, of how we
can all partner. There is not a one-size-fits-all for this
solution.
But I am very proud of the person that we have at the helm
of the Rural Utilities Service. Ken Johnson led a rural co-op
in Missouri to serve their 3,000 customers with high-speed
broadband without Federal support. And he did it through a
business model of going out and getting subscribers to go to
the market and demonstrate a sustainable business model to do
that.
We want to find those kinds of ideas, those practices,
using this $600 million as kind of a bait to get people to come
to the table with great applications of how to do this across
the country in underserved areas. Our intention is not to
overbuild and to duplicate services, and that is really the
fear oftentimes.
The Federal Government really uses a lot of money through
FCC, Commerce Department, USDA, in this area. But we have never
had a holistic strategic plan, and that is what we are trying
to lead the effort, to have a strategic plan across America to
really connect America, not just rural areas but the urban,
suburban, and rural areas need to be connected to one another.
And the potential, we believe, for innovation, creativity, in
the agricultural space, in the rural space, is tremendous when
they can have access and on-ramps to that digital highway of
the 21st century.
Mr. Aderholt. I know my time is up, but I do want to
mention that, for the record, any information you could give us
as far as an overview of where the Department stands on
developing rules and plans for a program rollout, and
implementation of the $600 million for a pilot program to
expand rural broadband, would be helpful. But you can certainly
get back with us on that.
[The information follows:]
There are numerous tasks that need to be accomplished, and
that are currently in process, to effectively and responsibly
create a successful program of this size and importance. This
includes administrative efforts to contract for operational and
technical assistance services, setting up a reliable and safe
online Rural Utilities Service application and review system,
determining eligibility factors, and establishing a subsidy
rate, all in compliance with Federal legal and regulatory
requirements for such processes. We also will publish a Notice
of Inquiry and establish a web portal to receive public input
and ultimately a Notice of Funds Availability. We should be
able to provide a realistic timeframe once some of the more
complex tasks for program establishment have moved forward.
Please be assured that USDA Rural Development is diligently
working on all these aspects, in a prudent and expeditious
manner, as USDA understands the urgent need for the economic,
educational, and health benefits that broadband can bring to
our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.
Mr. Bishop.
OPIOD EPIDEMIC
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to zero in on a very, very strong national epidemic,
and that is regarding opioids. Rural Development recently began
holding a series of regional roundtables on the opioid crisis.
There was one last week in Utah.
I applaud this effort. In 2016, nearly 64,000 Americans
died from drug overdoses, and shockingly, a December 2017
survey by the National Farmers Union and the American Farm
Bureau Federation found that as many as 74 percent of farmers
have been directly impacted by the opioid crisis.
As you know, rural communities have scarce resources to
combat substance abuse. A USDA website on opioid misuse in
rural America lists three specific programs that can assist
rural communities to combat the opioid epidemic--the Community
Facilities Loan and Grant Program, the Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Program, and the Rural Health and Safety Education
Program.
I am curious, then, why the OMB USDA budget request zeroes
out the Rural Health and Safety Education competitive grants
program and decreases Distance Learning and Telemedicine
Program funding. To me, it seems like this is not the time to
cut that, but to increase these resources.
I know it is early, but is there anything new that you and
the Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development have
learned from the roundtables? And will Rural Development be
issuing a report on the findings and recommendations and next
steps?
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, ranking member Bishop. We will
indeed. Anne Hazlett has, after every listening session,
reported back about the things she's heard. And just like
broadband, there is no one solution. As you well know, there is
a lot of despair.
This is the one drug epidemic that probably affects rural
areas as much if not more than other areas. Farming is not a
safe business, and you see a lot of people become addicted
based on prescription medication and other types of things.
I think there is a $20 million appropriation for the opioid
specifically there, how we can help in partnering again in a
holistic way with HHS, who has the primary responsibility over
the epidemic there, but with community facilities and creating
treatment centers out in rural areas where there may not be an
economic model that makes sense there, partnering again with
local communities, with community facilities of remote type of
treatment, and again telemedicine, using that in a way that
could hopefully be productive in these citizens' lives.
Frankly, honestly, profitability in the farm sector would
go a long way toward curing some of the despair out there that
causes people to misuse opioids.
CHINA TRADE DISPUTE
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You mentioned trade
in your opening statement, and I am glad you did because
obviously, this is becoming a top priority with wide-reaching
implications, especially for our farmers. According to the
Georgia Department of Economic Development, China is the
largest--I am sorry, it is Georgia's third largest export
market. Soybeans, cotton, pecans, peanuts, and blueberries are
just some of the products that will be adversely affected in a
trade war with China.
We have made a great deal of progress, and I don't want to
go backwards. Just over three years ago, the import tariff on
unshelled and shelled pecans was 24 percent. At the end of last
year, it was just 7 percent. We worked real hard to try to get
that reduced.
I am hearing from many of my constituents about their fears
of a trade war. Can you talk about where you see all of this
going and what assurances we can give to our farmers, a little
bit about the other options that USDA has to respond quickly to
protect our U.S. farmers and ranchers? How do you assure that
every farmer is given a fair share? And I understand the CCC is
one of the options under consideration.
Secretary Perdue. Obviously, if we have to have mitigation
efforts, what you all gave us with flexibility on the CCC would
be one of the authorities that we would look to, as well as
Section 32, overproduction or taking food into the schools and
other food banks and things like that.
But you are absolutely right. You have seen firsthand in
your fertile district, probably the most fertile agricultural
district in Georgia, over the growth of the pecan industry from
a price perspective and an acreage perspective. And much of
that growth has been driven by the demand in China.
Once they became acquainted with pecans, they wanted more
of them. And frankly, that is the same situation with much of
U.S. products, and that is sadly why President Trump has called
on China and called them out for their unfair trade practices,
because we allow many of their products to come in virtually
tariff-free and yet they still restrict or tariff many of our
products in there, both peanuts in your district, pecans, as
well as cotton and other things.
And frankly, we are exhorting the President to use his
negotiating power. If we think everybody has gotten the
attention now, let's go to the table and design the things that
we think are unfair. I have talked to the President about a
reciprocal tariff arrangement, and he has picked up on that. If
they tariff us a certain percent, then let's just be fair back
and forth about that and do that. But there is a lot of anxiety
in agriculture.
The other thing that would help, and I am more optimistic
than I have been about that, is resolving the NAFTA situation.
Ambassador Lighthizer has been working hard on that, and I am
hoping we can get that. You know that the President's
negotiating style on aluminum and steel got South Korea's
attention, and we were able to resolve many of the issues that
way.
I am hoping the same effect in NAFTA because China, Mexico,
and Canada are typically, in all of our States, one, two, and
three export destinations that way. So NAFTA's important here.
That would relieve the anxiety level quite a bit. And then if
we can get to the table with China, then we can utilize that.
Sorry for the long answer.
Mr. Aderholt. Chairman Frelinghuysen.
U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Briefly, there is a lot of money for
opioids spread across every department, billions of dollars. It
is a huge issue. It affects suburbia as well as rural America.
I hope the powers that be, and you are one of those at the
table, have worked out some sort of a system to make sure we
are not duplicating efforts. I am not sure you can give me that
assurance, but as long as you are at the table, I hope that you
will work very closely with Health and Human Services and all
these other agencies.
And on broadband, it was one of those things that sort of
came up, quite honestly. It is an issue that needs to be
addressed. And we hope and know you will spend that money
wisely.
And lastly, do you have a relationship with the USTR, with
the ambassador? Much of what members find, we found out, in
terms of the announcement of the trade war on aluminum and
steel, was what we read in the newspapers. What is your
relationship with the USTR?
Secretary Perdue. Ambassador Lighthizer and I speak pretty
much on a weekly or more frequent basis because many of the
technical issues of advice and counsel we have to give them.
The USDA, we consider ourselves the chief salesperson for ag
products worldwide. There are the legal ramifications of
designing exactly what those contracts are going to look like.
So unfortunately, I think the steel and the aluminum
circumvented normal channels in that announcement. We were
surprised by that as well. That pretty much came from the White
House, and that announcement, that was not something we were
clued in on that way.
But otherwise, with the EU and others, negotiations on
Argentina and others, we work very closely. Our Foreign
Agricultural Service works very closely with USTR on a daily
basis. Ambassador Lighthizer and I are talking on a weekly or
more frequent basis.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Over the years, I have been--
regardless of the administration, the USTR reps have been
pretty remarkable. Their knowledge across pharmaceuticals and
ag products--I think we have been blessed with some pretty
smart people. So you are well built into that equation.
Secretary Perdue. Yes, sir. We feel certain that we are.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perdue. And your point about opioid and rural
broadband is exactly--both of us share. We just do not want a
scattergun approach. We are trying to target the limited
resources we have to the most potential.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I will just say for the record that
there is a lot of money going out the door. And I have said
this to the military as well. Somebody is responsible for
spending it wisely. We may not get this amount. We had, for a
brief time, predictability and stability. But this amount of
money may never come your way again, so I hope we spent it
wisely.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Ranking member Lowey.
MCGOVERN-DOLE PROGRAM
Mrs. Lowey. That is a good beginning. I agree with you, Mr.
Chairman. I hope we spend it wisely as well, and I think the
oversight on a whole range of issues is absolutely essential.
However, Mr. Secretary, I want to talk to you about the
McGovern-Dole Food Program that provides food to schools in
low-income countries, committed to universal education, easing
the economic burden on parents, and encouraging children,
especially girls, to stay in school.
Because of McGovern-Dole, the World Food Program estimates
enrollment of girls in school in Pakistan has increased 135
percent. In sub-Saharan Africa, school meals have led to a 28
percent increase in enrollment of girls and a 22 percent
increase for boys. These really are amazing results, not only
for the children involved but for what they do to strengthen
societies against the threat of terrorism and civil disorder,
benefitting children abroad and the national security of the
United States.
Those efforts would end with your budget. Before proposing
elimination of McGovern-Dole, did the Department consider what
costs could increase as a result of the cut, including the cost
of global hunger, instability, and military considerations? Was
this taken into consideration?
Secretary Perdue. Ms. Lowey, I think you well understand
how this process works, and we have passbacks with OMB. I have
had great discussions with Governor Beasley and the World Food
Program about just the very statistics you have talked about.
We were in Rome at the G7 agricultural ministerial just last
year. He showed me pictures and statistics about the impact
that had made in that regard.
You have heard from Secretary Mattis regarding if we do
away with food, then we need more bullets. So we don't disagree
with that at all. And the very fact that these are programs
that Congress has valued in the past, I think the
Administration's idea that these were possibly duplicative, I
think the real issue that I would want to emphasize today is
that we would ask that if money is restored for this that it be
in the form of allowing American commodities grown by American
farmers rather than cash to be disbursed.
We think that is a 2-for win in that regard to help not
only our American producers but those people who--in our areas
that need the food.
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM
Mrs. Lowey. Well, let me just say I appreciate your
thoughtful answer, and I do hope we can have a dialogue between
you and my good colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And
I am sure we could work out a constructive solution to the
problem. I appreciate your answers.
On another issue, a study showed that seniors struggling
with hunger are at increased risk of poor health and chronic
conditions, including diabetes and heart disease. As proper
nutrition is directly linked to improving health outcomes and
specifically for seniors, preventing unnecessary trips to the
hospitals, delaying or eliminating the need for nursing home
care, improved nutrition, would ease suffering and reduce the
burden on Medicare and Medicaid.
Given these facts, why on earth would this Administration
propose eliminating the Commodity Supplemental Food Program,
which distributes meals to the elderly? Has the Department done
an analysis to see what the impacts of this elimination would
be on food-insecure seniors?
Secretary Perdue. Ms. Lowey, I had the pleasure of going to
the Pennsylvania Food Bank there and watching the distribution
and having the testimony of senior citizens there who were the
recipients of these boxes.
Honestly, I know that I would love the opportunity to talk
to you personally and privately in your office about the
Harvest Box concept because that was the progenitor, actually,
of how we could use nutritious foods, including fruits and
vegetables, in the boxes there because we saw how beneficial it
was to the others.
I do regret, frankly, that the budget does not include
that, and I hope that you all do view it well and would be a
part of the ongoing supplemental while our senior citizens
are--also have access to the supplemental nutrition program.
This supplement--I was moved by the testimony of the users of
this program.
Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Secretary--and I just want to say to the
Chairman, I see my time is up. I am really very impressed with
your honest, straightforward testimony. And based on your
responses, and working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, I do hope that we can modify the request from the
Administration because it sounds to me, from your response,
that we could agree a lot more than disagree.
So I welcome you to my office. I look forward to working
with my colleagues, and I know we will make some constructive
modifications to this budget.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Rooney.
DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR THE CITRUS INDUSTRY
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, last year Acting Under Secretary Johansson
came before our subcommittee here after Hurricane Irma hit, and
we had a good dialogue about the USDA's disaster programs and
crop insurance policies, and he at that time, as you know,
acknowledged that those policies wouldn't be able to help in a
meaningful way our citrus industry after Hurricane Irma.
So that is why, as a result, we provided you with $2.3
billion to help compensate our farmers and growers who suffered
hurricane crop losses. And I know that you and your entire
staff at the USDA have been working on a daily basis to come up
with a program that works. It was good to hear that you said
that you hope to roll that out next week, because that is
really truly what is going to help save our industry.
And I know that you share my growers' sense of urgency,
that you want to get this aid out as soon as possible. I
appreciate you coming down to my district and flying over the
groves and meeting with our growers. It really meant a lot.
As you know, the citrus industry generates roughly 45,000
jobs in rural communities like Wauchula, Sebring, Avon Park,
and Lake Placid, which is why it is so important that we not
only get the aid out quickly, but that the program is right.
I appreciate your close collaboration with our Agriculture
Commissioner, Adam Putnam, whose team is here today, and our
state's industry leaders who are also here today.
I apologize for sniffling, as I am a little under the
weather. That is why I am drinking my Vitamin C orange juice.
I am encouraged to hear that you are considering a
combination of options to make the program work for Florida
citrus. And with that, I hope you can answer a few questions
that I have. And I will just ask them all at once and let you
take the rest of the time.
Can you explain to our folks back home--and we will put
this email out, send it directly to them, so you would be
talking directly to my growers--the work that has gone into
setting up the program that we hope to release next week, and
how you will ultimately define its success.
Secondly, to the extent that you are able to at this time,
can you explain how growers should expect to go about applying
for the assistance once it is announced? And then, finally,
when can they realistically see relief?
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your help.
Secretary Perdue. Well, thank you, Mr. Rooney. And if I
don't answer all of these--I try to write them down--please
help me again with the questions.
But you are absolutely right. We have been working on this
on a daily basis, and I think you are probably aware of many of
the conversations with Commissioner Putnam and your governor
and your members of Congress about the citrus issue. It is
unique in a way, unlike many of the commodities across the
country, in that it is fairly concentrated. And that has given
us some particular challenges in that some of the size of some
of the producers, we want to be responsible stewards of the
taxpayer money.
But also, the industry is at risk. Certainly, as you well
know representing that district, from the terrible time with
citrus greening over the years, had debilitated the industry.
We have seen the numbers over the loss of production there, and
then you add the multiple hurricanes this year. So we are
trying to design a program that takes care of the fruit loss.
And potentially through a--to individual producers, based
on their loss, what--some of the principles that we have talked
about is if these are organic citrus producers, possibly multi-
generational, we don't want to punish the successful ones
because they have been successful.
And if 75 percent of their AGI comes from farm production,
we are not going to hold them to the typical FSA-type AGI
limits or the payment limitations, if that hurricane loss, that
disaster loss, had resulted from the hurricane.
Secondly, to preserve the industry as a whole, we are
looking forward to a program that deals with the tree loss,
therefore, that the state can administer in a way on a per-acre
basis, you know, going forward.
Thirdly, this would be done in sort of a retroactive
insurance program that we would consider either in the years
going forward requiring the producers that took advantage of
the disaster program to have an insurance program going
forward.
As you know, it had been 10 years or so since major
hurricanes--I guess 2004 maybe since a major hurricane, so many
people, because the citrus actuarial was not as good as it
possibly could have been, many people didn't have the upper
limit, catastrophic coverage possibly, but some didn't have it
at all. And we hope to train them to use the crop insurance
program, not to depend on supplemental disaster programs going
forward.
I will be happy to answer any other questions.
To timing, we want to do a 50 percent advance payment as
soon as we can. We hope to have the announcement--hope to have
all of the IT work and the software work for signup in late
June/early July in order to get that done with the money going
out as quickly as we can get people signed up.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Pingree.
ORGANIC INDUSTRY
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today, and I am
pleased to hear some of the comments earlier that came from our
colleague from Georgia about the time that you two worked
together there. And I know having a background as a governor
from an agricultural state has been really helpful to you in
moving into this position.
And I share with--many of the good things that you have
been doing in the Department, and I am particularly pleased to
hear about your RV tour. I know you have missed Maine, and you
are going to want to stop in and get our blueberry pie, since
it is different from Georgia.
But anyway, I think that it is really a good way to sort of
see what is going on there, and you and I have had some good
conversations. You welcomed me to your office, and I just
really appreciate your spirit of cooperation.
But I know I share a lot of the concerns that you have
already heard on this subcommittee, really, from both sides of
the aisle about the particular budget. I want to add a few
things about that and hear your thoughts and see if we can find
some ways to work together.
I also wanted to mention that I was troubled a little bit
about your support for the farm bill. Interesting today that it
is being marked up in the House, and there is obviously a lot
of disagreement around that. I was looking at your quote that
said the Trump Administration has made rural prosperity a
priority for the country, and the farm bill that works for
agriculture is a key component of that agenda.
And one of the problems with the farm bill I think is it
mirrors many of the things that are--we are dealing with here
in this subcommittee around the budget cuts. The farm bill
provides zero mandatory funding for rural development programs,
which just seems counterproductive to me. If we want to really
prioritize rural prosperity--and we have been talking about
that in so many ways today through broadband, support programs,
nutrition, you know, lack of access to healthy grocery stores--
there is just so many issues that rural states like mine are
really facing.
And I think one of the challenges in what is going on in
the farm bill with a lot of the mandatory funding zeroed out,
like rural development, then it means the appropriators on our
subcommittee, we have to try to find all these orphan programs,
things like REAP, which have been really beneficial in my state
to help lower energy costs.
I am also concerned about the cuts and eliminations that we
have, you know, before us today. So I am kind of looking at it
from both sides and hoping that we can find a way to come
together, although I will be really discouraged if, after the
good work was done in the fiscal year 2018, there are any
rescissions proposed by this Administration.
So I thought I would focus on one area in particular around
organics. And I know you know that is one of my interests, and
I have really been pleased to hear your interest in and
understanding of the importance of this in so many states, the
idea that it is attracting many of the millennials.
And I have heard you say that word many times, and I am
always impressed when I hear you say it, but recognizing that
we need younger, creative farmers getting in. But I think it is
a really critically important role that the USDA is there to
support organics, given the fact that it is a $50 billion
industry today, and it provides a lot of the opportunities that
farmers have found to find markets in what have been very
troubling and perhaps continuing troubling times, whether it is
around trade or commodity prices.
So let me try to be quick because I want to give you at
least a second to answer my question. I was really discouraged
to see that USDA withdrew the organic livestock and poultry
practices rule. I think that is--I just think that was a bad
decision. I guess the Chair and I don't necessarily agree on
that. But we have to keep consumers confident in what goes into
the organic brand.
The farm bill proposes not reauthorizing the Organic
Certification Cost Share Program. That has been really critical
in my state and is one of the most helpful programs in getting
new farmers started out in the organic industry. The NOP
received $12 million in the Omnibus, and that is good, although
I am pushing for $15 million in the NOP.
I am just very concerned about whether there are resources
there, and honestly, the level of support to make sure that we
have the resources to tackle issues around fraudulent imports,
maintain the integrity of the organic label. And I will stop
there because I just think that is a really important focus.
Secretary Perdue. Well, it is an important focus and one
that we are putting real emphasis on. As you know, there have
been some import cheaters coming into this country, and that is
the responsibility of the USDA on equivalency. The organic
industry, frankly, needs to be complimented over listening to
the consumer and producing a product that consumers have
demonstrated they are in desire of.
So they have kind of pulled themselves up by the bootstraps
here and been successful. That is one of the reasons over the
rules that you mention that we didn't want to move those
goalposts at this point, but to allow the industry to continue
to mature in that arena on organic livestock and production
there.
We know that people have built their business model there,
but organic integrity is very important and one of the ways we
mention when we visited about the number of farms increasing
from younger people that want to have that spiritual side of
dirt in their hands and a farm-to-table type of movement that
is alive and active out there.
I think we will continue to see that grow, and we want to
support those young farmers and the farm markets and other
things that didn't get quite to Maine, but we are going to get
there, and not only blueberries, we are looking for some of
that Maine lobster. [Laughter.]
Ms. Pingree. Can't miss that on a trip. I did bring you a
little Maine organic maple syrup because it is my Maple Syrup
Week this week, and I will be happy to pass that along.
But I do want to emphasize I think it is--you know, I think
there are times when you let the industry mature, you let
things happen on the outside, but it is the role of the USDA to
support good markets for farmers and opportunities out there.
And I am concerned about this budget overall and think that
we are not adequately funding, so I hope we can work together
in a bipartisan way on this subcommittee. I know we had a lot
of support on both sides of the aisle to restore some of that
funding.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Valadao.
POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. And it was
a pleasure working with you over the last year, and I would
especially like to thank you for making so many trips out to
the central valley of California, especially out to the
processing facilities in my district. It really does mean a lot
to me and the people that I have the honor of representing.
On pending appointments, Mr. Secretary, in January I
submitted a letter of support for the appointment of Mr. Tom
Barcellos for the USDA Farm Service Agency State Committee, and
in March I submitted a letter of support for Mr. Les Wright for
the position USDA's Plant--Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee. Can you
please provide me with a quick status update on the
appointments within the USDA and how--and that they--how have
they been held up for so long?
Secretary Perdue. I will have to check on those two
specific individuals. We have mostly staffed up all the state
committees. I am not familiar with the exact one, but we will
get back to you on that. And the other one you mentioned on
Wildlife Services, I will have to get back to you on that as
well. I didn't bring that information with me at hand, but we
will--we have--you know, as you well know, we take into
consideration members of Congress overall and try to do that.
That is a tough job, really, putting people together. So we
rely on you people in--you members in the district to help us
identify the people who you think would serve well. So I will
get back the specific answers on those individuals.
[The information follows:]
On May 8, 2017, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) requested nominations for membership on the
National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee. Committee
members advise USDA on activities, policies, program issues,
and research needed to conduct operations for APHIS' Wildlife
Services programs. Committee members are chosen to represent
the diverse interests in the program and the multitude of
industries to whom USDA serves. The White House Liaison's
Office recently completed its vetting process of all of the
nominees to ensure that no conflicts of interest exist that
could potentially interfere with a nominee's ability to serve
on the committee.
Concurrently, APHIS has been completing the necessary steps
to renew the National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee
Charter, which expires July 2018. I anticipate reviewing both
the new Charter, as well as the vetted list of nominees, before
July and notifying the newly appointed advisory committee
members at that time. Members will be appointed for a two-year
term. APHIS expects the first meeting of the new committee to
occur before the end of the calendar year.
On January 4, 2018, I announced the appointment of two
hundred twenty-seven Farm Service Agency (FSA) State Committee
(STC) members to serve for the 2018 calendar year. Since that
date, USDA staff has been vetting and finalizing candidates for
the remaining additional 2018 FSA STC appointments. Mr.
Barcellos is one of the STC appointees who is currently being
finalized. While this process is almost complete, the official
announcement will come after the final vetting and approval.
DAIRY MARGIN PROTECTION PROGRAM
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. And then, Mr. Secretary, as
you know, the Dairy Margin Protection Program allows all
farmers, regardless of size, to pay reduced premiums on the
first 5 million pounds of milk enrolled in the program. And it
is important that this program remains available to all
farmers, so as to not disadvantage any farmers based on their
size.
That being said, I know some large farmers are concerned
that depending on their production history, they may actually
be required to cover more milk at higher levels just to get the
benefit of the first 5 million pounds. I think it is important
that we ensure this program remains fair to producers of all
sizes.
Under the law, I think you should have some flexibility to
allow farmers to select multiple margin levels for their
production history. We need to make sure that larger producers
have the same risk management options as others, so it is
crucial to let them buy up to their first 5 million pounds
without automatically having to buy up beyond that.
I appreciate any comments you might have on this topic, and
I guess an example would be a large enough farmer would have to
purchase 7\1/2\ million or 8 million pounds just to purchase
their first 25 percent, which is required, and they would have
to pay that 2 to 3 million pounds at a higher price just to
qualify, just to be able to play or be a part of the program.
So if you have any comments on that.
Secretary Perdue. I do. As you know, I had the opportunity
to visit some of your progressive dairies in your district and
in the valley there and was very impressed with them. That is
an issue we probably need to discuss more thoroughly. Our legal
advice is that we do not have the authority to do the multiple
benefits in the Margin Protection Program to do that. I haven't
had the opportunity to talk to our general counsel specifically
about that issue, but we were informed and consulted that we
could not authorize the Margin Protection Program under the--in
the February 8 bill. That did not allow that to happen, but I
will be happy to discuss that with you as well.
ALTERNATIVE PROTEIN PRODUCTS
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. Mr. Secretary, I have heard
a lot recently about advancements in development of alternative
protein products, including meat grown in a lab. Traditionally,
the Food Safety and Inspection Service is responsible for
ensuring meat and poultry products are safe and labeled
correctly. Has USDA given any thought on the regulation of
these products?
Secretary Perdue. Well, we have. Obviously, there are some
gray lines between FDA and USDA on many things, but meat has
been under the purview of USDA. As you well know, meat and
poultry has been the sole purview of the USDA.
We would expect any product that expects to be labeled as
meat would come under that same inspection criteria there.
Mr. Valadao. Well, and it is something that, obviously, as
a dairy farmer with milk, and you are starting to see on a lot
of different fronts where there are a lot of names being just
thrown around. And so standards of identity is something I take
pretty serious.
It is clear that science-based regulation and accurate
product labeling will be critical to ensure an even playing
field and prevent consumer confusion as USDA examines this
issue further. I would like to encourage you to consider
asserting regulatory jurisdiction, given your expertise and
unique perspective. I believe USDA's best position to lead on
this important issue.
So I have got a few more questions, but I know my time is
up, so I will hang around for a little bit longer. Thank you,
again.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Pocan.
DAIRY MARGIN PROTECTION PROGRAM
Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
And welcome, Mr. Secretary. So I have a lot of dairy, corn,
soy, alfalfa in my district, add cranberries and ginseng if you
go statewide. I just want to put that out there.
I would like to try to get to 5 areas. I know I won't, but
we are going to try to get to dairy, RFS, rural broadband,
SNAP, and cranberry research dollars. So if we can both keep it
concise, it would be great on it.
First of all, thank you for reopening the 2018 enrollment
period and making it retroactive on the Dairy Margin Protection
Program. Just wondering how the implementation of that is
going. Are we getting it to all the field offices? Just a quick
update.
Secretary Perdue. Well, you know, the announcement has gone
on. I think the signup ends relatively soon, and most farmers
are pretty smart with their pencil. They can calculate back
retroactively to January 1, so we expect a robust signup with
the Margin Protection Program.
RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARDS
Mr. Pocan. Great. Also, on RFS, I want to thank you for
your recent statement supporting the RFS, for supporting year-
round sales of E15 and opposing a RIN cap. I am wondering what
the timeline is for rulemaking on the Reid vapor pressure
waiver.
Secretary Perdue. Well, that would be--obviously, come from
EPA and we have no timeline. I think the President has been
very clear about his desire to expand that RVP waiver to 12
months and allow E15 to be sold year-round, which we think
would be very healthy for the ethanol corn grower and provide
Americans more choice again with American-grown energy.
INTERNET SPEEDS
Mr. Pocan. OK. You are helping me get through my 5. Rural
broadband, we started a rural broadband caucus, so we have 3
Democratic, 3 Republican co-chairs. In fact, everyone wanted to
be a co-chair because it is a big issue.
I live in one of those areas where I get 1 mbps, unless I
have--I have a separate satellite in order to get something
other than that. Again, there is some additional dollars in
there, although in the infrastructure plan that, you know, the
budget had, it didn't explicitly specify dollars for improving
internet access. And I know that we are trying to work to get
some dollars in there.
One question I did have, though, is on the USDA--on the
Community Connect Program that is run through them for
agricultural funds, it still has the speed at a standard of 4
mbps downstream and 1 mbps upstream. That is really antiquated.
I would argue I think people say at minimum it is like 14.
We actually had a proposal that made it through the Omnibus
to see what it would take to bring everyone in the country up
to 25 mbps as a minimum. Just wondering about revisiting those
speeds within that.
Secretary Perdue. You have educated me. I didn't realize we
had those antiquated standards, obviously. I am using--I have
used 10 mbps as a minimum. The FCC is talking about 25. I would
love to get to 25, but 10 can do a lot of things, certainly
more than 1\1/2\ or others, and some of us struggle with that
out in some of our rural areas.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Pocan. Yeah. If we could revisit that, because people
are tracking cows, everything now. I mean, it is just--it is
used way beyond in just their basic general business
operations.
SNAP, you know, there I do have some concern with, you
know, where we are at and the budget on that. My first term I
ate on the budget of SNAP for a week. I was a hungry critter
for that week. I bought a bag of oranges. That took a good $6-
plus out of my budget for the week. I had a lot of Ramen noodle
stuff, my peanut butter. I ate every little bit, was hungry,
pretty ornery. My office probably hopes I never do that
challenge again.
But it is of concern, and, you know, I know originally some
of the comments and exchanges you had with Mr. McGovern seemed
to be more open, but, you know, unfortunately, the budgets are
coming down really hard on SNAP. Fifty percent of the kids in
Madison, which is the biggest city in my district, are on free
and reduced lunch; 70 percent down in Beloit, which is in Rock
County, the county I share with Paul Ryan.
I guess this is maybe more of a comment than a question,
but, you know, really, you know, no one is getting rich on
SNAP. Of all programs that keep kids out of poverty, this is
one of them. You know, if maybe someday you want to join me on
a challenge, even if we do it for a day, you can just see what
it is like, I think it really would be helpful for us to try to
figure out ways to keep the connection with those urban parts
of my district and those really, really rural parts of the
district. This has always been a key for us passing things, and
I just hope we can keep that alive.
Secretary Perdue. Well, I am up for a challenge, Mr. Pocan,
if you want to go again on a SNAP budget. I need it.
[Laughter.]
CRANBERRY RESEARCH
Mr. Pocan. You could come and visit our farmer's market in
Madison, which I would argue is probably one of the most unique
in the country, and we could do all of that in one day. I would
love to have you in the district, Mr. Secretary.
Finally, cranberry research dollars. I know we are trying
to see if we can get an additional $2\1/2\ million. I would
really appreciate it if it might be something that we could be
supportive of. It would be really great for my state.
Secretary Perdue. OK. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Pocan. Yep. Thank you.
And I will yield back 15 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Palazzo.
CATFISH INSPECTION
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming back this year.
Enjoyed our conversation last year. I want to start off by
saying thank you, you know, and I want to echo the Chairman's
comments on cotton and dairy and how you committed to work with
us and you have, as has the Administration. So thank you on
that.
Also, I would like to think if your staff properly prepared
you, you probably already know the question I am going to ask
you before I ask it, because it is similar to the one from last
year. But I do want to revisit the USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service Catfish Inspection Program. And there is
pretty much two issues here.
First, after our conversation from last year, you know, I
was actually disappointed to see that same proposal to show up
on page 48 again, wanting to remove the catfish inspection from
the USDA, which is doing a phenomenal job on providing for our
food safety and inspection, and moving it back to the FDA,
which did a horrible job.
And I think--but I won't dwell on that just yet. I will
give you an opportunity to speak.
But moving on to Vietnam and some facts, since 2016 the
program has turned away hundreds of tons of imported catfish
because they contain dangerous chemicals and drugs banned in
the U.S. I mean, hundreds of tons that they kept from our
dinner tables here in America.
And thanks to the Food Safety and Inspection Service's good
work, American consumers are--have confidence that they are
consuming safe and quality food. And so the 2008 farm bill
moved--you know, basically put the food safety inspection of
catfish to the USDA. Again, in 2014, same bill. It has been
done under a Democratic-controlled Congress and Presidents as
well as Republican-controlled Congress and Presidents. And so I
think you get the point.
Now, 2 years later, you know, hundreds of millions of
pounds of catfish rejections later, Vietnam has complained to
the World Trade Organization that something Congress did in
2008 by law almost 10 years ago is now unfair. And because FSIS
is requiring Vietnam to have food safety systems at least
equivalent to--not the same but equivalent to the U.S., they
are saying that that is unfair.
I don't think it is unfair. I think, you know, this
argument between USDA and FDA is political. But I think--I know
several of my colleagues on this subcommittee in the past have
agreed that they think the catfish inspection programs should
rightfully be in USDA where they are doing a phenomenal job,
and where FDA has not been able to have the same successful
record that you have had, and that food safety is important to
the American people.
So I will allow you the opportunity to comment. Do you
think, you know, requiring other countries that import foods
into America to have at least equivalent safety inspections, do
you believe that to be fair?
Secretary Perdue. Well, absolutely. The silliness of the
Vietnam case is that it is the same standards that we hold our
domestic producers to. And as you indicated, this has gone on
for a while. So the very fact that they would allege that we
are treating them unfairly, while we have our own domestic
producers, both wild caught and domestic, for those same
standards is--doesn't make any sense.
I don't think the case will go anywhere at all, but it is
important, obviously, you--you made a statement that I don't
think anyone can disagree with that food safety is critically
important. It is one of the most important things that we do,
and we take that very seriously.
I am not sure about the FDA. And there are several issues I
think that we would like to address with the FDA over
responsibilities going forward.
Mr. Palazzo. I appreciate that. Again, you know, to echo,
prior to the USDA taking over the inspections, I am assuming
hundreds of tons of catfish were actually making it onto the
American consumers' tables that contained dangerous chemicals
that we do not want, and we would not accept. And USDA, once
they took on the responsibility, I guess they took it seriously
and they have done a fantastic job. And I think, you know, the
American people would like to continue to see you all do that.
And, second, so the Omnibus Bill, the fiscal year 2018
Omnibus Bill provide ample funding for the Food Safety and
Inspection Service. Are you committed to ensuring that that
money makes its way to the Food Safety and Inspection Service?
Do you see any reason why it wouldn't comply with the law?
Secretary Perdue. Absolutely, sir. I think, again, we view
food safety as one of those zero tolerance issues. Obviously,
USDA has a lot of responsibility for making sure that the
public not only gets safe food but perceives the food that they
are saying is--they are operating under safe conditions, both
those that we are importing and that is locally domestically
produced.
Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Secretary, thank you, and we appreciate
what USDA does for America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. How is Under
Secretary Bill Northey doing?
Secretary Perdue. We got him here. He is making up for lost
time. He is doing a great job.
TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Young. I know he is excited to be fully engaged. Trans-
Pacific Partnership, where are we with that? I mean, I have
heard the President tell Lawrence Kudlow, the economic advisor,
and USTR advisor--representative Lighthizer to go, let's do our
best to get back into TPP. Then recently I hear a no. Do you
know where we are? And are you advocating that we get back into
TPP, at least in the agriculture kind of title?
Secretary Perdue. I was in a meeting the other day with
farm state members of Congress as well as farm state governors
where the President directly addressed his NEC Chairman, Larry
Kudlow, as well as Ambassador Lighthizer was in there, to deal
with and to approach the TPP again.
I had reminded the President what he likes to talk about is
you get a better deal when you withdraw. I said, ``Mr.
President, we have already withdrawn from TPP. Let's go get a
better deal.'' So I am encouraged by that. I don't know. He is
meeting with Mr. Abe in Mar-a-Lago, and hopefully that will be
part of the discussion there. But I don't have any further
information about that.
As you know, Ambassador Lighthizer is charged legally with
negotiating those deals. While we would welcome that
arrangement, I think, again, with joining those other 11
countries, it would be a great unification against China in
world trade.
Mr. Young. And bilateral agreements as well, the President
has a preference. He has said he prefers bilateral agreements.
Are you privy to any discussions where we are approaching other
countries on a bilateral basis to negotiate any trade deals?
Secretary Perdue. Well, I know from a sales perspective we
are approaching many countries. Under Secretary Ted McKinney,
Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, is well on his way to
his million mile mark, traveling the world, knocking on doors.
We were fortunate--just the fruit of the Argentina pork
recently, and KORUS, but he has been to India, Japan, and
Southeast Asia, India a couple of times, and it is a tough
market but we will continue.
We bring out those sales leads and that interest back to
the USTR, and they negotiate the deals.
RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARDS
Mr. Young. Thank you for what you did and your advocacy for
renewable fuel standard and biofuels and ethanol, and whatever
you may have done to help convince the President that E15 year-
round was a good thing. And I believe it is good.
And as well, what the EPA is doing with their waiver
process, will you urge Administrator Pruitt and the President
to stop granting those waivers until we get a full picture
about what the heck is going on? Because when you hear about
waivers going to entities, companies who--and that is supposed
to be if you have a hardship, right?
Secretary Perdue. That is right.
Mr. Young. But when Andover has a $1.5 billion profit, that
doesn't sound like a hardship for me. So help us draw a clear
picture about what the heck is going on, and what we can do to
make sure it is not abused.
Secretary Perdue. Most of our farmers would love to have a
hardship of that magnitude.
Mr. Young. Amen. You have got that right.
Secretary Perdue. You know, certainly, we are concerned
about the waivers. That is just directly demand destruction,
and our concern is we have issued enough waivers this year that
would be beyond the blend wall, and we think that is adequate
compensation to merchant refiners who have been complaining
about RIN prices. We are already down there by virtue of other
waivers.
Mr. Young. Well, this is so important because, as you know,
agriculture income has been down 4 years in a row. I think its
lowest since 2006. And any kind of retaliation that we may have
through trade right now with what is going on, this could be
almost even more devastating with what could happen with RFS.
Secretary Perdue. Well, you take the trade disruption
conversations we are having with China, on NAFTA, on the bubble
there, as well as RFS, there is a lot of stress out there and a
lot of duress in the ag community. And it gets cumulative. It
is just like life. Different situations happen in this life.
The stress is cumulative, and there is a lot of anxiety in
farming.
RFS could--solution could help, NAFTA, KORUS, and certainly
TPP could go a long way to reduce that anxiety meter.
Mr. Young. Thank you for being here. I will have some more
questions in the next round.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you.
WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Let me turn to infrastructure just
a minute. Infrastructure is critical to agriculture industry in
rural America, with modern reliable infrastructure services as
the pillar of our strong economy. And, of course you realize
that as much as anybody.
What is likely now known by many as the significant role
USDA has in the infrastructure through its large utility
portfolio? USDA has a well-performing utility portfolio of over
$55 billion that primarily consists of investments in electric,
water, and broadband utilities.
I would like to take a moment just to discuss investments
in rural infrastructure for water, wastewater, and solid waste
management. These basic services are critical, and members of
this subcommittee have seen firsthand the importance of safe
and reliable water systems.
While we are pleased to see the inclusion of the $1.2
billion direct loan program in the budget request this year,
the budget disappointingly, once again, does not request any
funding for grants despite the known need and significant
backlog.
Oftentimes a grant component may be used with a loan to
make a project financially viable and keep the rates for payers
affordable. Why did the Department decide not to propose any
sort of other water and wastewater resources outside of the
direct loan program despite the need that is clearly out there?
Secretary Perdue. Our understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that
EPA or the OMB view this as duplicative with Corps of Engineer
projects, as well as EPA. We had some concern about that as
well because we know that the combination of grant and loan
programs--and you are right, we are pretty proud of the
portfolio that USDA has managed, oftentimes as a negative
subsidy here that returns money to the Treasury.
So we believe that both of them can be very helpful in an
infrastructure program.
Mr. Aderholt. Yes. And certainly when you have duplicate
programs I think any of us need--want to be aware of when those
are the case. But clearly there is a backlog out there, and
there is a real need.
The budget also proposes to increase the population
eligibility for water and water--and waste programs from 10,000
to 20,000.
Why does the Department seek to make this change, and could
it adversely impact, you know, what--many of us represent
smaller communities that--and the impact it would have on them.
So let me just ask your thoughts on that.
Secretary Perdue. We would welcome this subcommittee and
Congress as a whole to look for a common definition of
``rural.'' There are many there. What happens oftentimes, if
you have a larger city, say 50,000 or 70,000, in a county, that
whole county is kicked out of that project, where you have got
a lot of other rural areas in that county.
So this is one item I would request that you all look at
from a holistic perspective of getting a common definition
across U.S. Government programs for a rural definition that
would help.
NATIONAL BIO- AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. All right. We can follow up with you on
that. Let me switch right quickly to the National Bio and Agro-
Defense Facility. One of the significant requests in the fiscal
year 2019 budget is to begin this transition of management
operations of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, which
is referred to NBAF, from Homeland Security to USDA.
Of course, the facility will not be operational for a few
more years, but the budget costs of $42 million this year for
program transition and new equipment related to the transfer
from Department of Homeland Security to the Department of
Agriculture. NBAF is essentially replacing the existing
facility on Plum Island and will undoubtedly create a state-of-
the-art facility that performs critical research on foreign,
emerging, and animal diseases that propose threats to animal
agriculture and public health.
Can you speak to the reasoning behind the Department
wanting to make this transition, management and operations,
from Homeland Security is needed, and explain how you see the
facility operating under the Department of Agriculture?
Secretary Perdue. Well, we are of the opinion that this is
one of the core competencies of USDA and the Agricultural
Research Service. We have been responsible for managing that
Plum Island facility. While there is some bioterrorism that
affects--Department of Homeland Security agreed and actually
asked us to look at managing the effort at Kansas State at the
NBAF facility there.
We agreed that it would be in the best interest overall to
have USDA involved in those biosecurity issues that affect many
things--foot and mouth and other kind of terroristic type of
issues that would go forward if something happened, obviously,
in a bad way. DHS would be responsible for the security and
concerns going forward. But from the research perspective,
vaccines and other types of things, we think it is more in the
core competency of USDA and we welcome the acceptance of that
responsibility.
Certainly, we have got a concern for the future funding, to
make sure that we don't have to take that out of the ongoing
USDA budget.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop.
CIVIL RIGHTS REORGANIZATION/TREE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-PECANS
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to ask 2 questions, try to be brief, so we can
probably wrap it up. It is regarding--first is regarding civil
rights. You recently proposed a reorganization of the civil
rights functions in the Department. As you know, I asked your
staff some questions about the proposal, and I am awaiting
responses. As I understand it, the proposal would centralize
the agency's civil rights responsibilities at the mission area
level, and those persons would, in turn, work with the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
You have shared that there has been a lack of uniformity in
how civil rights issues have been handled at USDA, and you are
seeking to address this through the reorganization. Would you
discuss that?
And the second is more parochial. It has to do with pecans,
the disaster assistance that was in the Omnibus. As you know,
the storms that Georgia experienced in 2017 brought a lot of
damage to the pecan crop, and it became clear that changes were
needed to ensure that the farmers could be fairly compensated
for their losses and be able to continue in business.
To that end, we worked with Chairman Aderholt, your staff,
to bring $15 million worth of aid in the recently passed
Omnibus to pecan farmers in Georgia and others who suffered
losses. Where are you in the implementation of that provision,
and how long will it take to get the money out the door?
Secretary Perdue. Similar to what--on the second question
first, Mr. Bishop, similar to what we talked about with citrus,
we hope to have those programs out next week. Citrus, we are
closer actually on pecans than we had been on citrus because of
the concentration of the citrus industry. They gave us some
concerns over some of the potential payouts that may be there,
but hopefully we will do that.
Again, we think the software will be ready by the end of
June, first of July, and we would also probably have 50 percent
advance over those applications as well.
Regarding the reorganization of civil rights, we did that
from a business enterprise standpoint overall, like we had
every mission--every agency was operating both from a CIO or
chief information officer, human resources, procurement, and
others, and there was a lack of consistency across a broad
array, not only civil rights but these others, human resources,
procurement, those kind of things.
From a business reorganization standpoint, we wanted them
to specialize in the mission areas. We have got 1 chief CIO
with 7 assistants there per mission area, rather than having
23. We had 39 data centers, some of them in some very unsafe
places as well that we have consolidated. We are getting back--
going back. We have reduced that already in half, and we are
moving forward.
So the civil rights was not a way to diminish the impact,
but to focus the impact over consistent answers and making sure
people in every mission area felt like their answer was the
same and consistent in these very important questions.
TELEWORK PROGRAM
Mr. Bishop. I do have a little time left. Talk about----
Secretary Perdue. I could have talked longer, I guess.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. The telework program. That has
gotten a little bit of press, and I think USDA modified its
telework program. And it had been written up in Forbes magazine
as being a stellar example of how it worked, but then of course
some new regulations I think were implemented somewhere around
March or February that limited the amount of telework. Can you
discuss that?
Secretary Perdue. Certainly. What we were finding in some
of the processes there, that things were not moving nearly as
fast. And as we began exploring that, some of the excuses again
was so-and-so is teleworking. And there had been waivers where
there were some people teleworking a majority of the time.
One kind of funny anecdote I will relate, in the barber
shop where a lot of things get talked about, one guy was
complaining about our new telework policy. And one of my aides
was down there listening and he said, ``Well, tell me about
that.'' He said, ``What is the problem?'' And he said, ``Well,
I am only going to telework 2 days out of a pay period.'' He
said, ``Well, what is your job?'' He said, ``Maintenance.'' And
that is kind of a high-powered example of what was happening
there. People--it became an entitlement that people felt like
they could just telework from any job, and there were some jobs
that didn't fit teleworking.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your
service. We look forward to working with you and try to--let's
carry that mission out at USDA, so that we can do the best we
can for our farmers, ranchers, and our consumers.
Secretary Perdue. Thank you, friend. You have done that for
a long time. We look forward to working with you.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. Dr. Harris.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize, I stepped out after your introductory
comments, but the White House is holding a multi-agency
briefing on opioid crisis, and your agency was represented as
well. And, as you know, that is a particularly important
problem in rural areas, and I am glad to hear that your
Department is helping out with America on that as well.
I am going to ask--well, first, I want to thank the
Department for, you know, the EQIP Program, the Specialty Crop
Block Grant Program, important in the State of Maryland. With
regards to the Farmer's Market Nutrition Program, I hope we are
able to keep some funding for that because that is also
important in Maryland.
But I want to just talk a little bit about the SNAP program
because I am puzzled, and I will ask for your answer on that as
well, as to why, you know, before 2000 or in 2000,
approximately 17-, 18 million people on SNAP, unemployment rate
over 4\1/2\ percent, and, of course, as you know, over time
unemployment rate went up, but now it is down to 4 percent, but
we have 2\1/2\ times as many people receiving SNAP benefits.
So, and I guess at one point I would like to know if you
can try to explain what this disconnect is. I mean, look, we
want to help people when they are in need, but we have returned
to full employment, or what we look at full employment. You
have 42 million people on the SNAP program.
The other thing I want to comment about is some of what we
heard about the SNAP Food Box proposal, because I like that
proposal. I mean, you know, the farmers in my district, they
are happy that finally we are going to have a program in place
that says that when their tax dollars go to pay for
supplemental nutrition, which they all want it to go to, that
actually we are going to guarantee that a part of that actually
is used on American food products, on U.S. farmers' products.
And my understanding--and I guess you would select
nutritious products I guess, because, of course, when you get
the EBT card now, you don't have to buy nutritious products.
You can buy anything off--almost anything off a food shelf in
the supermarket. So I think that is great. It sounds like we
would be getting more nutritious food for less dollars, which I
think is exactly what the American taxpayer probably thinks
that program ought to do is provide highly nutritious food, be
more efficient doing it, and help our farmer.
You know, the food network delivery--or the food delivery
network questions come up, but my observation is the trend in
the grocery industry nationwide is to establish food delivery
networks. I mean, and it sounds like you are actually ahead of
the curve saying, yeah, you know, we can actually--and I
imagine you could participate in many areas in those kind of
food delivery networks that are set up, which actually would
make it quite cost effective.
I mean, if your local grocery store can find it efficient
to deliver food, I can't imagine why we couldn't find it to be
efficient to deliver food that way as well.
And the other thing was the remaining--you know, that
question that says, well, you know, they are obviously not
vegetables or fresh fruit because these are shelf-life foods,
but my understanding, Mr. Secretary, the person still would--
the recipient still would have about half their benefits that
they could go out and buy all fresh fruit and vegetables with.
Is that my understanding?
Secretary Perdue. That is correct.
Mr. Harris. So we are not telling them you can't have fresh
fruit and vegetables. It is----
Secretary Perdue. No. We were anticipating 50 percent of
the Harvest Box being there, but 50 percent on EBT card. And,
frankly, we have also had considerations of how we could
include fresh fruits and vegetables in the Harvest Boxes as
well, packed on a real-time basis there. So that is our
expectation.
Mr. Harris. I mean, certainly, if you use the existing food
delivery networks, that should be possible. I mean, to use one
of--I mean, Giant Foods in my area, they deliver fresh fruit
and vegetables in those delivery boxes.
But if you could just shed some light. Why is it, you
think, that we have so many more people dependent upon the SNAP
program than we did 15 years ago? And literally 2\1/2\ times as
much, even though our economy is booming and unemployment is
down below levels at that time.
Secretary Perdue. Well, I wish demographically I could--I
could explain that. I think that has been some of the
consternation regarding looking at changes in the program. As
we know, Americans are very generous and very--some of the most
compassionate people in the world, and we always want to
provide. I mean, food is a necessity, and we want to provide
food for particularly hungry children and senior adults that
need that food.
But you are absolutely correct. The unemployment numbers,
we saw them climb during the Great Recession, and that was
understandable as people lost their jobs. But the commensurate
decline in applications, while it has gone down some, it has
not tracked the unemployment there.
So I think our fear is that some people maybe have found it
more advantageous to continue government aid than to go look,
but that is why I applaud what I think Chairman Conaway is
trying to do with the educational and training money. If your
members will look at the fact, we are not trying to take money
away in the farm bill. We are trying to help people get a job
that will be ultimately better for them and their families than
any kind of government dependency.
Mr. Harris. Well, I agree with you, Mr. Secretary. Thank
you very much. And, again, I apologize for having to step out.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Dr. Harris.
Mr. Young.
BIOTECH ANIMALS
Mr. Young. Secretary Perdue, I have a question for you
regarding biotech animals. As you know, FDA has oversight over
biotech animals, and recently claiming jurisdiction over gene-
edited animals as well. So the FDA regulates these under its
new animal drug authority, which means these animals must go
through years of testing as drugs, and producers and retailers
may even be required to register as drug producers to raise or
sell these animals.
It sounds onerous, these requirements, and preventing some
valuable products from reaching farmers. I love bacon, but I
don't know that I am addicted to it or it is a drug. But what
does this all mean in the end? And I know you have signed an
MOU with the FDA on this, to discuss biotech regulations. And
so has this been a topic of discussion? Where are you on these
discussions, and what can you do to help take this--to set this
back or stop this? Because it sounds bizarre to me.
Secretary Perdue. Well, I have been involved with Dr.
Gottlieb, the Commissioner of FDA, and I am concerned about it,
likewise, as you are. I think it will stifle innovation and
creativity, particularly in the non-transgenic gene, which is
actually just really rapid natural breeding techniques that we
have used for years.
We have the ability and we have recently ruled on the fact
that we are going to allow that in plants. And I think, again,
it is just as we do herd selections in animals there, the non-
transgenic improvements in biotech would allow for a rapid
progression of that, of developing more productive animals that
give more milk and grow faster, and do that without the need
for drugs or hormones or anything like that, which to me looks
like it would be a good idea.
So I think Dr. Gottlieb and I have disagreed about FDA's
position on that, and I will continue to impress upon him the
need for us to look differently at those items.
BROADBAND PROGRAM
Mr. Young. Thank you for impressing upon that. And I
believe there had been some questions already raised regarding
the Rural Utilities Service and broadband. And to the extent
that we ensure that any new deployment goes to underserved or
unserved areas is very, very important.
I think part of it is we have got an antiquated mapping
system where we are not sure where everything may be. And just
recently we--recently, a bill was passed here in Congress and
signed into law that will help with that mapping, and so we
will know where the needs are. But to the extent that you are
working with FCC on that, I hope that goes well because we need
it.
When we talk about infrastructure, you know, we can have
just a stronger rural economy in rural communities if we can
have the strong roads and bridges, and we can have the ability
to communicate.
Secretary Perdue. No question about it. We are working with
FCC, as well as Commerce, on this effort. But we are also
working with local communities who know the needs there. And
you are absolutely right. I think the data map has been deemed
inaccurate because it is inaccurate. We have relied on major
carriers to tell us what our coverage is. And I have taken some
of these in our home state of Georgia and gone through and you
can't even get a cell signal in some of those areas where you
say you can get high-speed broadband. It is just not there.
So we are going to be focused. We are going to plan to use
that $600 million very strategically and demonstrate to you all
with the right amount of grants, loans, and other programs, and
working with private investors, and we hope to do you proud in
that regard.
Mr. Young. I would just ask you to remember as well, as we
are more mobile people, we depend on those cell towers as well
for our mobile applications as we are running around in our
busy lives, and how that can help with precision agriculture as
well, aside from the need to get the wiring and the broadband
in the pipeline to our homes and small businesses and larger.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Young.
Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. Also,
thank you, Dr. Meyer, and Mrs. Diem-Linh Jones, for being here.
We appreciate your service, again, to USDA. And I think we have
had a successful hearing here this afternoon.
And we look forward to working with you as we continue to
look at the fiscal year 2019 budget, and we look forward to
working together on a lot of projects to help rural America and
help agriculture overall in this country.
So thank you, and the hearing is adjourned.